MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[vratenza]

3Boys:

vratenza:

[quote=\"vicki\"]so i dont see why 'too much' benefit should be given to anyone group based on personal reasons...

I want to send my child to the nearest school so that he can sleep more and wake up later.

I want to send my child to the nearest school so that don't have to pay the increasing school bus fee.

I want my child to enter this school so that my parents can look after him while I am at work.

I want to my child to enter this school because his tuition center or enrichment class will be nearby and walk over immediately after school.

Any of these are not PERSONAL reasons?

But none of those grant hereditary perpetaul PRIORITY, geddit? There are good reasons to prioritize on distance, and in some cases those poor folk who happen to live near a school are displaced because alumni have come in to grab the slots, and they are forced to do long commutes.[/quote]yup I geddit.
That's why the clamouring to get into the right school.

Really poor folks who are displaced I really feel sorry for them.

MP's letter at MPS will sort out most of these issues.

But those are minority (I can't prove it with statistics and neither can you).

Majority are fighting to get into popular schools because they are popular and they have invested in buying a property that is in close proximity to improve their chances. Look at all the news paper reports and interviews on the disgruntled \"property near good schools\" investor.

[dorisp]

verykiasu2010:

I don't contradict

Reduction of places is the main problem for those schools that run out of places after the alumni phase. If not for the push for single session and to reduce class size to 30, the schools could have been able to take in more. In the case of NYPS, even it was reduced from 420 to 390, they don't run out of places after alumni phase, in some years balloting only needed for those outside of 2km. If you read my earlier posts, I suggested that those sleeping alumni should be in phase 2C with the open category

Even if the intake is raised to 1,000, presumably able to satisfy all imaginary alumni, and even all PV, there still won't be enough places, popularity is also another issue -- some die hard parents die die want to send their kids to those popular schools. Some schools had lots of alumni, but not as popular as others

I understand where you are coming from.

But IMO, the discussion here is not to find out why some schools have fewer places left after P2A (due to single session and/or reduce intake) or why some parents die die want certain schools......(preference for popular schools).

The main point of our discussion is, \"...are we giving too much priority to alumni....\". (see title of this thread).

[vicki]

verykiasu2010:

vratenza:

as mentioned in my reply to another poster, whether you pay tax or not is inconsequential compared to the fact that you are SC. Do not bring paying tax into the discussion to fan the flame.
Foreigners, workpass holders, PRs all pay tax....the underpriviledged SC do not pay tax...so what say you?

that is true

Aiyo....

The term paying 'tax' was used to imply that both you n i are contributors to the funding of ALL govt schools to the best of our ability.

If you insist on taking the 'tax' meaning as 'you pay more tax' 'you get more benefits' - then i got nothing to say except that then why bother looking at each person's tax brackets - just pay for entry into the schools can liao... Isnt it simpler? :slapshead: :stupid:

[vratenza]

3Boys:

vratenza:

----> I will not have guaranteed space for my son in any of the 3 choices anymore. Alumni priority is not my birth right, but I earned it by gaining entry into CHS on my own capability and I should have the distinct priority in letting my son return to my alma mater. If I decide for whatever reason that I do not want my son to go back to CHS, the space can then be released to anyone else interested.

Not unless you own the company (or in this case, the school). The school does not belong to you, it belongs to Singaporeans. You contributed a lot? Thank you, so did the teachers, the principal, the school cleaner. I don't think the old school teacher who contributed 20 years of his life to building the school's math department has a priority admission for his son, does he? Why should it be different for alumni?

While in his sexually productive yrs (20-40), the school teacher would have priority admission for his 7yr old son under P1. if he decides to have a child at 70 yrs old, I applaud his will and spermatozoa.

School cleaners get P1 priority too. I know of one real life example from St Nicks.

[3Boys]

verykiasu2010:

If you read my earlier posts, I suggested that those sleeping alumni should be in phase 2C with the open category

Alright, I missed that. But I stand by my point that its not the number of places that is the issue by the number of 'special' entry categories that causes unfairness.

[vicki]

:scratchhead:

vratenza:

3Boys:

[quote=\"vratenza\"]
----> I will not have guaranteed space for my son in any of the 3 choices anymore. Alumni priority is not my birth right, but I earned it by gaining entry into CHS on my own capability and I should have the distinct priority in letting my son return to my alma mater. If I decide for whatever reason that I do not want my son to go back to CHS, the space can then be released to anyone else interested.

Not unless you own the company (or in this case, the school). The school does not belong to you, it belongs to Singaporeans. You contributed a lot? Thank you, so did the teachers, the principal, the school cleaner. I don't think the old school teacher who contributed 20 years of his life to building the school's math department has a priority admission for his son, does he? Why should it be different for alumni?

While in his sexually productive yrs (20-40), the school teacher would have priority admission for his 7yr old son under P1. if he decides to have a child at 70 yrs old, I applaud his will and spermatozoa.

School cleaners get P1 priority too. I know of one real life example from St Nicks.[/quote]3Boys - an interesting thought.

I also wonder why? As in the offspring of the other contributors (ex teachers/ cleaners/ admin staff) are not part of 2A but the students are.

Do 'alumni' admit such pple? Or must it only be ex-students? - Now i am wondering. :scratchhead:

[3Boys]

vratenza:

3Boys:

[quote=\"vratenza\"]
----> I will not have guaranteed space for my son in any of the 3 choices anymore. Alumni priority is not my birth right, but I earned it by gaining entry into CHS on my own capability and I should have the distinct priority in letting my son return to my alma mater. If I decide for whatever reason that I do not want my son to go back to CHS, the space can then be released to anyone else interested.

Not unless you own the company (or in this case, the school). The school does not belong to you, it belongs to Singaporeans. You contributed a lot? Thank you, so did the teachers, the principal, the school cleaner. I don't think the old school teacher who contributed 20 years of his life to building the school's math department has a priority admission for his son, does he? Why should it be different for alumni?

While in his sexually productive yrs (20-40), the school teacher would have priority admission for his 7yr old son under P1. if he decides to have a child at 70 yrs old, I applaud his will and spermatozoa.

School cleaners get P1 priority too. I know of one real life example from St Nicks.[/quote]Under what category for the school cleaner, if he or she is no longer active in the school, at the time?

Sorry, you try to sidestep with humour.

The point is unanswered, on what basis does one's offspring gain priority admission (or that you should feel that there be) on the basis of his parent's prior efforts, in a public school system. Refer CEO example, if you may, without obfuscating.

[3Boys]

vicki:

verykiasu2010:

[quote=\"vratenza\"]

as mentioned in my reply to another poster, whether you pay tax or not is inconsequential compared to the fact that you are SC. Do not bring paying tax into the discussion to fan the flame.
Foreigners, workpass holders, PRs all pay tax....the underpriviledged SC do not pay tax...so what say you?

that is true

Aiyo....

The term paying 'tax' was used to imply that both you n i are contributors to the funding of ALL govt schools to the best of our ability.

If you insist on taking the 'tax' meaning as 'you pay more tax' 'you get more benefits' - then i got nothing to say except that then why bother looking at each person's tax brackets - just pay for entry into the schools can liao... Isnt it simpler? :slapshead: :stupid:[/quote]Exactly, a straw man. The tax example was not meant to imply stratification, but rather, that Singaporeans have an equal stake, and if one group were to have some priority, it'd better be a darn good reason.

[dorisp]

vicki:

vratenza:

[quote=\"vicki\"]so i dont see why 'too much' benefit should be given to anyone group based on personal reasons...

I want to send my child to the nearest school so that he can sleep more and wake up later.

I want to send my child to the nearest school so that don't have to pay the increasing school bus fee.

I want my child to enter this school so that my parents can look after him while I am at work.

I want to my child to enter this school because his tuition center or enrichment class will be nearby and walk over immediately after school.

Any of these are not PERSONAL reasons?

Yes, these are all personal reasons.

So i'm clamouring for more balance against personal reasons of a selected group of pple (the alumni) - who at the moment have a total free hand.

'Share the pie with thy neighbour abit more'.[/quote]Yes beginning to see the point futher (i not so bright mah)!

1) Non alumni Parents <1km wanting to send their kid to school A is personal reasons.

2) Alumni <1km wanting to send their kid to alma mater (school A) is personal reasons.

3) Alumni >2km wanting to send their kid to alma mater (school A) also personal reasons.

Perhaps most might agree group 2) should somehow gets priority.

But how about group 1) and 3)?

As group 3) didn't choose school A for practical reasons and there are probably other schools within <2km for this group of parents, then perhaps we should group 1) and 3) and not give 3) indefinite privilege over group 1) since all choose schools due to personal reasons.

:evil:

[vratenza]

vicki:

The term paying 'tax' was used to imply that both you n i are contributors to the funding of ALL govt schools to the best of our ability.

10 yrs of basic education is a SC child right and mandatory to boot. The MOE will ensure no child is devoid of chance at education...MCYS will come knocking on your door if you do not register your child for P1. Cannot afford it, there are tons of govt assistance around.

Now that is out of the way, what are we looking at? PERSONAL PREFERENCE OF PARENTS: want to be near to home, want to be back at alumni, want GEP programme, want co-ed, want mono-gender.

vicki:

If you insist on taking the 'tax' meaning as 'you pay more tax' 'you get more benefits' - then i got nothing to say except that then why bother looking at each person's tax brackets - just pay for entry into the schools can liao... Isnt it simpler? :slapshead: :stupid:

i did not insist. I am merely just reiterating my point to you to the other posters who brought up the same point. I do not agree using tax contribution whether differented by tax bracket or not as a basis to demand certain rights to be accorded