MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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

[3Boys]

vicki:

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:

No reason and no logic to alumni priority, never has been.

[3Boys]

vratenza:

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.

None of those preferences for which the parents are accorded ANY kind of priority, EXCEPT, if one were the alumni of the desired school, and distance. And the former trumps the latter, by the way.

And why? 'coz it feels warm and cozy to the alumni? That's the reason to grant priority?

[dorisp]

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.

That is severely flawed logic, and unfortunately, you are not the only one to be deluded by it. Absolutely not.

You are the CEO of the company, you have outperformed your predecessors by a long mile, turned the company around.

Your son deserving of a seat on the board by dint of your efforts?

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?

:goodpost:

I hope some of these get noticed and appreciated. Some good piece of argument there. :salute:

[vratenza]

3Boys:

vratenza:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]
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.

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.[/quote]well, glad you can appreciate the humour but I guess you missed the point as well.

School staff are accorded P1 priority on basis of 1) contribution 2) convenience as an active staff member so that the staff's logistic problem of sending and fetching the child to and fro school is alleviated especially when they are of same session. Similar to how some MNCs give priority to staff to their childcare centres they operate in the same building although they open it up to other building tenent staff. It is absolute priority.

Do not forget, these staff are fully paid. They are not performing national service. Once out of the system, their priviledge will be removed. How to account for teachers who transferred to 3 different schools during the stint in public service?

I shall not take on the CEO's example because it is totally skewed to begin with.

[mum_sugoku]

limlim:

mum_sugoku:

[quote=\"dorisp\"]

Just called MOE 2 minutes ago checking if there are any \"cap\" for P2A. The answer is \"NO\" as far as the current system goes.

It is possible for schools to have all Primary 1 places taken up by Phase 2A and nothing left for P2B and P2C.

Oh well.. Officially, there's a cap for all phases except phase 1.

http://moeuxwp03.moe.gov.sg/press/2004/pr20040611.htm[quote]Allocation of Places

12 Children will be allocated places in the school according to the order of priority spelt out in the Registration Scheme at Annex A . Balloting will be conducted should the number of applications exceed the number of vacancies from Phase 2A(1) to Phase 2C Supplementary.

[/quote]vacancies can meant total number of places for that year. (unless MOE states it is not)

You called this a cap..? ok.. enuff said.. I guess there is already sufficient examples and a well illustrated one given by dorisp.[/quote]My apology :oops: . I had misinterpreted \"no. of application exceed the no. of vacancies from Phase 2A(1) to Phase...\" as quotas are being set for each phase--including Phase 2A. All along I didn't know that the supposed \"vacancies\" for phase 2A actually refer to the overall places available for P1 (after phase 1).

So ya, I have to concede that indeed there is no cap for phase 2A lor.

[vratenza]

3Boys:

vratenza:

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.

None of those preferences for which the parents are accorded ANY kind of priority, EXCEPT, if one were the alumni of the desired school, and distance. And the former trumps the latter, by the way.

And why? 'coz it feels warm and cozy to the alumni? That's the reason to grant priority?

OR are you suggesting we grant priority to the rich...just like the COE system?

[mum_sugoku]

vicki:

Baby_May_09:

My above post is just explaining the difference between full school and non-full school from what I know. My stand on the topic is that I can see that alumni connection is important like what many had said, but I also feel that there should be a cap ie. 1/3 of the remaining places after phase 1?

Agree too.

Ya - 1/3 for 2A, 1/3 for 2B, and 1/3 for 2C?