MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[Chenonceau]

blueblue:

Let all kids go back to their old school?


Er..my husband's sch in jurong and now we are staying in north east..

Why all? What if you dun wanna put your kid back in old school?

[Funz]

Chenonceau:

blueblue:

Let all kids go back to their old school?


Er..my husband's sch in jurong and now we are staying in north east..

Why all? What if you dun wanna put your kid back in old school?

referring to what I wrote about all of us belonging to one school or another, blah blah blah.

[Funz]

blueblue:

Let all kids go back to their old school?


Er..my husband's sch in jurong and now we are staying in north east..

Well if you want to give up your priority for whatever reasons, you join in the fray of trying to PV or balloting. If not, just go for the school with the least competition.

Am just saying that almost everyone of us have some alumni status. It is just a matter of whether it works out for us.

So we can argue this alumni thing all we want. Crux of the matter is, the popular schools will remain grossly over subscribed whether or not alumni is scrapped. No alumni? More places for distance base. But does that really translate to better chances? I doubt. Fairer? Also not so sure. Cos then there is the expensive housing district and all. So how?

Do it like lotto, island wide draw.

[blueblue]

Was from a girls’ school & mine is a boy. Besides my husband’s workplace is in Toa Payoh, so naturally we prefer to stay near Toa Payoh.

[absolut_vodka]

You can always check the price of resale flats in marine parade, ang mo kio and bishan (recently transacted more than $1 million for a mansionette?!?). A 3 room flat in these areas Easily fetches more than a 3 room flat elsewhere. Property agents have said before being near a good school fetches a 10 - 15% premium in prices. Why else do you think advertisements will include 'within 1km to xxx school'?

limlim:

Chenonceau:

To have pure distance priority will result in a new equilibrium. Ghettoes will grow up around the less good schools (low property prices)... and rich neighbourhoods around the good schools. Over time, rich and poor divide gets worse.

I am not convinced that the impact will be that great. Any data to suggest that the HDB flats ard a popular sch is priced out of reach of average SC compared to similar houses elsewhere?

Also, Like I mentioned earlier, there is no reason to suggest that all the poor ard a popular sch will vacant their house.

On the other hand, rich alumni will not be hindered by distance while poor alumni will give up their priority due to practicality.

So alumni priority will mean the popular schools will get higher and higher % of rich students.. isn't it?

[vicki]

So pls tell me - what’s sooooo special abt alumni that they warrant unlimited entry criteria vs church n clan?

[Nebbermind]

Chenonceau:

Nebbermind:

If we look at only the HDB estates, I really wonder how many really cannot get into any of the schools within 2km.

Am told that now 1km also need to ballot... would this indicate that quite a lot cannot get in?

But that may not tell the whole story...perhaps there are schools in the same vincinity which most wanna avoid....like i remember someone said got 3 schools within 1 km but 1 is more popular.

[janet88]

Firstly I’m not rich. Not all alumnus are.


Secondly, I will not vacate my flat to make money.
2 years ago balloting started for a popular school within my estate. My son is finishing his P6 this year. I can shift since both my kids are already in primary school. But I am not willing to, bcos I love my flat. Not everyone shifts after getting their kids into schools of choice…just those who rent will.

[Lyddon]

limlim:

You've said it, they are the PRODUCT of the school. They benefited from it.


And bcoz they're the product and they benefited from it, their offspring should be accorded priority to further benefit from it and possibly deprive another \"staying nearby\" of the chance?

They contributed.. yes.

But they contribute as a way of paying back what they have TOOK from the school.. the invaluable education that they have received.

They took.. they contributed, and they took it again for their offspring.. and they take it again for their grand off spring.. and they take and take and take and take................................................

their offspring may contribute.. they may not.. but even if they do not.. they are given the liberty to take some more....

Unless.. we scrap or limit the alumni priority..

Of coz, even \"if\" we scrap it, alumni still may get in even w/o priority, or they may be staying nearby.. so.. alumni offspring still got chance to be in the school and carry on the \"baton\" in their family line.. if they are sentimental about it

Interesting how I can skew the words, also ..... :xedfingers:

Schools are the PRODUCT of the alumni. Schools benefited from alumni.

And bcoz schools are the product and they benefited from it, alumni's offspring should be accorded priority to further let schools benefit from alumni and possibly deprive another \"staying nearby\" of the chance?

Schools contributed.. yes.

But they contribute as a way of paying back what they have TOOK from the Alumni ... by providing the standard education/syllabus that they have received from MOE to the students.

Schools took.. Alumni contributed, and Schools took it again from their Alumni's offspring.. and they take it again from their grand off spring.. and they take and take and take and take................................................

their schools may have contributed.. they may not have contributed more than the Alumni has given.. but even if they did not.. the alumni still gave ....

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[dorisp]

Lyddon:

limlim:

You've said it, they are the PRODUCT of the school. They benefited from it.


And bcoz they're the product and they benefited from it, their offspring should be accorded priority to further benefit from it and possibly deprive another \"staying nearby\" of the chance?

They contributed.. yes.

But they contribute as a way of paying back what they have TOOK from the school.. the invaluable education that they have received.

They took.. they contributed, and they took it again for their offspring.. and they take it again for their grand off spring.. and they take and take and take and take................................................

their offspring may contribute.. they may not.. but even if they do not.. they are given the liberty to take some more....

Unless.. we scrap or limit the alumni priority..

Of coz, even \"if\" we scrap it, alumni still may get in even w/o priority, or they may be staying nearby.. so.. alumni offspring still got chance to be in the school and carry on the \"baton\" in their family line.. if they are sentimental about it

Interesting how I can skew the words, also ..... :xedfingers:

Schools are the PRODUCT of the alumni. Schools benefited from alumni.

And bcoz schools are the product and they benefited from it, alumni's offspring should be accorded priority to further let schools benefit from alumni and possibly deprive another \"staying nearby\" of the chance?

Schools contributed.. yes.

But they contribute as a way of paying back what they have TOOK from the Alumni ... by providing the standard education/syllabus that they have received from MOE to the students.

Schools took.. Alumni contributed, and Schools took it again from their Alumni's offspring.. and they take it again from their grand off spring.. and they take and take and take and take................................................

their schools may have contributed.. they may not have contributed more than the Alumni has given.. but even if they did not.. the alumni still gave ....

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

:faint: