MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[Nebbermind]

verykiasu2010:

sleepy:

Eventually, many years down the road, phrase 2A needs to ballot too :evil:

it will still be limited to the few popular schools only, even if that comes true.
wanna bet ?

Ahbathen?

[zakashi]

When the time comes, what is alumni? Also who knows you got to pay $1000 or more for the alumni fee? Payment no problem but NO balloting. This comes back square one right?

[pirate]

There was a top school that used to produce top students. Then it started going downhill in the 1990s until the alumni (which included cabinet members) got together and told the management that this is simply unacceptable. Now it has climbed back up to the top again. I came from that school. I am sure the alumni know which school I am talking about.


Always remember that the alumni are the ones who produced the results that made the school popular in the first place.

This does not benefit me because it is a boy's school and I only have a daughter. :rotflmao:

[limlim]

pirate:

There was a top school that used to produce top students. Then it started going downhill in the 1990s until the alumni (which included cabinet members) got together and told the management that this is simply unacceptable. Now it has climbed back up to the top again. I came from that school. I am sure the alumni know which school I am talking about.


Always remember that the alumni are the ones who produced the results that made the school popular in the first place.

This does not benefit me because it is a boy's school and I only have a daughter. :rotflmao:

Didn't you just demonstrated that it is the management's effort, not the alumni or student(by itself) that produced the results? if it is the students (who later became alumni) that produced results, the performance of the school would run on auto-pilot and still produce top students right?

[pirate]

No. It demonstrates that management, teachers, students and alumni all played a part. It is therefore wrong to say that alumni made no contribution.


Let’s face the elephants in the room. Most of the "parent volunteers" in phase 2B of popular schools are not parents of current students, and they are not "volunteering" their time for altruistic reasons. I see no reason why they should be given priority for their mercenary "contribution" too.

Secondly, giving priority based only on distance will unduly favour the wealthy who can afford to buy/rent a residence near the preferred school even if it is only for the purpose of registering their children.

[Laura02]

I agree. It’s takes the all three groups to working together to support, engage and encourage each other to maintain a schools excellence. Without one, the other two may falter and the structure tumble from it’s pedestle.

[Laura02]

Actually, I’ll like to add a fourth pillar that supports and maintains a "good school". Besides having good school management, students and alumni, every school should have a good parents support group consisting of parents whose children are currently studying in the school (as opposed to one consisting of parents hoping to get their children into the school). Many researchs have found that parental engagement in a child’s school have produce many favorable outcomes for thei child, including improved grades, better teacher-parent communications, etc.

[HAPPYH]

Laura02:

Actually, I'll like to add a fourth pillar that supports and maintains a \"good school\". Besides having good school management, students and alumni, every school should have a good parents support group consisting of parents whose children are currently studying in the school (as opposed to one consisting of parents hoping to get their children into the school). Many researchs have found that parental engagement in a child's school have produce many favorable outcomes for thei child, including improved grades, better teacher-parent communications, etc.

Yes, I totally agree.

[Laura02]

Hi HAPPYH!


:celebrate:

[limlim]

pirate:

No. It demonstrates that management, teachers, students and alumni all played a part. It is therefore wrong to say that alumni made no contribution.


Let's face the elephants in the room. Most of the \"parent volunteers\" in phase 2B of popular schools are not parents of current students, and they are not \"volunteering\" their time for altruistic reasons. I see no reason why they should be given priority for their mercenary \"contribution\" too.

Secondly, giving priority based only on distance will unduly favour the wealthy who can afford to buy/rent a residence near the preferred school even if it is only for the purpose of registering their children.

It is an accepted fact that sleeping alumni made no significant contribution isn't it?

The reason they volunteered isn't a relevant factor. What is relevant is they contributed (for the schools to judge themselves).

As for distance priority, it is for the authorities to introduce checks to prevent abuse, like fake address, unoccupied housing etc..). The policy itself is good.

What I feel is, distance priority first. Then, for those within 1km, alumni can then have the absolute priority before all others who stay nearby. Followed by GRLs, PVs etc..

So, Alumni > GRL, PVs, Clans > Others.. if they all stay nearby < 1km.

After all those with priority and <1km got their places, the others with 1km can ballot, if necessary.

This will also please those whose place in the next door sch is deprived bcoz of someone who stay far far away and is alumni. If the alumni stays as near, there is no dispute that alumni shd have the priority.