MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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.

[onemore]

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, absolutely!

[dorisp]

limlim:

....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.

:goodpost:

[pirate]

But you have to factor in the consideration that a distance trumps all else apporach will effectively give absolute priority to the wealthy, who are able to buy/rent property within 1km of whatever school they choose and are not shackled by having to register their home address at a HDB flat since they don’t live in one. The only exception would be schools where there are no private properties within 1 km and how many ‘brand name’ schools like that are there?


I am actually against this whole PV thing. I can see no difference between ‘volunteering’ time for PV and donating money to secure a place. It is simply mercenary and distasteful. My feeling is the same for GRLs. I would rather MOE:

(1) cap P1 & P2A at 70% of total places, ie at least 30% must remain available for P2B and later phases.
(2) scrap PRs from P2A alumni, because if the parents are alumni and still remain non-SC after such a long time, it says something about their commitment to Singapore.
(3) scrap PVs and GRLs and cap P2B at 25% of remaining places.

This will ensure that at least 22.5% of places are always available for P2C.

Above all else, when GEP schools make public their overall PSLE results, they should have to publish separate numbers for their GEP and non-GEP students. Who knows how many GEP schools have their PSLE statistics inflated by the ‘gifted’ children who would have done well in any school? Likewise, there should be separate lists of PSLE tops students for GEP and non-GEP.

[gtx108]

limlim:

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.

Agree!! Hope the MOE officials are reading this post. :lovesite:

[keroppi]

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.

:goodpost:
I was an alumni before joining the PSG. The schools my kids are attending do not accept PVs simply because there simply isn't a need to. The overwhelming support of parents means the school is never short-handed in any school activities. I guess that's because most parents these days know the importance of being involved in their kids' educational journey.

[janet88]

keroppi:

Laura02:

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.

The overwhelming support of parents means the school is never short-handed in any school activities. I guess that's because most parents these days know the importance of being involved in their kids' educational journey.

Parents' involvement is really crucial during their kids' primary school journey...of course sec school is also impt, but parents at that stage are dealing more with teenage years.
A friend once told me, during primary school years, the parents will be the ones approaching teachers more...but at sec level, it's the reverse.