[Novena] Primary Schools

[qms]

bagconomics:

My DS got into SJIJ dring today's balloting

http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/c/congrats-647.gif\">

May I know how many applicants vying for how many seats?

[steamystream]

Ave rental around scgs: 4k a mth

24 mths $96,000.00
If the school accept donations to get a secured place in P1. a
All will benefit.
The school can build up a second wing to boost the facilities…

[phtthp]

steamystream:

Average rental around scgs: $ 4k a mth

24 mths $96,000.00

according to newspaper report, it states that:-
The Ministry of Education (MOE) said that children who receive the distance priority should be living in the address of their registration during their primary school education.

2 years rental: costs $ 96 K.
6 years rental (P1 to P6) : will spend ==> $ (96 * 3 ) = $288, 000

Later on, if the child gets into SCGS Secondary (eg: get into IP track straight to A level ) :-
need another 6 years rental : will spend ===> $ (96 * 3) = $ 288, 000

Total rental costs from Primary 1 all the way up to A level, at SCGS =
$ (288 * 2 ) = $ 576, 000

underlying assumption:
assume no inflation throughout these 12 years of the child's life, ie. based on fixed rental charges per month, at $4 k.

[absolutwild]

i think MOE should not allow ppl who rents to apply for the school! only those who bought and genuinely stay within 1km to apply!

[becknat68]

I do know of parents who sold their pprty in another place and rented an aptm near the schools for the registration. After the child got in, they bought an aptm near the school for the child’s convenience. I guess it’s really hard for MOE to come up with very strict rules about not using rental address for registration etc. It really boils down to the individual family and their priorities. I have also heard of pple who bot units near the school, used it for registration and 1 yr later, they sell it or rent the aptm out. Like what one of the mummy mentioned earlier, MOE really does have better things to do than to track down address hopper but of cos, if anyone do know of any cases of ‘cheating’, they are free to report to MOE/ school for further investigation.

[MR06]

becknat68:

I do know of parents who sold their pprty in another place and rented an aptm near the schools for the registration. After the child got in, they bought an aptm near the school for the child's convenience. I guess it's really hard for MOE to come up with very strict rules about not using rental address for registration etc. It really boils down to the individual family and their priorities. I have also heard of pple who bot units near the school, used it for registration and 1 yr later, they sell it or rent the aptm out. Like what one of the mummy mentioned earlier, MOE really does have better things to do than to track down address hopper but of cos, if anyone do know of any cases of 'cheating', they are free to report to MOE/ school for further investigation.

Exactly, how about those in HDB rental flats?

What address can they use to register besides their rental address?

There are too many variables and would create administrative nightmare.

[verykiasu2010]

there is no law in Singapore that says every one must own their own home


judging by the comments of some people, those people who have children but do not own a home are not allowed to send their children to school.

don’t know what kind of logic is that

[TheTankh]

I think that the policy intention is not to give any "entitlement" to those who own property near to schools. The policy intention instead is to minimise time taken up for travel by school children.


When seen in that context, several points become clear:

(a) it is irrelevant whether a parent owns or rents. The question is one of residency.

(b) the situation is ultimately "self-correcting" in a sense. If a parent does something silly like embark on a short rental just to get in, and then subsequently moves to a far away location, and makes the child commute, then it is the child that suffers for it.

pure reliance on Phase 2C is simply unsafe. I should know. Our DD was one of those that did not manage to get in to SCGS. In hindsight, we should have gunned for Phase 2B, but having failed to do so, we only have ourselves to blame.

The calls for greater and more careful scrutiny is misguided, and also distracts teachers and admin staff from their real job.

Parents who fall on the wrong side of the balloting just have to lick their wounds, and go for their fallback options. In the end, it will all be OK. All schools have their pros and cons.

Finally, the only areas for adjustment that I think really merit attention are:

(a) no distance limit for alumni – this does not make sense if the overriding objective is to minimise travel time for kids, with a secondary objective of keeping school spirit alive etc. There should be an upper limit, whether 5km or whatever, on alumni. Otherwise, alumni staying really far away can get in, without any quota, when this makes a mockery of the primary objective of minimising travel time for kids.

(b) residences under construction – this also does not make sense. You are either already within the 1km / 2 km limit, or you are not. If we are to take the position that it is the time of registration that is significant, there is no reason for the three-year buffer for properties under construction to be built. It could mean that for up to three years, the child is actually not near the school, but akan datang, the child will be able to move in near the school. Again, this seems to fly in the face of the primary objective. Why should a sale-and-purchase agreement give the three-year "buffer" for parents and the child to move in within the 1km or 2km limit?

grandparents’ address – if we are to allow grandparents’ address, then allow it and don’t do the silly downgrading into the 1-2km category, even when the grandparent is at < 1km. The child is still in near proximity, and the notion that this should be discounted by one category is neither here nor there. Either allow the grandparents’ address to be used, or don’t. This sort of halfway house, doesn’t make sense to me.

Apart from that, I think the policy is quite well thought through, and although we failed to get balloted in to SCGS, we were impressed by the squeaky polished method in which the balloting was conducted, complete with video recording to ensure that there is good evidence that everything was above board in the balloting process. Kudos to the admin staff for that.

[Orange Girl]

TheTankh:

I think that the policy intention is not to give any \"entitlement\" to those who *own* property near to schools. The policy intention instead is to minimise time taken up for travel by school children...

:goodpost:

Wish you all the best for the Phase 2C Supp.

[2hotTOhandle]

TheTankh:

I think that the policy intention is not to give any \"entitlement\" to those who *own* property near to schools. The policy intention instead is to minimise time taken up for travel by school children...

:goodpost:

I agree with you. Esp (b). When the ppty eventually gets completed, who knows whether they will move in? So it is a loophole in my opinion. The parents may own it but they may stay somewhere else after the ppty is completed, or they may even sell it before/after TOP. MOE wouldn't know/care.

While talking to my hubby's friend who registered his child probably prior to 2005, he was very bitter as his daughter did not get into St Nics as the policy then favoured mothers who were graduates. His wife was not a graduate so his daughter did not get into the school even though he lives <1km from St Nics.

So, policies are indeed evolving and hopefully there will be more changes in future that will favour citizens even more and also try to balance the interests of various groups of people with diff vested interests.

Lastly, best of luck to you in P2CS!!!