MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni
-
pirate:
Precisely. Why the reluctance to make this known to everyone?[/quote]everyone sees it at the result briefing, no need to tell the world lah
they do have separate list but not made known to every one. During result day, they show on ppt slideverykiasu2010:
[quote=\"pirate\"]
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. -
verykiasu2010:
everyone sees it at the result briefing, no need to tell the world lah
No lah. Only parents of existing pupils go to the result briefing. So more than 99% of parents in Singapore are excluded. How is that \"everyone\"? If every GEP school is going to be so secretive, might just as well not publish anything at all. Why mislead parents with figures inflated by GEP students? What is wrong with a bit of transparency to help parents make informed decisions?
If the majority of other schools' top students are plucked out and parachuted into a few GEP schools, of course the GEP schools' results will look brilliant compared to the rest.
If parents can see that there are other schools that are just as good as the GEP schools for their non-GEP students (if not better), more may opt for these schools instead of trying to squeeze into the \"brand-name\" GEP schools. This will result in less stress overall for parents every year. -
pirate:
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/08/07/prs-feel-sore-after-losing-out-to-singaporeans-in-p1-balloting/
(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.
regarding proposed Phase 2D : -
refer article, in Responses to “Balloting for Primary 1 places expected in more than 90 schools, in Phase 2C” (2013 intake) :-
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/08/02/balloting-for-pri-1-places-expected-in-more-than-90-schools-in-phase-2c/ -
pirate:
nothing secretive about result, nothing misleading, they do have separate result analysis.verykiasu2010:
everyone sees it at the result briefing, no need to tell the world lah
No lah. Only parents of existing pupils go to the result briefing. So more than 99% of parents in Singapore are excluded. How is that \"everyone\"? If every GEP school is going to be so secretive, might just as well not publish anything at all. Why mislead parents with figures inflated by GEP students? What is wrong with a bit of transparency to help parents make informed decisions?
If the majority of other schools' top students are plucked out and parachuted into a few GEP schools, of course the GEP schools' results will look brilliant compared to the rest.
If parents can see that there are other schools that are just as good as the GEP schools for their non-GEP students (if not better), more may opt for these schools instead of trying to squeeze into the \"brand-name\" GEP schools. This will result in less stress overall for parents every year.
if you are interested to know, just call up the school to find out
stress or no stress is entirely up to the parents to regulate themselves -
This is where I don’t understand what you are saying. The question remains why not just post it on the school’s website? If the school thinks that parents are interested enough to justify posting the school’s overall PSLE results breakdown on the school’s website, it is disingenuous to even suggest they think parents won’t be interested in the breakdown between GEP and non-GEP results. It is a very simple thing to do. There is simply no good reason why it is not done. And no, parents can call up the school to ask if they are interested is not a good reason. Why should an interested parent have to call up the school to ask?
This is supposed to be about the education of our children. It is not supposed to be some PR exercise or one-upmanship amongst schools. The whole philosophy is wrong. And if you don’t see that, then sorry, we must just agree to disagree.
Speaking of priorities. Does anybody see anything potentially wrong if all the popular schools here will eventually only have SC students? Would that be a good environment in this current age? -
pirate:
How about schools that eventually only have children of alumni?
Speaking of priorities. Does anybody see anything potentially wrong if all the popular schools here will eventually only have SC students? Would that be a good environment in this current age?
-
dorisp:
What about only SC ALUMNI?
How about schools that eventually only have children of alumni?pirate:
Speaking of priorities. Does anybody see anything potentially wrong if all the popular schools here will eventually only have SC students? Would that be a good environment in this current age?
What about SC ALUMNI - not enough, on top of that those parent(s) must be a SC when he/she was a student?
Can keep going like this. No end. -
HAPPYH:
What about only SC ALUMNI?
How about schools that eventually only have children of alumni?dorisp:
[quote=\"pirate\"]
Speaking of priorities. Does anybody see anything potentially wrong if all the popular schools here will eventually only have SC students? Would that be a good environment in this current age?
What about SC ALUMNI - not enough, on top of that those parent(s) must be a SC when he/she was a student?
Can keep going like this. No end.[/quote]Sorry, my previous post should be as follows:
What about schools that eventually only have children of SC ALUMNI?
What about schools that eventually only have children of not just SC ALUMNI - on top of that those parent(s) must be a SC when he/she was a student?
Can keep going like this. No end -
Absolutely. That is why I suggested earlier that MOE should cap P1 and P2A to 70% of total vacancy. I also suggested that P2B should be capped at 25% of the remaining places, compared to the 50% now.
That doesn’t address the first issue I brought up though. -
Just happened to be reading this thread few days ago and would like to give my 2 cents worth…
The current system is indeed giving much priority to alumni. I am not proposing to scrap away the registration phase for alumni but will definitely appreciate if the authorities do something to fine-tune the current Phase 2 category.
(1)\tAgreed with parents who wanted their children to be in the school they have previously studied in, to share the same values and cultures. However, if parents think so highly about their alma mater, shouldn’t they joined the alumni association and active participate in the school activities even before their children enter the school? I can understand giving priority to alumni, especially those actively involved, but I truly don’t understand why should priority be given to those old boys and girls who refused to join the alumni association, not involved in any of the activities and not even in-touch with anything from their alma mater until their children need to register for P1. Then they’ll go for registration with their old report book or any documentations, which they have not touch for at least 2-3 decades, to prove they were previously from the school. Worse are those parents who only studied in the school for only 1-2 years, either transfer-in or out due to some reasons. IMHO, I think the authorities should do away with Phase 2A(2) and just have Phase 2A for alumni who actively involved in their alma mater.
(2)\tPhase 2A(1) & 2A(2) are given unlimited seats for application from the balance after Phase 1. Then the balance after Phase 2A(2) will be evenly apportion to Phase 2B (50%) & Phase 2C (50%). That means applicants under Phase 2A(1) & 2A(2) who are staying >10km away from the school will be given the seat against those staying within 500m but not under this Phase. Would this be fair for those staying near and yet not within reach due to limited seats? Why can’t the balance vacancies after Phase 1 be equally apportion to Phase 2A, 2B & 2C and the balance from Phase 2A will then be evenly allocate to 2B & 2C? That will definitely increase the chances for those staying within 1km or 2km especially when most people will probably fall under Phase 2C.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login