MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[dorisp]

ksi:

Perhaps it is useful to know what is the average % that constitutes to Phase 2A&B to warrant so much attention. From my own experience, the % is pretty small so perhaps that is why I am not seeing so much issue because the alumni is not taking up a lot of vacancies.

I think many realised the discussion and contribution on the issue here is based on what is \"right or wrong\", not based on \"big or small\".

[dorisp]

There's an article in yesterday's (19 Aug'12) The Sunday Times (pg 33) by Toh Yong Chuan titled \"Take the pain out of Primary 1 registration. Some people do not deserve to be ahead of the queue; let's fix this anxiety-ridden system\"


It is a good read and relevant to this topic. Wonder if anyone has link so can share it here.

[Imami]

dorisp:

DesertWind:

There is nothing wrong with alumni priority. The problem is people trying to get into other people's popular alumni. I am sure there are plenty of schools within reasonable distance of such \"protesters\". But no, they don't want, just want to get into the hot school which \"happen\" to be right at their door step.


So I don't buy the argument of scrapping the alumni priority especially for those schools which has built up a strong reputation precisely due to the strength of its alumni.

For all the arguments about < 1 km, if the school is not reputed, I think give them also don't want. So I am not convinced.

Give you my own example. I stay within a stone throw from St. Nicks. If I have a girl, would I call for a scrap to all the priorities so that my girl can go to St. Nicks? And then argue \"shamelessly\" that it is all for the good of my girl since it is so near?

Within 1 km of my place, actually there are 2 other primary schools ie. AMK Primary and Mayflower Primary. Both within very reasonable if not walking distance. No stress if I were to register at these primary schools - plenty of vacancies at all phases!

So why should I argue and insist on going to St. Nicks and calling for scrapping and capping those priorities alumni etc.?

Sorry, I could not do it.

So I don't buy the argument for those advocating distance priority over alumni priorities. Go to your own alumni, nobody will quarrel with you about it.

:scared:

:goodpost: just one expression summarizes it all. :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[Precious2.012911lee]

Anyway, I still feel at the best interest of everyone, our fellow Singaporean, after phase 1, just split 50%-50% between the 2 remaining groups - with connection and without. These are public schools anyway. All tax payers deserve a place. As long as you are holding a pink IC, you have every right. There is no such thing as snatching each other rice bowl. Think our PRs and foreigner friends must be laughing their heads off Liao.

[Imami]

Precious2.lee:

Anyway, I still feel at the best interest of everyone, our fellow Singaporean, after phase 1, just split 50%-50% between the 2 remaining groups - with connection and without. These are public schools anyway. All tax payers deserve a place. As long as you are holding a pink IC, you have every right. There is no such thing as snatching each other rice bowl. Think our PRs and foreigner friends must be laughing their heads off Liao.

Like that Non tax payers how? :rotflmao: ok ok, joking. I understand what you mean.

[alng]

dorisp:

I think many realised the discussion and contribution on the issue here is based on what is \"right or wrong\", not based on \"big or small\".

But the whole issue on phase 2A and phase 2B priorities is not \"right or wrong\" either. If it is so wrong, how can it be there for so long. If it is so wrong, why are the policy makers hesitating in making it right?

So it is obviously not a straight forward \"right or wrong\" issue. It appears now that what is \"right\" to one group of stakeholders is \"not so right\" to another group of stakeholders.

[alng]

Precious2.lee:

Anyway, I still feel at the best interest of everyone, our fellow Singaporean, after phase 1, just split 50%-50% between the 2 remaining groups - with connection and without. These are public schools anyway. All tax payers deserve a place. As long as you are holding a pink IC, you have every right. There is no such thing as snatching each other rice bowl. Think our PRs and foreigner friends must be laughing their heads off Liao.

It is a fact that MOE put in the same resources in every primary schools. But some schools have more resources from their other stakeholders like alumni, clan, churches etc. These extra resources that some schools get made them able to do more and thus become more popular.

[Precious2.012911lee]

alng:

It is a fact that MOE put in the same resources in every primary schools. But some schools have more resources from their other stakeholders like alumni, clan, churches etc. These extra resources that some schools get made them able to do more and thus become more popular.

That's why only active alumni, clans, churches should be given priority. This group of people is minority. Even if they get balloted out, i am sure if they go and appeal, they have higher chance of getting a place (since they have made SIGNIFICANT difference to the school and without them, the school will not be like today etc ) However, The issue is most are sleeping members.

[gvyong]

dorisp:

There's an article in yesterday's (19 Aug'12) The Sunday Times (pg 33) by Toh Yong Chuan titled \"Take the pain out of Primary 1 registration. Some people do not deserve to be ahead of the queue; let's fix this anxiety-ridden system\"


It is a good read and relevant to this topic. Wonder if anyone has link so can share it here.

Of course, those who don't have 'worthy' alumni legacies to consider about can afford to suggest for the alumni to be limited to 10-20%.

I find Toh Yong Chuan very mean-spirited. :mad: When he says \"some people\", I wonder if he realise he is saying the children don't deserve to be in their parents' alma maters? Is it the fault of these children that they get priority to enroll in the ACSes, MGSes, SCGSes, Maha Bodhis'es & NYPSes primary schools just becoz their parents happen to studied there?

A better way would be as Precious2.lee suggests, split 50-50% between alumni and non-connections, or proportionate to the amount of public funding the school received from taxpayers.

In the first place, the ACSes, MGSes, SCGSes, Maha Bodhis'es & NYPSes schools were set up to serve their respective communities and stakeholders, and never to serve the general public. But they were either asked or compelled to join the national system and began receiving Gov't aid at some point in time. So, should we fault the alumni of these schools if they want their children to continue the tradition? Barring the few 'freeloaders', most do so because:

1) They are Methodists, Anglicans, Presbytarians, Catholics or Buddhists
2) They are strong in Chinese language & traditions

So those of us who are not have no business to be asking for a place in their schools.

In fact, Gov't would do well to learn what these schools are doing right to continue to attract their alumni over the ages instead of setting up half-baked primary schools, merging and closing them as and when. Set up more HPPSes, RGPSes and Rosyth'es instead of Phua Chu Kang North/South/East/West primaries and we won't have this problem today.

There should be more schools hosting GEPs. All former Chinese stream schools like Pei Tong and Shuqun should be upgraded to SAP status. While we're at it, let's have some madrasahs and a school in Serangoon area upgraded to SAP status, so that our Malay & Indian fellow citizens have chance for 'cultural immersion' experience too.

[dorisp]

alng:

But the whole issue on phase 2A and phase 2B priorities is not \"right or wrong\" either. If it is so wrong, how can it be there for so long. If it is so wrong, why are the policy makers hesitating in making it right?

So it is obviously not a straight forward \"right or wrong\" issue. It appears now that what is \"right\" to one group of stakeholders is \"not so right\" to another group of stakeholders.

Yes you are probably right to say there is no 100% right or wrong but you are correct to highlight that this policy is set long ago and a review is long due owing to so much has changed.

In anycase, P1 regstration is a national policy where it should cater fairly to the interest of its people so how come there are \"groups\" in the first place hence leading to --> what is \"right\" to one group could be \"not so right\" to another group? Shouldn't all enjoy the same or at least have equal right? How come got this group that group one hah?