MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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?

[Precious2.012911lee]

Agree! MOE, please do not just conveniently name a school after an estate. Don’t know what to say but the name of these schools are simply super low class. Honestly how many of these Phua Chu Kang Schools are good? Do not fear that people can’t find the school. If a school is popular, even if located in a jungle, people will also find its way there!

[Imami]

I personally find the "right" (the priority given or 权利） and the "right" ( ie not wrong or " 对＂ ) very argumentative in this discussion. Can we just stick to "priority given" and "for the Better good" instead?

[phankao]

gvyong:

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..

:goodpost:


In fact, now their church, clan, association, temple members have to compete with the public for their children's p1 entry. ;(

My parents-in-law from Malaysia cannot understand the logic WHY in SG, their grandchildren do not have all that much priority in primary school registration. My MIL even says \"Just go have a meeting with the Principal and say that we are good church members, our children need an education, so just give our child a place, afterall mission school\" ... and she adds \"we did that last time for all of your (DH & Sis) registration to primary school. What's the problem? CHurch members, surely should be reserved a place!!!! How come not that way?

*sigh*.

[Laura02]

ChiefKiasu:

My 2 cents on this issue: It is probably more worthwhile spending our time ensuring that our children are prepared for whatever school that they are registered in, and ensure that they have a balanced study and sports curriculum throughout Primary school. Most parents eventually come to the sobering realisation that registering their children in high-demand schools with strong alumni was only the start of 6 years of sleepless nights worrying whether their children can make the cut.

:rahrah:
:goodpost:

[Laura02]

Has anyone thought to ask if these popular schools themselves would prefer to accept children from their alumni/ church / clan members?

Perhaps, MOE should allow schools full autonomy to decide who to accept and who to refuse. Afterall, its the school who will have the responsibility of educating the child for the next 6 - 12 years.

[DesertWind]

Jav:

Everyone is entitled to their own view considering the circumstances they are under. Of course, if your alumni is not good, naturally you wOnt be pride to have your kids or grand kids to enrol in your alma mater. But the current policy is already at such that the school at the end no longer have any vacancy for non priority kids (ie. alumni, PV, GRL etc). A policy is normally designed to regulate issues & provide guidance in the registration so that all are in order, which maybe valid at the time. Does it still valid now since the situation has changed? We all know that many families staying v far travel 1 hr to school while families stay next door / 5 mins need to travel maybe 45 mins to the other part of SG for another school. It's time to relook at the policy carefully to achieve desire balance.

Agree to bold, Jav. I advocate getting rid of P2B, PV scheme (what utter exploitation of parents' precious time!), GRL (ridiculous!) and other non-alumni affiliations (gate open TOO wide - need to cap). Leave alumni priority untouched. In fact, for some schools, siblings priority seems to be the one phase taking up a LOT of vacancies.

[DesertWind]

Jav:

It also seems that too many good schools are concentrating at one area along Bukit Timah stretch. The plannIng should just disperse them all over Singapore. As expected the priority of SG over PR only make minuscule difference to SG but it does impact PR a lot & as a result it actually further dilute the chances of PR blending with SG which is not gahmen intention? The policy now is at such to chuck them at unpopular schools. Please be mindful that there are very smart PR students which can provide challenge to our kids.

Sorry, the PRs know very well why they are holding on to their PR status and not converting to SG status. It is just so obvious, previously the difference are so minor that it has already become painful to SG-reans. The only difference is SG-reans has voting power. This the PRs don't need or want. After all, the gahmen already siding them by giving them all priviledges of SG-reans and YET , their sons no need to do NS.

We are not doubting that the PRs are intelligent and smart, Jav, we are talking about \"priorities\" and \"privileges\" compared to SG-reans here. To get into schools especially with decades of reputation built up over the history of this land.

OK, I am not going to say this all over again. It is just too :mad: :rant: :stupid: :frustrated: :stompfeet: for me. Now that the gahmen already done something about this, lets not go backwards. The world order is different now.