MOE not tweaking P1 registration
-
MR06:
The impact on property prices is a very big consideration - in countries where a purely distance based system is in place you can have a situation where house prices on one side of the road which falls under a good school can be way higher than the other side of the road which falls under a not so good school.Wow 14 pages! I’ve not read most of the earlier posts but feel compelled to pen my thoughts.
I am really happy with the announcement of the scrapping of secondary school banding.
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1313196/Parents_schools_cheer_scrapping_of_secondary_school_banding.html
It is also a step in the right direction to abolish mid-year screening of P1 pupils.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Edvantage/Story/A1Story20120911-370890.html
MOE should also be applauded on concentrating its efforts on providing good schools in different neighbourhoods now that the P1 registration for next year intake is just over.
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/features/hottopics/1309404/MOE_not_tweaking_P1_registration_formula.html
However, I feel the P1 registration should be given a final tweak .
If the system remains status quo, no cap on vacancies and the reality is in practice resulting in no limit on distance for earlier phases(correct up to this year’s intake because the system takes in all without a need for ballot from phase 1 to 2a) runs against the grain for children to study near their home.
To me, the counter argument on tweaking it has its “impact on property prices which may force out parents who cannot afford to live in the affected areas” is flawed.
Some parents had also argued tirelessly on \"my child is an early bird, I drive my child to school or my child has no problem with travelling long distance..... to try to persuade on keeping the current phases intact.
My take is, if your child has no problem, it does not mean another child who got balloted out from the school right across her house will not have problem in waking up early or travelling long distance and who may not be privileged to be driven to school.
Scenario 1
A PR child gets into Tao Nan under Phase 1 because his older sibling (who used to study in a school in Woodlands got transferred there after he qualified under GEP) is studying there. He lives across the causeway and will cross custom daily to get to school.
On the other hand, a SC family who lives within 1km, had been clan members with SHHK since grandpa’s time (grandpa sent daddy to a nearby school instead of Tao Nan because they were not staying near the school at that time) whose child could not get into Tao Nan by ballot.
Scenario 2
A non-Christian child who lives in Sentosa Cove (now this is a life-style choice, opting for the exclusiveness and views, what impact on property prices?) who is privileged to be chauffeured to her school got in because her mother is an alumni of MGS.
On the other hand, a Methodist child who lives within walking distance of MGS has to travel further to her school because she has no luck at the ballot box.
Not introducing Phase D and allowing PR’s participation in P2C would disadvantage the less educated /less well-to-do populace. (See my earlier post on Phase 2C and 2D http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18535&start=1460 and my argument for the introduction of P2D at the 2nd half of the page starting from I'm not as optimistic... http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18535&start=1500)
Scenario 3
A PR with a SAHM got into a neighbourhood school because his mother is more educated and has the time to monitor the registration numbers and go down to make a last minute switch so he ended up with another decent school that is not too far from home.
A SC child whose parents have to slog to feed 3 generations got balloted out from the school across her house. Her parents have scant knowledge of the whole registration process and cannot afford to take time off to make a last minute switch. If there is a Phase 2C just for Singaporeans, she will not end up in a school so far away from her house. -
nms1:
It may be true in a big country but in a small and dense country like Singapore, when you give a 3km cap on distance for earlier phases, there is a variety of housing options to choose from and I cannot think of a good school that does not have public housing within a 3km radius.
The impact on property prices is a very big consideration - in countries where a purely distance based system is in place you can have a situation where house prices on one side of the road which falls under a good school can be way higher than the other side of the road which falls under a not so good school.MR06:
Wow 14 pages! I’ve not read most of the earlier posts but feel compelled to pen my thoughts.
I am really happy with the announcement of the scrapping of secondary school banding.
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1313196/Parents_schools_cheer_scrapping_of_secondary_school_banding.html
It is also a step in the right direction to abolish mid-year screening of P1 pupils.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Edvantage/Story/A1Story20120911-370890.html
MOE should also be applauded on concentrating its efforts on providing good schools in different neighbourhoods now that the P1 registration for next year intake is just over.
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/features/hottopics/1309404/MOE_not_tweaking_P1_registration_formula.html
However, I feel the P1 registration should be given a final tweak .
If the system remains status quo, no cap on vacancies and the reality is in practice resulting in no limit on distance for earlier phases(correct up to this year’s intake because the system takes in all without a need for ballot from phase 1 to 2a) runs against the grain for children to study near their home.
To me, the counter argument on tweaking it has its “impact on property prices which may force out parents who cannot afford to live in the affected areas” is flawed.
Some parents had also argued tirelessly on \"my child is an early bird, I drive my child to school or my child has no problem with travelling long distance..... to try to persuade on keeping the current phases intact.
My take is, if your child has no problem, it does not mean another child who got balloted out from the school right across her house will not have problem in waking up early or travelling long distance and who may not be privileged to be driven to school.
Scenario 1
A PR child gets into Tao Nan under Phase 1 because his older sibling (who used to study in a school in Woodlands got transferred there after he qualified under GEP) is studying there. He lives across the causeway and will cross custom daily to get to school.
On the other hand, a SC family who lives within 1km, had been clan members with SHHK since grandpa’s time (grandpa sent daddy to a nearby school instead of Tao Nan because they were not staying near the school at that time) whose child could not get into Tao Nan by ballot.
Scenario 2
A non-Christian child who lives in Sentosa Cove (now this is a life-style choice, opting for the exclusiveness and views, what impact on property prices?) who is privileged to be chauffeured to her school got in because her mother is an alumni of MGS.
On the other hand, a Methodist child who lives within walking distance of MGS has to travel further to her school because she has no luck at the ballot box.
Not introducing Phase D and allowing PR’s participation in P2C would disadvantage the less educated /less well-to-do populace. (See my earlier post on Phase 2C and 2D http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18535&start=1460 and my argument for the introduction of P2D at the 2nd half of the page starting from I'm not as optimistic... http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18535&start=1500)
Scenario 3
A PR with a SAHM got into a neighbourhood school because his mother is more educated and has the time to monitor the registration numbers and go down to make a last minute switch so he ended up with another decent school that is not too far from home.
A SC child whose parents have to slog to feed 3 generations got balloted out from the school across her house. Her parents have scant knowledge of the whole registration process and cannot afford to take time off to make a last minute switch. If there is a Phase 2C just for Singaporeans, she will not end up in a school so far away from her house.
Anyway if anyone contend 3km is inadequate, how about 4 or 5km? There should be a cap on distance if MOE does not cap on the number of vacancies for the earlier phases to make it fairer for the others at the bottom of the registration phases. -
MR06:
Public housing near to good schools arent exactly cheap :?
It may be true in a big country but in a small and dense country like Singapore, when you give a 3km cap on distance for earlier phases, there is a variety of housing options to choose from and I cannot think of a good school that does not have public housing within a 3km radius. -
Sun_2010:
In any case, those in earlier phases would have been accorded their privilege by having connection to the school. As compared to P2C parents who live within 1km who has to face ballot, the parents whose child qualifies under the earlier phases should not complain if they stay outside the stipulated distance criteria.
Public housing near to good schools arent exactly cheap :?MR06:
It may be true in a big country but in a small and dense country like Singapore, when you give a 3km cap on distance for earlier phases, there is a variety of housing options to choose from and I cannot think of a good school that does not have public housing within a 3km radius. -
rains:
Wah, you are over-sensitive lah. What I had meant was, your alma mater could have closed down or you are not proud of your alma mater. Just like how you can't comprehend what the big deal an alma mater is, I can't comprehend why you don't understand about the feeling of an alumni towards his alma mater. To me, it's only natural that we lean towards our alma mater at which we had spent our 6 years of our childhood. I can't understand how or why one can dismiss it as nothing. To have your kid attending your alma mater is akin to sharing a bond between you and your kid.
I don't get what you mean. You're suspecting that I never attended primary school?limlim:
[quote=\"rains\"]
I hope I don't sound rude but you sound like you don't have an alma mater, because you don't seem to understand the sentiment of an alumni.
It is clear that almost everyone have alma mater, but not everyone, or I would dare say, many, do not care. Look at the take up rate for P2A for those schools with vacancies for 2CS. A few KSP member does not represent the full picture.
It's novel to me that there are people who don't feel for their alma mater, just like how it's probably new to you that there are people who takes pride in their alma mater. That's all. But to dismiss people's sentiment towards their alma mater and want to tweak phase 2A for those near school - that I think is not fair to the alumni. I don't buy the argument of 'since they love their alma mater so much, they should be actively involved in the school'. It's like saying 'since you love your country so much, you should take up arms to defend it.' I don't even have to live in my country to SHOW that I love it![/quote]You are free to love your alma mater.
But it doesn't mean that bcoz you love your alma mater, you should be given priority over other considerations of other part of the population.
So, those who attended NUS or NTU and love it should have they kids have priority in entering University BEYOND other considerations like grades? apparently NOT.
So, the \"love\" for the alma mater is not a viable consideration for priority admission. Other factors like best interest of the kids who stayed next to be school should have greater priority if there is no suitable means to judge the kid's suitability.
And those who love their alma mater so much that they spend a lot of effort in it, should be entitled to priority based on meritocracy alone. NOT bcoz of the \"love\" or sentiments. -
nms1:
So what is bad about higher property prices around a branded school? bcoz the poor might be deprived of the chance to enter that school?
The impact on property prices is a very big consideration - in countries where a purely distance based system is in place you can have a situation where house prices on one side of the road which falls under a good school can be way higher than the other side of the road which falls under a not so good school.
IMO, alumni priority mostly benefit the rich, and possibly a greater evil than inflated property prices.
Have came across a few posting that the KSP member actually give up P2A priority to a branded school because it is just not practical or feasible to send their kids to a far away school. Only the rich ones can afford to do so, the minimum requirement probably means a car.
Hence, alumni priority are just as guilty as inflated property prices when it comes to favoring the rich. And even worse so when the poor kid staying in HDB next to the school is balloted out because of vacancies taken up by alumni staying 10km away.. who can well afford a car in a single income family to send/fetch the kids everyday, or afford hefty bus fees. -
But registration at P1 is different from gaining entrance into Uni leh.
Plus there’s no meritocracy for registration at P1 one. -
limlim:
Guess what? I'm inclined to believe that someone sitting at the top in MOE shares my belief rather than yours
But it doesn't mean that bcoz you love your alma mater, you should be given priority over other considerations of other part of the population.
Admission to universities or other institiutes in this discussion is irrelevant unless we have exams at kindies.
And I'm one of those who believe that giving priority to near-school families would definitely drive home prices up. As it is, property prices of houses and flats near popular schools are already more expensive simply because they are near these schools, so it's really a bad idea to suggest giving more vacancies to those near schools. -
These are the ugly truths. Parents who did not or do not want to send their children to their alma mater (other than alma closed down or gender) because:
1. Alma mater was not brand name
2. Alma mater did not produce any top PSLE students
One very good example is Rulang. Before 2011, their phase 2A take up rates hovered around 40%. Come 2012, the numbers of applicants for this phase more than doubled, and total number of applications surged way up, just because the 2011 top PSLE student came from there.
Was it fair for parents who live just across the street where this previously ordinary school suddenly became inaccessible to them just because its popularity went up overnight?
Many parents here chant the ‘distance is fairest’ mantra, give many ‘unfair scenarios’, grumble and nit pick. But please ask yourselves if it is hypocritical. To these parents, if you came from a brand name school, or suddenly your alma mater produced a top PSLE student, would you not be motivated to place your child there?
The direction of making all schools good is the right one. Changing parents’ mindsets will take time (unless their alma mater suddenly produces a top student, lol). -
For those who still insist on debating the alumni priority, can go back to http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32400&start=1950&hilit=priority and read the almost-200 pages and see what has not be said yet. I se no point in repeat the same thing over and over again.
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