If you forget to tap your ezlink card before getting off the bus, you will be charge the maximum fare.


Is this fair ?

There are ways to avoid this !

http://tinyurl.com/2utb5ya

[no need to quote everything !]


What you just described, is my DREAM SCHOOL !

*3 ID cards - this sounds like quite a bit of work for the school to do ! and they don’t mind doing it.

>>I’d like to add this - I think it would invariably take up the school’s resouces to prepare these ID cards. Given that in your description, the security guard has a computer to scan the card, I think it would achieve the same objective if the photo of that parent, guardian, maid is stored on the computer at the guard post, and no need to print out into a card. The parent would just give the guard an IC number or mobile phone number, for the guard to retrieve the record, and the photo in the computer shall match with the face of the visitor. Then the guard can issue a generic tag - "Parent". Perhaps the school can also allow photographs to be sent electronically to the school to update the record if for example there is a change of maid in the household. This is just a slight modification to see if it can cut down admin. work and paper etc.

*Parents can help to look out for unwanted vistors - that is very good community spirits ! See, if the school accepts that parents are not security threats, and allow them to come in, they feel home, and they will help to keep home safe.

*Can even go to the library ! Wow !

*Potluck in canteen ! This is beyond the imagination of my school, really.


Make sure this is a Singapore school…

So, your school can do it this way, why not the others ?

ChiefKiasu:

Amos2010, can I clarify if you are lobbying the school for allowing freedom of access to its premises for
(1) ALL parents, or
(2) for parents or special needs children only?

I don't think you need to lobby any school in the second case. Schools and staff are usually much more compassionate than we tend to give them credit for.

It is for all parents.

Maybe this table will give you a better picture

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ai6bnGldwQd3dE5KTnU0Z2p1OVBkS1pjRFR2MEdmZFE&hl=en

(Will keep this active for 2 days)

What you said about special needs is correct on the surface. However, schools, as I find out, are still very 'reserved' in giving parents of children with special needs the access and modifications needed to help the child. This is really a separate topic, I don't want to confuse the issue here.

Replying to 25hourmaid:


Since you said that having differing views does not mean to offend anyone, so likewise.

Rules are made by people. If people don’t question it, just follow it, then it defeat the purpose. Think: in human society, at first, the ‘rule’ is ‘no rule’. Then people encounter difficulty with the ‘rule’ (of no rule), so people say lets have rule; thus there is rule. Thus, rules evolves. Laws need to be reviewed and old laws and rules need to go and make way for new one. Hope I am not too chim here.

Following rule is good. But able to question the rule, and suggest better rule is even better.

The misconception here is a few of you accuse me of whining and trying to make it favourable for me only. That is wrong. You look at what I said before, which one is applicable for me only ? Any reference to that, means you did not care to read my posts carefully.

In your example of the handicapped child. If the rule is strictly no visitor, then the child’s mother cannot even step in during recess. Obvisouly the school allows her, because of the special situation. This is actually an example that fits my arguement. She has a valid reason to back, during recess.

Actually for children of special needs (physical disability and non-physical disability both included) the school SHOULD in fact leverage on the parent or the child’s regular caregiver. Because, the school DOES NOT have sufficient trained personal to care for special needs. (Only parents of children with special needs understand my statement - if you don’t, please don’t even attemp to comment on this.)

So, that school actually give her the flexiblity to go back. It is good. This is what exactly I am talking about.

Why can’t you see my point ? And just want to criticise me because I am bringing up changes ?

You did not offend me, you give me more opportunity to try to point out the ‘current’ set thining, in every school, in every admin managers, that conveniently use a ‘invalid’ reason (security !) to keep parents out.

Each of you may have encountered a type of parent who "like to ask for a lot of things from school" and "speak the most" during parent-teachers meeting, and you may have a certain ‘dislike’ of this type of people. I can understand. But the difference here is, I try to give suggestions and alternatives to the school, which I think is constructive. I also try to involve views and opinions from others - unfortunately those who replied me took it the other extreme.

You have good weekend too.

BeautifulLife:

Amos2010,


Eh, no matter what type of registration process the school takes up, it doesn't solve your 'problem' of staying in the school for more than an hour isn't it?

Thank you. I know your suggestion meant well.

Those are different sets of issues.

One, registration process must distinguish parents and non-parent visitors. This is to enhance the security. Because right now, they (or at least my school) don't check IC. This is independent of whether they allow parent to stay long or not. That is my point.

Second to this, I argue that parents are not security threats to school. I would imagine most of you should agree with me. Otherwise, you and me are all become security threats. That is nonsense. If this (that parent is not a security threat to school) is accepted by all (MOE, school, parents ourselves) then for whatever reason they do not allow us to stay (long) or enter the school, they must give the CORRECT reason, don't just anyhow cite 'security' as the reason. I don't buy it.

Then, thirdly, if they cannot find the right reason for refusing parent to stay (long) or enter the school - then they have to let us so ! If they can convince me of the valid reason or concern, I would accept it. However, I believe at this stage, the reason or concern they can come up with, can be mitigated, i.e., some adjustment can be made to accomodate. What are the adjustment, I don't know yet. Both the school and the parents got to discuss. Like I said before, parents to go school IS with VALID reason. So, we have to work out some arrangement.

By setting a strict rule and start getting admin/operation staff to chase me off, it is going to upset me.

On top of these, yes I agree with you, and KS2ME and others who very thoughtfully said we should let the children learn on their own. True. While that is true, like we have other parent who is pregnant...why they cannot allow ?

I hope people can see this thought process.

Thank you very much !

vivi33:

Parents also human. How do you know is not a threat to other children who is not theirs? There are many criminal who themselves are parents too. So many news of father molesting their daughter how we ensure these parents do not do the same to his child friends?

Sometime ago, there was a female teacher had sex with student. Would you consider teacher a security threat to school ?

:stupid:

So I will just simply answer you that - no, I do not consider parent as security threats to school.

Nebbermind:

maybe these days family matters more complicated, eg, in divorce case whereby one parent may want to kidnap the child and leave th country to deny the other party custody. So schools may try not to be implicated for such things.

This scenario is possible.

If that spouse has legal rights for that child, technically that is not kidnap/abduction. Kidnap is usually refer to abduction for ransom. Kidnap is a very very serious offense in Singapore, can sentense to death.

However, if that spouse does this, that is a sure way to lose custody of that child. If that spouse 'has not lose his/her mind over the stress' then he/she would not resort to this.

Furthermore, this spouse will only 'take away' his/her child. Not another child.

For this scenario, you notice that this spouse is a real parent. His/her IC will be in the system. So, no way the school can detect, or even stop the person from taking the child away (as you correctly point out, the school may not want to get itself involved in the family dispute).

The scenario you describe is a unique one, and I believe it doesn't happen every day. I know, no matter how I try to say that this is a very small chance, no one will be convinced by me that is why I wrote \"this is possible\" up front.

The only way to prevent this, maybe, is to get a Court Order to prevent the spouse from touching the child. If this can be done, then see if the school can uphold the Court Order. But I think it is hard, the school don't have this obligation, nor the resources to do this. My views.

jedamum:

for a start, you can suggest to the school for an upgrade of signing in system using IC-scanning. one of the pri schs i visited used this system, and the security guard correctly pointed out that it was my first visit;

If the security guard does check the IC, this is the desireable result. The guard can tell who visited before.

The current problem which I identifiy is: all visitors just sign in on the visitor log, no need to show any photo ID, and just go in.

tankee:

or that someone with bad intention, pretend to be a parent / guardian to gain entry to the school compound and cause harm?

You must see how I analyse this carefully :

The situation now is, the school regard parents and non-parent visitors as just visitors. Thus your concern above is valid.

Therefore, they always conveniently use one single reason - security to deny parent's visit and presence in school. Which is what bothering me.

In my opinion, schools have to take the security matter seriously and therefore treat different class of visitors differently. It is not by lumping everyone into one category and use one rule and solve their problems. This is not correct.

So, parents - my stand is they are not 'security threat' per se.
Then, the school's security guard must identify parents from non-parents.
This is the discussion I am focusing on now.

So if you follow this trend of thought, what you just said about other visitors pretending to be parents (which I quoted above) is already a pas`se´.

It is exactly what you said, that makes me think I should get the school to do as I suggested: issue some form of paper to distinguish parents from non-parent visitors, and don't ka-chiao the parents, be more vigilent on the non-parent visitors.