sembgal:

The entire p1 registration system should be revamped. It not only caught the attention of the Education Minister to monitor the situation but the limited number of vacancies available in certain schools has made the situation worse. Nevertheless, in the case of twins in 2C, will the school accommodate that extra by allocating in one more vacancy for the registration procedure as what happened to phase 2B? By splitting the pie to 1 number difference higher for 2B, the school has to take away part of the pie from 2C to accommodate the twin? What logic is this?

The logic applied is that phase 2B is of a higher priority so registration is carried out before 2C. It does not always lead to it having more places in the end. In fact sometimes due to low take-up in 2B, 2C gets more places - RGPS this year is a case in point. The ballot is used as a tie-breaker but if that cannot be applied fairly a phase 2C place is taken up.

Fried chicken:

kasparov:

[quote=\"ChiefKiasu\"]

You do have a valid point that if a ballot is conducted for this situation in Phase 2B, the singleton parents will be disadvantaged compared with the twins. Perhaps this was the consideration of MOE in waiving the ballot. But that decision also affected people in Phase 2C, because there would be a high chance that Phase 2C won't lose a place since it is highly unlikely that the twins' ball will be picked last. Imagine a scenario when the situation involves not twins, but triplets or quadruplets. Phase 2C will not only lose 1 place, but 2 or 3 places, if the ballot is not held in Phase 2B.

It seems that the pie is limited and MOE is best able to explain why they have not absorbed the extra places.

It's interesting because if this exact same scenario had happened in 2C, the school would have to create an extra space for the twin. Why they couldn't just do this for 2B instead of taking away from 2C is baffling.[/quote]Creating space perhaps only as a last resort. MOE may have a directive to keep total enrolment as constant as far as possible. There is no strict quota system for each phase, only a priority system. If a ballot cannot be conducted fairly, space is taken from the next phase.

ChiefKiasu:

kasparov:

Since the twins are 'guaranteed' a place when such a ballot is conducted, it is no longer a fair ballot because it is skewed in their favour. It is like having a loaded die or 'ball off to one side' as you said so no point having a ballot. In another scenario where there are say 40 applicants balloting for 35 places, the chances of twins being excluded completely are there. The only thing the ballot rules have assured are that the twins stay together and if they get a place, they deprive singletons of another balloted place....

You do have a valid point that if a ballot is conducted for this situation in Phase 2B, the singleton parents will be disadvantaged compared with the twins. Perhaps this was the consideration of MOE in waiving the ballot. But that decision also affected people in Phase 2C, because there would be a high chance that Phase 2C won't lose a place since it is highly unlikely that the twins' ball will be picked last. Imagine a scenario when the situation involves not twins, but triplets or quadruplets. Phase 2C will not only lose 1 place, but 2 or 3 places, if the ballot is not held in Phase 2B.

It seems that the pie is limited and MOE is best able to explain why they have not absorbed the extra places.

ChiefKiasu:

XXXX:

Firstly kudos to you Chief for conceding pirate's point so gracefully above, it's a lesson for other forum warriors! In my short time here, I've learnt to listen to pirate as he or she knows his stuff. He is probably more well versed on the pros and cons of the P1 registration process than most ministers and civil servants.


As to the balloting mechanism - I noticed today that if your ball is off to one side (stop sniggering at the back) then it won't get into the selection channel for the bucket to pick it up. Some major swirling of the pool of balls is required. Probably effects ballots with small numbers more, but it was alarming waiting for our ball to move back to the selection channel (in the middle) - which it did, thankfully, some 80% through the ballot. :celebrate:

It's logic that appeals to me, not face. pirate did elegantly explained why the process for handling the twins situation this year in MGS and ACSJ may not be fair to parents in Phase 2C, and I do see his logic.

The strange thing is, if there is a ballot, the twins are guaranteed a place in the school, regardless of whether their ball is picked first or last. If their ball is picked early, then one of the other singletons in Phase 2B will be balloted out, and no additional place is taken from Phase 2C. If their ball is picked last, then every child in Phase 2B will get a place, and Phase 2C will lose 1 place.

Given the furore over the priority schemes, such scenarios add to the woes of parents in Phase 2C. No, I don't think MOE made the right call to not conduct a ballot in Phase 2B for those schools, given that there is a high chance the outcome could be quite different for parents in Phase 2C. It is just not right. I can understand if MOE made this decision to make it easier for Phase 2B parents and the schools, but people in Phase 2C should not be penalised for taking this short cut.

PS. BTW, XXXX, if I read your post correctly, I should congratulate you and your child for winning the ballot today!

Since the twins are 'guaranteed' a place when such a ballot is conducted, it is no longer a fair ballot because it is skewed in their favour. It is like having a loaded die or 'ball off to one side' as you said so no point having a ballot. In another scenario where there are say 40 applicants balloting for 35 places, the chances of twins being excluded completely are there. The only thing the ballot rules have assured are that the twins stay together and if they get a place, they deprive singletons of another balloted place.

As to whether it is fair for the 2c applicants, it is unfair insofar as they were not forewarned. The priority scheme accords priority to the earlier phases and the availability of places depends on the number of places taken up in the earlier phase. You could say that in the popular schools for this year especially, the 2b+c phases have been at the mercy of the 1+2a phases.

sweetbaby:

It's not fair to ACSj phase c parents if the extra spot taken from phase c. as pointed by pirate, if the twins was pick first or anytime before last, a singleton will be balloted out instead. Will MOE or school allow the same leeway if this happens at phase 2c?anyone knows for sure that phase c slots decreases or a new spot was created?

However unlikely it is to happen in a ballot, the possibility that the twins are picked last STILL EXISTS and herein lies the dilemma. MOE has perhaps mandated or allowed the flexibility for admission of all applicants in these borderline situations. Who knows we might get this fleshed out as a future modification to the P1 registration balloting rules since it happened to at least three schools this time round.

As for whether it is fair to take the extra spot from phase 2c, it is also a difficult question. You could see it from the perspective of all schools having finite places and short of creating a place which is a no-no at his stage of registration as far as policy directions go, the next straw is picked from the 2c pool. The 2b phase is seen as having higher priority than the 2c, so there you go. Having said that, when a de-registration takes place from earlier phases, the place goes to 2c instead of 2b.

Good question about how MOE will resolve the situation if this occurs in 2c. They may be forced to create a place in order to be consistent i.e. a ballot outcome in 2c is no different from other phases.

The perceived injustice by the 2c parents could be due to the fact that how the conundrum was to be resolved was not spelled out in black and white prior to the ballot so therefore admitting all applicants and limiting their 2c chances thus seems more 'concessionary' or 'arbitrary'.

koppie:

No balloting at acsp too! Just confirmed with school.

Twins? Or did they not have more than 24? If I remember correctly, they began with 23 vacancies in phase 2B.