LOLMum:

so the best is after phase 1, whatever vacancies left, split it equally among 2a, 2b and 2c.

:goodpost:

that's great to hear.


Surely, non-alumni parents are also susceptible to this infection - but many don't because their places have been deprived by inactive alumni who are probably immune!

Nebbermind:

limlim:

that's a valid point for consideration.....

for this.. the alumni will have to be active member right.. clearly this benefits the school and the child.. then the focus will shift to \"active alumni\".....

For some of the people I know, the payback time happened when the children are back in their alma mater and there's a renewal of the school spirit in them. And sometimes this spirit even infect the spouses!!

Juz sharing...

Let's not detract from the issue of ANY alumnus getting an unlimited direct entry to the school.


The argument here is not about an underdog poor alumnus getting an upper hand over the rich non-alumnus. The reverse can also occur: i.e. an alumnus staying in Sentosa cove getting into NYPS, and edging out a non-alumnus ALREADY living in a 3-rm Farrer HDB for the last 20 years.

It is about the alumnus (rich and poor) being prioritized over the non-alumnus (both rich and poor). The opportunity for entry is unequal and without limits, and that is my grouse.

Continue to give priority to alumnus for those who feel strongly about it, but do impose a limit on the numbers. When there is an over-subscription, prioritize them based on some criteria (activity in school, distance, etc).

castanst:

absolut_vodka:

Provided you first have the means to upgrade to farrer road 3rm flat.
[quote=\"wayne lai\"]And when you are NOT an alumnus of any popular primary school (which is the majority of SC), you can forget about aspiring for your children?

With a cap on Alumni admissions, I may still move from my 3-rm CCK flat to a 3rm Farrer Road HDB and sign up as a PV/GRL give my children a decent shot in getting in.

With alumni taking up the majority of the spaces left, I stand little chance...

Agree.. ! check out the price difference btween a 3 rm hdb in CCK and farrer Rd !!
isnt it sad?? if the whole system is about $$$$$..[/quote]

And when you are NOT an alumnus of any popular primary school (which is the majority of SC), you can forget about aspiring for your children?


With a cap on Alumni admissions, I may still move from my 3-rm CCK flat to a 3rm Farrer Road HDB and sign up as a PV/GRL give my children a decent shot in getting in.

With alumni taking up the majority of the spaces left, I stand little chance...

castanst:

Agree that this is not the perfect system but will it be so right if the system weighs on the amount of $$ you have in your bank account????

At least for now if you are an alumnus of Nanyang you still have a chance to send your child there even if you live in a small 3 rm hdb at CCK !..

Alumni is prioritized before grassroots/PV without any cap.


In future, there may be a situation (e.g. dragon year applicants) where the alumni takes up ALL the remaining spaces in a popular school. There will not be any spaces allocated for anyone else, regardless whether you are SC, PV, grassroots, or stay within 1km!

This intake will be siblings and alumni. Period.

Bring the grassroots/PV argument in ONLY after we have imposed an alumni CAP. We should continue to focus on old boys/girls until MOE has done something about this....

janet_lee88:

The issue should not be focused on old boys/girls anymore.
As of this year's P1 registration, Phase 2C will have another class of just 30 SCs once occupied by SC & PRs. New policy is with immediate effect, so much so that PRs do not have time to figure out what step to take next.

If there is any more unhappiness, perhaps look at grassroots. What does that group have to do with children's education ?

Hektor,


I totally second what you propose.

Having a cap on the alumni phase will achieve 2 immediate aims:

1)It will definitely free up spaces for the public (both SC and PR), especially those who stay near the school.
2) It will help to reduce the no. of 'sleeping' alumni - which both active alumni and general public agree they should not be getting a free ticket (akin to a 'birth right').

In the long run, having a more active alumni base will benefit the school better. And the overall number of spaces opened up will far exceed what the latest ruling on PRs can achieve.

I believe MOE should decide on the allocation % and most of the rules for this new alumni phase, and not leave everything to the school's discretion. This way, the school staff will not have to respond to direct pressure from disgruntled inactive 'connected' parents.

Hektor:

My 2 cents on the issue for discussion. Basically, there is no way to please everyone, because demand exceeds supply for the good schools, and it's just human nature to want the best for your child.

But i think there are a few basic principles that we can all agree to:
1. Practical consideration should matter e.g. logistic, distance
2. The system should have some degree of fairness e.g contribution should matter, but those without contribution should not have priority
3. Accept that there will be some degree of uncertainty as demand exceeds supply ultimately and it is left to God's will / luck as to whether your child can get in

My suggestion is to tweak the system into 4 phases.

Phase 1:
To stay as it is. I think this is probably the one phase that, (maybe not all) but most can agree that it makes sense for siblings to study in the same school for practical reasons.


Phase 2:
All the connected people (alumni, PV, religious association, clan, etc.) to be in this phase. Number of places capped at 50% of remaining vacancies after phase 1. This guarantees that there will be a reasonable amount of places left for the general public (i.e. those without connections).

After reading through so many posts, i think many of these connected stakeholder groups have made and continue to make contribution to the schools and this should be taken into account.

However, I would suggest tweaking it such that:

The school gets to make its own decisions on how many slots it wants to give to each connected group. This is because the school would know best the relative contribution of each group. The school should then work with the various stakeholders so that each group of stakeholder does not recommend too many people into this phase.

1. Alumni or old boys/girls would require a letter from the alumni committee recommending them for this phase. This would put the onus on the alumni network for recommending people who have made contribution to the school. As per my point above, the school should work with the alumni committee to decide on the number they should recommend. For schools with very active contribution from alumni, they should allow more recommendation from the alumni.

This will also mitigate one of the often heard complaints about unfairness whereby an old boy / girl who has not contributed or even connected with the school for more than 10 years should just walks in with a report book and have priority over many others.

2. Religious, clan associations who have contributed much should have more recommendation based on the school decision, but those where the link is weak should not continue having priority based on the school decision.

3. PV - left to the school discretion as to whether they want to continue having PV. e.g. if a school does not have an active contributing alumni, but needs manpower that is contributed through PV, then i would think PV should have higher priority over alumni.

4. Scrap the GRL because i feel their main objective should be to lead and serve the community at large and not the school specifically, so i'm not sure dangling a primary school priority registration carrot necessary leads to the right kind of volunteers.

Another way to give priority to specific stakeholder group is for the school to grant extra ballot slips to groups that have contributed more rather than do it through the recommendation method (which could lead to a lot more paperwork). e.g. if a school thinks the alumni has contributed more, then maybe all alumni should get 2 ballot tickets and a PV will get 1.


Phase 3:
General public - SC and PR.


Phase 4 (if there are still vacancies):
General public - Sc, PR and Foreigners.

Within each phase, i think the current balloting framework should still apply.

These are just some ideas i have, there are probably many implications that have not come to my mind yet.

I reiterate my point about alumni prioritization - we should CONTINUE to have Phase 2A. It can remain prioritized ahead of P2B and P2C.


However, there should be a CAP to the numbers. Either a percentage of the total intake, or an absolute number which MOE should decide on.

When there is an over-subscription of alumni, then subject the applicants to the same prioritization rules - i.e. alumni within 1km, before 2km, before those outside 2km. (This should also help reduce the incidences of a child traveling unnecessarily long distances to school).

In fact, you could even introduce a rule to prioritize active alumni above inactive ones - the school and alumni can set such criteria. Either in terms on time contribution (similar to PV hrs) or funding (a little sensitive here..). This way, you can sieve out the good active alumni from the inactive ones.

IF you have been an active alumni, and you stay within 1km - you should have no fear....

absolut_vodka:

I'm sorry - at some point if you were a student of a certain school that is not govt funded, you would have been subjected to fund raising so definitely not true that old boys/gals do not contribute financially to the school. In all likelihood, those who have little 'affiliation' with their schools probably will not enroll their child(ren) in the school either (or these may be singles). Those with child(ren) and come from schools with strong alumni network will definitely continue their affiliations with the schools in whatever forms. Like someone said, try asking an ACS boy not to send their sons back to ACS, its practically impossible! I have a galfren who was from nanyang primary who just had a son - she has the choice of nanyang primary and ACS(J) - guess which school they are choosing for their son?

It comes back to the point again - why did the particular school become good or popular? It is because of her past, and thus its contributions from the old boys/gals!

wayne lai:

I agree with you. I did not challenge the priority for Alumni.

I only questioned the numbers - and I am certain that not all alumni who gets in via 2A are of the same commitment you mentioned.

In fact, I dare say that more than 50% of the alumni do not contribute financially or non-financially to their alma mater.
[quote=\"Freesia\"]Dear Wayne,

Alumni contributes to the school. Be it financially or non financially. At many schools like RGPS, SCGS, ACS, MGS, the Alumni fund certain programmes and even plan and conduct certain extra programe for the children. They are closely bonded. They takes care of one another even they are on the street if they know they are from the same school. Thus, the contribution may not be direct. This also explains why many people wants to get in. Versus one who just lives close by; the parent has put in at least 6 years if not 10 years of their life to the school and also able to share the history of the school.

[/quote]

Exactly my point! And it is already happening. We should free up the 2A spaces first for both SCs and PRs.


IF despite doing this, the SCs are being edged out by PRs, then perhaps we should introduce this new SC rule. It's moot anyway, cos this has already been announced.

dorisp:

wayne lai:

Yes, but the rule against PRs mean they are disadvantaged when choosing popular schools.

We should try to maintain the principle on fairness and encouraging social mobility based on ability.

PRs should at least feel that they have a shot at getting to a popular school. As it is, they already have half the balloting chance of SG. Making it absolute is telling them they do not stand a chance, and telling them to go fly kite elsewhere.

With the current system where P2A is not capped, even SCs are disadvantaged when choosing schools near their home, not to mention PRs.

I agree with you. I did not challenge the priority for Alumni.


I only questioned the numbers - and I am certain that not all alumni who gets in via 2A are of the same commitment you mentioned.

In fact, I dare say that more than 50% of the alumni do not contribute financially or non-financially to their alma mater.

Freesia:

Dear Wayne,

Alumni contributes to the school. Be it financially or non financially. At many schools like RGPS, SCGS, ACS, MGS, the Alumni fund certain programmes and even plan and conduct certain extra programe for the children. They are closely bonded. They takes care of one another even they are on the street if they know they are from the same school. Thus, the contribution may not be direct. This also explains why many people wants to get in. Versus one who just lives close by; the parent has put in at least 6 years if not 10 years of their life to the school and also able to share the history of the school.

Yes, but the rule against PRs mean they are disadvantaged when choosing popular schools.


We should try to maintain the principle on fairness and encouraging social mobility based on ability.

PRs should at least feel that they have a shot at getting to a popular school. As it is, they already have half the balloting chance of SG. Making it absolute is telling them they do not stand a chance, and telling them to go fly kite elsewhere.

FQW:

wayne lai:

The problems we face with non-Singaporeans are due to their poor integration. The best way to integrate PRs into our society is get them into our Primary schools when they are YOUNG!

Err, even with the new rule, PR kids still get into our Primary schools when they are YOUNG.

wayne lai:

With this new law against PRs, only a few more places are released for SCs. If only we were to CAP the number of alumni (e.g. to maybe 25% of available places), allocate the rest based on Phase 2B criteria, proximity, etc, we will have a lot more places available for both SCs and PRs.

If MOE is to cap alumni priority, I for one will think that it's only right they cap P2B as well. Give all these freed vacancies from the earlier 2 phrases to P2C. Why cap one (priority) phrase but not another?

Yes, I agree that we should also cap 2A1, 2A2, etc - so that more spaces are freed to 2B/2C! There is already a cap for 2B -> the remaining spaces after 2A2 are shared equally btw 2B and 2C!