MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

General comments and chit-chat, or tell us how we can improve KiasuParents.com
Locked
Ed1975
OrangeBelt
OrangeBelt
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Nov 23,

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by Ed1975 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:31 pm

Hopefully Minister Heng dont just give lip service

gvyong
BlueBelt
BlueBelt
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Nov 22,
Total Likes:1

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by gvyong » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:25 am

limlim wrote:By giving priority to alumni whose reason is "strong belief/tradition" etc.. aren't you hindering integration?

Group of the same type stick together. (pardon the poor English). We are religious A, we are clan B, we are this and that more than we are Singapore.

Why don't we promote integration and let different groups understand the culture of each other better.

Whatever it is, to want one's kid to follow a certain tradition is one's personal choice.

To have a policy that promotes integration and minimize the culture and religious differentiation is the govt's job.


I'm trying to envision the concept of "integration"....trying hard... :imconstipated: ...still cannot...

Actually, my post is to propose that all of us examine our beliefs/culture vs the focus of the religion-affliated/clan/SAP schools, before trying to get our children into these schools, because the alumni & their children going to these schools are very aligned with the core beliefs/culture of their alma maters.

So, for example (example only hor..pls dun flame me.. :duck: )
- an aetheist should not attend church and try to get a letter from the pastor for 2B registration;
- a mostly English-speaking family should not try to get their kids into a SAP school and force HCL upon their kids.

Such efforts are fake and the sufferers may likely be the kids who may become ostracized in these schools because they do not share the same religion or speak Chinese MT fluently enough, for example :cry:

I have no issue with practicing Catholic families wanting their kids to attend CHS or CHIJ, for example.

For past alumni of these schools who are not of the religion/culture (but managed to get in), if their experience there haven't been enough for them to join the religion or think/speak in Chinese instinctively (which will influence their children), they should seriously consider whether to maintain their legacies. It well may be this category of alumni who are causing the shortage of space in these schools.

Perhaps stricter controls on alumni priority may be the key, e.g. requirement for active church/temple membership &/or Chinese MT proficiency tests for ALL alumni who wish to claim 2A priority.

ahbombom
YellowBelt
YellowBelt
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 16,

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by ahbombom » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:40 am

I read with interest the views on this topic and would just like to share my thoughts. I note that the subject is on alumni but i'm just writing on phase 2A in general.

Whether we were lucky that our parents sent us to an existing popular or non popular school, we did spend 6 years of our childhood in our primary school, benefitting, participating and contributing. I said contributing as I believe a school does not become what it is (good or bad) without its students. In addition, there is the heritage and spirit that have been cultivated and felt strongly about. To me, these 6 years spent means more, for example, than the PV hours clocked before P1 registration or religious affiliation. Perhaps that is why the policy is such that old boys/girls are in category A of phase 2. An uncap (subject to total vacancies) phase 2A supports this distinction. An old boy/girl remains an old boy/girl regardless of where they stay. I hesitate to judge which old boy/girl is more worthy or deserving of a priority than another, but a distinction can be made between someone who joined the alumni and someone who don't.

Or perhaps the policy thinking could be because of the historical set up of the schools as someone has suggested.

As the policy is set, it then boils down to personal choices assuming parents are sensible on what is best for their child. This is not a policy matter. The consequences of the choices and resulting ground sentiments provide feedback to review or fine tune the policy. This does not necessarily mean the policy thinking is "wrong" as no permutation can please everyone.

It is true that not everyone has an existing alma mater. There is indeed the distinction of having another choice versus none. However, it is what it is, and given that the school ceased to exist, the consideration for giving old boys/girls priority ceased to be relevant too. Given that most schools were merged or closed due to low enrollment, perhaps the impact is immaterial going by the preference for "popular" school view, which I support. If the schools still exist, it is highly likely that they are not favored by the old boys/girls in any case.

limlim
KiasuGrandMaster
KiasuGrandMaster
Posts: 6939
Joined: Mon Aug 02,
Total Likes:108

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by limlim » Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:47 pm

When we discuss about policies related to P1 registration.. usually a few factor are considered. (Did I miss out any?)

1. Meritocracy.
2. Best Interest of the students. Majority of the students.

For (1), clearly, is demonstrated by P2B.
For Alumni who made notable contributions, clearly they deserve to fall under (1) also, and these pple would fall under P2A.

Now, the big debate here, I believes, stems from whether sleeping alumni deserve any merit, to be accorded priority for admission. And, whether the magnitude of "merit"(if any) goes above that of consideration for best interest of the students. Hence, it is debatable whether they deserve a place in P2A.

Perhaps tweak the phase criteria such that
P2A = <1km
P2B = 1~2km
P2C = >2km
And within each phase, Alumni and PVs, GRLs, clans etc have priority over public or the un-related.

This way, alumni still get priority, but not above that of kids who stay near to the school. That is what some of us feel is a "fairer" system.

For (2), obviously, is demonstrated by distance priority. (% of student in popular schools is fixed. But % of students in nearby school can be improved by tweaking the policy)

I believe these 2 are the basis for the formulation of the priority system. Once we identify the basic principles, it is easier to see which priority system have more merit over the others

It would be good if we can add in 1 more factor,

3. Impact and Benefit to general community.

We can expect to see less cars moving on the road across the island, less pollution, less congestion, less carbon footprint etc.. If distance is the first priority.

lukemommy
GreenBelt
GreenBelt
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Nov 24,

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by lukemommy » Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:10 pm

My alma mater - Nan Chiau Pri wasn't a popular school during the 80's. It was located at Kim Yam Road, you have to walk quite a far bit from the main road to the school. But the students there at that time produced stellar PSLE results , 100% pass almost every year (but funny, don't know why not popular), however, if i am not wrong, had to shift to SengKang in order to 'survive' due to low enrollment during late 80's.

Most of my sister's classmates and my classmates went to good secondary schools. My sister went to SCGS and i went to MGS. Most of my classmates went to either RVH, Chinese High (now known as HCI), RGS, NYGH , Cresent Girls and so on....

Now, 30 years down the road, Nan Chiau Pri school has become one of the most sought-after pri schools. Is it my luck to have studied in Nan Chiau Pri School? My Home then was more than 2km from Nan Chiau, in fact, i had classmates who lived in Holland, Ghim Moh and Farrer Road, more than don't know how many Kms away from school. Who would predict Nan Chiau to become a popular school now?
Who knows those 'now not popular pri schools' in near future will become popular due to the good results produced by the students and by then, you will be proud to be the alumni of the pri school.

To me, just let the current P1 registration phases stay as it is coz it's impossible for MOE to please everyone. i think MOE had done a good job by giving all Singapore Citizens the priority to enrol first. The 'Singaporean First' policy serves the P1 registration well imo.


Khamullotr
OrangeBelt
OrangeBelt
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Mar 31,

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by Khamullotr » Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:45 pm

Any clarifications from MOE on this alumni matter? Hope they can give a stand soon. Many of us are just waiting to see if there are any changes before we plan our next move.

ChiefKiasu
Site Admin
Posts: 15824
Joined: Mon Sep 03,
Location: Singapore
Total Likes:320

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by ChiefKiasu » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:28 pm

Khamullotr wrote:Any clarifications from MOE on this alumni matter? Hope they can give a stand soon. Many of us are just waiting to see if there are any changes before we plan our next move.


Even if MOE makes any changes, I doubt it will take effect immediately. That would raise a huge hue and cry from parents who are negatively affected by its decision, which I doubt the ministry is prepared to address. A number of schools also fear the dilution of their culture if old boys/girls find it difficult to send their children to their alma mater.

My advice would be to plan within the current framework instead of waiting for something to happen.

nms1
BlackBelt
BlackBelt
Posts: 866
Joined: Thu Nov 05,
Total Likes:8

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by nms1 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:13 am

I agree - I think making any widespread change to the 2013 registration process at this stage would be political suicide on the part of the government. They got away with a very late change last year which only impacted PRs which I felt was very unfair, if they did the same to citizens - watch out!

janet88
KiasuGrandMaster
KiasuGrandMaster
Posts: 40302
Joined: Tue Oct 20,
Total Likes:131

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by janet88 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:45 am

nms1 wrote:I agree - I think making any widespread change to the 2013 registration process at this stage would be political suicide on the part of the government. They got away with a very late change last year which only impacted PRs which I felt was very unfair, if they did the same to citizens - watch out!

The immediate effect change to give SCs priority last year was unexpected.
But it was to show that Singaporeans come first. However, to make a change regarding Phase 2A would cause lots of unhappiness.

Phase 2C
OrangeBelt
OrangeBelt
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 29,

Re: MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alu

Post by Phase 2C » Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:33 pm

I would like to share and feedback some of the problems faced by the Phase 2C applicants when they are applying a place in their preferred school.

According to the Lianhe Zaobao article "Zaobao survey: Most parents think the Primary 1 registration system should be changed" dated 14.6.2012, the priority given to the alumni and parents volunteer in Phase 2A and Phase 2B had drawn the most criticisms. Since the implementation of Phase 2A and Phase 2B in 1999, a lot of parents have been complaining that even though their preferred schools are within 1 or 2 km from their homes, they have not been successful in getting a place for their child. These problems have been long standing and have resulted in much grievances and frustration among some parents.

According to the current primary 1 registration system, the school will take in all the applicants qualified under Phase 1 and Phase 2A. Thereafter, the remaining vacancies will be allocated equally to the applicants qualified under Phase 2B and Phase 2C. As evident from past years primary 1 registration statistics, half or more of the vacancies in most popular schools and including some neighborhood schools, had been taken up by applicants under Phase 1 and Phase 2A. Leaving behind only very limited vacancies to be shared among the applicants under Phase 2B and Phase 2C.

In order to avoid this unfair situation whereby only very limited vacancies are left after Phase 2A, I urge the MOE to review the priority of certain groups and also restrict the children whose parents are non active alumni members under Phase 2A. The proposed adjustments to Phase 1 and Phase 2 are as the follows:

1) Phase 1 (for a child who has a sibling studying in the primary school of choice) to remain and renamed as Phase 1A

2) Introduce NEW phase 1B to include the following groups previously in Phase 2A :

-- 2A(1)(b) For a child whose parent is a member of School Advisory / Management Committee. Priority given is to acknowledge the active school involvement of these parents.

-- 2A(2)(a) For a child whose sibling has studied in the primary school of choice. Priority given is to be consistent with the current Phase 1 - sibling priority.

-- 2A(2)(b) For a child whose parent is a staff member of the primary school of choice. Priority given is to acknowledge the active school involvement of these parents.

3) With the above reclassification to NEW Phase 1B, the following groups stay put in Phase 2A :

-- 2A(1)(a) For a child whose parent is a former student of the primary school and has joined the alumni association as a member not later than 30 June in the year of Primary 1 registration

-- 2A(2)(a) For a child whose parent has studied in the primary school of choice

4) Once Phase 1A and NEW Phase 1B allocation are completed, I suggest the MOE to allocate the remaining vacancies equally amongst Phase 2A, Phase 2B and Phase 2C (except for Phase 2C supplementary). In the case where the number of applicants in each phase exceeds the vacancies, the school will have to conduct balloting exercise and priority will be given based on proximity from home to school.

These proposed changes will have the following benefits:

1) As reported in the above mentioned Zaobao survey, some parents think that the alumni priority is a disguised form of "patrimonialism". That is because as long as there was a family member who had studied in the school of choice, the family members of all the future generations would definitely have a place in that school of choice. In addition, if priority is given to alumni on an enlarged basis, the school will suffer from lack of diversity.

2) One of the important points to consider in choosing a primary school is the distance between school and home. Choosing a school near the home would mean shorter traveling time, lower transport costs and more opportunities for the parents to take part in school activities and henceforth contribute to the school.

3) Equal allocation of vacancies amongst Phase 2A, Phase 2B and Phase 2C will ensure direct and fair competition. Only under fair competition will the unsuccessful Phase 2C applicants 'admit defeat' willingly.

While parents applaud the recent changes by the MOE to give Singapore citizens absolute priority over permanent residents in the various registration phases, some parents think the MOE should make further changes. The main reason being that very limited vacancies are left for the ever increasing number of Phase 2C applicants.

I hope that the MOE will look into the problems of Phase 2C applicants, while trying to retain the personal interest of applicants in other phases, so as to let the Phase 2C applicants have a fair chance to compete.

Locked