MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[limlim]

puff:

limlim:

yeah.. The more I read it, the more I like it..

It is indisputable that the \"connection\" is there and REAL.. like children.. and alma mater.. as pointed out by puff.

But the issue we're discussing now is.. distance OR \"connection\"....

We're not discussing whether there is \"connection\" or not, but whether connection warrants a priority over other merits (like shorter distance for the welfare of kids.)..

If a govt sch is like listed company ... The next successor will be most likely base on capability n not connection . Base on the child capability on p1 enrollment is that wat you wish for?

I say evaluated based on other factors, not capability.

In fact, there is no simple way to evaluate capability at P1 stage, that is why there is no entry test for P1. Other after they receive formal education, then it is reasonable to test them, like Sec sch admission.

That is why other objective factors come in, such as distance.

puff:

Who has priority in p1 registration?
Phase 1 = your children who r still dependent on u
Phase 2a = your children all grown up
Phase 2b (church/clan)= distant relative like cousins/nephews
Phase 2b (PV)= not adopted more like godchildren (they already have their own parents but also like to be your child)
Phase 2c ( >1km)= next door neighbour

Now if you know that you r dying n writing a will who will have priority over your $? For me, I will first give to my children who r still dependent (phase 1) next then will be for my grown up children(phase2a) , after tat for my relative n godchildren (phase 2b) ... If still got more to spare then maybe my next door neighbour ( phase 2c)who has always help me watch my hse n water my plant when I go on holiday :evil: So I see no flaws in current system :siam: :siam: :siam:

Of course if this system stay your next door neighbour will be unhappy n feels that 远亲不如近邻.

If you know that you r dying n writing a will, you are free to decide on whoever you want to give priority, to your $. That is IF, the money is wholly owned by you, and you only.

If everyone have a stake in the money but you merely put it in your pocket for care taking for 6 years, you have no rights to decide on who the money should be pass on to for safe keeping for the next 6 years.

All the stake holder shd have a say. And the fairest way to decide may not be by connection. Maybe the person who stay nearest is the best person to take care of it.

Plus, it is also more environmentally friendly.. as more traveling by foot or bicycle and less car trips on the road.. :siam:

[puff]

limlim:

puff:

If a govt sch is like listed company ... The next successor will be most likely base on capability n not connection . Base on the child capability on p1 enrollment is that wat you wish for?

I say evaluated based on other factors, not capability.

In fact, there is no simple way to evaluate capability at P1 stage, that is why there is no entry test for P1. Other after they receive formal education, then it is reasonable to test them, like Sec sch admission.

That is why other objective factors come in, such as distance.

puff:

Who has priority in p1 registration?
Phase 1 = your children who r still dependent on u
Phase 2a = your children all grown up
Phase 2b (church/clan)= distant relative like cousins/nephews
Phase 2b (PV)= not adopted more like godchildren (they already have their own parents but also like to be your child)
Phase 2c ( >1km)= next door neighbour

Now if you know that you r dying n writing a will who will have priority over your $? For me, I will first give to my children who r still dependent (phase 1) next then will be for my grown up children(phase2a) , after tat for my relative n godchildren (phase 2b) ... If still got more to spare then maybe my next door neighbour ( phase 2c)who has always help me watch my hse n water my plant when I go on holiday :evil: So I see no flaws in current system :siam: :siam: :siam:

Of course if this system stay your next door neighbour will be unhappy n feels that 远亲不如近邻.

If you know that you r dying n writing a will, you are free to decide on whoever you want to give priority, to your $. That is IF, the money is wholly owned by you, and you only.

If everyone have a stake in the money but you merely put it in your pocket for care taking for 6 years, you have no rights to decide on who the money should be pass on to for safe keeping for the next 6 years.

All the stake holder shd have a say. And the fairest way to decide may not be by connection. Maybe the person who stay nearest is the best person to take care of it.

Plus, it is also more environmentally friendly.. as more traveling by foot or bicycle and less car trips on the road.. :siam:

If it is like you say everyone has a stake in the $ then y is the fairest way be base on distance? As you know there r places that is >1 km to 3 pri schs and there r place where the nearest pri sch is 1 -2 km away ( can someone verify is there places where nearest pri sch is more than 2 km away) how then is it fair to the stake holder who has no pri sch near to them.
If that is the path we r going down( to find the fairest way for all stake holder) then I would say our parent time queueing up to register is the fairest. But problem would still arise when parents make their maid q overnite for them :evil:

The only thing I find that it's not very fair in the current system is to those ppl that their ex pri sch has close down hence they have no alma mater.
I would suggest for those grp of parents they should be able to do PV (to get to know the sch culture)in any sch of their choice n then be qualify under 2a. :siam:

MOE should aim to let all that has benefitted fr our pri sch edu system to be able to qualify under 2a ( isn't this also a way to put Singaporean first before PR/ foreigner) as for those parents whose pri sch is too far fr their house they could always choose to move nearer for their children well being or if they feel that their pri sch is not popular enuff they can always aim for phase 2b /2c.

[limlim]

puff:

If it is like you say everyone has a stake in the $ then y is the fairest way be base on distance?

I'm not going to repeat all those arguments again..

All along, we have been debating on distance vs connections.. and there are different views from different pples.

The arguments \"for\" distance and the arguments \"for\" connections is all over the place liao..

Then, you point out that alumni is like children to the school(which is not wrong, as the school is commonly known as alma mater) and appears like a new argument \"for\" alumni..

I just point out that your post simply present the connection in a new perspective (within this thread), but did not deviate from the fact that it still fall under \"connection\", and does not add to the case \"for\" connection in the distance vs connection debate.

[limlim]

puff:

As you know there r places that is >1 km to 3 pri schs and there r place where the nearest pri sch is 1 -2 km away ( can someone verify is there places where nearest pri sch is more than 2 km away) how then is it fair to the stake holder who has no pri sch near to them.

If they don't stay near any school means they don't stay near any school. Any school to them is inconvenient. Their alumni is not necessarily the next nearest anyway.. so to them it is neither fair nor unfair as far as distance is concerned.

puff:

MOE should aim to let all that has benefitted fr our pri sch edu system to be able to qualify under 2a ( isn't this also a way to put Singaporean first before PR/ foreigner) as for those parents whose pri sch is too far fr their house they could always choose to move nearer for their children well being or if they feel that their pri sch is not popular enuff they can always aim for phase 2b /2c.

Why not those who already benefited give other citizens a chance instead of hogging on to that privilege?

Putting citizen first can be achieved directly via citizenship priority if they want to. Putting alumni first can put another citizen who stays nearby into disadvantage. There is no real citizenship priority by way of alumni priority.

[vicki]

IMHO, the fairest method of them all would be via the good old 'tikam' method.

[dorisp]

vicki:

IMHO, the fairest method of them all would be via the good old 'tikam' method.

Oh yes \"tikam\"....those good old days !

Oop! Wouldn't this reveal my age? :yikes:

[limlim]

vicki:

IMHO, the fairest method of them all would be via the good old 'tikam' method.

Yes it is fair..

But I'll rather go for something that has other tangible benefits..

Like friendly to the environment..

and less traffic congestion.. everyone, including the non-schooling population.. benefits..

Less stress on the already over crowding public transport system..

If I am the policy maker, I might juz take a break from the stressful debating between what is fair or not to different groups, alumni, clans, GRLs etc..

And look at what we can do for mother earth......

Or encourage healthy lifestyle for primary school kids, like WALKING.. :evil: :evil:

[phtthp]

Straits Times, 3 March 2012


P1 priority: Cut out parent volunteering, not affiliation

I WAS educated in a convent school for 10 years, and am delighted that my daughter is as well (in a different convent school). I am just as gratified that my son is enrolled in a mission school.


So the view in Tuesday's editorial ('Worrying about Primary 1') that affiliation should be ideally restricted to children whose parents had attended a school of choice or who are currently on its staff is, well, worrying.


For many parents and families like mine, religious affiliation is the primary reason for choosing the schools for our children.


But in the editorial's ideal world, my children cannot receive enrolment priority via affiliation in a mission school because my daughter would have to enrol in the convent school where I studied - which no longer exists.


One creed of the mission schools when they were established was to accept all Catholic pupils, an option that is getting more and more tenuous today. For parents like me, the school of choice is not an elite one or one that is academically superior, but a mission school whose environment embraces the fundamental values of my faith even as it educates the children and embraces pupils of all races and faiths.

If we must eliminate an avenue of priority, it should be the parent volunteer system which smacks of elitism, favouring well-off families who can afford a stay-at-home mother.


The system further disadvantages single parents who already are handicapped in raising a family.

I say this as a stay-at-home mother who is a parent volunteer in her son's school, after he enrolled.

Volunteering for 50 hours in a school, without guarantee of a child getting a place, is subtracting 50 hours of a parent's time which is better spent with her child (or children), perhaps on more meaningful activities - community volunteering activities, if you wish

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_773078.html

[phtthp]

Straits Times, 3 March 2012

Respect and cherish alumni contributions

SCHOOL alumni should NOT be denied priority.
An alumnus' contribution does not begin when he signs up as an alumni association member, but starts when he is enrolled at school.


Most students contributed in some way: achieving good results, winning awards at public events or upholding the values of the school through good behaviour. Which is why calling an alumnus a 'sleeping member' is wrong.

In my last year in secondary school, we worked as a family to raise funds for a new building, even though we knew we would not benefit tangibly as we were leaving.


It did not matter as many of us knew that one day, our children may enjoy the fruits of our labour. Tradition and pride in one's alma mater should not be ignored and removed to satisfy others.


The Education Ministry should ensure that an alumnus' value is honoured and cherished.

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_773075.html

[keroppi]

Yes, cut out PV, affiliation and Grassroots … but keep Alumni. These are stake-holders of school.


For me, our kids were enrolled in our alma mater - the traditions, the values I grew up are still a very big part of the school holistic education - since my school days, my parents were very supportive of the school programmes, donating generously to the school building fund, now I find myself doing the same thing. Every funfair, every fund raising, I would volunteer my time and money.

It’s a privilege to know that my children will be imbibing the same Christian values while receiving their education in the every same schools we graduated from.