MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[laughingcat]

IDad:

laughingcat:

[quote=\"IDad\"]

Are we encouraging a society that ignores its roots :roll:

有没有搞错 eh. In this era, still looking at ones roots?

Our President Tan don't even visit his grandparents grave leh. We are a society of doing it for oneself. Gone are those days leh.

没有搞错. Just because you want to ignore your roots doesn't mean I want to follow in your suit. And do I care if President Tan doesn't visit his grandpa's grave (do state your source just for reference sake)? No, I dun really care if an individual chooses to forget his/ her roots

However, if it the society or institution that I'm living in, yes, I will care.[/quote]That is the point. If the top or policy maker don't bother, what's the point of lamenting? Plain waste of time. Might as well make do with whatever resources and make the best of it. In that sense, makes one feel more contended and have a positive outlook in life.

Quote by Lao Tze.......\"Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.\"

[laughingcat]

Have a chill. :imcool:


“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours”

[IDad]

puff:

IDad:

[quote=\"laughingcat] Really :siao: lah.


Are we encouraging the society to have school only for \"Tan\"? Mixed blood cannot because not pure? :siao: don't know what is all this driving at if that is the case, then might as well self fund your own school then. No need to have government support then. :yikes:

That's my point.... :siao: right? To me, 'Alumni scheme' is exactly propogating the same thing, ie a school only for the `Tans' , only in this case its not Alumni connection but clan and church connection.

My post was directed at those who alluded `Alumni' is akin to `own children', thus is justified to be accorded earlier priority and `clan/ church' are `distant relative'. I disagree: In fact, without clan and church support in the beginning, such schools wouldn't have existed and no way would there be alumni. And furthermore, many clans and churches are still contibuting time,and programes (not just money through donation/ fund raising) to the running of such schools. So no way clan or church memebers are `distant relatives'....they are in fact direct ancestors and applicable to all down the line....

Are we encouraging a society that ignores its roots :roll:

church/clan members is like distant relative coz u r not the founder himself but only related to the founder.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

To me this relationship is equally important as compared to Alumni [phase 2A (1)] because to qualify under clan/ church, they must display commitment or subscribe to the same belief as the founder. No way would a `distant relative' bother to go through such trouble and thus their relationship definitely runs deep. And if I'm the principal of the school, I'll gladly take in those children whose parents tries all ways and means to put their child in my school. Those who just sit there and wait for gold to fall on my lap......please take a queue number.

I notice in recent years, a lot of us just complain and stamp our feet and complain `unfair' when something is stack against us. Gone are the days when we accept the situation and work our way out of the conundrum by ourselves.....

[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: