Hahaha...now the MIWs play their own PORLUMPARS out....Si Beh Song ah!
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4" class="msgleft" width="1%">
</td><td class="wintiny" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">24855.1 </td></tr><tr><td height="8">
</td></tr> <tr><td class="msgtxt"> Nov 23, 2009
Child's future left to a game of chance
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --> <!-- story content : start --> I REFER to Mr Wee Hien Seng's letter last Saturday about the Primary 1 registration exercise ('P1 registration: Guarantee places to those living nearby').
If it is any consolation, I would like to relate my own disappointment with the exercise.
We live less than 500m from a reputable school. My husband contributed more than 80 hours to complete a project under the parent-volunteer system and I am a grassroots leader, yet our son was unsuccessful in getting a place in the school under Phase 2B. Our subsequent applications under Phase 2C and Phase 2C (Supp) for other schools within the 1.5km and 2.5km radius respectively were also unsuccessful.
Eventually, we had to get the Ministry of Education's help to place our son in a school in another estate some 4km away from our home.
We are dismayed that a school place had to be allotted by picking balls out of a bag. Who would draw lots to decide any student's future?
The system is inherently flawed by reason of perception. It starts as a ranked ballot and is inherently fair and well organised. Why then does it degenerate into a game of chance?
We are aware of the need for random selection of applicants where demand exceeds supply, but in this case the first part has one meaning and the second part is a lottery where people who should be ranked but are unlucky are 'selected' with those who do not fit any criterion and want to get into a good school by chance.
Phase 2C placement is meant for those who have no religious affiliation and have not done any voluntary work. Unlike Mr Wee who suggested abolishing the parent-volunteer system, I am in favour of the system but suggest that reputable schools should be selective in awarding projects so as to guarantee places to pupils whose parents have contributed to the development of the school.
Sim Lee Keng (Ms)
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4" class="msgleft" width="1%">
</td><td class="wintiny" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">24855.1 </td></tr><tr><td height="8">
</td></tr> <tr><td class="msgtxt"> Nov 23, 2009
Child's future left to a game of chance
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --> <!-- story content : start --> I REFER to Mr Wee Hien Seng's letter last Saturday about the Primary 1 registration exercise ('P1 registration: Guarantee places to those living nearby').
If it is any consolation, I would like to relate my own disappointment with the exercise.
We live less than 500m from a reputable school. My husband contributed more than 80 hours to complete a project under the parent-volunteer system and I am a grassroots leader, yet our son was unsuccessful in getting a place in the school under Phase 2B. Our subsequent applications under Phase 2C and Phase 2C (Supp) for other schools within the 1.5km and 2.5km radius respectively were also unsuccessful.
Eventually, we had to get the Ministry of Education's help to place our son in a school in another estate some 4km away from our home.
We are dismayed that a school place had to be allotted by picking balls out of a bag. Who would draw lots to decide any student's future?
The system is inherently flawed by reason of perception. It starts as a ranked ballot and is inherently fair and well organised. Why then does it degenerate into a game of chance?
We are aware of the need for random selection of applicants where demand exceeds supply, but in this case the first part has one meaning and the second part is a lottery where people who should be ranked but are unlucky are 'selected' with those who do not fit any criterion and want to get into a good school by chance.
Phase 2C placement is meant for those who have no religious affiliation and have not done any voluntary work. Unlike Mr Wee who suggested abolishing the parent-volunteer system, I am in favour of the system but suggest that reputable schools should be selective in awarding projects so as to guarantee places to pupils whose parents have contributed to the development of the school.
Sim Lee Keng (Ms)
</td></tr></tbody></table>
