Distance, School Affiliation and Social Mixing Considerations in New Revisions to Primary 1 Registration Framework

Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education whether, in designing the revised Primary 1 Registration Framework, the Ministry has assessed (i) the extent to which priority accorded to children living within specified distances of a school contributes to differences in residential property values around popular primary schools and (ii) the potential impact of the revised framework on social mixing among pupils in the affected schools.

Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider providing a transition period of about three years for the revised Primary 1 Registration Framework, given that some families may have made residential, childcare and schooling arrangements based on the existing home-school distance criteria.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Education in respect of the 12 schools implementing the Phase 2C Two-Track Scheme from the 2027 Primary 1 Registration Exercise (a) what baseline and outcome indicators will be used to assess access and socio-economic mixing; and (b) whether the Ministry will publish annually, by school and track, statistics on applicants, vacancies, balloting, and admissions outcomes.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the plans to ensure that students living beyond two kilometres of the 12 schools with a two-track scheme for Phase 2C of Primary 1 registration will have easy access to the schools by school bus or public transport; and (b) whether there are any plans to expand the eligibility for school bus subsidies for such students.

Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) whether MOE Kindergarten pupils who are not successfully admitted to the primary schools co-located with their kindergartens represent a significant number; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider strengthening the priority accorded to such pupils.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Education regarding the recent changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework aimed at broadening access and social mixing, how will the Ministry assess (i) whether greater social mixing translates into meaningful integration and (ii) whether students from different backgrounds have comparable opportunities in CCAs, enrichment and leadership, without being disadvantaged by programme costs, distance from school, or access to external tuition or coaching.

The Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address oral Question Nos 3 to 8 on today’s Order Paper?

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Desmond Lee: My answer will also include responses to questions for written answer as well as for subsequent Sittings.

Mr Speaker, our schools are important common spaces where children from different backgrounds interact and learn together, in turn appreciating different perspectives and developing mutual understanding. This helps to lay the foundations for a cohesive and inclusive Singapore.

To enable our schools to remain open and accessible, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced two changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework on 10 September 2026. One, we will increase the number of reserved places in Phase 2C from 40 to 60 in all schools, except for schools with a smaller intake. Two, we will introduce a Two-Track Scheme in Phase 2C for schools located in neighbourhoods where the proportion of public housing is significantly lower than the national average.

The two changes seek to improve access for children regardless of prior connections to a school and encourage more mixing among students from different backgrounds.

As part of our review, we consulted widely and carefully considered the many views and suggestions that had been raised. We decided to focus on Phase 2C and not make structural changes to Phases 2A and 2B for now. This balances our objective of improving open access while continuing to recognise the contributions of alumni, school partners and community volunteers who contribute to the school and larger community.

There are no changes to the Parent Volunteer Scheme, which provides an opportunity for parents who wish to contribute to and get to know the school. Schools decide whether and how to implement the scheme, based on their specific needs.

There is also no change to the Phase 2A priority for MOE Kindergarten children. MOE Kindergarten children who did not get a place under Phase 2A can still apply for subsequent phases, including Phase 2C. Most of our MOE Kindergarten children have been able to secure a place in their preferred school.

Some Members had questions on the design of our Two-Track Scheme in Phase 2C for selected schools. We had considered different parameters, and decided to base it on the proportion of public housing as it is simple and easier to implement, and also gives greater certainty to parents given that housing make-up does not change frequently. We used the distance of within two kilometres, as it strikes a balance between maintaining access for children living near the school, while opening access to families living beyond the schools’ immediate neighbourhood. As our objective is to broaden opportunities for access, rather than to reserve places for specific socio-economic groups, we have not introduced priority for particular socio-economic groups including those living in rental flats.

The criteria for the Two-Track Scheme are consistently applied to schools where public housing accounts for less than 40% of dwelling units within two kilometres, including CHIJ (Katong) Primary School and Ngee Ann Primary School.

Many of the 12 schools under the Two-Track Scheme are accessible by the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and/or major bus routes. School bus operators will also determine school bus routes and pick-up points based on students' demand. In addition, MOE will provide financial assistance to Singapore Citizen students in need, including subsidies to reduce the cost of public transport and school bus fares if required.

All our school leaders, including those of the 12 schools under the Two-Track Scheme, endeavour to create a conducive and inclusive school environment to cater to all their students’ needs and circumstances.

The two changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework will be implemented from the 2027 Primary 1 Registration Exercise.

On implementation timing, we recognise that on one hand, some families have made residential arrangements based on the existing framework. But on the other hand, more families would benefit the sooner we implement the changes. In fact, some have asked why we did not make these changes earlier, for the 2026 Primary 1 Registration Exercise.

Finally, I would like to add that the two changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework do not by themselves lead to a more diverse socio-economic mix in our schools. Many other factors, including parents’ preferences and eventual school choices, matter too. We will thus monitor the implementation of the two changes, continually review our Primary 1 Registration Framework and make further refinements as needed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Gho.

Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Education for his answer. I think that the goals and intent behind the new changes are laudable, but I want to focus on the outcome and the impact here. I have four supplementary questions to pose to the Minister.

First, I think it is unconscionable that a child living a stone's throw away from a school, should be forced to travel to another primary school further away simply because the school next door is very popular. We should never disadvantage or handicap a child because his or her address, or due to his or her socio-economic circumstances. So, my first supplementary question is this: whether the Ministry accepts that a child living right next to a school should not be systematically disadvantaged in accessing that school for whatever reason?

My next supplementary question matters particularly to Mountbatten residents. Ultimately, displaced demand has to go somewhere else. Sir, I have many upset parents here, because the only primary school in Mountbatten is Kong Hwa School. And this school is already routinely oversubscribed; many Mountbatten kids are already having to consider enrolment at neighbouring schools. Not one, but four of these nearest schools are on the 12 schools list: Tanjong Katong Primary School, Tao Nan School, CHIJ (Katong) Primary and Ngee Ann Primary. So, my second supplementary question is this: has the Ministry assessed where the children who may no longer secure a place at the 12 schools under the new Two-Track arrangement, are likely to go, and what distance and travel time they are facing, and the resulting impact on application patterns and enrolment pressure at the neighbouring schools?

My third supplementary question is about ultimate outcomes: how would we know that this actually works at the end of the day? I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to assess whether greater social mixing has actually been achieved? Is bringing children from different socio-economic circumstances from further away neighbourhoods an end to itself, or will MOE have specific indicators to determine whether this has resulted in the greater social mixing, and most importantly, better outcomes for the children and the pupils?

And my last supplementary question: Sir, there are Housing and Development Board (HDB) and private properties within the two kilometres of many of these 12 schools. With this new framework, we are simply drawing a circle around a school and handicapping every children living within that circle. Worse, this framework makes the assumption that children living outside of that circle would be from different socio-economic backgrounds.

But I feel that this is clearly wrong. Neighbourhoods more than two kilometres away may have similar profile to the neighbourhoods nearby these 12 schools. Right at the top of my head, I can point out examples from these 12 schools. Ngee Ann Primary is one, Tao Nan School is another. So, my very last supplementary question: does the Ministry regard distance from the school as a reliable proxy for socio-economic diversity, given that children living beyond two kilometres may not necessarily come from different socio-economic circumstances from those living within two kilometres?

Mr Desmond Lee: I agree with the Member on her first point that school-home distance is important. For Primary 1 children, given their age, it is better to go to a school near to your home. But ultimately, Primary 1 admissions, we let parents make a decision where they would like to place their children and parents will have different considerations.

Because home-school distance is important and we recognise the frustrations of parents who will come to us and say, "Well, I live opposite the school. But that is a popular school; and alumni go in, there are siblings in there and I don't get to go there." There are only finite places in a school and in that regard, we are both aligned in that in this round of moves, we have increased the Phase 2C ring-fencing. And that tilts in favour of those who are living near to a school.

The Member spoke about Kong Hwa. Precisely the point. When we raised the Phase 2C allocation from 40 places for Phase 2C, to 60, it would increase the opportunity for parents who are living within two kilometres of Kong Hwa to be able to apply.

Whether the Two-Track system works or not, as we said, the objective of the Two-Track scheme and indeed of the Phase 2C enhancement is to widen access. Because when you rely on home-school distance and the make-up or composition of a neighbourhood around the school is predominantly of one housing type, for example, private housing, then the home-school distance in and of itself does not necessarily widen access to families of different socio-economic backgrounds.

And that is why the Two-Track scheme is put in this round in order to do two things: one, maintain access for children living close to the school, so half the places for Phase 2C; and two, the other half, for children living beyond two kilometres, and that would be a wider circle and a wider mix of children. Ultimately, whether or not that leads to better social mix depends on parents' choices, but you will now broaden access to those families.

All schools or most schools, including the 12 schools, will have some public housing within two kilometres. But because it is significantly lower than the national norm – and in this case, we are starting with 40% of dwelling units within the two kilometre radius of a school being public housing – therefore, you will see that in these schools, they tend to reflect that mix. For the 12 schools, on average, for Phase 2C successful applicants, about 15% are from public housing – which is very low.

So, ultimately, whether this works will depend, as I said, on parental decisions, but at least now, we widen the circle and give opportunities. And for those living within zero to two kilometres, we are preserving access for those. We are not taking it away.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister for the response. I have three supplementary questions.

The first is, I think on average, we will see a more diverse school composition. That is a good thing. But I want to add that a more diverse composition may not translate into better integration within the schools. So, my question is whether MOE will deliberately and intentionally be monitoring the degree of mixing within the schools? For example, they could look at the breakdown of participation in different co-curricular activities (CCAs), leadership positions and so on, by factors like socio-economic status (SES).

My second question relates to the indicators of alumni engagement. I note that Minister has said that no changes have been made to Phases 2A and 2B. But I think by virtue of reserving spots for Phase 2C, it comes at the expense of the other groups. Sir, alumni play an important role within schools and preserving the culture, heritage and also providing a lot of support in various forms for schools. So, my question is whether MOE has been studying or tracking indicators of alumni engagement, whether through volunteerism, mentoring or fundraising support for schools as a result of some of the changes that have taken place and whether they will continue to monitor these indicators as well?

And my third supplementary question builds on this point in that I observe that the changes largely seem to be taking spots from one group and giving it to another. I was wondering if we could also think about a different approach; when you have demand for spots that exceed supply, one response is to increase the overall supply. And I think in this situation, one way of doing that is by increasing the number of spots available for some of these schools that are consistently or persistently oversubscribed; and that may mean allowing some of these more popular schools to expand their physical footprint and maybe to open new locations in other areas that will also provide greater access of the advantages, the resources and the heritage of the school to groups of Singaporeans that may live outside of that two-kilometre radius?

Mr Desmond Lee: On the Member's first question, we certainly want to ensure, even with the diverse mix of students in the school, that we give every student an opportunity to develop himself or herself to the fullest. For students from lower SES backgrounds, there are mechanisms within the school, there are funds, including the Opportunity Fund, bursaries and other schemes, to ensure that these students do not miss out on opportunities that students from better-off families are able to enjoy. And so, within the school, programmes, CCAs, these are things that we look out for.

For alumni, we value the contribution of alumni over the years – supporting the school, cheering the school on, bringing tangible resources to the school, helping lower-income students, strengthening culture. Because the school is not just a physical infrastructure nor a programme. It is a place of memories, where people connect and it adds to our identity here in Singapore as well. And therefore, we continue to value and support the contributions of alumni.

Having said that, we need to continue to strike that balance between the needs and aspirations of different groups of Singaporeans with regard to school access. So, proximity, living nearby, parents hope to send their children to that school; there are those who say I want to send my children to that school, even though I may live further away, because of my historic ties with the school and my emotional ties to the school and so on. And so, that is continually revisited over the years.

And then thirdly, when it comes to popular schools, whether nationally popular or locally popular schools, one common recommendation is to just increase the school intake. Viewed on its own, it sounds sensible. But actually, if you look at it in totality, we also have to balance that against other considerations.

Firstly, even within the school, if the cohort gets larger and larger, you will run up against infrastructure constraints – the number of classrooms, the number of spaces that you want to cannibalise to turn into additional classrooms at the expense of space that could be used for other forms of learning and other meaningful activities within the school. And you know that some of our school campuses, particularly if the surroundings are entirely built up – and most of Singapore is as such – there is limited room to further expand, build wider, build taller, build deeper. There are such challenges.

And if you do so, then what happens is that those schools will attract more students. It may not help in terms of improving the social mix of the school, and it may result in other nearby schools' enrolment falling. Because ultimately, there are only so many students and our cohort sizes are shrinking. When surrounding schools have smaller intake over the years, if you increase these popular schools' intake, then that will accelerate, and that may result in the merger or closure of some of these schools.

The impact is on the ability for us to provide a good geographical spread of schools across the island, including in the neighbourhood surrounding some of these so-called popular schools and affect geographical proximity access for some parents who would prefer that.

There is another proposal to say, well, if it is a popular school, let them set up new schools. I think that is a challenge, given falling cohort sizes, and it will have exactly the same impact. Some people say why not just take another school that is less popular, cannibalise the school's name, take it away, and then let the popular school's name take over the school. Some of the alumni of the so-called less popular schools, I think, have a very strong view about that, and so do the existing school population and school community.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. The Straits Times has reported that several of these 12 schools, including Nanyang Primary School and Raffles Girls' Primary School, are a longer walk away from their nearest public transport nodes compared to the average Singaporean primary school.

Has the Ministry consulted with parents or families living further away from these 12 schools to understand whether these transportation needs can be adequately met by public transport, should their children attend these 12 schools? And if not, will the Ministry study this issue and consider whether we need to provide greater assistance to help more of such families' access to these 12 schools, such as through expanded school bus subsidies?

Mr Desmond Lee: Indeed, as I said, majority of the 12 schools have got public transport access, and the option of school bus arrangements is also there.

Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. My first supplementary question is really to just re-emphasise my Parliamentary Question, which I do not think was directly answered. I was asking for what baseline outcome indicators would be used to access the socio-economic mixing metrics, and whether there would then be a benchmark that we will use to determine whether this scheme can be further expanded to other schools.

I also wanted to ask, I do not think the Ministry has elucidated if there will be any kind of maximum bound in terms of distance; it is just more than two kilometres. I would ask if the Minister shares the view that I have that it would be an unwelcome outcome if there are many six- or seven-year-olds that are forced to wake up at 5.00 am to make a one-hour or more commute to a popular school very far from their home.

Mr Desmond Lee: Firstly, I will deal with the second question first. Already, even before this Two-Track Scheme, there is no distance limit. If you have to ballot, then you go based on zero to one kilometre, one to two, and two and beyond – already. And in some schools, there are parents who choose to send their children with appropriate arrangements to a school further away for a variety of reasons. Maybe it is nearer to the workplace. Maybe it is some family issue that they have to contend with. Maybe it is a school that they went to as alumni. Or they find that this is a school that provides a programme that resonates with them and so on. So, that is first.

Then, when it comes to the Two-Track system, what we are saying is that we are now making sure that those beyond two kilometres for these 12 schools, because of the housing mix in the immediate vicinity of the school, we want to make sure that we preserve and widen access for those families. Otherwise, for some of these schools – zero to one, one to two – all the places are taken up, and the school-home distance then does not conduce towards broadening access to children of different socio-economic backgrounds.

Then, going back to the Member's first question, is there a baseline? Basically, the Member is saying, is there a construct, is there some thing that you measure all the schools against and say, well, this school meets the ideal socio-economic mix. There is no such construct, strictly speaking. Because no two schools are identical and no two neighbourhoods are the same. And the school mix is a function of many things. The school mix is a function of the legacy of the school, a function of the so-called popularity of the school, a function of the make-up of its neighbourhood and so on.

And therefore, we certainly look at the socio-economic mix of our schools, we look at the neighbourhoods, we look at certain trends and then, we decide whether or not we need to apply this Two-Track system.

And today, what we are doing is holding it at 40% and below. If the number of dwelling units within the zero- to two-kilometre radius falls below 40% in terms of public housing, then we apply this Two-Track system.

Having said that, we preserve access for those within zero to two kilometres, and create access for those two kilometres and beyond. If for some reason, for two kilometres and beyond, the application rates are lower, below the allocation, then that flows back to zero to two kilometres. It is a porous system. It goes both ways.

And so, as I have said earlier, for the 12 schools, an average of 15% of the students are successful Phase 2C applicants coming from public housing. And that is something we want to keep an eye on. Whether or not this Two-Track system results in a different mix, ultimately depends on parental choice and other factors.

Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for answering my Parliamentary Question on the MOE Kindergarten students. I ask this question because in Westwood Primary, my constituency, has an MOE Kindergarten. It is an oversubscribed school.

With the changes to the Phase 2A, from 2027, there will be materially less places available for students who are already currently enrolled in MOE Kindergartens. I would like to ask if the Ministry has projected how the new changes will materially affect these students, because such data and projection will obviously affect parents' decisions in the future to send their kids to these schools which are oversubscribed.

Mr Desmond Lee: As I mentioned in my response earlier, most children in our MOE Kindergartens are able to enter a school of their choice, including the school where their MOE Kindergarten is in, either at Phases 2A or 2C. And with this bigger carve-out for Phase 2C, we recognise that this may come at expense of Phases 2A and 2B. Having said that, we will keep a close eye and those who do not get in through Phase 2A can still apply under Phase 2C.

Mr Speaker: I am sorry, Mr David Hoe, I am moving on. Dr Hamid Razak.