October 6, 2026

Every January, thousands of seven-year-olds across Singapore begin their formal education. Yet, for many families, the competition starts years earlier, as parents volunteer, tap alumni ties or even move homes to improve their child’s chances of entering a preferred school. In a meritocratic society where education is closely tied to future opportunities, such efforts are pervasive. ‘Parents want the best for their child, but P1 registration cannot be only about “me first’’’ (Channel NewsAsia, September 2026) by Assistant Professor Jacqueline Ho (SMU Sociology), Associate Professor Jason Tan (National Institute of Education) and Associate Professor Vincent Chua (NUS Sociology and Anthropology), asks an important question: how much should a child’s starting point depend on the advantages their parents can provide?

Primary 1 (P1) registration currently operates through a phased system that progressively privileges families with stronger school connections, before remaining places are opened to others in Phase 2C. However, from 2027 onwards, the Ministry of Education (MOE) will increase the number of places reserved for Phase 2C from 40 to 60, while 12 schools in areas dominated by private housing will introduce a two-track system to give families living beyond 2km from the schools’ radius greater access.

Although these changes signal the government’s gradual shift towards inclusivity, the authors argue that they leave the underlying structure largely intact. At a school admitting 300 pupils, for instance, the 60 reserved places still account for only one-fifth of the cohort, leaving most places accessible through earlier priority phases.

The deeper issue lies in what the authors describe as a “parentocracy”: a system where children’s educational opportunities are increasingly shaped by their parents’ resources and connections. Phase 2A and 2B priorities were designed to preserve school traditions and recognise contributions from alumni and community volunteers. In practice, however, these channels are strategically leveraged for securing admission. Alumni priority can allow access to sought-after schools to pass across generations, while parent volunteering may advantage families with greater control over their time or access to domestic support. Even proximity rules, though justified by convenience and children’s well-being, can indirectly favour affluent families able to afford housing near popular schools.

Even though recent reforms have nudged the system towards greater inclusivity, from removing additional advantages for alumni association members to some schools discontinuing parent volunteer schemes, the authors assert that piecemeal changes can only go so far. Bolder reforms, such as removing alumni or parent-volunteer priority or reconsidering school affiliations, require a deeper conversation about what Singapore wants its schools, and the opportunities they provide, to represent.

The stakes extend beyond admission to a popular school. Primary schools are among the first spaces where children mix across social backgrounds, building empathy and trust beyond their own circles. While the authors do not fault parents for wanting the best for their children, they ultimately question how far the system should translate those parental advantages into educational access. If schools are meant to offer a common starting point, how much of that starting line should already be decided before a child enters the school gates?

Read the Channel NewsAsia article here.