Any shake-up of the P1 registration system would entail bold and difficult changes. Would parents be ready for it?

Recent tweaks to the Primary 1 registration exercise have revived a debate over whether the system could be made even fairer and further encourage social mixing. CNA takes a look at what bolder reforms could look like – and why they are easier said than done.

Singapore's Primary 1 registration framework gives families with prior school connections earlier access to places than those without. (Illustration: CNA/Clara Ho)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

When his eldest son enters Primary 1 in a few years' time, Mr S Sharif could have an advantage that other parents do not.

The 36-year-old is an alumnus of Tanjong Katong Primary School, one of the schools he and his wife are considering for their four-year-old. Under the current Primary 1 registration framework, that connection would allow his son to apply in Phase 2A, ahead of children without prior links to the school.

Although he could benefit from it, Mr Sharif does not think getting a child into a school based on parents' connections is fair.

"I've always had the impression that we're a very meritocratic society. But how do you apply meritocracy to five- or six-year-old children?" asked the compliance manager.

CNA Games Guess Word Crack the word, one row at a time Buzzword Create words using the given letters Mini Sudoku Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser Mini Crossword Small grid, big challenge Word Search Spot as many words as you can Show More Show Less "Getting your child into a school then depends on whether the parent has better connections or attended that school, and I don't think that's fair." But when registration time comes, Mr Sharif acknowledged that he would still seriously consider using the alumni route available to him. "Since this is the system we have, I'll take advantage of it." Another parent, Mr Adrian Wong, 36, finds himself grappling with a similar contradiction. By the time the technical program manager registered his son for St Andrew's School (Junior) this year, he and his wife had already completed about 40 to 45 hours of parent volunteering at the school over three months. He said it was possible only because their managers gave them the flexibility to be away from work on weekday mornings. Their efforts paid off, as their son secured a place through Phase 2B after balloting. The school appealed to them because it offered what Mr Wong saw as a good balance of reputation, housing options within their reach and a relatively realistic chance of admission, including through the parent-volunteer route. Yet Mr Wong believes parent volunteering should not give a child priority for admission. Volunteering itself was worthwhile, he said, because it gave him a closer look at the school and what a student's day was like. But he thinks that the act itself should not be tied to his son's chances of admission.

"Getting your child into a school then depends on whether the parent has better connections or attended that school, and I don't think that's fair."

But when registration time comes, Mr Sharif acknowledged that he would still seriously consider using the alumni route available to him.

"Since this is the system we have, I'll take advantage of it."

Another parent, Mr Adrian Wong, 36, finds himself grappling with a similar contradiction.

By the time the technical program manager registered his son for St Andrew's School (Junior) this year, he and his wife had already completed about 40 to 45 hours of parent volunteering at the school over three months. He said it was possible only because their managers gave them the flexibility to be away from work on weekday mornings.

Their efforts paid off, as their son secured a place through Phase 2B after balloting. The school appealed to them because it offered what Mr Wong saw as a good balance of reputation, housing options within their reach and a relatively realistic chance of admission, including through the parent-volunteer route.

Yet Mr Wong believes parent volunteering should not give a child priority for admission.

Volunteering itself was worthwhile, he said, because it gave him a closer look at the school and what a student's day was like. But he thinks that the act itself should not be tied to his son's chances of admission.

Mr Adrian Wong, 36, (right) with his wife (left) and son, who secured a place at St Andrew's School (Junior) through Phase 2B after his parents volunteered at the school. (Photo: Adrian Wong)

"The idea of volunteering is great, but I think when volunteering is tied to admission priority, it can become more about securing a place for your child than contributing to the school community."

The two fathers' experiences capture a paradox inherent in Singapore's Primary 1 registration system.

While parents may acknowledge that giving children priority based on where their parents studied, volunteer hours, or other ties can tilt the playing field, the presence of these advantages creates a strong incentive to use them for their own children's benefit.

The perennial tension between doing the best for "my child" and creating a fairer system for "our children" has taken on renewed significance as Singapore talks about becoming a more "We First" society – where citizens would strengthen bonds with each other instead of just looking out for their own self-interest.

This debate has also returned to the fore following the Ministry of Education's (MOE) latest changes to Primary 1 registration , which will take effect from the 2027 registration exercise.

Among the changes, most primary schools will have to reserve 60 places for Phase 2C – up from 40 – giving children with no prior connection to a school more opportunities to enter. Those with fewer than 180 Primary 1 places will continue to reserve 40.

At 12 schools where public housing makes up less than 40 per cent of homes within 2km, Phase 2C will also operate under a new two-track system. Half the available places will go to children living within 2km, while the other half will be open to those living farther away, with no home-school distance priority within either track.

The changes are intended to widen access and encourage greater social mixing, while still recognising the practical importance of children attending schools near their homes.

"Ultimately, we want our schools to remain open and inclusive, where our children learn and form friendships beyond their immediate social circles," Education Minister Desmond Lee said when announcing the changes on Sep 10.

"They will encounter different perspectives, they will learn to bridge differences, and they will build mutual understanding."

But education researchers and advocates who spoke to CNA said that if the objective is to build a substantially fairer system – one in which a child's chances depend less on the connections, time and resources of their parents – Singapore would need to go much further. The proposals they put forward ranged from paring back or abolishing alumni and volunteering priority to fundamentally changing how pupils are allocated to schools.

In order to achieve an "ideal" or "fair" framework, the experts also noted that Singapore would need to confront a more fundamental question: What should P1 registration be designed to achieve in the first place?

And if the goal is to build a "We First" society through education, what should parents and society be prepared to give up to get there?

HOW P1 REGISTRATION BECAME SO COMPLEX

Today's Primary 1 registration framework is one that has accumulated layers of priorities and rules over decades, as the system was adapted to recognise different groups and pursue different policy objectives.

Associate Professor Jason Tan, who specialises in policy, curriculum and leadership at the National Institute of Education (NIE), said some might even call the complex system "unwieldy" because it is being used to serve "too many different policy objectives" at the same time.

The use of Primary 1 registration to pursue wider policy goals goes back decades.

For example, in the years following the system's introduction in 1972, children with a parent who had been sterilised were given priority in line with Singapore's "Stop at Two" population policy. The government later reversed this in 1987 as it shifted to encouraging larger families.

In 1984, the Graduate Mothers' Scheme gave graduate mothers with at least three children top priority in Primary 1 admission to the schools of their choice. It was scrapped the following year after generating considerable public unhappiness.

The framework continued to evolve in the decades that followed.

Today, the earliest registration phase is also the only one that guarantees admission. Under Phase 1, children with a sibling currently studying at the school are assured of a place.

Assoc Prof Tan said there was a practical reason for this: Primary 1 pupils are young, and having siblings in the same school can help the children while making things easier for families.

Exactly when children of former students first began receiving priority is less clear from publicly available records.

What is documented is that Phase 2A1 was introduced in the 1999 Primary 1 registration exercise to encourage stronger alumni and community support for schools. It gave earlier priority to children whose parents were former students and members of the school's alumni association, among other eligible groups.

Children whose parents were former students but were not alumni association members, as well as those whose siblings had previously studied at the school, fell under Phase 2A2, alongside several other groups.

From the 2022 registration exercise, Phases 2A1 and 2A2 were merged into a single Phase 2A, with MOE saying it was timely to review the difference in priority between stakeholders in the two phases.

Assistant Professor Jacqueline Ho, a sociologist at the Singapore Management University (SMU), questioned whether maintaining strong alumni-school ties or preserving a school's culture truly requires giving children of alumni priority in Primary 1 admissions.

She also questioned whether Phase 2A is serving its purpose. That depends partly on why parents used it: to maintain a connection to the school, to give their child a better chance at success, or simply for easier admission.

If it was the latter, Asst Prof Ho said, Phase 2A could become "simply a means of getting your child into a school without the headache, which has little or nothing to do with preserving school culture".

School culture could also be sustained by current families, teachers and students who developed their own sense of belonging to the school, she said.

St Margaret's Primary is one of the 12 schools adopting the new two-track Phase 2C system from 2027. But its alumnae association does not see wider access and strong alumni ties as being mutually exclusive.

Ms Natasha Zhao, president of the St Margaret's Ex-Students' Association, noted that only 27 of 93 Phase 2A places were taken up in the 2026 registration exercise, and 24 of 91 the year before.

"The alumnae places in that phase have not been filled in recent years, so reducing them is unlikely to affect alumnae families at St Margaret's," she said.

Ms Natasha Zhao, president of the St Margaret's Ex-Students' Association, said alumni priority can contribute to a strong school community, but "it is not and should not be the only avenue". (Photo: CNA/Ili Mansor)

Ms Zhao said nothing significant would be lost if fewer alumnae could send their daughters to the school, as alumnae continue to contribute their time and money even when their children do not attend the school.

Alumni priority can contribute to a strong community, she added, "but it is not and should not be the only avenue".

The alumni association of Tao Nan School – another of the 12 in the two-track scheme – takes a different view.

Its vice-president, Mrs Helen Abidin, 82, believes successive generations attending the school are themselves part of preserving its traditions. Her own ties span generations: She studied there, taught there for 25 years, her father was a teacher and her children were pupils.

She noted that former pupils have expressed unhappiness at the prospect of further reductions in the number of spots for children of alumni, because they wanted their children to share the school experience and community they had helped sustain.

At the same time, Mrs Abidin supports greater social mixing. Her concern is whether changing admissions rules alone will achieve it.

"The rich will always find a way," she said, pointing to families with the means to rent homes near popular schools to improve their children's admission chances.

Phase 2B today brings together several different forms of connection or contribution, including parent volunteers, members endorsed by a church or clan directly connected to the school, and active community leaders.

The parent volunteer scheme was introduced in 1998, when MOE announced that parents who completed at least 40 hours of voluntary service at a school would, from the following year's registration exercise, qualify for priority under Phase 2B.

Assoc Prof Tan said the framework uses Primary 1 admission to incentivise behaviour such as parent volunteering and grassroots involvement, while recognising church and clan affiliations.

Are parents volunteering because they really want to contribute to the school? Or are they volunteering because they want their kids to get into the school?

But Asst Prof Ho similarly questioned whether encouraging such involvement needed to be linked to a child's admission, as parents could instead contribute through parent support groups or volunteer after their children had entered the school.

There was also the issue of whether attaching an admissions advantage to volunteering affected why parents did it in the first place.

"Are parents volunteering because they really want to contribute to the school? Or are they volunteering because they want their kids to get into the school?" Asst Prof Ho said.

HOW FAR COULD REFORMING THE FRAMEWORK GO

If Singapore were to rethink Primary 1 registration more fundamentally, the experts and advocates CNA spoke to offered a spectrum of possibilities.

Centralising admissions

At the most radical end, EveryChild.SG, a non-profit movement to prioritise child well-being, seeks to eventually replace much of the current phase-based system with centralised, automated admissions.

Parents could still indicate their preferred schools and proximity would remain a consideration. But an algorithm would also take into account factors such as socioeconomic background and race.

The eventual aim, its founder Pooja Bhandari said, would be for every primary school to broadly reflect Singapore's national diversity.

Under such a system, Ms Bhandari sees little reason to retain priority based on alumni ties or parent volunteering, although exceptions could remain for practical considerations such as siblings already studying in the school or parents working there.

Her rationale is that primary schools are taxpayer-funded public resources.

"There is no reason one family should have privileged admission compared with everybody else simply because the parents are alumni, or well-off enough to take time off to volunteer with the school or the community before their child is admitted."

Ms Pooja Bhandari, founder of EveryChild.SG, has proposed eventually replacing much of the current Primary 1 registration system with centralised, automated admissions. (Photo: CNA/Ili Mansor)

SMU's Asst Prof Ho also sees merit in giving the government a greater role in allocating pupils, while allowing parents to rank their preferred schools.

Such a system, she said, could help prevent children from either very privileged or very disadvantaged backgrounds from becoming concentrated in particular schools.

But she cautioned that diversity on paper did not necessarily guarantee meaningful social mixing. Putting a small number of poorer children into a predominantly affluent school, for example, could leave them feeling isolated or stigmatised .

Tackling 'pedigree' and property

Associate Professor Vincent Chua, a sociologist at the National University of Singapore (NUS), argued that a fairer system would have to address two ways that parental advantage could be passed on – through what he called "family pedigree" and the property market.

"If you curtail alumni priority without touching the distance rules, you simply shift and 'electrify' the competition in Phase 2C," he said, as wealthier parents could redirect their resources towards property.

Assoc Prof Chua suggested eventually going further than the new 50:50 two-track system. Instead of splitting Phase 2C places equally between children living within and beyond 2km, he suggested considering ratios such as 40:60 or 30:70, giving those living farther away a larger share.

He also argued that reform should tackle the "golden pipeline" between affiliated primary and secondary schools, which he said further fuels competition at the Primary 1 level.

For St Andrew's School (Secondary)'s posting group 3 intake , for example, the 2025 cut-off was AL9 for non-affiliated pupils, while an affiliated pupil could be admitted with AL22 – a 13-point difference.

While EveryChild.SG has proposed eventually giving every primary school some form of affiliated secondary school pathway, Assoc Prof Chua disagreed with universalising affiliation.

"The core problem with the golden pipeline isn't just that some schools have it and others don't. Rather, it's the magnitude of the score gap," he said.

Instead, he proposed capping the posting-score advantage for affiliated pupils at two or three AL points.

Tackling demand, not just supply

Mr Kelvin Hong, founder of tuition centres The Economics Tutor and Ace GP, suggested phasing out alumni priority gradually while simultaneously reducing competition for a small number of sought-after schools.

"In economic terms, it's changing how the scarce places are rationed while also reducing the scarcity itself," he said.

He also proposed letting parents rank several schools according to their preferences rather than requiring them to apply to one school in each phase, arguing that the current system rewards families with more "time, information and confidence to strategise".

Associate Professor Eik Leong Swee, an economist at the University of Melbourne in Australia whose research includes education and inequality, similarly argued that policymakers should also ask why parental demand remains so concentrated on a relatively small number of schools.

"There are a lot of good schools that parents are missing out just because they don't know that they are good," he said.

Rather than focusing on fine-tuning the supply of places at popular schools, MOE could also influence demand for places at other schools by giving parents more information about what they offer, he suggested, encouraging them to consider what would actually make a good school for their child.

"If the average parent starts believing that 'the potential set of good schools for my child is 50 schools rather than 10', a lot of things will change."

Assoc Prof Swee added that, if feasible, he would spread the location of sought-after schools more evenly across Singapore. But he acknowledged that doing so would be difficult and financially costly.

Pointing to Anglo-Chinese School (Primary)'s move from Barker Road to Tengah , he noted that relocating an established school requires land, could weaken existing alumni and community ties, and may draw resistance from supporters. Such moves are therefore rare, he said.

Still, if social mixing is a priority, Singapore should consider "reshuffling geographically" where sought-after schools are located, Assoc Prof Swee said.

WHY IS CHANGE SO HARD?

While there is no shortage of ideas for reforming Primary 1 registration, the harder question is why more sweeping changes have not been undertaken.

For all the trade-offs involved, Ms Bhandari of EveryChild.SG does not believe the difficulty is necessarily a technical one.

Unlike other education reforms, such as reducing class sizes, changing admissions would not require substantial additional resources or retraining teachers, she said.

One way forward would be to progressively expand Phase 2C over several years before moving towards a centralised allocation system.

"It is a communications issue, but I don't think it's insurmountable," she said.

By this, Ms Bhandari meant the government should clearly signal where the system was heading and give families several years to adjust, particularly when some had made decisions about where to live and other arrangements based on the existing rules.

The history of Primary 1 registration, however, has largely been one of incremental change.

Assoc Prof Tan of NIE pointed to the gradual increase in places reserved for Phase 2C – from 20 to 40, and now 60 at most schools – as well as changes such as merging Phases 2A1 and 2A2 and introducing the new two-track scheme at 12 schools.

In the short term, he expects this approach to continue.

The framework is trying to balance too many competing claims, he said, while removing established advantages is socially and politically sensitive.

"Once you have put in place certain privileges, it's not always easy to take them away," he said, especially when families have planned years ahead around the rules.

MOE was, in his view, "trying to make compromises" and "treading carefully instead of opting for more sweeping reforms".

Even scaling back an existing priority could draw opposition from those affected, Assoc Prof Tan said. "So what more (would be the reaction) if you propose the complete removal of some of these existing criteria?"

The framework itself also "lends itself well to parental strategising" because families can study the different phases and rules to try to gain "the maximum competitive advantage for their children", he added.

Take the case of a mother in her 40s, who wanted to be known only as Mrs Tan, for instance.

She and her husband sold their previous home and bought a new private property in Newton, within 1km of both ACS (Primary) and St Joseph's Institution Junior, ahead of their son's Primary 1 registration next year.

But ACS (Primary) is one of the 12 schools that will adopt the new two-track system in 2027. Within the Phase 2C track for children living within 2km, her son will no longer receive priority simply because he lives within 1km.

The advertising executive said she understood the government's intention to widen access, but wished the change had been scheduled to start one cohort later .

"For us, it's basically a curveball," she said.

There is another reason Primary 1 registration can become such an emotive issue: Many parents see choosing a school as part of their responsibility towards their child, SMU's Asst Prof Ho said.

In her doctoral research on school choice, some parents described preparing for Primary 1 registration as doing their "homework", while others felt guilty about not having done more.

"Primary 1 registration gives parents a feeling of control, like there is something they can do to influence their children's outcomes," she said.

Primary 1 registration gives parents a feeling of control, like there is something they can do to influence their children's outcomes.

This could explain why parents may recognise inequalities in the system yet still use the advantages available to them. In her research, Asst Prof Ho encountered parents who volunteered or moved closer to a school, despite feeling uncomfortable that not every family had the resources to do the same.

For some, opting out could feel like "they are stepping away from an opportunity to give their children an advantage", she added.

Asst Prof Ho also noted that MOE is not necessarily asking parents to put "We First" ahead of their own child's interests. The ministry still encourages parents to choose the school they think is right for their child, she said, while trying to broaden their idea of what that "right school" can be.

Even so, some parents also do not necessarily agree that the advantages built into the existing framework are unfair.

Public relations consultant Annabel Lim, 38, whose six-year-old son secured a place at ACS (Primary) through her husband's alumni connection this year, believes the current system is broadly fair. Her son will start Primary 1 next year.

To her, the rules are clear, while parents who qualify through routes such as volunteering or proximity have made an effort to improve their child's chances.

"You need the effort to move house. You need the effort to volunteer. You make the effort to do these things. I think that's as fair as it gets. I don't know how else it can be," she said.

Ms Annabel Lim, 38, believes the current Primary 1 registration framework is broadly fair, saying parents who use routes such as proximity or volunteering have made an effort to improve their child's chances. (Photo: CNA/Ili Mansor)

The education experts interviewed by CNA said that the disparate views ultimately bring the debate back to one fundamental question: What policy goals should the Primary 1 registration framework actually be designed to accomplish?

Assoc Prof Tan said policymakers have to decide how much weight to give competing considerations, from parental choice and proximity to alumni ties, to greater access and social mixing.

"You have to assign relative weightages to all of these," he said. "In other words, the Ministry of Education has to decide ... who gets priority over whom?"

Whatever framework is chosen, he added, will run into ethical and practical considerations and will not satisfy every family's needs.

A Methodist Girls' School alumna who wanted to be known only as Ms Sharon supports reducing alumni advantage and giving children without prior connections a better chance. Still, the 42-year-old business owner, whose five-year-old daughter will be affected by the latest changes, wishes that families like hers had been given more time to adjust.

Her family had long planned on using her alumna connection and had factored schooling into their housing decisions.

Asked whether alumni families should nevertheless be prepared to give up some of their existing advantage if doing so ultimately created a fairer and more socially mixed system, Ms Sharon acknowledged that they should.

"Because it's for the greater good of Singapore," she said. "Sometimes we have to make sacrifices, right? And this is one of them."

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

最近对小学一年级入学登记制度的调整，再次引发了关于该制度是否可以更加公平、进一步促进社会融合的讨论。亚洲新闻台（CNA）探讨了更大胆的改革方案可能是什么样子，以及为什么说起来容易做起来难。

新加坡小学一年级入学登记制度允许与学校有联系的家庭比没有联系的家庭更早获得入学名额。（插图：CNA/Clara Ho）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

几年后，当他的大儿子进入小学一年级时，S Sharif 先生可能会拥有其他家长所没有的优势。

这位36岁的男子是丹戎加东小学的校友，他和妻子正在考虑让他们的四岁儿子就读这所学校。根据目前的小学一年级入学登记制度，这层关系将使他的儿子能够在第二阶段A期申请入学，优先于那些与该校没有先前联系的孩子。

虽然他可以从中受益，但谢里夫先生认为，仅仅依靠父母的关系让孩子进入学校是不公平的。

“我一直觉得我们是一个非常讲究精英主义的社会。但是，如何把精英主义应用到五六岁的孩子身上呢？”合规经理问道。

CNA游戏 猜词游戏 逐行破解单词 流行词游戏 用给定的字母组成单词 迷你数独 小小的谜题，强大的脑力挑战 迷你填字游戏 小方格，大挑战 单词搜索 尽可能多地找出单词 显示更多 显示更少 “孩子能否入学取决于家长是否有更好的关系或者是否曾就读于该校，我认为这不公平。” 但到了报名的时候，谢里夫先生承认他仍然会认真考虑利用校友途径。“既然这是我们现有的制度，我就会利用它。” 另一位家长，36岁的黄先生也面临着类似的矛盾。这位技术项目经理今年为儿子报名圣安德烈学校（小学部）时，他和妻子已经在三个月的时间里在该校完成了大约40到45个小时的家长志愿者工作。他说，这完全是因为他们的经理允许他们在工作日的上午请假。他们的努力终于有了回报，他们的儿子通过抽签获得了第二阶段B期的入学名额。这所学校吸引他们的原因是，黄先生认为它在学校声誉、可负担的住房选择以及相对现实的录取机会（包括通过家长志愿者途径）方面都达到了很好的平衡。然而，黄先生认为家长志愿者活动不应该成为孩子入学的优先条件。他说，志愿活动本身是有价值的，因为它让他有机会更深入地了解学校以及学生的日常学习生活。但他认为，志愿活动本身不应该与他儿子的入学机会挂钩。

“这样一来，孩子能否入学就取决于家长是否有更好的关系或者自己是否就读过那所学校，我认为这不公平。”

但到了报名的时候，谢里夫先生承认，他仍然会认真考虑利用校友途径。

“既然这是我们现有的制度，我就要好好利用它。”

另一位家长，36岁的黄先生，也发现自己面临着类似的矛盾。

今年，当这位技术项目经理为儿子报名圣安德鲁小学时，他和妻子已经在三个月的时间里在该校完成了大约40到45个小时的家长志愿者服务。他说，这完全得益于他们的上司给予了他们灵活的时间安排，允许他们在工作日的上午请假。

他们的努力没有白费，他们的儿子通过抽签在第二阶段B期获得了入学名额。这所学校吸引他们的原因是，黄先生认为它在学校声誉、住房选择（在他们可承受范围内）以及相对现实的入学机会（包括通过家长志愿者途径）等方面都取得了很好的平衡。

但黄先生认为，家长志愿服务不应该让孩子在入学方面获得优先权。

他说，做志愿者本身就很有意义，因为这让他更深入地了解了学校以及学生的一天。但他认为，这一行为本身不应该与他儿子的入学机会挂钩。

36岁的黄先生（右）与妻子（左）和儿子合影。黄先生的父母在圣安德烈学校（小学部）做义工后，通过第二阶段B期入学计划，为儿子争取到了入学名额。（照片：黄先生）

“志愿服务的理念很好，但我认为，当志愿服务与入学优先权挂钩时，它就更像是为孩子争取入学名额，而不是为学校社区做出贡献。”

这两位父亲的经历揭示了新加坡小学一年级注册制度中固有的悖论。

虽然父母可能承认，根据父母的学习经历、志愿服务时间或其他关系给予子女优先权可能会使竞争环境失衡，但这些优势的存在会强烈激励父母利用这些优势为自己的孩子谋利。

随着新加坡谈论要成为一个更加“我们优先”的社会——在这个社会里，公民们将加强彼此之间的联系，而不是只顾自己的利益——“为我的孩子做到最好”和“为我们的孩子创造一个更公平的制度”之间由来已久的矛盾，又重新变得重要起来。

在教育部对小学一年级入学登记制度进行最新修改后，这一争论再次成为焦点。该修改将于 2027 年入学登记时生效。

其中一项调整是，大多数小学必须为第二阶段C期预留60个名额（此前为40个），这将为与学校没有直接联系的儿童提供更多入学机会。一年级学位少于180个的学校仍需预留40个名额。

在12所学校，由于公屋在2公里范围内占比低于40%，二期C阶段也将采用新的双轨制。一半的学位将分配给居住在2公里范围内的学生，另一半则开放给居住在更远地区的学生，两种方案均不考虑家庭住址与学校之间的距离。

这些改变旨在扩大入学机会，鼓励更多社会交往，同时仍然认识到让孩子在家附近上学的实际重要性。

教育部长李智陞在9月10日宣布改革时表示：“最终，我们希望学校保持开放和包容，让孩子们在学校学习，并在他们直接的社交圈之外建立友谊。”

“他们会遇到不同的观点，他们会学会弥合分歧，他们会建立相互理解。”

但接受亚洲新闻台（CNA）采访的教育研究人员和倡导者表示，如果目标是建立一个更加公平的教育体系——一个孩子的机会不再依赖于父母的人脉、时间和资源的体系——新加坡还需要采取更多措施。他们提出的建议包括削减或取消校友和志愿者优先录取政策，以及从根本上改变学生入学分配方式。

为了实现“理想”或“公平”的框架，专家们还指出，新加坡需要面对一个更根本的问题：P1 注册制度的设计初衷应该是什么？

如果目标是通过教育建立一个“我们优先”的社会，那么家长和社会为了实现这个目标应该准备放弃什么？

P1注册为何变得如此复杂

今天的小学一年级入学登记框架是几十年来不断积累的，其中包含了许多优先事项和规则，因为该制度经过调整，以识别不同的群体并追求不同的政策目标。

国立教育学院 (NIE) 专门研究政策、课程和领导力的副教授 Jason Tan 表示，有些人甚至可能会称这个复杂的系统“笨拙”，因为它同时被用来服务于“太多不同的政策目标”。

利用小学一年级入学登记来实现更广泛的政策目标的做法可以追溯到几十年前。

例如，在1972年该制度实施后的几年里，根据新加坡“只生两个孩子”的人口政策，父母一方已绝育的儿童享有优先权。但随着政府转向鼓励多子多福，这一政策在1987年被推翻。

1984年，美国政府推出了“毕业生母亲优先入学计划”，赋予拥有至少三个孩子的大学毕业生母亲在小学一年级入学方面享有优先权，并可自由选择就读学校。该计划因引发公众强烈不满，于次年被废除。

在随后的几十年里，该框架不断发展演变。

目前，最早的报名阶段也是唯一能保证入学资格的阶段。在第一阶段，凡是有兄弟姐妹在该校就读的儿童，均可确保获得入学名额。

陈副教授表示，这样做有一个实际的原因：一年级学生年纪小，兄弟姐妹在同一所学校就读可以帮助孩子，同时也能让家庭更轻松。

从公开记录来看，校友子女究竟何时开始享有优先权尚不明确。

有据可查的是，1999年小学一年级入学登记时引入了第二阶段A1（Phase 2A1）计划，旨在鼓励校友和社区对学校给予更多支持。该计划优先考虑父母是该校校友或校友会成员的子女，以及其他符合条件的群体。

父母是该校前学生但不是校友会成员的孩子，以及兄弟姐妹曾在该校就读的孩子，与其他几个群体一起，属于 2A2 阶段。

从 2022 年的注册工作开始，第二阶段 A1 和第二阶段 A2 合并为一个第二阶段 A，教育部表示，现在是时候审查两个阶段中利益相关者之间的优先事项差异了。

新加坡管理大学 (SMU) 社会学助理教授何嘉琳质疑，维持牢固的校友与学校关系或保留学校文化是否真的需要在小学一年级入学时优先考虑校友子女。

她还质疑第二阶段A是否达到了预期目的。这部分取决于家长使用该阶段的原因：是为了与学校保持联系，为了让孩子有更大的成功机会，还是仅仅为了更容易入学。

何助理教授表示，如果是后者，那么第二阶段A可能就变成了“一种让你的孩子轻松入学的手段，这与维护学校文化几乎没有任何关系”。

她表示，学校文化也可以通过目前的家庭、教师和学生来延续，因为他们已经对学校产生了归属感。

圣玛格丽特小学是 2027 年起采用新的双轨制 2C 阶段教育体系的 12 所学校之一。但该校校友会认为，更广泛的入学机会和强大的校友关系并非相互排斥。

圣玛格丽特校友会会长赵娜塔莎女士指出，在 2026 年的招生注册中，93 个第二阶段 A 类名额中只有 27 个被占用，而前一年的 91 个名额中只有 24 个被占用。

她说：“近年来，该阶段的校友名额一直没有被填满，因此减少名额不太可能对圣玛格丽特学院的校友家庭产生影响。”

圣玛格丽特校友会会长赵娜塔莎女士表示，校友优先有助于建立强大的学校社区，但这“并非也不应是唯一途径”。（图片：中央社/伊利·曼索尔）

赵女士表示，即使校友中送女儿来这所学校读书的人数减少，也不会造成什么重大损失，因为即使子女不在这所学校就读，校友们仍然会继续贡献时间和金钱。

她补充说，校友优先权可以为强大的社区做出贡献，“但这并非也不应该是唯一的途径”。

道南中学（双轨制教育体系中的 12 所学校之一）的校友会则持不同观点。

该校副校长海伦·阿比丁夫人（82岁）认为，一代又一代的学生在这里学习生活，本身就是学校传统的传承者。她与这所学校的渊源可以追溯到几代人之前：她曾在此就读，并在那里任教25年，她的父亲也曾是这所学校的教师，她的孩子们也曾是这所学校的学生。

她指出，往届学生对校友子女入学名额可能进一步减少表示不满，因为他们希望自己的孩子能够分享他们曾帮助维系的学校经历和社区氛围。

与此同时，阿比丁夫人支持加强社会融合。她担心的是，仅仅改变招生规则是否就能实现这一目标。

“有钱人总会找到办法，”她说道，并指出一些有经济能力的家庭会在热门学校附近租房，以提高子女的入学机会。

2B 阶段今天汇集了几种不同形式的联系或贡献，包括家长志愿者、由与学校直接相关的教会或家族认可的成员以及积极的社区领袖。

家长志愿者计划于 1998 年推出，当时教育部宣布，在学校完成至少 40 小时志愿服务的家长，从第二年的注册工作开始，将有资格在第二阶段 B 中获得优先权。

陈副教授表示，该框架利用小学一年级入学来激励家长志愿服务和基层参与等行为，同时认可教会和宗族关系。

家长们做义工是因为他们真心想为学校做贡献吗？还是因为他们想让自己的孩子考入这所学校？

但何助理教授也质疑，鼓励这种参与是否需要与孩子的入学挂钩，因为家长也可以在孩子入学后通过家长支持小组或志愿者活动做出贡献。

还有一个问题是，将入学优势与志愿服务挂钩是否会影响家长最初参与志愿服务的动机。

何助理教授说：“家长们做义工是因为他们真心想为学校做贡献吗？还是因为他们想让自己的孩子考上这所学校？”

改革框架能走多远？

如果新加坡要从根本上重新思考小学一年级的注册制度，CNA采访的专家和倡导者提出了一系列可能性。

集中招生

在最激进的层面上，以儿童福祉为优先的非营利运动 EveryChild.SG 寻求最终用集中式、自动化的入学系统取代目前大部分基于阶段的系统。

家长仍然可以表明他们心仪的学校，学校的地理位置距离仍然是一个考虑因素。但算法还会考虑社会经济背景和种族等因素。

创始人普贾·班达里表示，最终目标是让每一所小学都能广泛反映新加坡的民族多样性。

在这样的制度下，班达里女士认为没有理由保留基于校友关系或家长志愿服务的优先权，尽管出于实际考虑，例如兄弟姐妹已经在学校就读或父母在学校工作，可能会有例外。

她的理由是，小学是纳税人资助的公共资源。

“没有任何理由让一个家庭仅仅因为父母是校友，或者家境富裕到可以在孩子入学前抽出时间为学校或社区做志愿者，就享有比其他家庭更优厚的入学待遇。”

EveryChild.SG 的创始人 Pooja Bhandari 女士提议，最终用集中式、自动化的入学系统取代目前大部分的小学一年级注册系统。（图片：CNA/Ili Mansor）

新加坡管理大学的何助理教授也认为，让政府在分配学生方面发挥更大的作用，同时允许家长对他们心仪的学校进行排名，是合理的。

她说，这样的制度可以防止来自非常优越或非常贫困家庭的孩子集中在特定的学校里。

但她提醒说，纸面上的多样性并不一定能保证有意义的社会融合。例如，将少数贫困儿童安置在以富裕儿童为主的学校，可能会让他们感到孤立或被歧视。

探讨“血统”与房产问题

新加坡国立大学 (NUS) 社会学家 Vincent Chua 副教授认为，一个更公平的制度必须解决父母优势可以传承的两种方式——通过他所谓的“家族血统”和房地产市场。

“如果你在不改变距离规则的情况下削减校友优先权，你只会改变并‘激发’第二阶段C的竞争，”他说，因为较富裕的家长可以将他们的资源重新投入到房地产中。

蔡副教授建议，最终应该采取比目前50:50的双轨制更进一步的措施。他建议，与其将第二阶段C期名额平均分配给居住在2公里以内和2公里以外的儿童，不如考虑40:60或30:70等比例，让居住在更远地区的儿童获得更大的份额。

他还认为，改革应该解决附属小学和中学之间的“黄金输送管道”问题，他表示，这进一步加剧了小学一年级的竞争。

例如，对于圣安德鲁中学（中学）2025 年的第三组招生，非附属学生的录取分数线为 AL9，而附属学生的录取分数线为 AL22——相差 13 分。

虽然 EveryChild.SG 提议最终让每所小学都拥有某种形式的附属中学升学途径，但蔡副教授不同意普及附属关系。

他说：“‘黄金输送管道’的核心问题不在于有些学校拥有这种管道而有些学校没有，而在于分数差距太大。”

相反，他建议将附属学生的成绩优势限制在 2 或 3 个 AL 分。

着眼于需求，而不仅仅是供给

经济学辅导中心和王牌全科医生辅导中心的创始人洪凯文先生建议逐步取消校友优先权，同时减少少数热门学校的竞争。

“从经济角度来看，这既改变了稀缺资源的分配方式，也减少了稀缺性本身，”他说。

他还提议让家长根据自己的喜好对几所学校进行排名，而不是要求他们在每个阶段都申请一所学校，他认为目前的制度让家庭有更多的“时间、信息和信心来制定策略”。

澳大利亚墨尔本大学经济学家、副教授 Eik Leong Swee 的研究领域包括教育和不平等，他也认为政策制定者应该问问，为什么家长的需求仍然如此集中在相对较少的学校上。

他说：“有很多好学校，家长们却错过了，仅仅是因为他们不知道这些学校很好。”

他建议，与其专注于调整热门学校的学位供应，教育部还可以通过向家长提供更多学校信息来影响其他学校的学位需求，鼓励他们考虑什么样的学校才真正适合自己的孩子。

“如果普通家长开始相信‘我的孩子可以选择的好学校有 50 所而不是 10 所’，那么很多事情都会改变。”

副教授徐先生补充说，如果可行，他会将热门学校的选址更均匀地分布在新加坡各地。但他承认，这样做既困难又耗资巨大。

他以英华小学从巴克路迁至登加为例，指出搬迁一所已建立的学校需要土地，可能会削弱现有校友和社区联系，并可能遭到支持者的反对。因此，此类搬迁并不常见。

副教授 Swee 表示，即便如此，如果社交互动是首要任务，新加坡也应该考虑“重新调整”热门学校的地理位置。

为什么改变如此艰难？

虽然改革小学一年级入学登记制度的想法层出不穷，但更难的问题是，为什么没有进行更彻底的改革。

尽管其中涉及诸多权衡取舍，但 EveryChild.SG 的 Bhandari 女士认为，困难并不一定是技术上的。

她表示，与其他教育改革（例如缩小班级规模）不同，改变招生制度不需要大量的额外资源或对教师进行再培训。

一个可行的办法是在几年内逐步扩大 2C 阶段，然后再过渡到集中分配系统。

“这是一个沟通问题，但我认为并非无法克服，”她说。

班达里女士的意思是，政府应该明确表明该制度的发展方向，并给家庭几年时间来适应，尤其是一些家庭已经根据现有规则做出了关于居住地点和其他安排的决定。

然而，小学一年级入学登记的历史在很大程度上是一个渐进式变化的过程。

新加坡国立教育学院的陈副教授指出，第二阶段C的预留名额逐渐增加——从20个增加到40个，现在大多数学校都有60个名额——以及一些变化，例如合并第二阶段A1和2阶段A2，并在12所学校引入新的双轨制方案。

短期内，他预计这种做法将继续下去。

他说，该框架试图平衡太多相互冲突的要求，而消除既有优势在社会和政治上都是敏感的。

“一旦你制定了某些特权，就不一定能轻易取消它们，”他说，尤其是当家庭已经围绕这些规则提前多年做好计划时。

在他看来，教育部“试图做出妥协”，并且“谨慎行事，而不是选择更彻底的改革”。

谭副教授表示，即使只是缩减现有的优先事项，也可能遭到受影响者的反对。“那么，如果你提议彻底取消其中一些现有标准，（会引发怎样的反响）呢？”

他还补充说，该框架本身也“非常适合家长制定策略”，因为家庭可以研究不同的阶段和规则，以努力为他们的孩子获得“最大的竞争优势”。

例如，一位四十多岁的母亲，希望只被称为谭太太。

她和丈夫卖掉了之前的房子，在牛顿买了一处新的私人房产，距离 ACS（小学）和圣约瑟夫学院（小学部）都不到 1 公里，为他们儿子明年注册小学一年级做准备。

但 ACS（小学）是将于 2027 年采用新的双轨制教育体系的 12 所学校之一。在面向居住在 2 公里范围内儿童的 2C 阶段轨道中，她的儿子将不再仅仅因为居住在 1 公里范围内而获得优先权。

这位广告业高管表示，她理解政府扩大准入范围的意图，但希望这项改变能安排在晚一届学生之后开始实施。

“对我们来说，这简直是个意想不到的变数，”她说。

新加坡管理大学助理教授何教授表示，小学一年级入学登记之所以会成为一个如此敏感的问题，还有另一个原因：许多家长认为选择学校是他们对孩子应尽的责任之一。

在她关于择校的博士研究中，一些家长将准备小学一年级注册描述为做“功课”，而另一些家长则因为做得不够多而感到内疚。

“小学一年级入学登记让家长感到自己能够掌控局面，好像他们可以做些什么来影响孩子的学习结果，”她说。

小学一年级注册让家长感到自己能够掌控局面，仿佛他们可以做些什么来影响孩子的学习结果。

这或许可以解释为什么有些家长明明意识到教育体系中的不平等，却仍然会利用自身所拥有的优势。何助理教授在研究中发现，有些家长虽然感到不安，因为并非每个家庭都有能力这样做，但他们仍然会选择做义工或搬到离学校更近的地方。

她补充说，对一些人来说，选择退出可能会感觉“他们放弃了让孩子获得优势的机会”。

何助理教授也指出，教育部并非一定要要求家长将“我们优先”置于孩子利益之上。她说，教育部仍然鼓励家长选择他们认为适合孩子的学校，同时也努力拓宽他们对“合适学校”的理解。

即便如此，一些家长也未必认为现有框架中蕴含的优势是不公平的。

38岁的公关顾问安娜贝尔·林(Annabel Lim)今年六岁，她的儿子通过丈夫的校友关系进入了英华小学(ACS Primary)。她认为目前的教育体系总体上是公平的，她的儿子明年将入读小学一年级。

在她看来，规则很明确，而那些通过志愿服务或居住地邻近等途径获得资格的家长，则努力提高了孩子的机会。

“搬家需要付出努力，做义工需要付出努力，你必须努力去做这些事。我认为这已经足够公平了，我不知道还能怎么公平，”她说。

38岁的林安娜贝尔女士认为，目前的小学一年级入学登记制度总体上是公平的，她表示，那些利用居住地距离或志愿服务等途径来提高孩子入学机会的家长，已经尽力了。（图片：CNA/Ili Mansor）

接受 CNA 采访的教育专家表示，这些不同的观点最终将辩论引向一个根本问题：小学一年级注册框架究竟应该设计成实现哪些政策目标？

陈副教授表示，政策制定者必须决定如何权衡各种相互冲突的因素，从父母的选择和与校友关系的亲近程度，到更大的机会和社会交往。

“你必须给所有这些因素赋予相对权重，”他说。“换句话说，教育部必须决定……谁比谁优先？”

他补充说，无论选择哪种框架，都会遇到伦理和实际方面的考虑，而且无法满足每个家庭的需求。

一位只愿透露姓名为莎伦女士的卫理公会女子学校校友支持减少校友优势，让没有校友关系的孩子有更好的机会。这位42岁的企业主，她的五岁女儿也将受到最新政策的影响，她希望像她这样的家庭能有更多的时间来适应。

她的家人早就计划利用她与校友的关系，并将子女的教育问题纳入了住房决策的考量范围。

当被问及如果这样做最终能创造一个更公平、社会更加多元化的体系，校友家庭是否应该准备放弃一些现有的优势时，莎伦女士承认他们应该这样做。

“因为这是为了新加坡的整体利益，”她说。“有时候我们必须做出牺牲，对吧？这就是其中之一。”

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。