'More than just a privilege': Increase in Phase 2C places draws mixed reactions from alumni parents - CNA

“If excessive alumni benefits are worsening inequality then we should intervene,” says one parent who is supportive of the changes.

Primary school students attending a class. (File photo: TODAY) New: You can now listen to articles. This audio is generated by an AI tool.

Charmaine Jacob 11 Sep 2026 08:23PM (Updated: 11 Sep 2026 08:54PM) Bookmark Bookmark Share WhatsApp Telegram Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Set CNA as your preferred source on Google Add CNA as a trusted source to help Google better understand and surface our content in search results. Read a summary of this article on FAST. Get bite-sized news via a newcards interface. Give it a try. Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST FAST SINGAPORE: When Jasmine heard that more places would be set aside for Phase 2C applicants in the Primary 1 registration exercise from next year, she felt disappointed and worried. 

The change could mean fewer places under Phase 2A, which gives priority to alumni.

As an alumna of Singapore Chinese Girls' School (SCGS), she will be eligible to register her four-year-old daughter in 2028 under Phase 2A. 

Jasmine, who wanted to be known only by her first name, lives more than 2km from SCGS, but is considering moving closer to improve her daughter’s chances.

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 “For many years, it’s something that parents from these schools felt was very competitive, even in the alumni round. Now we’re going to be squeezed even more.

“I understand that people who are not in this position may feel it’s just a privilege. But it’s more than just a privilege. It’s a shared experience that you also want your children to have. The same traditions, same school environment, same stories,” the communications professional said. 

“I want to share these conversations, bond over a similar childhood. And that's what I’d lose if I sent my child to another school,” she said.

Jasmine, who also has a two-year-old daughter, worries about the longer-term implications if her elder girl does not get into the school. If so, her younger daughter would not qualify for Phase 1 at SCGS, which gives priority to children with an older sibling already at the same school.

“I don’t know what it’s going to look like. I don’t think it’s fairer. You’re taking away the opportunity from some people,” she said. “You might potentially have a country of parents who will constantly try to work out how to get what they want.

“The competition in the alumni phase will now be even worse.”

The Ministry of Education (MOE) announced on Thursday (Sep 10) that most primary schools will set aside 60 places for Phase 2C from next year's Primary 1 registration exercise, up from 40 currently. 

Twelve schools in neighbourhoods where public housing makes up less than 40 per cent of homes within 2km will also split their Phase 2C places into two equal tracks – one for applicants living within 2km, another for those beyond it – with no home-school distance priority within either track.

These schools are mostly in Bukit Timah, with a few in Marine Parade. 

Other parents shared similar concerns about securing places for their children at their alma mater.

Eugene, who wanted to be known only by his first name, is already wondering whether his two-year-old son will get into his alma mater, Anglo-Chinese School (Primary), when it is his turn to enter Primary 1 in five years.

“For years, I’ve heard of my friends moving houses to give their kids a better chance of this. It was never something that I thought I’d do, but now I’m thinking if I should do it,” he said.

For Eugene, wanting his son to attend the same school is about more than its "branding". It is about the culture and formative experiences he associates with his own time there.

“But we need to differentiate between wanting your child to go through a similar childhood or upbringing, versus wanting them to go to a brand-name school,” he said.

He believes many alumni parents yearn for the culture and community they had at their own schools, and want the same for their children. 

At the same time, Eugene acknowledged the need to look beyond individual preferences and consider the kind of society Singapore wants its schools to foster.

He cautioned against allowing schools to become "enclaves" where particular backgrounds or communities perpetuate themselves.

“It is important to build a culture in all schools. And it’s down to the administrators to also create a culture in these schools,” he said.

With these changes, the priority traditionally given to alumni appears to be gradually narrowing, experts told CNA. 

Associate Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Vincent Chua described the changes as a reallocation of seats “away from legacy phases (Phase 2A and 2B) toward open access”. 

Phase 2B is for children whose parent has volunteered at the school, or who has ties to a religious or clan group affiliated with it.

“Although there is no outright abolition of the legacy, the moves do represent a decisive narrowing of alumni leverage," he said. "The state is making it clear that public educational infrastructure must prioritise open access and social mixing over private network continuity.” 

Assistant professor of sociology Jacqueline Ho at Singapore Management University (SMU) shared similar views, saying the changes signal the direction the Primary 1 registration system could eventually take. 

“There is a growing recognition that granting alumni priority access to schools is a legacy of the past, and is misaligned with the principles of fairness and meritocracy that we aspire to,” she said.

“It is no longer controversial to suggest that we should do away with this privilege. My prediction is that we are headed in this direction eventually, given the strong signal MOE has sent – at least discursively – about the importance of diverse schools.”

Asst Prof Ho said the increase in Phase 2C places was “a way of reducing access for children of alumni, even if it does not remove it entirely”.

“The primary goal of the registration process should be to facilitate access to schools in a relatively fair manner, and to help ensure a healthy mix of students in each school,” she said. 

“Why should preserving school culture be a task for the P1 registration process to accomplish? Likewise, do we need to reward volunteers with priority access to a school – can we even call it volunteering at that point?” 

Experts also said widening access to popular schools could help broaden the socio-economic mix of their student populations. 

“Under the old 1km distance rule, these schools were effectively monopolised by adjacent luxury private estate owners,” Assoc Prof Chua said. 

The new 50-50 two-track framework, he said, would weaken the “popular-school-wealthy-area nexus”. 

“Precisely because school popularity and neighbourhood wealth tend to go together (in Singapore), expanding the catchment from 1 to 2km and beyond will guarantee spatial, and by extension, socioeconomic diversity in classrooms that were previously wealth-gated.

“Some families will feel their advantages being attenuated, but the state looks at the big picture and says this is good for Singapore.” 

Asst Prof Ho agreed the new system is fairer in principle, as it opens places to families living farther away and not just those in wealthier neighbourhoods. But she cautioned that the complexity of the system could affect whether families take up the opportunity.

“So it is more fair and more complex … And the complexity will shape the take-up rate and whether people take up the offer to attend these schools," she said.

“The registration framework process has already been criticised in the past for being complex and it’s now more complex. So I hope everyone who is in the know can better communicate these changes.” 

This complexity, she said, raises the question of whether the registration framework should be rethought altogether.

“I have always advocated for overhauling the system entirely and replacing the system with the government allocating students to schools based on proximity and demographic diversity.”

Not all alumni parents are opposed to the changes, with some saying they are willing to give up an advantage if it means creating a more inclusive system.

Mr Lester Lee, an alumnus of Nanyang Primary School with a five-year-old daughter, said alumni priority matters to him as it offers "an added dimension of shared experience", but he would sacrifice that advantage if it did not serve the common good. 

“If excessive alumni benefits are worsening inequality then we should intervene,” the 35-year-old healthcare professional said. 

Reducing competition, he said, also requires strengthening schools more broadly.

“If every school was a good school, or at least unique and empowered, there would be less of a need to try to game the system,” he said.

Anglo-Chinese School (Junior) alumnus Gabriel, who wanted to be known only by his first name, similarly placed little importance on securing an alumni advantage for his children. 

“Sharing the same school name as my child would be nice, but surely the parent-child relationship has depth to it beyond what schools we went to,” said the 33-year-old, who works in administration.

He described the changes as “perfectly reasonable”, though he questioned what it means for a registration system to be fair.

“Fairer for who?” he said. “There must be a logic and process to evaluate school placements. Why can't we have one that's genuinely fair-minded, then live with the consequences?”

Others were more circumspect about whether the changes could be characterised as fair.

Jean (not her real name), an alumna of Raffles Girls’ Primary School who has a daughter, said she was surprised by the changes as “alumni priority appears to be an established practice in national schools”.

But she said fairness in the registration exercise could not be viewed in absolute terms.

“My view is that the concept of ‘fair’ is a subjective and reductive label. There is no broad-brush version of fairness, in that for the rules to be ‘fair’ to one group, another group loses out,” said Jean, who is a lawyer.

From a policy-design perspective, no simple registration system may satisfy all parents, said Associate Professor Jason Tan, who works in policy, curriculum and leadership at the National Institute of Education.

“There is probably no way of ensuring that the registration framework will appease the concerns of all parents,” he said.

A completely randomised lottery system could appear fairer and ensure a wider spread of demographic backgrounds, but it would come with its own trade-offs, he said.

“Many parents would be upset at not being able to choose a preferred school,” he said, adding that the young age of Primary 1 pupils would also raise concerns over travelling time and whether children can attend the same school as their older siblings.

More broadly, Assoc Prof Tan said policymakers are "grappling with the practical difficulties involved in making moral, not just technical, decisions that affect parents and students", including how much priority to give to different policy goals.

Even alumni who are not yet parents are willing to accept the changes.

St Margaret's School (Primary) alumna Rachel, who wanted to be known only by her first name, said she would want her future child to learn alongside peers from different backgrounds and cultures, as this could help develop empathy and understanding. 

“When you have all your children coming from the same socio-economic background, we live in a bubble, and they don't get to experience other perspectives,” she said.

“The country is not just children living in Bukit Timah or people living in Bukit Timah. If you're living in this bubble, you'll miss out on the perspectives of the rest of the population.”

She added that other aspects of primary school education were also "worth debating about". To her, bigger priorities include equal access to educational resources, teaching quality, the syllabus and addressing student stress.

“The idea that every school is a good school is still an aspiration that we should aim for. This is not the lived reality now,” she said.