Is the parent volunteer scheme still relevant or fair?

ACS (Primary) said on the AskGov portal that it decided to do away with the scheme to avoid having parents go through balloting after spending 40 hours volunteering.

In response to queries from ST, the Ministry of Education (MOE) had said on Aug 18 that around one-third of Singapore’s 182 primary schools currently offer the parent volunteer scheme. It added that this figure has “remained fairly stable over the past few years”.

Differing needs in schools

MOE said schools may offer the parent volunteer scheme at their own discretion, based on their needs.

Schools like Princess Elizabeth Primary, Holy Innocents’ Primary and Keming Primary state on their websites that they prioritise voluntary services that are most beneficial to the school and can be performed during weekdays.

Parents who wish to volunteer at Singapore Chinese Girls’ School (Primary) have to indicate causes they can contribute to, such as conservation and nature, and mental health.

They also have to highlight skills they have that can benefit pupils in their learning, including coaching and mentoring, entrepreneurship and public speaking.

Mr Ng Yeow Ling, principal of Yu Neng Primary School, said in the schools he has headed, the number of vacancies for parent volunteers is limited, and applicants are interviewed, so as to avoid disappointment.

“If the parent works full-time, I will ask them to consider if they are able to spare 40 hours for volunteering, and assure them that they can still apply in Phase 2C,” he said.

He added that though it is not a requirement for these parent volunteers to continue with their service once their child gains admission, many still help out. This could be through the parent support group or other ad hoc initiatives.

“Some eventually choose not to register in Phase 2B after completing their volunteer service. They could have another school of choice they applied for instead, in another phase,” he said.

Shifting motivations in volunteering

Experts ST spoke to said some schools could have eliminated the scheme for administrative reasons, including the complications of running the scheme and overwhelming demand.

SMU’s Ho said schools with longstanding parent volunteer programmes may be reluctant to do away with them, since they depend on the parents for essential functions, such as traffic marshalling.

“But it’s worth stepping back to ask whether such labour should be provided by parent volunteers in the first place,” she said, adding that these roles could be staffed or paid positions, or performed by parents of current students.

A parent volunteer at a popular primary school in the west, who declined to be named, believes that her occupation as a healthcare professional got her into the scheme. She was deployed to manage the school’s sick bay during recess time, at least once a week, for two hours each time, over a period of four to six months.

In the end, her son failed to get into the school in Phase 2B, which underwent balloting, but he made it under the later Phase 2C, which considers the distance of the home from the school.

“Though I was initially upset, I have no regrets. I knew it was a gamble, but I wish they had tightened the process and managed it better,” she said.

She added that her volunteering experience allowed her to witness interactions between the staff and students, and affirmed for her that the school would be a right fit for her son.

No easy fix for school placement

In a 2023 parliamentary response, MOE had said that the proportion of children successfully registered via Phase 2B dropped from 6 to 4 per cent over the past decade. It attributed this to a decrease in the number of parent volunteers.

The ministry is reviewing the Primary 1 registration system to widen access and encourage social mixing.

Many have questioned whether priority should be given to children of alumni and parent volunteers, or those living nearby, with some parents moving homes to secure entry into their preferred schools.

Thirty-three schools were oversubscribed in Phase 2B in 2026, of which 31 conducted ballots. Nanyang Primary in Bukit Timah was the most oversubscribed, with 52 children vying for 20 spots.

In 2025, 33 schools were oversubscribed, with 29 conducting ballots. In 2024, the corresponding figures were 30 and 26.

With the review of the P1 registration system underway, Ho from SMU said removing the parent volunteer scheme will not be an effective solution as it may shift pressure elsewhere.

Seah from NUS said a blanket approach that scraps the scheme entirely, without taking into account the different needs of individual schools, would not be effective.

It would also not remove the underlying demand for places in popular schools.

“As long as some schools remain much more sought-after than others, parents are likely to respond to whatever criteria the admissions system uses to allocate scarce places,” he said.

Ho proposed an alternative P1 entry process, where pupils are centrally allocated to schools via a system that considers proximity to schools and demographic diversity.

However, such a move would require detailed studies examining the diversity of neighbourhoods surrounding each school, the potential effect on nearby property prices, and whether there are possible measures to mitigate resulting pressures on the property market.

“We should not be under the illusion that simply eliminating the parent volunteer programme will be sufficient to accomplish MOE’s stated goal of opening access to more students.

“Previous reforms to the system have been tweaks, whereas it seems we may need an overhaul,” Ho said.

Jason Tan, an associate professor at the National Institute of Education, told ST that replacing the existing P1 registration system with a “nationwide randomised lottery” would very likely be unpopular with many parents.

Said Tan: “You run into the very real issue of parental choice. Parents will ask why they aren’t allowed to decide what they feel is best for their children.”

Other impracticalities include long daily commutes for young children and the potential separation of siblings who go to different schools.

He added that there is no easy fix or alternatives to a system that hinges almost entirely on parental background, rather than a child’s individual merit.

While criteria that comprise alumni ties, parent volunteering and location of residence create systemic inequalities, replacing them with child-based merit has its own drawbacks.

Citing Hong Kong schools’ discretionary admission interviews for six-year-old children, he warned that implementing something similar here would result in another “tuition” industry – one to coach and prep young children to prepare stellar portfolios and ace their interviews.

As the MOE reviews the P1 registration exercise, Tan said it has to balance social equity, parental choice, and logistics.