at least four more primary schools have scrapped the parent volunteer scheme in the last two years.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\nFairfield Methodist School (Primary) and Mee Toh School stopped accepting parent volunteers in 2026, while Hong Wen School and Rosyth School\u00a0did so in 2025.<\/p>\n
The scheme has drawn criticism for its transactional nature that goes against the spirit of volunteerism, as well as for privileging parents with more means and time to spare.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe parent volunteer scheme is by no means a universally accessible scheme… Frankly, its existence is antithetical to our society\u2019s meritocratic principles,\u201d said Jacqueline Ho, who teaches sociology at Singapore Management University (SMU).<\/p>\n
Economics professor Kelvin Seah, from the National University of Singapore (NUS), said while the scheme provides mutual benefits, complications arise when it is tied to priority in the P1 registration exercise.<\/p>\n
By volunteering, parents learn more about the school, build closer ties with it, and have greater involvement in their children\u2019s education. The school gets extra help from parent volunteers.<\/p>\n
However, Seah said, when parents view it as a means of improving their child\u2019s chances of admission into a preferred school, this can change the motivation behind volunteering, particularly for highly sought-after schools.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn that sense, there is a tension between the scheme\u2019s community-building objective and its role in P1 admissions,\u201d said Seah.<\/p>\n
Besides, Ho added, encouraging greater parental involvement or building ties with a school is unnecessary if the child is not guaranteed a place in the school.<\/p>\n
She also said parents who want to learn more about a school can do so at its open house, or reach out to other parents in the school\u2019s parent support group.<\/p>\n
The scheme was introduced in 1998 as a way for parents to get to know more about the school they are interested in.<\/p>\n
Under the scheme, parents clock at least 40 hours of volunteer work by completing tasks like helping out at school events or serving as traffic wardens.<\/p>\n
They get to register in Phase 2B of the yearly P1 registration exercise.<\/p>\n
But this does not guarantee the child a place in the school \u2013 parents still have to ballot if the number of applicants exceeds the spots available in Phase 2B. Children of active community leaders and those with church or clan associations also qualify for this phase.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In response to queries from ST, the Ministry of Education (MOE) had said on Aug 18 that around one-third of Singapore\u2019s 182 primary schools currently offer the parent volunteer scheme. It added that this figure has \u201cremained fairly stable over the past few years\u201d.<\/p>\n
Differing needs in schools<\/h2>\n
MOE said schools may offer the parent volunteer scheme at their own discretion, based on their needs.<\/p>\n
Schools like Princess Elizabeth Primary, Holy Innocents\u2019 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.<\/p>\n
Parents who wish to volunteer at Singapore Chinese Girls\u2019 School (Primary) have to indicate causes they can contribute to, such as conservation and nature, and mental health.<\/p>\n
They also have to highlight skills they have that can benefit pupils in their learning, including coaching and mentoring, entrepreneurship and public speaking.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Shifting motivations in volunteering<\/h2>\n
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.<\/p>\n
SMU\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut it\u2019s worth stepping back to ask whether such labour should be provided by parent volunteers in the first place,\u201d she said, adding that these roles could be staffed or paid positions, or performed by parents of current students.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s sick bay during recess time, at least once a week, for two hours each time, over a period of four to six months.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThough 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,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
No easy fix for school placement<\/h2>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The ministry is reviewing the Primary 1 registration system to widen access and encourage social mixing.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In 2025, 33 schools were oversubscribed, with 29 conducting ballots. In 2024, the corresponding figures were 30 and 26.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It would also not remove the underlying demand for places in popular schools.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe should not be under the illusion that simply eliminating the parent volunteer programme will be sufficient to accomplish MOE\u2019s stated goal of opening access to more students.<\/p>\n
\u201cPrevious reforms to the system have been tweaks, whereas it seems we may need an overhaul,\u201d Ho said.<\/p>\n
Jason Tan, an associate professor at the National Institute of Education, told ST that replacing the existing P1 registration system with a \u201cnationwide randomised lottery\u201d would very likely be unpopular with many parents.<\/p>\n
Said Tan: \u201cYou run into the very real issue of parental choice. Parents will ask why they aren\u2019t allowed to decide what they feel is best for their children.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other impracticalities include long daily commutes for young children and the potential separation of siblings who go to different schools.<\/p>\n
He added that there is no easy fix or alternatives to a system that hinges almost entirely on parental background, rather than a child\u2019s individual merit.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Citing Hong Kong schools\u2019 discretionary admission interviews for six-year-old children, he warned that implementing something similar here would result in another \u201ctuition\u201d industry \u2013 one to coach and prep young children to prepare stellar portfolios and ace their interviews.<\/p>\n
As the MOE reviews the P1 registration exercise, Tan said it has to balance social equity, parental choice, and logistics.<\/p>\n