floppy\" post_id=\"2038777\" time=\"1632101425\" user_id=\"97579:Honestly, I doubt the MOE or the general public really think that far. The government today appears to be more reactionary rather than revolutionary. The complain they faced now is too many people who stay near some schools couldn't get a place. Hence, their solution is to increase the number of places by taking from one phase and giving it to the next, hoping that people will be appeased for a while. What they should address is the elephant in the room, that people are only interested in some schools. 20 or 40 seats, it's not going to satisfy everyone's appetite.If one believes the above, I think it is possible that the new registration rules actually increase the concentration of high scorers in certain schools X years down the road. This is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, and when you read MOE's press release it is clear what attribute they are trying to protect. However, since the distance priority still applies within 2A and 2B , and 2C was/is/always will be who can get within 1 km (for certain schools) economic diversity may drop.SG_KP1\" post_id=\"2038764\" time=\"1632097196\" user_id=\"188234:[quote=floppy post_id=2038753 time=1632061447 user_id=97579].....
The most important factor, however, has probably nothing to do with the school itself. The SES of the school population (higher middle income) is above the average of neighbourhood school (which, as the name implies, is really dependent on the neighbourhood). You have more children staying in private property, more parents who are in PMET positions etc and even with the expanded 1km zone, and extra 40 places for 2C, that’s unlikely to change. Research has shown that high SES often result in higher performing children (see research by Singapore Children Society) and I believe that there’s some truth in it. It’s probably due to the higher expectation from parents, more resources available for tuition and enrichment, more time by parents to volunteer / support / supervise etc.
To address SG_KG1 point, all schools have 1 and 2. That’s the baseline expected by MOE. Some SAP / GEP schools have 1, 2 and 3 but lacks 4. When you have a confluence of the above (and there are a number of schools with all 4), I don’t think the result by the school is unexpected.
Undoubtedly, there may be some specific instances were the new distance measurement and 2B rules offset this but on average I think it is an interesting question (predicting the future is always hard).
In any case, \"the above\" is some findings from SCS research. You can google SCHOOLS AND THE CLASS DIVIDE:
AN EXAMINATION OF CHILDREN’S SELF-CONCEPT AND ASPIRATIONS IN SINGAPORE if you are interested. It's a long paper but some of the key findings / comments:
\"However, the most striking difference that sets these elite schools apart from other schools is perhaps the socio-economic composition of the student body. Data increasingly point to a disproportionate number of students from affluent backgrounds in elite primary and secondary schools... At the primary school level, about 60% of students in elite schools live in private housing, compared with the national average of 20% for all primary schools (Davie & Chew, 2012).\"
\"...in the primary school admission system, priority is given based on parents’ connections to the school, as well as proximity of the family home to the school. Given that many elite primary schools are located in wealthier neighbourhoods, it appears that children from privileged backgrounds are given more opportunities to enrol in elite primary schools (Ng, 2011; Sumit & Foo, 2015).\"
Since you mentioned RGPS earlier, it should be noted that there is zero public housing within 1km (For NYPS, there's at least Blk 1 to 8 - not much, but at least not zero
).[/quote]Could not agree more that there is a direct impact of socio-economic and demographic of the student population and encourages further elitism and class divide. It is widely known fact that elite schools are generally located in wealthier neighbourhoods, access to more resources and sub-consciously ring-fences students to mingle amongst themselves exclusively. Have seen the horrified (but innocent) look when kids realise not every dwelling has internal staircases or swimming pool access, parents (not helpers) shuttling kids to school or worse still, become suburb snobs.What often gets underestimated is that not every Alumni will come out equal in the end but there is a strong connection to a popular Alma Mater in a saturated area and these folks will like to let their kids share a similar experience thus willing to adapt, travelling distance is a small sacrifice. This group has essentially been marginalised with a smaller safety net.
\" .... the latest revision would help ensure that schools remain accessible, open and inclusive.\" It seems contradictory to the existence of 2B quite honestly. Or perhaps the other considerations are reduced travelling time, allow more sleep in, encourage family bonding during breakfast etc .... Only time will tell if the trade off was worth it.