Don’t lose sight of why home-school distance matters

I REFER to the article, Consider removing the property proximity advantage in allocating Primary 1 places in schools, published on Aug 3, 2026.

The writer’s suggestion to remove home-school distance as a criterion for Primary 1 admissions, in the name of equity, is well intentioned. But it risks overlooking the primary purpose of the policy.

The home-school distance criterion was never simply about giving an advantage to families who can afford to move. Rather, it is a planning tool that encourages neighbourhood schooling – an objective with clear public benefits.

Children who attend schools close to home spend less time commuting, are more likely to walk or cycle to school, and become part of the communities in which they live.

Parents are more able to participate in school activities, while neighbourhoods benefit from stronger social ties among families.

The policy also reduces traffic congestion around schools and dependence on private transport.

Removing the distance criterion would fundamentally change parents’ incentives. If every child had an equal chance of admission regardless of where they lived, there would be little reason not to apply to the most sought-after schools across the island.

Rather than reducing competition, the likely outcome would be even greater concentration of applications at a small number of schools, more balloting, longer commutes and weaker neighbourhood-school connections.

The argument that proximity advantages wealthier families also deserves closer scrutiny. Certainly, some households are able to buy or rent homes near popular schools.

SEE ALSO

Consider removing the property proximity advantage in allocating Primary 1 places in schools 

Time to overhaul the education system

Furthermore, many families have lived in their neighbourhoods for years, secured Build-To-Order flats nearby, or deliberately made long-term housing decisions to enable their children to attend a school located within walking distance.

The question, therefore, is not whether the current framework is perfect. There are legitimate concerns where popular schools are located in areas dominated by private housing, and policymakers should continue exploring ways to ensure that deserving families are not unfairly disadvantaged by geography alone.

Yet that is an argument for refining the framework, not abandoning one of its core principles.

A good admissions system must balance fairness with broader public policy objectives. The distance criterion does more than allocate school places; it supports neighbourhoods, encourages sustainable travel and helps keep schools connected to the communities they serve.

As we debate how to make Primary 1 admissions more equitable, we should be careful not to discard a policy that has long supported those wider goals.

Jeffrey Fang