Direct Subsidy Scheme hurts poor pupils

Over the past decade, a number of aided and government schools have joined the Direct Subsidy Scheme.

With a view to having more independence regarding admissions and being able to operate with greater autonomy, many schools made the switch to the scheme. Thanks to the steep tuition fees they can charge within the scheme, these schools can obtain extra resources and, as a consequence, enhance the quality of their teaching.

I agree with those who argue that by joining this scheme, the standard of teaching can be raised. However, we should not neglect the downside and the fact that potentially, when a school switches to the scheme, it can have a detrimental effect on society. It is obvious that the scheme is a violation of equal education opportunities.

Education is supposed to be accessible to people from all walks of life and everybody deserves a chance to study in a learning environment where there is a level playing field. Under the scheme, the school admission process is unequal.

Despite the generous scholarships and subsidies that are offered by such schools, there is no doubt that the tuition fees contribute to an unhealthy phenomenon - creating a fine line, which differentiates between the "upper class" and "lower class". Students from lower-income families stand a smaller chance of getting into a Direct Subsidy Scheme school with an outstanding academic record than children from a privileged background because of the fees charged. This means that the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens.

This also puts obstacles in the way of future social mobility for poorer students.