Opponents of removing the distance-based priority argue that the current system serves a vital practical purpose: keeping young children close to home. A primary school student's daily commute is a significant factor in their overall well-being, and forcing children to travel long distances across the city would place an unnecessary burden on both students and parents. The proximity rule ensures that schools remain the heart of their local communities.
Beyond the logistical benefits, the current policy provides a sense of predictability and stability for families. Parents often make long-term housing decisions based on the expectation that their children will be able to attend a nearby school. Abruptly changing these rules would undermine the trust that families place in the education system and could lead to widespread frustration among those who have already invested in their homes with the current policy in mind.
There is also the risk that removing the distance advantage would not actually solve the problem of competition. If the proximity rule is scrapped, demand for top-tier schools will remain high, and the government would likely have to rely on other criteria, such as balloting or more stringent volunteer requirements. This could simply shift the burden of competition from housing costs to other, potentially more stressful, forms of parental effort.
Maintaining the status quo is, in this view, the most pragmatic approach. Rather than dismantling a system that works for the majority, the focus should remain on improving the quality of schools across the board. By ensuring that every school provides a high standard of education, the government can naturally reduce the intense competition for specific institutions without needing to disrupt the established community-based model.