St. Andrews Junior School, located in the heart of Singapore, offers an application rate of 116%, calculated from 279 applications for 241 placements.
Known for its robust academic and co-curricular programs, the school has continually produced top scholars and athletes. Its prestigious heritage and emphasis on holistic education make it highly competitive for Primary 1 admission.
Recently, St. Andrews distinguished itself with exceptional achievements in both national exams and interschool sports competitions.
Parents are drawn to its commitment to character development, spiritual growth, and academic excellence. The school's central location further enhances its appeal, promising a conducive learning environment for your child.
St Andrews Junior School
Principal:
Mdm Tan Quee Wah Elsie (Mrs Elsie Poey)
Vice Principals:
Miss Hew Yi Qian Caroline, Mdm Stephanie Lim Mei Fong
Session Type:
Single Session
Email:
Nearest MRT:
Potong Pasir,Toa Payoh
School Type:
Government-aided Sch
Ballot Results
Learn About the Phases Here
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Vacancy | 180 | 132 | 39 | 84 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Applied | 48 | 76 | 33 | 104 | 0 | 0 | 261 | |
| % Applied | 27% | 58% | 85% | 124% | - | - | - | |
| Taken | 48 | 76 | 33 | 84 | 0 | 0 | 241 | |
| % Taken | 27% | 58% | 85% | 100% | - | - | - | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2024 | Vacancy | 180 | 128 | 42 | 92 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 52 | 62 | 35 | 130 | 0 | 0 | 279 | |
| % Applied | 29% | 48% | 83% | 141% | 0% | 0% | 116% | |
| Taken | 52 | 62 | 35 | 92 | 0 | 0 | 241 | |
| % Taken | 29% | 48% | 83% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2023 | Vacancy | 180 | 125 | 45 | 103 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 55 | 49 | 36 | 113 | 0 | 0 | 253 | |
| % Applied | 31% | 39% | 80% | 110% | 0% | 0% | 105% | |
| Taken | 55 | 49 | 36 | 103 | 0 | 0 | 243 | |
| % Taken | 31% | 39% | 80% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2022 | Vacancy | 180 | 118 | 37 | 82 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 62 | 66 | 31 | 124 | 0 | 0 | 283 | |
| % Applied | 34% | 56% | 84% | 151% | 0% | 0% | 118% | |
| Taken | 62 | 66 | 31 | 82 | 0 | 0 | 241 | |
| % Taken | 34% | 56% | 84% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Vacancy | 200 | 129 | 82 | 45 | 64 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 72 | 47 | 34 | 25 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 283 | |
| % Applied | 36% | 36% | 41% | 56% | 164% | 0% | 0% | 118% | |
| Taken | 72 | 47 | 34 | 25 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 242 | |
| % Taken | 36% | 36% | 41% | 56% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2020 | Vacancy | 200 | 152 | 110 | 66 | 89 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 48 | 42 | 19 | 44 | 122 | 0 | 0 | 275 | |
| % Applied | 24% | 28% | 17% | 67% | 137% | 0% | 0% | 115% | |
| Taken | 48 | 42 | 19 | 44 | 89 | 0 | 0 | 242 | |
| % Taken | 24% | 28% | 17% | 67% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2019 | Vacancy | 200 | 135 | 94 | 51 | 68 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 65 | 41 | 34 | 35 | 104 | 0 | 0 | 279 | |
| % Applied | 33% | 30% | 36% | 69% | 153% | 0% | 0% | 116% | |
| Taken | 65 | 41 | 34 | 35 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 243 | |
| % Taken | 33% | 30% | 36% | 69% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2018 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 51 | 53 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 142 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 125% | 147% | 0% | 0% | 59% | |
| Taken | 71 | 32 | 36 | 48 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 30% | 13% | 15% | 94% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2017 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 60 | 61 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 152 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 122% | 130% | 0% | 0% | 63% | |
| Taken | 57 | 26 | 38 | 58 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 24% | 11% | 16% | 97% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2016 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 57 | 63 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 137 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 118% | 111% | 0% | 0% | 57% | |
| Taken | 69 | 23 | 34 | 51 | 63 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 29% | 10% | 14% | 89% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2015 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 64 | 65 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 144 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 105% | 118% | 0% | 0% | 60% | |
| Taken | 62 | 19 | 32 | 62 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 26% | 8% | 13% | 97% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2014 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 54 | 55 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 76 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 152 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 141% | 138% | 0% | 0% | 63% | |
| Taken | 64 | 27 | 41 | 53 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 27% | 11% | 17% | 98% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2013 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 56 | 55 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 142 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 120% | 136% | 0% | 0% | 59% | |
| Taken | 74 | 19 | 36 | 56 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 31% | 8% | 15% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2012 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 58 | 58 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 134 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 110% | 121% | 0% | 0% | 56% | |
| Taken | 63 | 23 | 38 | 58 | 58 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 26% | 10% | 16% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2011 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 63 | 62 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 77 | 84 | 0 | 0 | 161 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 122% | 135% | 0% | 0% | 67% | |
| Taken | 61 | 18 | 36 | 63 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 25% | 8% | 15% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2010 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 72 | 71 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 158 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 110% | 111% | 0% | 0% | 66% | |
| Taken | 49 | 16 | 32 | 72 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 20% | 7% | 13% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
Google Reviews!
Hear from parents about their experiences with St Andrews Junior School.
"I would like to express my heart filled gratitude towards the school. As an ex-student, I have came to realize how much this school has built the foundation of my values and reasoning. I truly thank all the teachers who guided me through my 6 years at the school."
January 06, 2025
"⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Exceptional Educators at St. Andrew’s Junior School As a parent of a child at St. Andrew’s Junior School, I am deeply impressed and profoundly grateful for the exceptional dedication and professionalism of the teachers here, particularly Teacher Oriana Ying and Teacher Amanda Lye. These educators are truly rare gems in the teaching profession, setting a high standard for what it means to be an outstanding role model in the field of education. Teacher Oriana Ying, who teaches Mandarin, and Teacher Amanda Lye, who teaches English, go above and beyond in nurturing the learning, development, and well-being of their students. They approach every child with warmth, patience, and care, ensuring they feel supported and valued in their education journey. Their innovative PAL teaching methods and genuine passion for their roles empower children to build valuable skills, both academically and personally, that will serve them well into the future. As a parent, it brings immense comfort to know that my child is in the hands of educators who prioritize safety, growth, and holistic development while fostering our children a love for learning. Teachers Oriana Ying and Amanda Lye are not just educators; they are mentors, motivators, and protectors of our children’s potential. To the school’s management and the Ministry of Education: we need more educators like Teacher Oriana Ying and Teacher Amanda Lye. Their dedication is a shining example of what every parent hopes for in their child’s education—a safe, enriching, and inspiring environment where students thrive. Thank you to these remarkable teachers for their invaluable contributions to the lives of their students and for embodying the true spirit of education."
January 15, 2025
"Very good school nice friends but some are ver annoying the teachers are nice but some are a bit to strict and some are just a bit bad. Overall it is very good"
October 12, 2024
"Decent school with nice classmates but some are extremely annoying most teachers are nice but one of my teachers are not very smart(can’t say who) as he got his own question that he set wrong and the PSLE practice paper question wrong But the facility’s are wonderful love the field but the canteen is only ok"
August 08, 2024
"Very nice school amazing. My both boys are from here . My elder one secure very good in Psle and get to IP but in his heart Saint Andrew’s is always there . How much love they give to there student is amazing."
June 10, 2024