Ex MOE policy officer: We’re Not Free to Define ‘Elitism’ As We Please

[covertbriar]

By Yann Wong

From 2011 to 2012, I served as the MOE policy officer in charge of the Direct Schools Admissions (DSA) Scheme, and by virtue of that experience, I dare say that there are only a handful of people in Singapore who knows more about DSA than me. In 2004, then-Minister of Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced the formation of the DSA scheme (although it was not named yet then) in order to “arouse a passion among our young for knowledge and learning that carries through life” and to “accept and promote more diverse measures of merit” [1]. Year after year, reviews on the DSA reported overwhelming positive response from both schools and parents. Backed up by such positive response, the number of schools participating in the DSA as well as the percentage of students admitted through DSA was expanded. In the eyes of many, DSA was seen as a huge policy success. This was 14 years ago. Today, ask any teacher, parent or student about whether DSA has REALLY changed their “definition of merit” to include non-academic credentials, you would almost certainly get a good laugh in return. The DSA has failed Tharman’s vision. The definition of “merit” is not so easily redefined. In the same vein, the definition of “elite” is also not so easily redefined.

There have been some attempt to save RI from the brand of “elitism”, mostly by redefining what we mean by “elite”, either to mean “only the rich”, or to mean “those who excel in ANYTHING, including sports, arts and leadership (maybe even character)”. Both camps have good intentions in their re-definitions, but just like Tharman had good intentions when he attempted to redefine “merit”, good intentions don’t really matter. A few [2] have already called out how disingenuous it is to try and disentangle “elitism” from “meritocracy”. In academic literature, there is a wealth of material linking meritocracy/elitism to systemic inequality (see Appendix B for a small sample), and others have pointed out that simple anecdotes of Taxi-driver children becoming President Scholars as mere rhetoric [3]. As an educator, I would like to make a new contribution: I would like to point out 3 ways in which meritocracy/elitism has significant real-life impact on the psychology of students (and really the whole of Singapore society), and this impact will persist no matter what kind of definition of “elitism” you feel like adopting.

Shame, Performance Anxiety and Validation-Neediness

Our students are subjected to environments where they develop high amounts of shame when they fail to perform academically. Even for high performing students, I have observed high amounts of anxiety due to fear of failing to perform (either academically or in CCAs), and this is because our children can only feel validated by their performance, and are seldom, if ever, validated just for being themselves. As a response to their shame, many students develop a sense of neediness where impressing other people (so that they can be validated) becomes the main purpose of their life. For many parents, they label all these symptoms as “stress”, but really it's much more complex and dangerous than that.

I am not a psychologist, but there is much public information available on how shaming children is very very bad for their mental health, and this has strong links to conditions such as depression, anxiety disorder and aggression [4]. The only reason why educators don’t seem to acknowledge this is that the vast majority of students are already depressed and anxious, and it has become normalised as what it means to be a student in Singapore. Teachers may even reinforce this by labelling healthily self-assured children as “lacking drive” or even “lazy”. Furthermore, I would like to argue that the issues of performance anxiety and validation-neediness persist all the way into adulthood, and shape much of Singapore society today.

Perhaps this is more a product of our Asian (and particularly Chinese) culture of parenting, but this is certainly exacerbated by our meritocratic exam-centric culture which our children are immersed in. Even for children whose parents have deliberately never shamed them, they still spend an extraordinary amount of time immersed in a school culture where validation only exists in the form of performance achievement. It is about time our schools own up that their own classroom practices damage the mental health of children.

Normalisation of Condescension

Do you remember the comic about two mothers talking to their children about the road sweeper? Then-Minister of Education Ng Chee Meng was so moved by this comic that he shared it on his Facebook [5]. Although the second mother was certainly more admirable than the first, what very few people realised that the second mother was also guilty of condescension, and was judging an individual as pitiful (and thus, of low dignity) on the basis of his vocation alone. A truly admirable mother would befriend the road sweeper together with the child, and teach the child to treat him with as much dignity and respect as she should any other adult.

Meritocracy is a sorting mechanism, but it is not JUST a sorting mechanism. It’s one which carries with it an ethical narrative - whether or not you win or lose, you get what you deserve. And because you get what you deserve, losers have no right to demand any rewards AND (a silent implication) winners have no obligation to share any of their rewards with losers. That’s the real problem in saying “anyone can succeed as long as they work hard enough”, because the vast numbers of you that “don’t succeed”, the REASON WHY was that you didn’t work hard enough (not that you were systemically disadvantaged). It’s YOUR fault. And because it is your fault, you cannot blame other people for condescending you. (Another silent implication) If I am successful and a winner, I am not wrong for condescending those who are less successful than I am. This is arguably the primary reason why there is so much shame attached to being of a lower academic stream, or being an ITE graduate.

More at https://www.domainofexperts.com/2018/06/were-not-free-to-define-elitism-as-we.html

 

[Leongsam]

This Singapore system may not be perfect but certainly is far superior compared to the Western egalitarian model where everyone is supposed to be equal and the useless, lazy, louts of society are taught that they have an inherent right to be respected without them having to contribute anything to society at large.

It is this philosophy that has resulted in a whole generation who thinks that society owes them a living.

Give me the Singapore brand of meritocracy anytime. It separates the wheat from the chaff and ensure that scarce resources are distributed via a reward based system where the deserving get more while the undeserving have to face the consequences of their inaction.

 

[Leongsam]

Here's what happens when "inclusiveness" replaces merit.

Parents Are Furious About High School’s ‘Inclusive’ Cheerleading Squad

Now everybody who tries out automatically makes the team.

By Blake Harper

May 11 2018, 12:06 PM

A high school in New Jersey finds itself mired in controversy after instituting a new rule that allows any student, regardless of skill, to join the cheerleading squad. In an effort to be more inclusive, officials at Hanover Park High School in East Hanover, NJ, implemented the new policy after the parents of a student who was cut from the squad complained that the “selection process” was unfair. Moving forward, the school announced that anyone who tried out would make the squad.

School officials informed students that any junior or senior would automatically join the “higher-level team,” while freshman and sophomores would be placed on the “lower-level team.” Previously, there had been three squad “levels” based on skill level, as opposed to what grades the students were in. Hanover High School Superintendent Carol Grossi told Buzzfeed News the change was made because a “discrepancy was reported concerning the selection of the three varsity cheerleading squads.”

But several students and parents have complained that the new system punishes younger students who work hard and/or have more talent, as it relegates them to a lower squad based entirely on age. A few even addressed the school’s board of education meeting last week to voice their concerns.

“I came up here to state that I did not put in 18 months of work to lead up to this moment, just to be told it didn’t matter anymore,” said Jada Alcontara, a sophomore at Hanover.

Angry parents have flooded the school’s Facebook page to criticize the decision, saying that the school is teaching kids to be “snowflakes” who will believe they can always get what they want if they complain enough. Superintendent Grossi, however, insists that the new policy will help keep students from feeling left out or unwanted. “This decision was made in the best interest of our students and was made to be as inclusive as possible,” Grossi said.

 

[Leongsam]

EAST HANOVER, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — A New Jersey high school is trying out a new cheerleading policy that is already stirring up a real hornet’s nest after a mother complained when her daughter didn’t make the cut.

The school decided the squads need to be more inclusive, CBS2’s Lisa Rozner reported Tuesday.


A New Jersey high school is trying out a new cheerleading policy that is already stirring up a real hornet’s nest after a mother complained when her daughter didn’t make the cut.

Sophomore Stephanie Krueger said she’s been practicing four days a week for the last decade, dreaming of making it to Hanover Park High School’s top tier cheering team, known as the “Black Squad.”

Last month, the school was using a scoring system that featured coaches judging on things like jumps and choreography. Krueger and a number of girls made the team, but students said the parent of a classmate who placed on a lower-level cheer squad complained to the school.

In a letter to students and parents, the superintendent wrote the “process was invalid,” and that the historically elite team would be made up of every cheerleader in the 11th and 12th grades, instead of by skill level.

“All the time I’ve spent in my cheer gym practicing, constantly flipping, practicing my jumps, all was just like gone,” Krueger said. “I can’t believe, like, my hard work just dropped. It’s like telling a football player — your star varsity football player — they can’t play anymore because we want to make it all inclusive.”

“My biggest gripe is if you want to make a change, do it for next season. But don’t do it for this season. You already had the tryout,” parent Lisa Krueger added.

CBS2’s Rozner did reach out to the parent who complained as well as the district’s superintendent. Both declined her request for an on-camera interview.

In an email, the superintendent told CBS2 the new policy is “in the best interest of our students and was made to be as inclusive as possible.”

That didn’t mean people agree with it.

“I think it’s a bad precedent because this really actually isn’t the way the world is,” cheerleading parent Sharon Iossa said. “Everybody doesn’t get a trophy. You can’t be a Giants player just because you play football.”

“What about life? What about getting a job? You know? You’re going to have your mom come with you too to hold your hand?” Whippany resident Sandy Porciello said.

Former school cheerleaders were shocked upon hearing of the policy change.

“I was head cheerleader and my sister didn’t make it. My mom said, ‘You better get to work,'” said Amy Rega, who graduated from Hanover Park High School in 2003.

Private cheer coach Lisa Kretschman said the change could make it less likely for colleges to recruit cheerleaders from the school.

“These kids are muscular. They’re strong. They’re fast,” Kretschman said. “It’s not good for the image of cheerleading in general because you’re talking about a sport that already has to fight to be recognized.”

For a school whose mascot is the hornet, the issue tumbling into quite the hornet’s nest.

The state organization which governs the rules of high school sports said it does not recognize cheerleading as a sport, so the policy is ultimately up to the local school board.