Meritocracy's dark side.

Our education minister Chan has got all the right words at the right place about meritocracy. I am sure his heart is at the right place too. 

He was addressing a virtual audience of 6000 educators at a Teachers’ Conference and he knew what to say about the loaded 11-letter word “meritocracy”. He started by reminding educators to keep the definition of meritocracy broad. “It means ensuring that meritocracy is continuous rather than having “one high-stake exam...define anyone for life.””

He added: “People develop different strengths at different stages of life. We must keep enabling porosity (that is, keeping society porous so as to allow for social mobility) and look out for opportunities to allow different talents to develop at different paces. Even the successful must never be complacent.”

He said those who are privileged “have a responsibility to pay it forward to those with less, for Singapore to be more inclusive.”

Well, I guess the benchmark of merit is far better than leaving such measurement of one’s fortune in life to a system based on hereditary rights, right? It used to be that where you are placed in the society all depends on your family bloodline. So, with meritocracy, gone are the days where you are born a future king, princess, duke or baron. 

Mind you, such an inequitable treatment is liken to the birth canal acting as the christening of your genetic fate, without you lifting a finger to earn it. In other words, you were pushed by an external force into being, not of your own will and control. 

But, if you think about it, aren’t the descendants of the rich and powerful entrepreneurs in this world, a variant form of royalty or aristocracy of days gone by? In fact, I hasten to add that the kids of Gates and Bezos and the princelings of China billionaires are far richer than the kids of royalty. 

And isn’t that hereditary rights all over again with meritocracy, save that their first generation worked hard and smart enough for it, and the subsequent generations are born into it, harvesting the fruits of their toil and sweat? Mm...another variant form of birth canal christening by order of genetic fate?

Of course, that is admittedly an oversimplification, but minister Chan’s reminder of not letting that “one high-stake exam” define all is, for all practical purposes, one part of the story; for merit in reality tends to define all, especially the way we as Singaporeans obsessively do merit. 

And yes, “people develop different strengths at different stages of life”, yet our society has little patience for late bloomers because they have not shown the merit needed (or prescribed, largely by the grade metric) to have what it takes. In fact, the message here is quite strident for Singaporeans at a young age: Succeed right now or you will never. 

Alas, and I think the good minister knows it, he is promoting a virtue often being held hostage in a system that represents anything but the effective advancement of it. Or, such promotion is caught in a system that pays only lip service to it, though the heart is undeniably still at the right place. 

For enobled reasons at the start, merit is one of the pillars of our national ethos. Mind you, all our high-achieving cabinet ministers swear by it, and has proven themselves through it. 

They are elected mainly, if not exclusively, by it. Most of them earned their stripes through the gruelling process under the handmaiden of meritocracy. And yes, I say give merit its credit, but to a certain extent. 

Let me end with these words by minister Chan at the Teachers’ Conference, which kept me thinking. He reminded teachers “the importance of values that will anchor future generations as they navigate a complex world”. 

In the same speech, he also mentioned meritocracy as one such value with this caveat: “But it is also important for Singaporeans to be open and inclusive, as well as a trusted and principled people.”

While I would not disagree with merit being a value, it crucially depends on how merit is defined right? And minister Chan was spot on when he told all 6000 educators that its definition has to be broaden to be inclusive - for different people, different strokes, at different stages of life. 

However, as I have written here, the greater relevance (or urgency) is to address the issue of what meritocracy has unwittingly spawned. And its dark side has turned it into less of a value and more of an impediment, if not a growing threat. 

On this, Professor Carol Dweck observed: “I think society is in a crisis. Kids seem more exhausted and brittle today. I’m getting much more fear of failure, fear of evaluation, than I’ve gotten before. I see it in a lot of kids; a desire to play it safe. They don’t want to get into a place of being judged, of having to produce.” She calls it a “crippling fear of failure.” Can we (especially parents) in Singapore identify with that? 

And then, there is the warped sense of entitlement and hubris that comes with the blind pursuit of merit. Max Weber saw that coming more than a hundred years ago. He wrote this: -

“The fortunate (person) is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune. He wants to be convinced that he “deserves” it, and above all, that he deserves it in comparison with others. He wishes to be allowed the belief that the less fortunate also merely experience (their) due.”

That subtlety of mindset inevitably destroys society; for it divides society between those who demand others acknowledge their right to good fortune (regardless of how they got it) and those whom they condemn as deserving of their lot (whether openly or privately). And at some point in meritocracy’s development, the drive to reach the top is based not so much on proving ourselves, with noble intent, but on a vindictive streak, because we do not want to be looked down at. It’s payback time.

Yet, not all will make it. No news there. Those who don’t make it, resign to their meritocratic fate. And with a predictable twist of fate, those who happen to make it, they unknowingly become what they once railed against. This vicious cycle goes on and on, endless, driven by intense envy, an entitlement mindset and hubris, all of which arises from the relentless pursuit of merit. 

So, kudos no less to minister Chan for a rallying speech, with personal anecdotes to boot. But, I sometimes wish he would warn us more about its dark side. Because at some point, the bright side has become too glaring for some of us.

 

Meritocracy and a kinder clock for human development.

It’s a good read. I am talking about Dr Margaret Chan’s article this morning - “Why kids shouldn’t have to audition for CCAs”. 

She went personal when she talked about her son, Jonathan. She wrote about how Jon was rejected again and again when he auditioned for CCA. 

The reason is that Jon and his family were overseas for four years and when Jon returned, he started school at the secondary two level, instead of secondary one. 

So, here comes the reason: “The class was already ahead by a year so having a newcomer would disrupt learning.” 

Margaret tried to explain why, and reminded them of her son’s passion for CCA, but the school stood their ground. 

Jon then joined the marine cadets but “was asked to leave a few weeks later because he did not know the marching commands”. It was in Malay. His mother fumed, “But wasn’t the boy there to learn?” 

Margaret then wrote an impassioned letter to the school and the rejection was withdrawn. 

But, the happy ending is that the principal/deputy principal of ACS(I) took Jon in. And this, Margaret thought she had to add: “No, we did not have to donate money or services to the school.”

Well, the rest is proud history for the family. “Last year, Jonathan Chan, my son, captained the team that brought back two golds in the 2019 South-east Asian Games.”

She credited Jon’s achievements to his coaches, Dr Ong and Mrs Tan (ACS principal/deputy principal) and the school itself. 

Lesson? 

Now, we have to be fair. Not all schools are like those who rejected Jon. Even for those who rejected Jon, well, we all change for the better; some, well, for the worst, no doubt. 

My point is best expressed by Margaret, when she wrote that the “Sanskrit word “guru” for teacher - which is also the Malay word - is popularly translated as “bringer of light.””

She said that schools should just let kids learn. Even if they don’t make the cut, they still learn something that value-adds into their trajectory of growth, especially at that age. 

Therefore, be someone who ushers in light to shine unto each small step taken with courage and hope. And soon, that beam will become the connecting link to a story of overcoming and joy. 

“And for the coaches who want to grow excellence: A faltering novice needs your grooming to grow into a champion. That is education,” so wrote Margaret. 

Again, the reality is that for every excelling Jon (partly because of such strong familial support and belief) there are many rejected Jons who will never reach that level of excellence. That may be due to the school’s restrictive selection criteria or the student’s attitude or his/her socioeconomic background or many others causes combined to varying degree. 

Nevertheless, I end with this thought: A kinder clock for human development. 

That is taken from one of the chapter-titles from the book, Late Bloomers by Rich Karlgaard. 

As I look at the many Jons in our schools, I realised that merit has its merit, but merit has its blindsight too. 

We take in kids of merit on paper and/or by quick judgement for a course or CCA, or for admission into a school, but more often than not, it is a snapshot of that kid at that point in time, not his potential in full, or the possibilities yet uncovered when he is placed in the hands of a guru via discipline, patience and hope. 

Yes, you can say that you can’t measure a beam of light with a ruler, because it leaves one asking, what does unpolished diamond in the rough look like? 

But that is also where Margaret’s a-faltering-novice-turning-into-champion and Karlgaard’s a-kinder-clock-of-human-development come in. 

Putting the two perspectives together, we have two choices in education: a result-oriented one within a predetermined timeline or a result-blooming one over a lifetime. 

While I understand to some extent the necessity for a meritocratic system aimed at churning out measurable units of production so that they can contribute to society economically, yet from Jon’s example, there is always this risk we should guard against (or at least mitigate) as spelt out by Professor Carol Dweck: -

“I think society is in a crisis. Kids seem more exhausted and brittle today. I am getting more fear of failure, fear of evaluation, than I’ve gotten before. I see it in a lot of kids a desire to play it safe. They don’t want to get into a place of being judged, or having to produce.”

Alas, indeed, as Karlgaard puts it, “the optimism of youth, it seems, has been warped into a crippling fear of failure.”

That being the risk, a balance between sourcing by merit and grooming by time ought to be struck in an earnest attempt to educate, to be a guru to another. And it is thus hope that such balance will over time be tweaked in favour of a kinder clock of human development.

What good is a mixed-ability class?

What good is mixed-ability classes? 

Some schools are trying it out nevertheless. Ai Tong, St Hilda Primary, Ngee Ann and Catholic High are mixing students of different streams in one class. 

The goal? “To lay the groundwork for nurturing lifelong learning attitudes and skills.” 

Another principal, Mrs Daphne Yeo, said; “We decided to further blur the distinction of results between our students, by spreading our high-progress students across more classes.”

Daphne hopes that academically stronger pupils will support and guide those less academically inclined in the same class. “This interaction between peers of different abilities also allows them to learn from one another’s unique strengths and develop empathy for others.”

She added: “Through these changes, we can still gauge our students’ learning outcomes, but in a more nurturing and less competitive environment.”

Education minister Ong Ye Kung has given these schools his ministerial blessings in some kind of unspoken social experiment to study “how they can reshape form classes so that they are not organised along academic tracks in future.”Such experiment is not the first in Singapore’s education history. 

In 1978, a team of engineers nicknamed the “daring dozen” led by DPM Goh Keng Swee took on the challenge “to fix a broken education system, where students were dropping out of school with low levels of literacy and having trouble even staying in secondary school.” (“Why schools proposed streaming in school 40 years ago?” Amelia Tang, 17 March 2019). 

“The Goh Keng Swee report, as it was known, had recommended that students learn at their own pace, and a child's academic ability be assessed at Primary 3.”

One of the team members then, Professor Lim Siong Guan, explained: -

“The particular context of Dr Goh's study was to increase the number of students who go on from primary school to secondary school, and to do this in a way which can be handled by the resources of school buildings and teachers.”

"The goal was to make sure that students were taught at a level most suited to their learning ability. Streaming was a logical way to do this if we reckon that the 'total learning ability' of the child is reflected in the 'total examination results' the child has been able to get."

Alas, after nearly 40 years, where streaming was seen as a logical solution based on the definition that a child’s “total learning ability” is summed up by his “total examination results”, Ong Ye Kung and some daring principals are reversing the logic and going against the traditional stream. 

Will it work? What makes the environment, educational system and teaching methods so different in late 1970s from today? And I can hear some parents arguing, why fix something that is not broken? 

Well, Vice Principal Cindy Ng said that mixed-ability classes “provide more opportunities for fostering the joy of learning and reduces the emphasis on academic results.”

Mm...I wonder, is the joy of learning without the intense competition to separate the “academic” wheat from the “slow learning” chaff suitable for Singapore’s economic growth policy to seek out the best and brightest from the academic track to helm different ministries and industries? 

What’s more, some parents are already raising eyebrows with mixed ability classes. One said that “if the standard is homogenous within the same class, it’s earlier and more effective for teaching. If mixed, it may be stressful for the weaker students and not as beneficial for the faster students.”

Others are worried that a mixed class will hinder or compromise their child’s learning ability. On this, their principal had assured them that “all pupils still have customised learning” proceeded at their own individualised pace. 

Lim Wee Ming, 44, a parent who works in the enrichment sector, said: “Children should learn at their own pace, whether faster or slower. Mixed classes may not be efficient for learning. It could slow down the progress of stronger pupils and put extra stress on weaker pupils.”

Well, some argue that it would also put extra stress on teachers too. 

Another parent said: “If the other classmates are willing to share and learn from each other, it will be good (for mixed ability classes). But if the classmates are selfish, they may group into small cliques among themselves, so it can be very bad for those kids of lower ability.”

Lesson? Just one, and it is animatedly expressed as such: “Who dares to reverse the legacy of the daring dozen led by Goh Keng Swee and undo 40 years of efficient academic progress in our intensely competitive island state based on uncompromising meritocratic principles?” 

Is it then really worth it to have less unhealthy competition with mixed ability classes and subject-based learning so that a child who is lagging behind can feel better about himself and not feel that the society has forgotten him? 

Is the trade off that bad - that is, ending with a more competitive, maybe a little prideful and haughty child, but one who has proven himself in the pressure-cooker academic race to emerge as the best and the brightest? 

Well, for a trade off calculation, you need an economist. In comes Professor Kelvin Seah from NUS. He sets the record straight that he believes it is not a solo effort. It is a communal effort. 

For it to work, the “schools need to convince parents that the benefits of having children together in mixed-ability classes outweigh the costs.”

He said: “Schools need the buy-in of parents for the scheme to be a successs.” Kelvin felt that “the role of primary schools in fostering social mixing is very important.”

“The best way to encourage social mixing is to do it at a young age, so that kids can be exposed to others from different background early.”

St Hilda’s principal Mrs Yeoh said: “Having students in mixed classes helps to break down stereotypes regarding the profile of the class, hence promoting a growth mindset amongst our students.”

From the above pro-and-con and back-and-forth arguments, I get a sense that every social experiment in a society is a cultural one whereby the product or mindset ingrained is very much a matter of how the culture is shaped, conditioned and formed over time or decades. 

Personally, I feel that streaming and mixed classes are not mutually exclusive. Although there is some basis to say that mixing them, putting the bright and less bright ones together, may undermine or disincentivise those who wish to excel faster than the slow ones, yet things are often not that black-and-white or binary in nature.

There is always a balance to be struck so that we progress as a society that is held together by virtues like empathy, compassion and altrusim that are nurtured conscientiously at an age that absorbs them better. 

Professor Kelvin is right to say that we need buy-ins from parents, teachers and the government to make the scheme successful. 

If parents frown at the scheme and transfer their child out into another school or the government pays lip service to addressing the urgent issues of social and income inequality and base their hiring policy more on grades than the mastery of skills, then this birthing efforts of mixing students in the same class will die stillborn. 

And we will never know whether it will lead to a better society because we have in the last 40 years been so embedded in the cultural mindset of streaming and encouraging intense competition as the only proven way we know to produce the best and the brightest. 

Let me end with this anecdotal account in the report by Amelia Teng. No doubt it is only anecdotal, but I feel that many parents (even students) can identify with it.

“A parent of a Primary 5 girl, who did not wish to be named, said that the school sorts pupils by their exam results for Primary 3 to Primary 5 classes. The teachers openly tell pupils that those who score above 90 marks for their subjects will get into the best class, known as Hope, she said.”

"The WhatsApp group chats for every class are very active except for Hope's, probably because the parents are very competitive and don't want to share any notes," said the parent, whose daughter belongs to Hope class.”

"My daughter's classmate dropped from the best class to another class and she was crying very badly."

Alas, there is no doubt that streaming for the last 40 years has solved one of our most vexing educational problems, that is, high dropout rates. 

But in solving it, to a great extent, has it unintentionally or unwittingly nurtured another problem in our own backyard, that is, turning us, especially parents and their kids, into a grades-hungry, self-obsessed, and winning-at-all-costs society? Food for thoughts?

The sacred cow of streaming.

You know streaming is in trouble when even the chairperson of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Education calls for that “sacred cow” to be slain (aka MP for Jalan Besar GRC, Denise Phua).

While Ong Ye Kung is still milking that sacred cow (like his predecessors did for the last 40 years), saying that it has produced good outcomes, five MPs have come forward in Parliament yesterday to call for it to be abolished. 

Indeed, the milk has turned sour for Ong and MOE may have to anticipate the death of streaming in the near future if the MPs’ voice gets any louder and strident. 

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (AMK GRC), who was a former secondary school teacher said: “It is time for us to move on and recognise that academic streaming places self-limiting beliefs on students who think they are only as good as the stream they are in.”

Ang Wei Neng (Jurong GRC) said that “Normal stream students had a sense of “resigned acceptance and defeat”, especially when he tried to teach them topics that were beyond their syllabus.””

“As a young and idealistic teacher at that time,” Ang recalled, “I tried to interest the students in science no matter which streams they were from. Even when certain sections were not supposed to be taught to the Normal stream students, I went on to teach them as it was interesting.”

Ang continued: “However, the Normal stream students were quick to dismiss most of what was in their textbooks. They said, “We are taking the reduced syllabus, no need to learn.”

Like the catchy Jack Neo movie, I Not Stupid, the echo chambers for the self-limitation the students feel is “No Need to Learn”. And its subconscious script playing in the mind of a Normal Stream student is “Why bother? I am not in the Express Stream.”

Charles Chong (Punggol East) was concerned about “how streaming can create a “class divide” between students who are deemed by the education system to be academically able and those who are less so.”

You can’t get anymore visceral about such hidden but powerful stigmatisation by streaming - which Ong Ye Kung calls a form of good customisation - than with last year’s video documentary “Regardless Of Class”. 

I recall one Normal Stream student admitting this: “they think we are quite stupid, so they seldom talk to us.” 

Playwright Faith Ng, who was from the Normal stream, said: “The teachers would say things like ‘even though you’re from Normal’. And that ‘even though’ already would imply a lot. So you kind of deduce that it means you're not as good as everybody else.”

Of course, unless there is a hidden agenda in the society to create a gentry class of scholar-technocrats at the most efficient pace so that we can staff them at the right places in government to make sure Singapore maintains her reign on the World Class stage for years, if not decades, to come, then the clarion call by MPs for a reform and the slaining of this sacred cow ought to keep Ong Ye Kung up at night thinking about whether to have a succulent steak for his next meal. 

Levity aside, here is the MPs collective thought on what should replace streaming. 

Denise Phua said: “Doing away with streaming does not equate to putting everyone in the same class for every subject, ignoring the need for each to learn at their own pace and method. Far from it.”

She noted that “in 2008, MOE scrapped streaming in primary schools and replaced it with subject-based banding, which allows pupils to take a combination of subjects at either Standard or Foundational level.”

Journalist Amelia Tang reports that “all five MPs who spoke on streaming called for subject-based banding to replace it, allowing students to take a combination of subjects at different difficulty levels, but without clear-cut labels such as “Normal””.

And Ang said: “Clearly, (the success of) subject-based banding has shown that sometimes we pigeon-hole and stream our young too early.”

Lesson? One, and it centers around the theme of “pigeon-hole” and “stream our young too early”.

Are we guilty of pigeon-hole-ing our young too early? 

The irony is that we have fought for decades since independence to create a Singaporean culture, a resilient national identity, that is embedded in our pledge reminding us this: “We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion.”

And just when we have achieved a good measure of that, that is, unity based on a multiracial, multilingual and multireligious people, we are now struggling with a unity threatened by inequality, class divide and streaming at a young age. 

Indeed, poverty and prosperity come with their own issues. 

Is civilisation then really a cycle where the initial struggles give way to success, and cursed by success, with mounting hubris and self-grandeur, we return back to our initial struggles? (this time, our struggles are magnified because of our obstinacy?) 

Let me end with this thought I have about putting our young kids into the pigeon-hole academic grinder. It is called “Mommy, did you hide my childhood?”

Mommy, did you hide my childhood?

It was there yesterday, where’s it now?

As I sit beside my pencil box and textbook, 

Where is my childhood mommy, I hope it’s found. 

Mommy, I know you wish me well,

With enrichment classes and all.

But can’t you see and tell?

Is this really what I am living for? 

Mommy, my best memory is spent with you. 

Doing the things we love to do. 

These memories are becoming few.

Cos you often say studying’s more cool.

But is it really so, is it really true? 

Mommy, did you have your childhood too?

If you had yours, then where’s mine?

Is this how you and I bind? 

So mommy, let’s look together for my childhood. 

I can hear its cry, we can track its sound.

Unless mommy, I misunderstood.

That you’ve never intended for it to be found. 

Cheerz?