GETTING "REAL" ABOUT THE NEW TEACHER APPRAISAL SYSTEM

14 May 1995


        I was intrigued to read that the new teacher appraisal system 
will score teachers' potential according to, inter alia, their "sense of 
reality" and "political sensitivity" ("Teachers to be appraised under new 
system", STWE, 22 April 1995). Although absolute objectivity is a 
chimera, the extreme subjectivity of these two criteria puts them in a 
class of their own.
        "Fact" should not be conflated with "Reality", which is a 
mental construction involving perception. In other words, one's reality 
depends on how one interprets the facts. This apparent metaphysical 
quibble in fact reveals the daunting difficulties in assessing a person's 
sense of reality.
        To illustrate, take the indisputable fact: Singapore is a small 
country vulnerable to external forces. Some of us interpret this to mean 
that Singapore cannot afford the "luxury" of genuine multi-party 
politics, and that a moribund Opposition is a necessary sacrifice in order 
to have a strong government. Others argue that true strength derives 
from a politically active people participating in a robust, democratic 
polity that includes a free press. A priori, both interpretations are 
equally valid realities; yet, significantly, the latter group is derided by 
the former as "unrealistic".
        Gauging a person's political sensitivity is similarly 
problematic. "Sensitivity" connotes "correct" reaction. Yet, verity is a 
matter of interpretation, and so "political sensitivity" faces the same 
objections raised against "sense of reality". For example, a recent letter 
to the Forum on the ongoing Philippine-Singapore dispute over the 
execution of Flor Contemplacion promoted the nationalistic credo: My 
country, right or wrong. If I were to demur thus, "My country, support 
it when it is right; reform it when it is wrong", should I be denounced as 
unpatriotic and politically insensitive?
        Teachers whose interpretations of facts and politics differ from 
conventional wisdom therefore risk being labelled "unrealistic" and 
"politically insensitive", to the detriment of their careers. This is not a 
criticism of the assessors. Instead, the danger is inherent in the extreme 
subjectivity of the criteria themselves. It is exacerbated by vagueness in 
specifying the criteria and by the confidentiality of the assessments. In such a subjective area, assessors should be required - not merely 
allowed - to discuss the evaluations with the teachers concerned, with 
any qualifications by the latter duly investigated.
        Nearly four centuries ago, the Renaissance scientist Galileo 
was charged with heresy for suggesting that the universe was 
heliocentric rather than Earth-centred. The Catholic Church promptly 
silenced him for his "poor" sense of reality and political incorrectness. 
This historical incident should caution us against attempts to define 
reality and political sensitivity.
        Let me hasten to add that I am not imputing Machiavellian 
motives to the Ministry of Education. I would readily accept the 
explanation that the inclusion of "sense of reality" and "political 
sensitivity" was meant to encourage teachers to be more cognisant of 
the geopolitical facts that relate to Singapore. If so, then the two criteria 
could be easily replaced by the less contentious criterion of "politically 
aware".
        If, however, the Ministry decides to retain the two criteria, it 
should at least announce the yardsticks it will use in assessing a 
teacher's sense of reality and political sensitivity. Unless this is done, 
most teachers would probably "play it safe" and parrot conventional 
political wisdom. Instead of a "hundred flowers" blooming, the 
resulting academic environment would be intellectually sterile. This 
would be an inadvertent outcome, but consequences are not less 
disastrous for being unintended.