Abstract
The first part of this chapter presents the idea of meritocracy, proposed as a basis for social criticism by Young in 1948, and the way in which this critical concept was perverted to create an educational meritocratic ideology, i.e., aggressive competition and social Darwinism. The second part of this chapter offers a criticism of the position of John Gardner, a central proponent of “excellence in education.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Mehan, H., “a Sociological Perspective on Opportunity to Learn and Assessment,” in P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, and L. J. Young (eds), Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 42–75, 46.
Young, M., The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870–2033: An Essay on Education and Equality. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1961.
McNamee J.S., Miller, R. K. Jr., The Meritocracy Myth, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
John W. Gardner, Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too? W. W. Norton & Company; Revised edition, 1995.
Katz M. B., The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2001.
Singapore Ministry of Education. Education in Singapore. Singapore: Ministry of Education, 1998.
Quah, M. L., Sharpe, P., Lim, A.S.E. and Heng, M.A. (1997). “Home and parental influences on the achievement of lower primary school children in Singapore,” in Tan, J., Gopinathan, S. and Ho, W. K. Education in Singapore: a Book of Readings. Singapore: Prentice Hall, 319–341.
Coleman J.S. (1975), “What Is Meant by ‘An Equal Educational Opportunity’?” Oxford Review of Education, 1(1). 26–29
Khong, Lana Yiu Lan, Family Matters: The Role of Parents in Singapore Education. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004.
A different claim was presented by Brown as early as 1990. He noticed increasing parental involvement under a meritocratic ideology informed by Singapore (and the former USSR) in countries such as New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. He concluded that this was a “third wave” — the first was what Dewey had termed the “feudal dogma of social predestination” of education in the latter half of the 19th century and into the 20th century; the second was educational meritocracy; and today, says Brown, a third transition is in effect: “‘third wave’ is the move towards a system whereby the education a child receives must conform to the wealth and wishes of parents rather than the abilities and efforts of pupils.” — Brown P. (1990), “The ‘Third Wave’: Education and the Ideology of Parentocracy,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11, 66.
Copyright information
© 2013 Khen Lampert
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lampert, K. (2013). The Answer of Meritocracy. In: Meritocratic Education and Social Worthlessness. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137324894_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137324894_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45908-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-32489-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Education CollectionEducation (R0)