Should We Abolish The RCHK House System?
Image Courtesy of Black Chambers
By Cindy Wan
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to demean any particular house, but simply to examine the house system within the context of the RCHK community.
"What is in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other would smell just as sweet."
- Romeo and Juliet (II ii, 1-2)
Indeed, ignoring Shakespeare and all impressions of elitism, what really is the point in a house system?
The official Renaissance College website says that the house system aims to “create a sense of identity and belonging, and foster school spirit” among the students. By dividing students into houses, students will feel they belong somewhere and are a part of something. This can make transitions such as moving from primary into secondary easier - because wherever they are, they’re still a part of their house. The site also states that the house system “[promotes] participation and healthy competition in a range of activities.” By being part of a group, students will naturally want to support that group because it establishes their status and self-image within the group. It’s called social identity theory, or in layman’s terms, “us against them.” This can promote healthy competition, motivating students to work harder as they compete with other houses and cheer on their own.
Alright fair enough. They are admirable goals, to be sure - but does OUR house system do this? Do RCHK students really feel like they identify with their house, and do they really become more competitive as a result of this?
Students were asked to describe their house in one word.
“Daring.”
“Invincible!”
“Competitive.”
“Dominating.”
Seems pretty successful, right? Students appear to think pretty positively about their own house, which shows how their self-perception benefits from - oh wait.
The quotes above were only from a sample of students from a SINGLE house. While some houses might have a strong sense of identity and belonging, it’s not so true for others.
Describe your house in one word?
“Indifferent.”
“Unsupportive.”
“Bad.”
“[Expletive].”
Suddenly, the supposed benefits of the house system don’t seem all that great.
In addition, a sample of 30 randomly picked students from different year levels were asked whether they were proud to be in their house. Over eighty percent of some houses said an overwhelming, enthusiastic “yes!” Most houses were split fifty-fifty between “yes” and “neutral” - in other words, that they didn’t really care about the house system.
This is often one of the problems with a school house system.
The house system is a tradition originating from England. Old English public schools would have different boarding houses, and the students would be randomly assigned a house based on which dorm they lived in. The boarding houses were often named after notable alumni and saints, which then became what the school houses were called.
However, in modern times, this tradition has carried over to both boarding and day schools. Nowadays, while many elements remain the same, houses can also be named after more arbitrary things like colors and animals, as well as saints and alumni (our school, for instance, names its houses after historically important Chinese dynasties). But the problem is that schools nowadays do not focus on pastoral care and upper years mentoring the lower years, the original purpose of the house system, which would promote a greater feeling of community within the school and provide support as younger students transition from primary school to secondary school. Instead, schools often only make use of the houses for events such as the ever-popular sports day. With the house systems in place, instead of being merely an athletic event, sports day becomes a “mini-olympics” where the houses are pitted against each other.
The result of this in a less competitive environment such as RCHK, where the house system is not as integrated into our education or daily life (as boarding school houses are), is that one house will end up “coming out on top”. Not through any particular strength or fault of their own, but it is simply the fact that a single house has won enough times that the other houses end up EXPECTING them to win. In psychology, this is called the impact or power of “suggestion.” In principle, it’s the idea that expectations influence reality. Individuals and groups will act based on how others are expecting them to act - in other words, they will rise to your expectations.
Expect a single group to win enough times, in an environment where the rewards for winning do not exceed the effort required, and that group will win. Repeatedly.
We have a far less integrated house system compared to other international schools, and while that may not be a particular downfall, it has led to our school lacking many of the original benefits of a house system. Does the house system really, TRULY, create healthy competition within RCHK, for ALL students? Many people within RCHK don’t seem to care that much, especially once secondary comes around. Besides, upper year to lower year interactions are often based OUTSIDE of the house system anyway.
So what’s the point? Should we abolish the RCHK house system? The negative effect on the self-perception of even SOME of the RCHK students should be enough to outweigh any possible benefits. The answer is, in my opinion, an unassuming yes.
