I have been coaching students for Direct School Admission to secondary schools, or DSA-Sec, since 2010.

That is about 16 years of watching the system change.

When I first started coaching DSA students, the process felt relatively straightforward. There were fewer schools offering DSA, and the selection process was generally simpler. For many talent areas, students would attend an interview and have an opportunity to talk about their interests, experiences and aspirations. For sports and performing arts, auditions or trials were naturally part of the process.

Over the years, however, DSA-Sec has evolved considerably.

Today, more schools offer DSA, more talent areas are available, and schools have developed increasingly varied selection processes. Some may involve group activities, multiple rounds of selection, auditions, trials, portfolios and interviews.

There is nothing inherently wrong with schools wanting to identify students carefully. After all, DSA is a form of selection. Schools need to consider whether a student is likely to contribute to and thrive in their particular environment.

But after 16 years of working with DSA applicants, I have started to wonder whether there are ways the system could be made more transparent and, importantly, more accessible to students from different backgrounds.

DSA is still a form of competition

One important point I always make to parents is this:

DSA is not a guaranteed route into a particular school simply because a child is talented.

It is more similar to applying for a job.

You may have the skills. You may have the experience. You may have a strong portfolio. But ultimately, the organisation decides whether you are the person it is looking for.

The same applies to DSA.

A student may have an impressive portfolio and genuine ability, but that does not automatically mean that a school will select them. Schools have limited places and their needs may vary from year to year.

This is why I am cautious whenever parents ask me whether their child’s portfolio is “good enough”.

There is no simple formula.

A student who looks like a very strong candidate may not be selected, while another student whose portfolio appears less impressive on paper may progress further.

That does not necessarily mean that one student is better than the other. It reflects the fact that DSA selection involves a school’s own assessment of talent, potential, suitability and fit.

However, this is also where I think greater transparency could help.

Could the selection process be clearer?

One of the challenges with DSA is that every school can have its own selection process.

Schools do publish information about their talent areas and selection criteria, but these descriptions are often necessarily broad.

For a parent or Primary 6 student, it can therefore be difficult to understand exactly what a school is looking for.

Is the school looking primarily for existing ability?

Potential?

Commitment?

Leadership?

Communication skills?

Technical proficiency?

A particular playing position?

A particular artistic discipline?

Or simply students who demonstrate a strong fit with the school’s existing programme?

The answer may be different for different schools and different talent areas.

I don’t think schools need to reveal every detail of their internal selection process. They should still have the flexibility to decide which students are right for their programmes.

But I wonder whether DSA could become more transparent if schools provided applicants with clearer information about what they are assessing at each stage.

For example, if a group activity is used, students could be told what the activity is intended to assess. If an interview is used, schools could explain the broad qualities they are looking for.

This would not remove competition.

It would simply give students a clearer understanding of what they are being assessed on.

The role of DSA coaching

This brings me to another issue that I think deserves some discussion.

There is an argument that DSA increasingly benefits students whose families can afford additional coaching.

I understand why people make that argument.

As the process has become more complex, some parents understandably feel that they need professional guidance. They may not know what to expect from a group assessment, how to present a portfolio, how to prepare for an interview or how to communicate their child’s strengths effectively.

As someone who provides this coaching, I am obviously part of that ecosystem.

But I think we need to ask a more fundamental question:

Why has coaching become so important in the first place?

If DSA is fundamentally about identifying a student’s talent, shouldn’t the student’s actual talent and potential remain the most important things being assessed?

The more complicated the preparation process becomes, the greater the possibility that families with more resources will be able to provide their children with additional preparation.

And that is where I think there is an opportunity to improve the system.

My biggest suggestion: reconsider what counts as a “talent”

Personally, after 16 years of coaching DSA applicants, one change I would seriously consider is a stronger distinction between academic achievement and talent.

MOE currently allows DSA-Sec admission based on talents in sports, CCAs and specific academic areas.

I understand why academic talent areas exist.

There are students with exceptional abilities in areas such as mathematics, science or languages, and schools may have good reasons for wanting to identify these students.

However, I think we should ask whether academic strengths are the best use of a DSA pathway when the student can already demonstrate academic ability through the PSLE and other existing academic pathways.

If a student is exceptionally strong academically, there are already established mechanisms for recognising that achievement.

DSA could potentially serve a different purpose:

to identify students who bring a distinctive talent or strength beyond what is captured by academic results.

That might include exceptional ability in:

• sports
• music
• performing arts
• public speaking
• debating
• drama
• robotics
• leadership
• visual arts
• coding
• community service
• other specialised CCA-related areas

The exact list would, of course, be for MOE and individual schools to determine.

My point is not that academic ability is unimportant.

It is that perhaps we should ask whether academic ability and DSA talent need to compete for the same pathway.

What would this change achieve?

If DSA placed a stronger emphasis on genuine non-academic talent, I believe it could make the purpose of the scheme clearer.

A student who is passionate about theatre could demonstrate that passion through years of participation in drama.

A young musician could demonstrate commitment through performances, ensembles and examinations.

A student passionate about public speaking could demonstrate experience through competitions, presentations and school activities.

A young athlete could demonstrate performance, commitment and potential through their sporting experience.

And importantly, many of these opportunities can begin within the primary school system itself.

A child does not necessarily need an expensive private programme to demonstrate genuine interest and commitment.

They may already be participating in a school CCA, performing at school events, representing their school, joining competitions or taking on leadership responsibilities.

Of course, some families will still choose to provide additional training. That is their choice.

But the system should ideally be designed so that private coaching is not what creates the talent.

The talent should exist first.

Coaching should simply help a student communicate and demonstrate what they can already do.

Leveling the playing field does not mean removing competition

I don’t think the answer is to make DSA less selective.

Schools still need to choose students.

There will always be more applicants than places for some programmes, and schools should be allowed to decide which students are the best fit for their particular needs.

Instead, I think we should focus on making the process more equitable.

For me, that could involve three things.

1. Clearer assessment criteria

Schools could provide more information about the broad qualities they are assessing at each stage.

Not necessarily a formula or scoring system, but enough information for students to understand what is expected.

2. A stronger focus on demonstrated talent

Where possible, selection should focus on what the student can actually demonstrate rather than how well prepared the student is for a particular selection exercise.

3. Greater emphasis on opportunities that students can access through school

If a student can develop and demonstrate talent through school-based CCAs, competitions, performances and leadership opportunities, then students from different socioeconomic backgrounds have a greater opportunity to participate.

This is especially important because MOE itself has been moving towards recognising strengths beyond academic results and developing students more holistically.

DSA should reward authenticity

After coaching DSA students for so many years, one thing I have learned is that you cannot manufacture genuine interest.

You can coach a child to communicate more confidently.

You can help them organise their thoughts.

You can teach them how to answer questions thoughtfully.

You can help them understand how to present their experiences.

But you cannot manufacture passion.

And I think that is what DSA should ultimately be looking for.

Not the child with the most polished portfolio.

Not necessarily the child who has had the most expensive training.

Not simply the child who has learnt how to answer an interview question perfectly.

But the child who genuinely has something to offer.

What I would like to see in the future

I don’t think DSA needs to become completely standardised.

Schools are different. Their programmes are different. Their CCAs are different. Their student profiles and needs are different.

Some degree of school autonomy is important.

But after 16 years of watching DSA evolve, I would like to see the system continue moving towards three principles:

Talent should matter more than packaging.

Opportunity should not depend heavily on a family’s ability to pay for preparation.

And students should have a clearer understanding of what they are being assessed on.

DSA is a valuable pathway because it recognises that a child’s strengths cannot always be captured by examination results alone.

I think that is worth protecting.

But perhaps the best way to strengthen DSA is to keep returning to the original question:

What is the student bringing to the school that deserves to be recognised?

If we can make that answer more clearly about genuine talent, potential, commitment and contribution, rather than how well a student has learnt to navigate the selection process, I believe DSA can become a more meaningful pathway for more students.

And ultimately, that is what I would like to see.

Not a DSA system without competition.

Not a system where everyone gets an offer.

But a system where more children, regardless of their family’s resources, have a fair opportunity to show what they can genuinely do.

About Jackeline Carter

Jackeline Carter is the Founder of J Carter Centre for Public Speaking. She has been coaching children and teenagers in public speaking, communication skills and DSA preparation for over 16 years. Her views on DSA are informed by her experience working with hundreds of students and families through the changing DSA landscape in Singapore.