Record: 1

Sorting citizens: differentiated citizenship education in Singapore By: Ho, Li-Ching. Journal of Curriculum Studies. Jun 2012,
Vol. 44 Issue 3, p403-428. 26p. Abstract: Using Singapore as a case study, this paper examines how the discourses of
democratic elitism and meritocracy help allocate different citizen roles to students and define the nature of the social studies
citizenship education programmes for different educational tracks. While the Singapore education system is not unique in its
stratification of students into distinct educational tracks with diverse educational outcomes, it is one of the very few countries
with explicitly differentiated formal national citizenship curricula for students from different educational tracks. Students are
formally allocated different citizenship roles and responsibilities according to the hierarchy defined by the state. Three distinct
roles can be identified: (1) elite cosmopolitan leaders; (2) globally-oriented but locally-rooted mid-level executives and workers;
and (3) local ‘heartlander’ followers. To cater to these different citizen roles, the three programmes encompass significantly
different curricular goals, content, modes of assessment, civic skills, and values. The findings indicate that only the elite
students have access to citizenship education that promotes democratic enlightenment and political engagement. The social
studies curriculum for students in the vocational track, in contrast, focuses almost exclusively on imparting a pre-determined
body of knowledge and set of values deemed necessary for academically low-achieving students DOI:
10.1080/00220272.2012.675359. (AN: BEI.210736)
Database: British Education Index
Sorting citizens: Differentiated citizenship education in Singapore.

Using Singapore as a case study, this paper examines how the discourses of democratic elitism and meritocracy help allocate different citizen roles to students and
define the nature of the social studies citizenship education programmes for different educational tracks. While the Singapore education system is not unique in its
stratification of students into distinct educational tracks with diverse educational outcomes, it is one of the very few countries with explicitly differentiated formal
national citizenship curricula for students from different educational tracks. Students are formally allocated different citizenship roles and responsibilities according to
the hierarchy defined by the state. Three distinct roles can be identified: ( 1) elite cosmopolitan leaders; ( 2) globally-oriented but locally-rooted mid-level executives
and workers; and ( 3) local 'heartlander' followers. To cater to these different citizen roles, the three programmes encompass significantly different curricular goals,
content, modes of assessment, civic skills, and values. The findings indicate that only the elite students have access to citizenship education that promotes
democratic enlightenment and political engagement. The social studies curriculum for students in the vocational track, in contrast, focuses almost exclusively on
imparting a pre-determined body of knowledge and set of values deemed necessary for academically low-achieving students.

Keywords: citizenship education; achievement gap; access to education; democratic education

Introduction
One of the primary goals of education is the promotion of equality and democratic values (Kamens [33]). This is because education is seen as a necessary pre-
condition for the survival of democratic society (Kahne and Middaugh [32]) and civil freedom (Marshall [41]). Schools are places where 'people from numerous private
worlds and social positions come together in face-to-face contact around matters that are central to the problems of actually living together on common ground'
(Parker [50]: 160). Therefore, education matters because schools provide young citizens with one of their first sustained experiences of participation in the public
area (Parker [50]).

Despite disagreements about the nature of citizenship, the extent of citizenship participation, and the necessary conditions for citizenship participation (Sears and
Hughes [54]), few have questioned the assumption that all young citizens should have equal access to the values, knowledge, and skills necessary for being citizens.
Numerous studies in countries such as Israel and the US, however, have highlighted disparities in the enacted citizenship education curriculum for students from
different backgrounds (Levinson [39], Rubin [53], Torney-Purta et al. [74], Kahne and Middaugh [32]), and many experience differing levels of access to civic learning
opportunities (Niemi and Smith [48], Ichilov [29], Hahn [22]).

Studies have shown that a citizen's political knowledge and participation is closely linked to the level of educational attainment (Niemi and Junn [47], Galston [18]). It
is important, therefore, to consider how the citizenship education curriculum is chartered for different groups of students. This is because the socialization and
allocative effects of education help transform social roles and define the meaning of citizenship for young students (Meyer [44]) by providing students with cultural
capital, legitimizing and assigning different roles in society, and controlling access to knowledge and skills (Bowles and Gintis [ 6], Apple [ 1]). The modern
educational system, therefore, is instrumental in creating, defining, and allocating new roles and statuses for both elites and 'ordinary' members of societies (Meyer
[44], Ichilov [29]).

In this paper, I explore the nature of the curriculum content of social studies, a required interdisciplinary subject focusing on citizenship education, offered by all
Singapore schools. While the Singapore education system is not unique in its stratification of students into distinct educational tracks with diverse educational
outcomes, it is one of the very few countries with explicitly differentiated formal national citizenship curricula for students from different educational tracks. The social
studies curricula for students in the three main tracks—the elite Integrated Programme (IP), the mainstream Express and Normal Academic tracks (E/NA), and the
vocational Normal Technical (NT) track—differ significantly in terms of their curricular goals, content, skills, and values.

The formal curriculum is particularly important in the Singapore context, because of the highly centralized and standardized educational system. Apple and Christian-
Smith (1991) argue that curricula materials and textbooks not only signify how reality is constructed but also contribute to the creation of what 'society has recognized
as legitimate and truthful' (p. 4). With rare exceptions, all Singapore students attend state schools and all the schools are subject to the Ministry of Education's (MOE)
guidelines and rules. The MOE maintains control through the production of school textbooks and curriculum materials, development of the curriculum, administration
of national examinations, teacher employment, and school funding. Curricular MOE officials remain the primary arbiters in the determination of the value of curriculum
content, knowledge, and skills. Selected teachers and academics may be invited to provide input in the curriculum development process, but the public and the
teaching profession as a whole have very little influence.

Despite largely representing the preferences of a small elite group, these official curricular documents, nevertheless, help legitimize particular conceptions of society
and socialize young citizens into accepting these positions through the provision of skills, knowledge, and civic competencies. This has important implications for
teaching because 'the school subject enters schools and classrooms as the result of selection, organization, and transformation of content for social, cultural,
educational, curricular, and pedagogical purposes' (Deng [13]: 16). Studies conducted in Singapore schools suggest that Singapore students' understandings of their
citizen roles and responsibilities closely parallel the different goals of the social studies curriculum for the educational track that they are assigned to (Ho [26], Ho et
al. 2011a). The study conducted by Ho et al. (2011b), for instance, suggested that there were sharp disparities in how students from different tracks conceptualized
citizenship and democracy. The authors also noted corresponding gaps in the students' levels of civic knowledge and civic efficacy.
Using Singapore as a case study, I examine how the discourses of democratic elitism and meritocracy help allocate different citizen roles to students and define the
nature of the citizenship education programme for different educational tracks. Focusing primarily on the subject, social studies, I then situate the development of
citizenship education within the social, political, and historical context of Singapore. Next I delineate the scope of the study, conduct a comparative analysis of the
social studies curricula used for students from different tracks, and, finally, address the significance and implications of differentiated citizenship education for
students.

Theoretical framework: Democratic elitism and meritocracy

This paper is framed by two discourses that dominate public policy-making and education in Singapore—democratic elitism and meritocracy. In general, democratic
political systems are premised on the principle of political equality, equal rights of political participation, and the assumption of intrinsic moral equality (Young [81],
Kymlicka and Norman [35], Dahl [11]). Scholars, including Gutmann ([21]) and Young ([82]), contend that it is important for all citizens to be accorded full political
equality. This should, according to them, go beyond voting and formally equal participation rights, and incorporate modes of communication and systems of
representation. In reality, however, 'political resources, knowledge, skills, and incentives are always and everywhere distributed unequally' (Dahl [12]: 51). This
unequal distribution of political knowledge, skills, and political resources such as money, information, time, and social standing may affect the citizens' ability to
advance their interests and goals. This is further exacerbated by other factors such as the size of the political unit and the unequal amount of time available for
different citizens to influence political decisions.

Adherents of democratic elite theory suggest that policy decisions are largely made by a small group of elite who allocate values for society. Even democratic
regimes, according to Dahl ([10]: 297), will 'inevitably have leaders—that is to say, men of more authority and very likely more power and influence than ordinary
citizens'. Similarly, in Barber's ([ 4]) conception of an 'authoritative democracy', citizens defer to the powerful centralized elite who govern in order to maintain security
and order. The governing elite, however, are periodically accountable to the masses through popular elections. Dye et al. ([16]: 1–2) provide a succinct summary of
the democratic elitist position:

Democracy is government by the people but the responsibility for the survival of democracy rests on the shoulders of elite. This is the irony of democracy: Elites must
govern wisely if government 'by the people' is to survive. If the survival of the US system depended upon an active, informed, and enlightened citizenry, then
democracy in the United States would have disappeared long ago, for the many are apathetic and ill-informed about politics and public policy, and they exhibit a
surprisingly weak commitment to democratic values ... Fortunately for these values and for US democracy, the American masses do not lead, they follow. They
respond to the attitudes, proposals, and behaviour of elites.

To ensure the effectiveness and stability of the governing elite, citizen participation needs to be constrained and popular choice limited to groups of competing elites
(Nagle [45]). This is because popular participation is perceived to be dangerous as the average citizen has a limited understanding of public issues, is less politically
involved, is less proactive, and more ambivalent about democratic values (Nagle [45], Stewart et al. [66]). In contrast, elites are more politically active and involved,
and, as a result, are more exposed to, and have a better understanding of, civil liberties and democratic values. This results in a greater commitment to key
democratic values including the freedoms of press, assembly, speech, and religion (McClosky and Brill [42], Nagle [45]). Others, however, challenge this elitist
understanding of democracy and assert that elites are not necessarily more reliable guardians of democratic freedoms (Sniderman et al. [65]). Using Canada as an
example, these scholars showed that elites from different political parties demonstrated varying attitudes towards civil liberties, thus undermining the consensus claim
in elite theory.

Elitism, meritocracy, and education

Education has a central role in the division and categorization of citizens into elites and the masses. Scholars such as Bourdieu ([ 5]), Bowles and Gintis ([ 6]), and
Meyer ([44]), for instance, suggest that schools and curriculum define, construct, allocate, and legitimize different roles and status groups in society. This is because
schools control access to skills, knowledge, and cultural capital, and thus have the capacity to transform social roles. Education, according to Meyer ([44]: 66),
'validates both elites and citizens'. Case studies of elite schools in countries such as Ireland and Israel, for instance, clearly illustrate the impact of this division and
segregation on young citizens (Ichilov [29], Kennedy and Power [34]). This is because schools have the potential to shape students' social and economic
opportunities and outlook (Cornbleth [ 8]) by explicitly or implicitly endorsing and instilling societal expectations, rules, and norms.

In order to validate the differentiated provision of education to students, the governing elite of states such as Singapore have frequently cited their belief in the
principle of meritocracy and its corresponding values of efficiency and justice. Advocates of this principle argue that those with the greatest natural talent and
motivation should be provided with more educational resources. States, furthermore, frequently justify the use of the principle of meritocracy based on the belief that
merit-based selection is non-discriminatory and allows for equality of access and opportunity. This system also results in greater efficiency as it not only ensures that
the best people are selected but also enhances competition and motivation (Tan [68]).

Critics of these policies, however, contend that these policies create a hierarchical class system in schools that reinforces existing class and social divisions within
society (Walzer [76]). This could, in part, be due to the fact that merit criteria and evaluation frequently include normative values and cultural assumptions (Walzer
[76], Young [82]). The rules and policies of any institution, according to Young ([82]: 211), 'serve particular ends, embody particular values and meanings, and have
identifiable consequences for the actions and situations of the persons within or related to those institutions'. These problems are further exacerbated by the effect of
non-merit factors such as cultural capital, patterns of social and economic organization, and other social advantages (McNamee and Miller [43]).

Context: Elite democracy in Singapore

Formerly a British colony, Singapore's political scene has been dominated by one political party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since its independence in 1965.
Singapore practices the Westminster style of government with the Prime Minister as the head of the executive branch. The PAP has been characterized as an 'elite
party' with the most important decision-making powers resting in the hands of ∼ 1000 cadre members (Singh [64]). While the Cabinet has a central role in the political
decision-making process, the Prime Minister 'performs the greatest single role in policy adoption in the Singapore system' (Ho [24]: 35).

Despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly, civic and political participation is severely circumscribed by the hierarchical and elitist political
system. Adopting a narrative of national vulnerability, the ruling elite constantly reiterate the need for social cohesion, harmony, and stability in order to ensure
Singapore's survival. The governing elite control the mainstream media, define the acceptable boundaries of political discourse, commonly known as 'out-of-bounds
markers', and play a critical role in defining and shaping the social compact premised on shared prosperity and soft paternalism (Tan [67]).

In Singapore, political power is concentrated within a small, clearly defined elite group consisting mostly of members of the ruling party, the judiciary, military, civil
service, leaders of large business organizations, and academic institutions (Ho [24]). Frequent statements made by political leaders about the 'best people' serving in
the government reinforce the perspective that the governing elite consist of the nation-state's most talented people and who are, therefore, deserving of power,
rewards, and respect. Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, suggested that the decisions that the elite make should not be questioned by the narrow-
minded and less well-informed masses:
If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest
doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests. (Josey [30]: 82)

Similarly, in his speech, the former Goh Chok Tong (1991) stated that the 'government will not become populist ... (because) we will end up having to appease all
sorts of majority and minority groups, and every interest group'. Implicitly equating popular pressure with the short-term, selfish, and unenlightened interests of the
masses, he concluded that this 'appeasement' would 'ruin' Singapore. The government, he asserted, provided 'strong leadership with a clear vision' and 'thinks in a
much longer time frame than the people, and has bigger concerns than the individual interest of each voter'.

In order to legitimize the differentiation between the ruling elite and the masses, the Singapore government has been a vocal proponent of the principle of
meritocracy. Contending that this principle promotes efficiency, social mobility, and justice, the government has used this principle to justify the implementation of
social and economic policies that make a clear distinction between the rights and roles of the talented and their less capable fellow citizens. This distinction, defined
largely by academic performance, is clearly manifested in various government policies. In education, for instance, the government introduced the deeply unpopular
Graduate Mother Scheme in 1984 that gave children of women with university degrees priority entry into popular primary schools. This was premised on the then
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's ([38]) belief in eugenics and his concern that well-educated women were not producing enough children. Concurrently, the
government implemented sterilization policies targeted at women with lower education qualifications and various child-bearing disincentives for less-educated women
(Yap [79]). Other influential members of the government have also suggested that it was in the interest of the ruling elite to promote the virtue of meritocracy because
of its redistributive benefits as it has helped ensure that the 'fruits and opportunities of development were shared between all classes, from the top to the bottom'
(Mahbubani [40]), and its potential as a tool for ensuring social consensus and cohesion (Wong [78]).

Tracking, elite education, and citizenship education in Singapore

The education system in Singapore, like that of many countries, performs a gatekeeping function to sort individuals according to their individual merit (McNamee and
Miller [43]). As Meyer ([44]: 55) suggests, education has 'a network of rules creating public classifications of persons and knowledge. It defines which individuals
belong to these categories and possess the appropriate knowledge. And it defines which persons have access to valued positions in society'.

Based on their performance in the national Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE), 13-year-old Singapore secondary students are grouped into highly
differentiated academic and vocational tracks. These high-stakes examinations determine not only the students' entry into selective secondary schools but also their
placement into a particular education track (Singapore Ministry of Education 2009b). The students are ranked according to their national examination results and the
best students join the Integrated Programme (IP)—a 6-year continuous programme offered by 11 elite secondary schools. This programme not only provides an
exemption from the national secondary school examinations but allows them direct entry into the junior college programme. These elite schools also have the
freedom to design their own curricula (within certain parameters) and, as a result, IP students have greater exposure to a range of courses and topics, including
philosophy and scientific research.

The majority of secondary schools in Singapore offer the academically demanding 4- or 5-year Express and Normal Academic (E/NA) tracks, and the 4-year
vocational Normal Technical (NT) track. Approximately 75% of each cohort is placed in the E/NA tracks (Singapore Ministry of Education 2009b). Students will take
classes in a range of science and humanities subjects such as Physics, History, and Advanced Mathematics. The programme culminates in a high-stakes Singapore-
Cambridge General Certificate in Education (GCE) Ordinary Level national examination that determines the students' placement in the polytechnics or junior
colleges.

The Ministry of Education places the least academically able students, ∼ 13% of each cohort, in the NT track. The programme does not prepare students for the
national GCE Ordinary Level examinations and, at the end of the 4-year programme, NT students will continue their vocational training at the Institutes of Technical
Education (ITE). Unlike their counterparts from the IP, E/NA tracks, the NT students are limited to a narrower and less academic range of subjects, including Food
and Nutrition, Computer Applications, and Elements of Office Administration (Singapore Ministry of Education [58]).

The Singapore Ministry of Education has been unapologetic about the policy of tracking of students into highly differentiated programmes based on the principles of
meritocracy and elitism. Citing examples from Korea and China, the then Minister of Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam defended academic tracking in Singapore
schools:

It is a practical approach in helping every student to develop himself to the best of his abilities... By differentiating the curriculum for students of different abilities, it
has allowed us to motivate all our students to sustain an interest in learning, work hard to achieve realistic learning targets and get recognized, get some form of
merit, for their achievements. It has helped us avoid the large drop-out rates that you see in many other countries or the fact that large numbers of students are
graduating from high schools without basic competence in literacy and numeracy. (Tharman [71])

Critiquing other education systems, the minister argued that the Singapore system was actually more meritocratic, equitable, and fair, stating, 'We have avoided the
pretence of inclusiveness in undifferentiated school systems' (Tharman [71]). Differentiation is seen as a social leveller and a tool for social mobility because it
provides 'equal access based on merit' (Tharman [70]). He pointed out that, despite the public rhetoric about egalitarianism in countries like the UK and the US, the
school system in these countries are, in reality, highly differentiated due to the disparity between the state and the private sectors. This de facto differentiation is,
according to Tharman ([70]), a 'system of social elitism'. Other ministers have also argued that Singapore needs to 'invest in our brightest who are talented creators,
inventors and problem solvers' in order to develop a pool of elite leaders who will guide and shape the future of Singapore and that 'we should accept the inherent
differences in our children's abilities' (Ng [46]).

Differentiated citizenship education and social studies

Social studies is the subject most closely associated with citizenship education in Singapore schools. Required for all secondary school students, social studies is an
integrated subject that includes elements of history, geography, economics, and political science. The breadth and depth of curricula topics, however, vary according
to academic tracks. The social studies curricula for students from the Integrated Programme (IP), Express/Normal Academic (E/NA) and vocational Normal Technical
(NT) tracks reflect the disparate National Education goals for students in the three tracks and differ in terms of content, skills, and values.

The Ministry of Education maintains very tight control over the social studies curricula for students from the NT and E/NA tracks by mandating the national curricula
frameworks, writing and publishing all the textbooks and workbooks, and developing the required assessments (Singapore Ministry of Education [59], [63]). The
teachers of these tracks have relatively few opportunities to deviate from the prescribed curriculum, texts, and assessments. The elite IP teachers, in contrast, have
the freedom to develop their own social studies curriculum. The IP students are not required to use the same national textbooks and are also exempted from the
national examination, thus allowing students to explore the different topics in greater depth. Table 1 summarizes the main differences between the social studies
curricula for the three tracks.

Table 1. Differences in the social studies curricula for the three tracks.
Tracks Curriculum time Assessment Textbooks and workbooks Curriculum type
Normal Technical 1 hour per week No national examinations; project work, informal Published by the Ministry of Education National
assessments curriculum
Express/ Normal 1.5–2 hours per National GCE 'O' Level examinations Published by the Ministry of Education National
Academic week curriculum
Integrated 1.5–2.5 hours No national examinations; Independent research and social None, the teachers assign different articles and readings to Developed by the
Programme per week action projects, essays students based on the topic school
The IP social studies programmes are much more academically demanding and rigorous compared to the E/NA and NT social studies programmes. To promote
critical thinking, for example, IP students are required to complete independent research or social action projects as part of their programme because they are
exempted from the national secondary school examinations. This offers them the opportunity to conduct in-depth independent investigations into social or policy
issues—an option that is not available to students from other tracks. This is because students from the E/NA tracks are required to complete an intensive 2- or 3-year
course at the upper secondary level that culminates in a high stakes national examination. As a result, E/NA teachers and students are required to spend more time
preparing for these examinations compared to the other programmes. Students from the vocational NT track, in contrast, are only required to attend social studies
classes for 2 years at the lower secondary level. The NT programme is allocated less curricular time, and anecdotal evidence suggests that this subject has a very
low status in most secondary schools due largely to the fact that it does not culminate in a major national examination.

The three programmes differ greatly in terms of content. Table 2 lists the thematic units for all three curricula. There are superficial similarities across all three
curricula, particularly in terms of the general themes. For instance, all three curricula incorporate themes that focus on governance, managing ethnic and religious
diversity, and international relations (Singapore Ministry of Education [59], [63], Tekong Secondary School 2011, Ubin Secondary School [75]). These themes are,
however, positioned very differently. A comparison of the units focused on governance reveals a sharp disparity in the curricular value outcomes (see Table 2). The
E/NA and NT curricula emphasize values such as responsibility and integrity, while the IP curriculum focuses on values such as advocacy, political, and civic
consciousness.

Table 2. Themes and values in the Social Studies curriculum.

Tracks Themes Values (Theme: Governance)

Normal Technical • Journey to nationhood: Road to independence • Integrity
• Growth of Singapore: Managing population changes, providing jobs, • Responsibility
housing, and education for our people.
• Governing Singapore: What makes a good government, the principles of • Confidence in the nation
good governance
• Living in peace and harmony: Living in multi-racial Singapore and defending
our nation
• Managing out environment
• Looking ahead: Staying competitive in the 21st century
Express/ Normal Academic • Singapore as a nation in the world: Challenges • Self-reliance
faced by new nations
• Understanding governance: The policy process—formulation and • Resourcefulness
implementation
• Conflict and harmony in multi-ethnic societies: The causes and impact of • Adaptability
ethnic and religious conflict
• Managing international relations: The importance of deterrence and • Responsibility
diplomacy and safeguarding national interests
• Sustaining economic development in a globalized world • Accountability
• Facing challenges and change: A case study of the rise and fall of Venice • Integrity
• Prudence
Integrated Programme • The evolution of culture and society: • Awareness and appreciation that individual
Navigating conflicting identities and sense of interests can be at variance with the common
belonging good.
• Democracy and governance: Types of government and the rights and • Community before self
responsibilities of citizens; the social contract; the development of civil society
• Parliamentary democracy: Features and drawbacks of representative • Advocacy is the moral responsibility of a leader
democracy
• Managing a multicultural society: Comparative analysis of two case studies • Political and civic consciousness
• Diplomacy and deterrence: National interests and national power
• Globalization and its consequences; Examining the global capitalist system
The curricular differences described above can largely be attributed to the government's National Education citizenship education framework due to the fact that this
is explicitly used as a guiding framework for all the social studies programmes (Sim and Ho [56]). National Education (NE), the government's overarching framework
for citizenship education, allocates distinct roles and responsibilities to citizens with different levels of educational qualifications. Consequently, graduates from the
different educational tracks and presumably with different levels of merit can expect to play different roles in Singapore society (Singapore Ministry of Education [57]).
In general, the less academically inclined vocational students from the Institutes of Technical Education (ITE) should be taught to support and maintain the existing
social order, whereas the students in the middle tier attending the different polytechnics have to focus on being responsible and diligent. The top students attending
the pre-university programme in junior colleges, in contrast, have to be prepared for their future leadership roles. The extracts from the Ministry of Education's official
press release during the launch of National Education in 1997 clearly outline these differentiated citizen roles:

The focus at the ITE would be in enabling students to understand that they would be helping themselves, their families and Singapore by working hard, continually
upgrading themselves and helping to ensure a stable social order. They must feel that every citizen has a valued place in Singapore, and want to play their part in
defending Singapore.

[For polytechnic students], the strategy will be to convince them that the country's continued survival and prosperity will depend on the quality of their efforts, and that
they will reap the benefits of Singapore's success if they play their part. They must believe that there is opportunity for all based on ability and effort.

[For junior college students], NE must instil in them a sense that they can shape their own future in Singapore and, even more importantly, a realization [sic] that upon
many of them will lie the responsibility of playing key roles in shaping the Singapore of the future in the years to come. They must be able to reason for themselves
why Singapore is, all things considered, the best home. (Singapore Ministry of Education [57])

In sum, citizenship education in Singapore, as exemplified by the social studies curricula, reflect the explicit differentiation in citizen responsibilities and roles
allocated to young citizens based on their academic achievements. The elite students studying in junior colleges and other elite schools are tasked with leadership
roles, and the least talented students in the vocational tracks are allocated the role of being good followers so as to ensure social stability.

Method and data sources

This paper focuses on the Singapore education system as a case study. 'A case study', Creswell ([ 9]: 61) states, 'is an exploration of a "bounded system" or a case
(or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context'. A case study framework also allows
for the examination of contemporary events based on a range of data sources (Yin [80]). Within the Singapore case, I compare the formal citizenship education
programmes implemented in Singapore schools for students from three educational tracks: the Normal Technical (NT) track, the Express and Normal Academic
(E/NA) track, and the Integrated Programme (IP).

In this study, I focus on two levels of curriculum making—the institutional and the programmatic (Doyle [14], b). At the institutional level, I examine the influences on
citizenship education curricular policy decision-making and show how these decisions are largely determined by the ideological beliefs of the dominant group of
political elite in Singapore. At the programmatic level, I analyse how these discourses are then translated into national citizenship education curricular frameworks
and materials for use in the classroom. While citizenship education in Singapore schools includes both formal and informal school curriculum such as community
involvement projects, civics and moral education, and extra-curricular activities, I focus my analysis on the subject, social studies, as this is a required subject for all
secondary students and is a cornerstone of the citizenship education programme in Singapore (Sim and Ho [56]).

The paper is based on school and government documents in the public domain, including the different secondary social studies syllabi developed by the Ministry of
Education and two of the schools offering the Integrated Programme, published ministerial committee reports, ministerial speeches, and textbooks. In particular, I
compared the curriculum content, values, and skills outlined in the NT Lower Secondary social studies syllabus, the GCE Ordinary Level social studies syllabus for
the students in the E/NA track, and the social studies syllabi developed by two elite IP schools. The two IP schools, identified by their pseudonyms, Tekong
Secondary School and Ubin Secondary School, were among the first schools in Singapore to offer the Integrated Programme and were selected because of their
excellent academic track records and acknowledged status as curriculum leaders and innovators in Singapore.

In the next section, I highlight three important recurring themes that best exemplify the differentiated citizenship curricula for students from the different educational
tracks. The three themes are: ( 1) democratic citizen roles, rights, and responsibilities; ( 2) active citizenry; and ( 3) contested representations of society.

Democratic citizen roles, rights, and responsibilities: Who rules?

Democratic principles are not explicitly incorporated in the E/NA and NT curricula or textbooks. In contrast, this forms a significant part of the social studies curricula
for the students from Ubin and Tekong who spend nearly one school term (10 weeks) examining and evaluating the structure of democratic political systems.

The national social studies curricula for both the E/NA and NT students focus primarily on describing how the Singapore government has addressed national issues
such as social cohesion and economic development. Both curricula emphasize the Singapore public policy-making process and explain how policies related to public
housing, the economy, defence, and others are developed and implemented. The E/NA curriculum, for instance, utilizes population and public healthcare policy case
studies to teach students about: ( 1) the significance of government structure; ( 2) the importance of principles of governance in policy formulation and
implementation; and ( 3) the role of communication channels in policy-making (Singapore Ministry of Education [63]: 10). Students from both tracks are not taught
about the importance of civic and political participation in a democracy, the rights of citizens, the role of grassroots organizations, or how the individual citizen can
influence the policy decision-making process. The curricula, however, emphasize values such as national interests, self-reliance, responsibility, integrity, and
prudence (Singapore Ministry of Education [63]).

In contrast to the E/NA and NT social studies curricula, the IP course accords equal emphasis to citizen rights and responsibilities. Uniquely, the IP programmes offer
students an opportunity to conduct an in-depth examination of democratic processes such as checks and balances, the social contract between the government and
the people, and the distribution of power within society. The curriculum also addresses complex issues such as the definition of the common good and the trade-off
between rights and social order. There is a strong emphasis on critical reasoning and students are required to read and discuss classic texts such as Thoreau's Civil
Disobedience. The Ubin teachers, for instance, allow their students the opportunity to define the relationship between the government and the governed. Instead of
prescribing what students should learn and delineating the state's conception of the good life, the IP social studies courses introduce a wide range of conflicting
perspectives and case studies in order to encourage students to clarify their understanding of citizenship and their roles as citizens. Both Tekong and Ubin students
also learn about the importance of checks and balances, and the separation of powers in democratic systems so as to maintain transparency and democratic
accountability. Notably, this critical lens is also turned towards the democratic process and students are required to explore the strengths and limitations of democratic
systems.

Interestingly, despite these critical perspectives and the emphasis on individual rights in the IP curricula, the elite students are also reminded of the need to place
'community before self' and to 'appreciate the need for accommodation and compromise in a heterogeneous society' (Ubin Secondary School [75]: 2–3). This closely
parallels the E/NA curriculum's emphasis on values such as 'compromise and mutual accommodation', harmony, common space, and social cohesion (Singapore
Ministry of Education [63]: 11). Similarly, the NT curriculum highlights the importance of 'social bonding', 'racial harmony', and interdependence (Singapore Ministry of
Education [59]: 13). Notably, these values mirror the national Shared Values highlighted by the Singapore government in 1991. These values include 'nation before
community and society above self' and 'consensus not conflict' (Parliament of Singapore [52]). This shared emphasis on communitarian values reflects the influence
of the Singapore government on school curricula, even for the elite schools.

Active Citizenry: 'Doing democratic things'

Democratic citizens need 'to know democratic things and to do democratic things' (Parker [51]: 67). Schools in democracies must instil knowledge about democracy
and provide young citizens with opportunities to practice democracy (Banks et al. [ 3]). The two IP programmes share a belief in the importance of social inquiry and
social action. Freed from the constraints of the secondary school national examinations, IP students have the opportunity to identify social cleavages caused by
government policies, analyse the societal problems, and critically evaluate potential solutions. For instance, students are encouraged to question the impact of
governing principles such as meritocracy on different sectors of society, issues that remain unexamined in the E/NA and NT curricula. Students from Ubin Secondary
also conduct research into fairly controversial topics such as welfare provision for single mothers, the rights of convicted criminals, and the impact of the Internal
Security Act.

In response to the question, 'What is my role in the community?' the curriculum for IP students focuses on social action—something that is missing from the
mainstream curricula. One of the explicit goals of the IP curricula is to promote social advocacy and civic action. Students also learn about the history of civil society
in Singapore in order to compare it to civil society in other contexts. Civic participation is defined differently in IP schools and students are not just limited to being
personally responsible citizens (Westheimer and Kahne [77]) but are encouraged to take political action.

The national curricular framework for E/NA students aims to help students 'recognize the value of participating as ethical, active and informed citizens in a democratic
society within a global community' (Singapore Ministry of Education [63]: 4). The NT curriculum, in contrast, does not aim to develop 'active citizens', but focuses on
developing 'informed citizens' (Singapore Ministry of Education [59]: 1). The NT social studies programme also emphasizes the importance of students demonstrating
'a sense of pride, loyalty and commitment to Singapore' (p. 2), values that are not explicitly articulated in the other curricula. The NT curriculum, furthermore, places
much less emphasis on critical and creative thinking skills, whereas the E/NA curriculum aims to 'imbue students with the skills of critical inquiry, investigation and
reflection' (Singapore Ministry of Education [63]: 4).

In reality, however, studies have shown that both groups of students do not have the opportunity to inquire into and investigate important public issues because of the
lack of curricular time and opportunity (Ho [26], Ho et al. 2011a). While both the IP and E/NA curricula have as one of their pedagogical goals the development of
'active citizens', it is clear that 'active citizenry' is defined differently for students from the two tracks. For the elite students, active citizenship includes political
participation, critical evaluation of issues and tensions in society, social advocacy, and working for social justice in order to eliminate inequalities. These options are,
however, not provided for the non-elite students. Notably, even though students in the E/NA track are reminded that 'leadership is key' (Singapore Ministry of
Education [60]: 33), students are not encouraged to think of themselves as future leaders of the country. No mention is made of how students and citizens like
themselves can effect change in society or be social advocates. In both the E/NA and NT curricula, the Singapore government and its leaders are presented as the
dominant actors in the policy decision-making process and the main arbiter of societal values and priorities. Unsurprisingly, given the political leaders' belief in elite
democracy, the curricula underscore the importance of 'good leadership' (Singapore Ministry of Education [60]: 33). The citizen is relegated to providing 'constructive
feedback' on government policies, although, as the textbook points out, 'some of the feedback may be impractical, and thus cannot be accepted' (p. 31).

Contested representations of society: Whose knowledge is of most worth?

The social studies curricula for both the E/NA and NT tracks do not pay much attention to developing engaged citizens and focus almost entirely on the transmission
of knowledge about the structures and processes of government. Complex political, economic, and social issues are presented in a simplistic manner and studies
have shown that students, particularly in the E/NA track, have few opportunities to engage in genuine inquiry and deliberation of meaningful problems (Ho [25], [26],
Sim and Ho [56]). For instance, the controversy over the introduction of the Graduate Mother Scheme that gave priority for school admissions to children whose
mothers were graduates is described in the following manner in the Secondary Three E/NA textbook:

PM Lee felt that female graduates should have more children so that there would be a higher chance of the new generation workforce being more educated ... The
Graduate Mothers Scheme sparked off debate and unhappiness among the people. Not all government policies are able to win the support of the people ... the
scheme was withdrawn after 1 year of implementation in 1985. (Singapore Ministry of Education [60]: 48–49)

By not questioning the controversial premise of the Graduate Mothers Scheme and not addressing relevant issues such as discrimination, justice, eugenics, and the
role of the public in policy-making, E/NA students are left with the impression that this scheme was withdrawn because the people were not supportive. The possibility
that this was an unjust and conceptually flawed policy is not addressed. This topic, however, is conspicuously absent from the NT curriculum. NT students are simply
required to learn about the different policies instituted by the Singapore government for the good of the people and are not required to critically evaluate the
effectiveness and relevance of these policies.

In contrast to the sanitized and partisan portrayal of governance and public policy-making in the E/NA and NT curricula, the IP students, through their study of the
problems of society, are taught to critically evaluate different political systems, including that of the existing political regime in Singapore, to prepare them for their
roles as future leaders. The Ubin curriculum, for example, reminds the students of their moral responsibilities as future leaders and suggests that social political
participation and social advocacy are key components of all democratic systems. The IP programmes also provide students with an opportunity to explore multiple
models of civil society and governance. Students, for instance, are taught about different approaches to managing diversity in different countries through a
comparative analysis of multicultural policies in Singapore and Malaysia (Ubin Secondary School [75]).

In other thematic units, the students from the E/NA track are required to explore numerous domestic and international political, economic, and social issues in order
to help them acquire both global and national perspectives (Ho [25]). The curriculum also incorporates international case studies such as the conflict in Sri Lanka, the
British welfare system, and the Iraq–Kuwait conflict. By selecting these negative case studies and explicitly using them to reinforce the national narrative focusing on
Singapore's vulnerabilities and to support the existing government policies, the E/NA curriculum does not allow students the opportunity to critically evaluate existing
government policies and the performance of Singapore's political leaders. Instead, students are reminded that, as good citizens, they are supposed to be supportive
of these policies and offer 'constructive feedback' if necessary. Even if they disagreed with the government's priorities, they will have to appreciate that the specially
selected and groomed Singapore leaders 'do what is right rather than what is popular' (Singapore Ministry of Education [60]: 33).

The NT curriculum, in contrast, focuses primarily on domestic issues such as housing and education—issues that are considered pertinent to their future technicians,
mechanics, or blue collar workers. For example, the curriculum states that NT students need to 'understand the need and importance of technical education'
(Singapore Ministry of Education [59]: 11). This perhaps is an attempt to get these students to be compliant and unquestioningly accept the status quo in the name of
national survival, despite the fact that they have been assigned them to the academic track with the lowest social status and worst job prospects. Notably, this
message regarding the importance of technical education is absent from the other curricula. Like the E/NA curriculum, the NT curriculum does not teach students
about citizen rights and democratic processes, but places a great deal of emphasis on the 'principles of good governance', defined by the state as including the ideals
of meritocracy, incorruptibility, being forward-looking, pragmatism, and fairness (Singapore Ministry of Education [59]).

Discussion: Implications for the roles of citizens

The hierarchical and elitist nature of the Singapore political system ensures that citizens play a far less significant role in policy-making. As Ho ([24]: 190) points out,
in the eyes of the Singapore elite, 'politics is only about leadership'. This view has consistently been promoted by all three past and present Prime Ministers. In 1966,
for example, Lee Kuan Yew ([37]), the first Prime Minister, urged school principals 'to rear a generation that has all the qualities needed to lead and give the people
the inspiration, the drive to make it succeed... On them, depends the pace of progress'. Using a military analogy to emphasize the pyramidal structure of Singapore
society, he stated:

In any army, in one battalion, you have 60–70 officers, 100–200 sergeants and corporals, and the others, about 500, are privates. It must be. This is life.... And I am
as much interested in the bottom as I am in the top of this pyramid. But we must accept the fact that this is life.

This perspective was echoed by Singapore's third Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong ([36]), in his speech to the National University of Singapore nearly 40 years later.
Using the UK and the US as examples, he pointed out that 'Every society will have an elite. Even if it aims to become a classless society where all men are equal,
some men will turn out to be more equal than others'. The main issue, to him, was not the presence of an elite group occupying key positions of power and influence
in Singapore, and setting the direction of the country, but the elites' adaptability, sense of mission, and social responsibility. The elite, he argued, bore a heavier
responsibility than other Singaporeans and, therefore, Singapore's future depended on 'our renewing and enlarging this elite group, and ensuring that the group
continues to see itself as being responsible for the whole society'.

Reinforcing the view that different groups of Singapore citizens have different status, obligations, and values, Goh Chok Tong ([20]), the second Prime Minister,
articulated his belief that two categories of Singapore citizens exist: 'cosmopolitans' and 'heartlanders'. Cosmopolitans, according to Goh, have an international
outlook, are bilingual, highly educated, internationally mobile, and 'are indispensable in generating wealth for Singapore'. 'Heartlanders', on the other hand, do not
have internationally marketable skills, speak the local dialect 'Singlish', and are less well-educated. The role of the 'heartlander' is to maintain Singapore's core values
and social stability, but the cosmopolitans' role is to drive Singapore's growth because 'without them, Singapore cannot run as an efficient, high performance society'.

This belief in democratic elitism and meritocracy, as outlined by the Prime Ministers and other political elite, has shaped the social studies curricula for the different
academic and vocational tracks. Students are explicitly allocated different citizenship roles and responsibilities according to the hierarchy defined by the state. Three
distinct roles can be identified: ( 1) elite cosmopolitan leaders; ( 2) globally-oriented but locally-rooted mid-level executives and workers; and ( 3) local 'heartlander'
followers. To cater to these different citizen roles, the three programmes encompass significantly different curricular goals, content, mode of assessment, civic skills,
and values.

At the apex of the educational hierarchy, the IP social studies curriculum is designed to develop elite cosmopolitan leaders. As future leaders, they are expected to be
able to critically analyse and interpret social issues in order to influence and change society. As Kennedy and Power ([34]: 14) suggest, these communication and
analytical skills and attitudes of social and personal responsibility are 'all skills and attitudes strongly associated with leadership positions'. In Singapore, as in Ireland,
elite schools provide greater access to the development of these skills and attitudes in order to prepare 'the next generation of elites for their future roles as key-
players at the pinnacle of... society' (p. 14). The E/NA social studies curriculum, in contrast, is supposed to nurture the core group of globally-oriented but locally-
rooted mid-level executives and workers. Consequently, these students are introduced to numerous important concepts and understandings, such as governance
and globalization, but are not provided with the freedom and skills to explore, question, and inquire into controversial public issues. At the lowest rung of the
hierarchy, the NT curriculum, with its low status and its narrow focus on domestic public policy issues, is designed to educate compliant and passive local
'heartlander' followers.

Using Parker's ([50]) influential concept, enlightened political engagement, as a framework to analyse the social studies curricula for the three academic tracks, it is
clear that only the elite students from the IP track have access to education that promotes democratic enlightenment and political engagement. Political engagement
includes participating in discussions of public issues, voting, and civic action, whereas democratic enlightenment includes moral-cognitive knowledge, skills, values,
and principles such as political literacy as well as support for democratic values (Parker [50]).

Premised on the notion of democratic elitism and meritocracy, the social studies curricular differentiation reinforces the perception that societal change, if necessary,
will be initiated by the meritorious elite and not the masses. The IP students, therefore, are the only group who are explicitly taught democratic principles and have
the opportunity to be engaged in in-depth discussions of issues such as discrimination and prejudice. Both the E/NA and NT courses, on the other hand, do not focus
on issues of social justice and value conflicts. While the curricula for both the E/NA and NT students are didactic and prescriptive, the NT curricula offers its students
even less opportunity to explore and examine public issues, focusing instead on imparting a pre-determined body of knowledge and set of values deemed necessary
for academically low-achieving vocational students. As mentioned in an earlier section, one of the aims of citizenship education for students in the vocational track is
to ensure that they maintain and support the existing social order. Thus, it is seen to be unnecessary and possibly even dangerous for the non-elites to be taught how
to discern and recognize patterns of injustice in society.

Should citizenship education be differentiated?

Finally, I turn to the normative question: Should citizenship education be differentiated? In the current Singapore system, access to citizenship knowledge and skills is
determined largely by academic achievement because of the ruling party's belief in democratic elitism and the allocation of educational resources by merit. Is it
justifiable for a country to allocate different citizen roles to students based on merit and educate them accordingly?

The Singapore government has adopted numerous utilitarian and instrumental arguments in support of these education policies. First, Singapore's political leaders
have suggested that Singapore has limited human and physical resources and, therefore, in order to maximize the efficient allocation of resources, students should
be sorted into different ability groups. This educational stratification, according to former Education Minister Tharman ([70]), also helps to spur education innovation,
make citizenship education relevant for the future, and maximize elite students' contributions to society. Second, Singapore's leaders believe that: ( 1) elites exist in
every society; ( 2) access to this elite stratum should be limited to the best and brightest through meritocratic selection; and ( 3) elite leadership is absolutely crucial
for the survival of the nation-state (Goh [20], Lee [36]). Thus, it is essential to have a special citizenship education curriculum for elite students to help them prepare
them for future leadership roles. A less explicitly stated third reason is the conviction that the masses are not to be trusted to make rational choices. As former Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated,

We are leaders. We know the consequences ... Do you honestly believe that the chap who can't pass primary six knows the consequence of his choice when he
answers a question viscerally, on language, culture and religion? But we knew the consequences. We would starve, we would have race riots. We would disintegrate.
(Han et al. [23]: 134)

Thus, the citizenship education curriculum for low-achieving NT students should focus on ensuring that these students support the status quo and recognize their
positions in society. Fourth, segregating elite students into IP schools such as Tekong Boys' school and Ubin Girls' High and providing them with different social
studies curricula will in fact contribute to reducing social inequality as they cater to the different needs of the students. For instance, the then Education Minister
Tharman (2002) stated, '(this system) will actually offer us more opportunities to guard against social elitism than our existing school system does... (as the IP schools
will) spend a lot more time on developing leadership and commitment to the community'.

There are, however, numerous issues with regard to the use of the principle of meritocracy to determine the level of access to citizenship education. While
Singapore's political leaders regularly reassure Singaporeans that the differentiated and meritocratic education system means that 'everyone with the determination
and ability can benefit', (Tharman [70]), this rhetoric ignores the problem of the inherent subjectivity of merit evaluation and the selection of merit criteria. In fact, as
McNamee and Miller ([43]) point out in their book, The Myth of Meritocracy, a true meritocracy cannot exist because the assessment of merit cannot be absolutely
objective. This problem is further exacerbated by what Papastephanou ([49]: 503) describes as 'constitutive factors of existential dissimilarity that condition
performance and success at what society cherishes'. These constitutive factors include the relative position of one's social origin, family, language, culture, and
worldview. The Singapore state, however, ascribes an individual's success or failure solely to his or her abilities and level of motivation, and ignores the contingent
nature of merit. This not only serves to absolve the state from any responsibility in perpetuating social inequality, but also legitimizes the unequal treatment accorded
to its citizens in areas such as education.

Second, instead of helping to reduce social inequality, as suggested by Singapore's leaders, the system of meritocracy to determine students' access to citizenship
knowledge, values, and skills may instead be contributing to greater social stratification. Bourdieu ([ 5]: 75), for example, observed that the preparatory classes for the
grandes ecoles in France 'assemble adolescents with many similar social and academic properties and isolate them in a separate space. This selective confinement
produces a very homogenous group whose homogeneity is further increased through the mutual socialization brought about by continued prolonged contact'.
Likewise, Fenwick (2011) observed that schooling in Australia perpetuates and reinforces social and economic disadvantage, particularly for indigenous young
people.

The determination of what counts as merit may also, as Sen ([55]) suggests, be biased towards the preferences and the interests of powerful groups. As Kennedy
and Power ([34]: 20) note, use of the discourse of meritocracy 'helps to present a public facade of equality... (and facilitate) the continuation of class-based advantage
through elite schooling'. While the Singapore Ministry of Education does not publicly release statistics related to the socio-economic status of students in the different
tracks, occasional reports reveal a very interesting picture with regard to the de facto segregation of students by class. During a visit to one of the best IP schools,
Dunman High, the former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, noted that there was a significant difference in the proportion of students from elite schools with parents who
were graduates compared to students from non-elite schools. For instance, more than half of the students attending elite IP schools like Anglo-Chinese School
(Independent) and Raffles Institution have parents with university degrees. In contrast, only 13% of students attending non-elite schools like Chai Chee Secondary
have parents who are graduates (Chang [ 7]). This data supports Ichilov's ([29]: 4) assertion that 'school and track assignments ... separate students on the basis of
their abilities, career aspirations, and sociocultural backgrounds ... (and) symbolize students' present status as well as future prospects'.

Third, the Singapore state tends to attribute the merit of a person's actions to the person and possibly of groups of people. This personification of merit is problematic
as a 'talented' person might still be considered meritorious 'even if he or she were not to use the "talents" to perform acts with good consequences or laudable
propriety' (Sen [55]: 9). Thus, the assumption that academically high-achieving students will necessarily be more productive, valuable, and influential future citizens is
flawed.

While it is difficult to rationalize the model of differentiated citizenship education enacted by the Singapore state on the grounds of equity and justice, is it morally
justifiable for states to adopt a more interventionist and transformative approach to citizenship education? Scholars, for example, have argued that the adoption of the
principle of egalitarian educational formalism (Papastephanou [49]) that results in the provision of equal educational opportunities for all may, in fact, continue to
reproduce existing social inequalities. Thus, is it the moral responsibility of the state to allocate more resources to citizenship education programmes for students who
are educationally disadvantaged or under-privileged? Should programmes that cater to the academic elite be specially designed to incorporate critical knowledge that
will raise the students' awareness of their own privileged positions and inculcate values such as care and compassion given that these elite students may be in future
positions of power? As Parker ([50]: 156) notes, 'one could argue that those who most need democratic enlightenment, especially a highly developed sense of
justice, are those who occupy the boardrooms, legislatures, (and) court chambers'. Thus, citizenship education programmes can be differentiated by providing
different strategies for different groups of students. Strategies that could be particularly relevant for members of privileged classes include an understanding of
epistemic privilege and humility (Parker [50]), whereas the disadvantaged students could be provided with the relevant knowledge and skills that could empower
them to work towards a more just society.

To conclude, the case study of citizenship education in Singapore, while unique in its explicit and unequivocal allocation of separate citizen roles and provision of
highly differentiated citizenship education curricula for students from different academic tracks, nevertheless serves as a useful illustration of the problematic policy of
differentiated citizenship education. In fact, many studies have pointed out that de facto segregation and differentiation, premised on similar albeit less explicitly
articulated meritocratic and elitist beliefs, occurs in many educational systems around the world, including the US, Israel, and Ireland (Ichilov [29], Kahne and
Middaugh [32], Kennedy and Power [34]). Scholars, for instance, have noted that a clear civic achievement gap exists between students from different ethnic and
economic backgrounds as enrolment in government and civics classes vary considerably across type of schools and location (Levinson [39]). However, this division
of present and future citizens into significantly unequal categories with a corresponding distinction in terms of citizen involvement, obligations, and rights undermines
the fundamental premise of a democratic state (Tilly [72]). Schools are morally obliged to provide young citizens with an education that allows them to fully realize
their political status as citizens (Gutmann [21]) and all children, whether powerful or powerless, 'require a high quality education for freedom, justice, and equality'
(Parker [50]: 156). States, therefore, should ensure that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, abilities, and levels of motivation, should be given equitable
access to civic learning opportunities and to learn how to define for themselves their roles as democratic citizens.

References
1 Apple, M. W.2004. Ideology and curriculum, New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

2 Apple, M. W. and Christian-Smith, L. K.1991. "The politics of the textbook". In The politics of the textbook, Edited by: Apple, M. W. and ChristianSmith, L. K.1–21.
New York: Routledge.

3 Banks, J. A., Banks, C. A. M., Cortes, C. E., Hahn, C., Merryfield, M. M., Moodley, K. A., Murphy-Shigematsu, S., Osler, A., Park, C. and Parker, W.2005.
Democracy and diversity: principles and concepts for educating citizens in a global age, Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.

4 Barber, B. R.2003. Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age, Berkeley: University of California Press.

5 Bourdieu, P.1996. The state nobility: elite schools in the field of power, Cambridge: Polity Press.

6 Bowles, S. and Gintis, H.1976. Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life, New York: Basic Books.

7 Chang, R. (2011) Parents' background the edge for students at top schools: MM. Available online at:
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/inthenews/ministermentor/2011/January/Parents%5fbackgroun%5fthe%5fedge%5ffor%5fstudents%5fat%5ftop%5fschoo
accessed 18 October 2011.

8 Cornbleth, C.2002. Images of America: What youth do know about the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2): 519–552.

9 Creswell, J. W.1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dahl, R. A.1966. Further reflections on 'The elitist theory of democracy'. The American Political Science Review, 60(2): 296–305.

Dahl, R. A.2000. On democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A.2006. On political equality, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Deng, Z.2009. The formation of a school subject and the nature of curriculum content: an analysis of liberal studies in Hong Kong. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
41(5): 585–604.

Doyle, W.1992a. "Curriculum and pedagogy". In Handbook of Research on Curriculum, Edited by: Jackson, P.W.486–516. New York: Macmillan.

Doyle, W.1992b. "Constructing curriculum in the classroom". In Effective and responsible teaching: The new syntheses, Edited by: Oser, F.K., Dick, A. and Patry,
J.66–79. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dye, T. R., Ziegler, H. and Schubert, L.2012. The irony of democracy: an uncommon introduction to American politics, Boston: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.

Fenwick, L.2011. Curriculum reform and reproducing inequality in upper-secondary education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1): 1–20.

Galston, W. A.2001. Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4: 217–234.

Goh, C. T. (1991) Keynote address by Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong at the opening of the seminar on 'The role of community leaders in the next lap'. Available
online at: stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19911027.pdf, accessed 18 October 2011.

Goh, C. T. (1999) Strengthening the Singapore heartbeat: speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in Parliament on Wednesday, 13 October 1999. Available online
at: http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19991013i.pdf, accessed 5 April 2010.

Gutmann, A.1999. Democratic Education, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Hahn, C. L.2003. Democratic values and citizen action: a view from US ninth graders. International Journal of Educational Research, 39: 633–642.

Han, F. K., Fernandez, W. and Tan, S.1998. Lee Kuan Yew: the man and his ideas, Singapore: The Straits Times Press.

Ho, K. L.2000. The politics of policy-making in Singapore, Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Ho, L. C.2009. Global multicultural citizenship education: a Singapore experience. The Social Studies, 100(6): 285–293.

Ho, L. C.2010. 'Don't worry, I'm not going to report you': Education for citizenship in Singapore. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(2): 217–247.

Ho, L. C., Alviar-Martin, T., Sim, J. B.-Y. and Yap, P. S.2011a. Civic disparities: exploring students' perceptions of citizenship within Singapore's academic tracks.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 39(1): 298–316.

Ho, L. C., Sim, J. B.-Y. and Alviar-Martin, T.2011b. Students' perceptions of democracy, rights and governance in two Singapore schools. Education Citizenship and
Social Justice, 6(3): 265–276.

Ichilov, O.2002. "Differentiated civics curriculum and patterns of citizenship education: vocational and academic programs in Israel". In Citizenship, education, and the
curriculum, Edited by: Scott, D. and Lawson, H.88–107. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Josey, A.1968. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore: Donald Moore Press.

Kahne, J. and Middaugh, E. (2008a) Democracy for some: the civic opportunity gap in high school. Available online at:
http://www.civicsurvey.org/CERG%5fPublications.html, accessed 8 February 2010.

Kahne, J. and Middaugh, E.2008b. High quality civic education: what is it and who gets it?. Social Education, 72(1): 34–39.

Kamens, D. H.1988. Education and democracy: a comparative institutional analysis. Sociology of Education, 61(2): 114–127.

Kennedy, M. and Power, M.J.2008. 'The smokescreen of meritocracy': elite education in Ireland and the reproduction of class privilege. Journal for Critical Education
Policy Studies, 8(2): 223–248.

Kymlicka, W. and Norman, W.1994. Return of the citizen: a survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104: 257–289.

Lee, H. L. (2005) Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the NUS Society Lecture 19 Mar 2005. Available online at: http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/,
accessed 19 October 2011.

Lee, K. Y. (1966) Transcript of speech by the Prime Minister at a meeting with principals of schools at the Victoria Theatre on 29th August, 1966. Available online at:
stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/index.html, accessed 19 October 2011.

Lee, K. Y. (1984) Talent for the future: Speech by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Available online at: stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/index.html, accessed 19 October
2011.

Levinson, M. (2007) The civic achievement gap. Available online at: http://www.civicsurvey.org/CERG%5fPublications.html, accessed 8 February 2010.

Mahbubani, K. (2008) Wising up to seven pillars of wisdom. Available online at: http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read%5fcontent.asp?View,10795, accessed 3 March 2009.

Marshall, T. H.1998. "Citizenship and social class". In The citizenship debates: A reader, Edited by: Shafir, G.93–112. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McClosky, H. and Brill, A.1983. Dimensions of tolerance. what Americans believe about civil liberties, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

McNamee, S. J. and Miller, R. K.2004. The meritocracy myth, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.

Meyer, J. W.1977. The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1): 55–77.

Nagle, J.1992. "Recruitment of elites". In Encyclopedia of government and politics, Edited by: Hawkesworth, M. and Kogan, M.486–503. London: Routledge.

Ng, E. H. (2008) Speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence, at the opening ceremony of the 10th Asia-Pacific conference on
giftedness. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2008/07/14/speech-by-dr-ng-eng-hen-at-the-4.php, accessed 18 October 2011.
Niemi, R. G. and Junn, J.1998. Civic education: what makes students learn, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Niemi, R. G. and Smith, J.2001. Enrolments in high school government classes: are we short-changing both citizenship and political science training?. Political
Science and Politics, 34(2): 281–287.

Papastephanou, M.2005. Rawls' theory of justice and citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(3): 499–518.

Parker, W. C.2003. Teaching democracy: unity and diversity in public life, New York: Teachers College Press.

Parker, W. C.2008. "Knowing and doing in democratic citizenship education". In Handbook of research in social studies education, Edited by: Levstik, L. S. and
Tyson, C. A.65–80. New York: Routledge.

Parliament of Singapore (1991) Shared Values White Paper. Cmd. 1 of 1991.

Rubin, B. C.2007. 'There's still not justice': youth civic identity development amid distinct school and community contexts. Teachers College Record, 109(2): 449–481.

Sears, A. and Hughes, A. S.2005. Learning from each other: toward a democratic approach to international collaboration in civic education. International Journal of
Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1(1): 16–31.

Sen, A.1999. "Merit and justice". In Meritocracy and economic inequality, Edited by: Arrow, K., Bowles, S. and Durlauf, S.5–16. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sim, J. B.-Y. and Ho, L. C.2010. "Transmitting social and national values through education in Singapore: tensions in a globalized era". In International research
handbook on values education and student wellbeing, Edited by: Lovat, T., Toomey, R. and Clement, N.897–917. Netherlands: Springer.

Singapore Ministry of Education (1997). Press release: Launch of National Education 16 May 1997. Available online at:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/1997/pr01797%5fprint.htm, accessed 20 February 2010.

Singapore Ministry of Education (2004) Review of the Normal (Technical) course. Available online at:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2004/pr20040929a%5fprint.htm, accessed 18 October 2011.

Singapore Ministry of Education (2005) Social Studies Syllabus (Lower Secondary Normal (Technical)). Available online at:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/doc/SocialStudies%5fLS%20NT.pdf, accessed 5 December 2006.

Singapore Ministry of Education. 2007. Upper secondary social studies 3, Singapore: EPB Pan Pacific.

Singapore Ministry of Education (2009a). Education Statistics Digest 2009. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-statistics-digest/files/esd-
2009.pdf, accessed 30 May 2010.

Singapore Ministry of Education. 2009b. Report of the Primary Education Review and Implementation Committee, Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Singapore Ministry of Education (2010) Combined Humanities Ordinary Level Social Studies Syllabus (Syllabus 2192). Available online at:
http://www.seab.gov.sg/SEAB/oLevel/syllabus/school/2010%5fGCE%5fO.html, accessed 3 January 2010.

Singh, B.2007. Politics and governance in Singapore: an introduction, Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Sniderman, P. M., Fletcher, J. F., Russell, P. H., Tetlock, P. E. and Gaines, B. E.1991. The fallacy of democratic elitism: elite competition and commitment to civil
liberties. British Journal of Political Science, 21(3): 349–370.

Stewart, J. J., Hedge, D. M. and Lester, J. P.2008. Public policy: an evolutionary approach, Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.

Tan, E. K. B.2010. "The evolving social compact and the transformation of Singapore: Going beyond quid pro quo in governance". In Management of success:
Singapore revisited, Edited by: Chong, T.80–99. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

Tan, K. P.2008. Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: ideological shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(7): 7–27.

Tekong Secondary School (2011) Social Studies 2011/12. Singapore.

Tharman, S. (2002) Speech by Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry & Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam at the Parliamentary Debate on Junior
College/Upper Secondary education on 27 November 2002. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2002/sp05122002.htm, accessed 19
October 2011.

Tharman, S. (2005) Parliamentary replies. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2005/pq09032005.htm, accessed 18 October 2011.

Tilly, C.2007. Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thoreau, H.D.2005. Walden and civil disobedience, New York, NY: Barnes & Noble.

Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C. H. and Wilkenfeld, B.2007. Latino adolescents' civic development in the United States: Research results from the IEA Civic Education
Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 36: 111–125.

Ubin Secondary School (2010) Social Studies Curriculum Map. Singapore.

Walzer, M.1983. Spheres of justice. a defense of pluralism and equality, New York: Basic Books.

Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J.2004. What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2): 237–269.

Wong, A. (2000) Address by Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education at the opening ceremony of the primary Social Studies symposium 2000. Available
online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp13032000a%5fprint.htm, accessed 18 November 2009.
Yap, M. T.2002. Fertility and population policy: the Singapore experience. Journal of Population and Social Security, 1: 643–658.

Yin, R. K.1989. Case study research: design and methods, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Young, I. M.1989. Polity and group difference. a critique of the idea of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99(2): 250–274.

Young, I. M.2002. Inclusion and democracy, New York: Oxford University Press.

~~~~~~~~
By LI-CHING HO

Reported by Author

Li-Ching Ho is an assistant professor of social studies education in the Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616; e-mail:. Her interests centre on democratic and multicultural citizenship education.

Copyright of Journal of Curriculum Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.