Sim, B-Y. & Print; M. (2009) the State Teachers and Citizenship Education in Singapure Schools (1)

This article was downloaded by: [Corporacion CINCEL]On: 26 November 2012, At: 13:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

British Journal of EducationalStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20

THE STATE, TEACHERS ANDCITIZENSHIP EDUCATION INSINGAPORE SCHOOLSJasmine B-Y Sim a & Murray Print ba Nanyang Technological University, Singaporeb University of SydneyVersion of record first published: 05 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Jasmine B-Y Sim & Murray Print (2009): THE STATE, TEACHERSAND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE SCHOOLS, British Journal of EducationalStudies, 57:4, 380-399

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2009.00446.x

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2

British Journal of Educational Studies, ISSN

0007-1005

DOI

number: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2009.00446.x

Vol.

57

, No.

4

, December

2009

, pp

380399

380

2009 The AuthorsJournal compilation 2009 SES. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKBJESBritish Journal of Educational Studies0007-10051467-8527 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2009XXX

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

THE STATE, TEACHERS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATIONTHE STATE, TEACHERS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

THE STATE, TEACHERS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE SCHOOLS

by

Jasmine

B-Y

Sim

,

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,

and

Murray

Print

,

University of Sydney

ABSTRACT: States commonly employ education policy to build astrong sense of citizenship within young people and to create types ofcitizens appropriate to the country. In Singapore the government createda policy to build citizenship through both policy statements and socialstudies in the school curriculum. In the context of a tightly controlledstate regulating schooling through a highly controlled educationalsystem, the government expected teachers to obey these policy documents,political statements and the prescribed curriculum. What do teachersunderstand about citizenship in this context? In schools do teachersdemonstrate independence of thought on citizenship education or do theyacquiesce to government policy? This article reports on a small group ofsocial studies teachers understandings of citizenship, and explores thenature of these understandings in the context of government policy. Thestudy showed an unexpected diversity of conceptualization amongstSingaporean teachers with their understandings of citizenship locatedin four themes, namely a sense of identity, rights and responsibilities,participation, and national history. This response was unintended bygovernment and reflects an independence of citizenship education land-scape in schools, despite the tight policy and bureaucratic controls overteachers by the Singapore state.

Keywords:

The state, teachers, citizenship education, Singapore, curriculum

1.

Introduction

Citizenship is currently riding high on the political and social policyagendas of many governments (Arthur

et al.

, 2008; Cogan andDerricott, 2000; Osler and Starkey, 2006), including Singapore(Han, 2000). The literature on policy and practice in citizenshipeducation around the world reveals that the quality of democratic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2

THE STATE, TEACHERS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

381

2009 The AuthorsJournal compilation 2009 SES

citizenship is perceived to be dangerously low and needs to beaddressed through effective citizenship education programmes inschools. Citizens, particularly younger ones, lack civic knowledge andunderstanding (Torney-Purta

et al.

, 1999; 2001); there is evidence ofdecreasing confidence in democratic institutions (Norris, 1999;Osler and Starkey, 2006); there is growing youth disengagement fromdemocracy (Saha

et al.

, 2005), and a decline in civic engagement(Osler and Starkey, 2006; Putnam, 2001). This sense of crisis aroundcivic disengagement suggests that young people may have learnt totake civic participation somewhat for granted (Chareka and Sears,2006). Yet democratic societies rely for their very survival uponthe engagement and active participation of an informed citizenry(Crick, 1998).

Government anxiety over citizenship is also heightened by globali-sation, which creates new economic, social and cultural arenas thatfrequently transcend national borders. This curtails the states policy-making discretion, requiring new arrangements between governmentsand their people. Here, education policy plays a central role inmediating and managing these shifting relationships (Dale, 1999;Gopinathan, 2007). The Singapore government, for example, is deeplyconcerned about the engagement of young people in society. Politicalleaders worry that young and skilled Singaporeans, who aspire forgreater freedom and individual choice, are emigrating. Over theyears, pragmatic policies pursued by the government have also led toa citizenship that is passive, self-centred and materialistic (Han,2000; Sim, 2008). Consequently, developing a more profound senseof citizenship has become a government imperative.

2.

Education Policy and Citizenship Education

State emphasis on education rests on the belief that it can influencethe character and conduct of individuals, and the nature of thesocial order (Crick, 1998; Pykett, 2007). Policy is a key resource thestate utilises to provide and regulate education services in order toshape the experiences of those who study and work in schools (Belland Stevenson, 2006). In short, education policy, and its subsequentapplication, plays a pivotal role in developing citizenship, impartingto young people knowledge and skills, values and virtues to beengaged members of their community (Crick, 1998). But these arenot value neutral aspirations and consequently raise many questions.Who is the good citizen? Who decides? Are citizens to adapt to thestatus quo and interests of the socially powerful, or are they to tryto transform and reconstruct society themselves? Such questions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


382


highlight a tension between education for reproduction and a moreradical conception of citizenship, all of which are complex andcontested, as they change over time and vary between cultures(Faulks, 2006).

Formal schooling, Apple (2003) points out, by and large is organizedand controlled by the government (p. 1). Citizenship education hashistorically been an overarching goal of public schooling in everysociety. Governments employ education policy to explicitly build astrong sense of citizenship within the students of their country (Belland Stevenson, 2006; Faulks, 2006). Policy directives are configureddeliberately in order that schools create the types of citizens govern-ments believe are appropriate to that country (Apple, 2003; Pykett2007). In fact schooling remains the main source of formal citizenshipeducation for young people, as the government assumes through it,it can maintain high levels of control and accountability. Certainlyin Singapore education is the primary instrument for citizenshipeducation. Here education policy is the explicit pursuit of funda-mentally political objectives, concerned with maintaining the centralityof power and control.

Most scholars regard policy as at once both product and process.Separating policy generation from its implementation by privilegingthe former over the latter is artificial and simplistic (Bowe

et al.

,1992). It fails to reflect the complexity of its nature, as policy is con-tinuously being made and re-made in different contexts as it is beingimplemented (Trowler, 2003). Policies are not simply done to peopleby a chain of implementers. Teachers at the institutional level arenot mere passive receivers and implementers of policy decisionsmade elsewhere, but are able to shape the policy process (Bell andStevenson, 2006). Balls (1993) approach to policy as text focuses onthe manner in which policies are presented and interpreted. Thisimplies multiple authors and readers of the text, where authorshipof the text involves encoding policy in complex ways, via struggles,compromises, authoritative public interpretations and reinterpreta-tions. Similarly, decoding of the policy texts by multiple readersensures a multiplicity of interpretations and meanings in relation totheir history, experiences, skills, resources and context (Ball, 1993,p. 11).

Whatever the policy, teachers need to find it meaningful and feela sense of ownership if they are to implement it effectively (Fullan,1993; Hargreaves

et al.

, 2001; Schmidt and Datnow, 2005). Spillane

et al.

(2002) argue that teachers prior knowledge, values and emotionsaffect how they come to understand policy. Teachers tend to bebiased towards policy interpretations that fit their beliefs and values.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


383


Additionally, teachers must be knowledgeable about the policy, andbe given opportunities to discuss and construct shared meanings.These are pertinent as most modern states are diverse, comprisingdifferent ethnic groups that may not completely share the samesense of common citizenship. Further, many would argue, teachersmust be given the space and support to be able to interpret policyin ways different from the official stand without worrying about thepossible consequences that might befall them personally (Schmidtand Datnow, 2005). To what extent does the relationship betweenpolicy and teachers as described by these scholars apply to the situationin Singapore?

3.

Policy on Citizenship Education in Singapore

Singapore has single-mindedly pursued citizenship education withthe central purpose of nation-building since it became independentin 1965 (Han, 2000; Hill and Lian, 1995). Characteristic of the develop-mental state, education serves the process of state-formation bydeveloping human capital and building social cohesion as majorfactors for economic growth (Green, 1997). The mission of theMinistry of Education (MoE), as stated in its website, is to mouldthe future of the nation, by moulding the people who will determinethe future of Singapore. The purpose of schooling is to prepare thenext generation of citizens to continue the nation, and this requiresa moulding of the young to become good citizens, well aware oftheir responsibilities to support their family, society and the nation.Consequently, citizenship education in Singapore is a core elementof education policy, designed to build national identity and a strongnation through engendering national cohesion in schools.

What has driven the government to develop such a policy? Oneneeds to refer to a critical juncture of Singaporean history, whenSingapores expulsion from Malaysia in 1965 led to the creation ofan independent state. A tiny island at the southern tip of the MalayPeninsula, Singapore has no natural resources and has faced severechallenges to its existence from the very beginning. Demographicallyit is a multi-racial immigrant society with a large Chinese majority ina region surrounded by Muslim countries. Building social cohesionin such an ethnically plural society is difficult. Major political issuessuch as the Japanese Occupation, communism and racial riots inthe early years of independence emphasised that for Singapore tosurvive, nation-building, developing a shared national identity, andmodernising the economy were urgent priorities (Hill and Lian,1995).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


384


The Peoples Action Party (PAP) government, which has beenconsistently returned to power since 1965, from very early on utilisedschools to construct a unified national system of education and toequip a labour force with skills and attitudes necessary for industri-alisation (Sharpe and Gopinathan, 2002). The education system wascentralised under government control, putting into its hands animportant ideological apparatus. Citizenship education was focusedon cultivating national loyalty, patriotism, a sense of belonging,and the commitment to actively participate in the goals of nationaldevelopment (Green, 1997).

Under this government citizenship education focuses on politicaland moral socialisation. Students are taught issues of national con-cern such as racial and religious harmony, economic growth andnational security, and their role in supporting the national project,emphasising an acceptance of the status quo (Tan and Chew, 2004).The population is envisaged to be a tightly organised and highlydisciplined citizenry pulling in the same direction with a sense ofpublic spiritedness and self-sacrifice in the national interest (Chua,1995). The principle of equal rights with multiracialism, constitutednarrowly by three official races, Chinese, Malay and Indian, under anoverarching Singaporean Singapore national identity, was writteninto the Constitution in 1965. Every Singaporean is classified asChinese, Malay or Indian; or other, using the hyphenated national-ethnic identity. In Singapore, race and ethnicity are used inter-changeably. Here, race is defined strictly by patriarchal descent, andones race supposedly determines ones culture and identity. Theprinciple of meritocracy was also laid down as the basis for educationaland economic opportunity, and advancement of all citizens, contributingto the rapid growth of the nation (Chua, 1995).

In recent years however, the PAP government has been keenlyaware of the destabilising effects of globalisation on the nation-state.Globalisation has exacerbated the complex and shifting social cleavagesof race, language, religion, class, gender and sexuality. Some segmentsof society have also become more cosmopolitan, which may not sitcomfortably with the static and clear-cut roles prescribed by govern-ment policies (Tan, 2007, p. 296). It is feared that this can divide thenation-state. This tension is manifested in the concern about youngpeoples participation in Singapores future. Then Deputy PrimeMinister Lee Hsien Loong (1997) claimed that young people mighttake peace and prosperity for granted. An adequate historical know-ledge was essential so that young people would be committed to thenation and the shared values. The real issue though was how todevelop and deepen national consciousness among an increasingly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


385


materialistic, mobile and globally-oriented Singaporean youth.Against this background, the policy on National Education was intro-duced in 1997. On the MoE website, it states that National Educationaims to develop national cohesion, cultivate the instinct for survivalas a nation and instill in our students confidence in our nationsfuture. It also emphasizes on cultivating a sense of belonging andemotional rootedness to Singapore.

Specifically, National Education centres on the Singapore Story a straightforward tale adopted by the political leaders that chartshow an independent Singapore overcame the odds to become apeaceful and prosperous country, highly regarded by the interna-tional community. Citizenship in the context of National Educationis nationalistic and communitarian, emphasising responsibilities andduties, and the submission of individual interests to the nationalinterest. Citizenship is about service to the nation, common cultureand shared values to meet national needs (Hill and Lian, 1995). Thiscontrasts with the liberal individualist tradition of citizenship thatemphasises status and individual rights, where rights are safeguardedby constitutional limits on government power (Kymlicka, 2002).

4.

Curriculum and Education Policy

In highly centralised Singapore the Ministry of Education has directadministrative control over schools, principals and teachers (as govern-ment employees), and curriculum development. This allows the govern-ment to achieve their policy intentions. That the curriculum isinescapably political is well known (Apple, 2003). The curriculum istransmitted to students in terms of salient knowledge and values, tohelp them become loyal believers in the particular set of truthsdeemed necessary to guarantee the survival of society. This makesthe curriculum the major vehicle for education policy. A fundamentalassumption exists amongst policy makers that education policy will,when translated to school contexts, be implemented faithfully byteachers, though with varying degrees of verisimilitude.

In Singapore, political leaders wield direct influence over curriculumpolicy and implementation (Gopinathan, 2007). Citizenship educationis subject-centred, with social studies as the principal expression inthe school curriculum. This curriculum was developed by the MoE,with clearly delineated objectives to reproduce the PAP governmentsview of Singaporean society. Within the education system, co-ordinatedand sustained effort is made to transmit relevant knowledge anddesirable values as well as to shape attitudes and behaviours congruentwith the national goals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


386


Teachers are highly aware of education policy; they are key playersin citizenship education in that they directly implement the citizenshipcurriculum. Consequently, when exploring the application ofeducation policy involving citizenship, it is important to ask aboutteachers personal understanding of citizenship and how it fits intoa tightly controlled, nationally oriented education policy. Do teachersacquiesce to government policy or do they demonstrate independenceof thought on civic matters in their classrooms? Gaining insightsinto teachers understanding of citizenship is fundamental to theexamination of how they implement the curriculum (Lee and Fouts,2005). In what follows, research has been conducted into teacherresponses to the policy on National Education. We wanted to identifywhat teachers understood about citizenship and to see how thataffected their subsequent teaching of citizenship education.

5.

Teacher Understandings of Citizenship

Over a three-year period, this study examined how a small sample ofsecondary social studies teachers in Singapore came to understandand apply citizenship in practice within the context of the govern-ments National Education policy. As the study sought to gain asustained, in-depth understanding of teachers, a case study of a smallnumber of teachers, reflecting various genders, ethnicity, academicfields and years of teaching experience was considered most appro-priate (Stake, 1995). Eight teachers were selected who also reflecteddifferent types of secondary schools in Singapore, though the unit ofanalysis in the study was the teacher. Our sample is not, of course,representative of all secondary social studies teachers, nor of thedifferent social groups in Singapore. The teachers were selectedprecisely because they were seen to have the different combinationsof the above-stated criteria and provided the basis of good cases incase study research.

Teachers were interviewed six times for an average of 90 minutesover a two-year period. Their teaching was observed at least tentimes producing over 80 hours of observations. These data werethen triangulated with data from an analysis of their teachingprogrammes and the policies of the respective schools to producea comprehensive, in-depth study of teacher understandings andbehaviour. While the numbers of participants are low for generali-sation purposes, and so the generalisations are qualified, they providea wide range of individual cases for study.

We chose teachers from different disciplinary backgrounds, asstudies have shown this makes a difference to how they understand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


387


and teach citizenship (Wineburg and Wilson, 1991), particularlywhen social studies teachers major in a range of disciplines includinghistory, geography, political science, sociology and economics.Teachers of different races were selected to reflect Singaporesmultiracial makeup because race is a key feature of the Singaporeanidentity and national policy. Teaching experience was considered,given concerns that young Singaporeans are relatively more mobileand apathetic. Gender was varied as Singaporean men and womenmay think differently about citizenship, as men undergo two years ofmandatory military service, which may be construed as a process ofsocialisation and citizenship duty. Details of the participating teacherswith their pseudonyms are seen in Table 1.

Our purpose is to explore the nature of teachers understandingsof citizenship in the context of the education policy on NationalEducation. Analysis was data-driven and inductive. The constantcomparative method was used to unitise and categorise the data.This involved comparing one segment of the data with another todetermine their similarities and differences. Data were then groupedtogether on a similar dimension to form a category. New categoriesemerged, changed and were refined as the data were scrutinisedmany times over for patterns and linkages. Methodological triangu-lation of data from multiple sources maintained the credibility of thefindings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In this report of the findings, wefocused primarily on the interviews, supported by some limitedobservational evidence. The latter will be reported in detail atanother time. The eight teachers were first categorised in terms oftheir approach to teaching citizenship education in classrooms afteranalysis of interviews, observations and documents. These teaching

TABLE 1: Profiles of social studies teachers

Name* Gender Ethnicity Disciplinary BackgroundTeaching experience

Vind Female Minority Political Science and Literature NinePeter Male Minority History FourCarolyn Female Chinese Geography and Economics TwentyLeong Male Chinese Political Science and Sociology FiveFrida Female Minority Political Science and Sociology EightDavid Male Chinese Asian Studies and History SixYing Female Chinese Political Science and Economics ThreeMarcus Male Chinese Economics and Sociology Nine

* pseudonyms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


388


approaches were classified as dominantly nationalistic, sociallyconcerned or person oriented stances (Sim and Print, 2009). Ofthe eight teachers, half were clearly identified as nationalistic, twowere socially concerned, and two were person oriented (see Table 2).These were important distinctions for the teachers, reflecting theirviews on subject matter as well as citizenship. Regarding teachersunderstanding of the concept of citizenship, four themes wereclearly identified, namely a sense of identity, rights and responsibilities,participation and national history.

As reported below, the study identified a dualism between teacherunderstandings and practice that pervaded all aspects of the findings:on the one hand how the teachers personally viewed citizenship andcitizenship education, and on the other, the extent to which theyallowed their personal views to influence their teaching and thetaught curriculum.

TABLE 2: Themes and approaches to citizenship education

Approaches to Citizenship Education

Nationalistic Socially Concerned Person Oriented

Carolyn, Leong, Peter and Vind Frida and Marcus David and Ying

ThemesA Sense of Identity

National identity; nation focused; patriotism

Multiple, overlapping identities; community focused; belonging

Problematic national identity; personal development focused; disengaged

Rights and Responsibilities

Little understanding of rights, emphasis on duties and responsibilities to nation

Importance of rights and responsibilities for participation; lack of rights problematic

Importance of rights but sense of disempowerment

Participation Readiness, military duties, economic and social contribution to nation-building; avoided politics

Active engagement in concerns of local communities; confronted politics

Life as usual without giving trouble; avoided public sphere

National history Fully supported the Singapore Story

Necessary for multiple perspectives of past

Necessary for ordinary voices

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


389


6

. A Sense of Identity

All eight teachers viewed citizenship as involving a sense of identity, butthe form of that identity varied considerably. The four nationalisticteachers defined identity in national terms, it is being Singaporean,exclusive and grounded in the nation-state. National identity is necessaryto pull the nation together, Leong explained. Citizenship is tied to thenation; if the nation is there, we are citizens, without it, where do webelong? The nation validates us and gives us our identity. Patriotism,described as defending the nation, safeguarding our sovereignty,making him stay and fight, was frequently mentioned alongside nationalidentity by the men. This was influenced by their military serviceexperience, as reflected in Peters remark, My army experience wasimpactful. It is hard to describe the feeling unless you are part of it. Yousee the flag, weapons, fighter jets . . . and Im proud to be part of it.

The nationalistic teachers never thought of themselves in ethnicterms. The minority race teachers among them in particular, seldomdescribed identities in terms of race or religion, but emphasisedthey were Singaporeans. Both these teachers avoided the race issue,believing it to have individualising tendencies. National identitywas associated with the unity of the nation engendering a strongsense of community and identification with others who have similarexperiences, commitments and aspirations. These teachers emphasisednational interests in their lessons and treated citizenship like amonistic identity, apart from or transcending other identities.Differences were ignored rather than related to the things citizenshave in common. The Singaporean identity was most importantlyapplied in the classroom, as Peter stated, Multiracial policy ensuresevery race is treated equally. It is fair, I feel safe and respected. Idont experience racial discrimination . . . I support the multiracialpolicy that unifies our society.

By contrast, the socially concerned teachers acknowledged theexistence of multiple and overlapping identities, arguing that citizensinvariably belong to several communities with which they identify. Aconnection between identity and the community was emphasisedwhere members were bound by the sense of community. Marcus andFrida thus sought to involve people in their community to participatein local concerns. The more one participates, Frida noted, thestronger the sense of belonging. As a result, a sense of identitydevelops because you feel belonged. Citizenship was about ties, tobe nurtured at the level where one lives.

In multiracial Singapore, identity cannot be seen solely in nationalterms, according to Frida. We are Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


390


that is our race and identity, yet we are also Singaporeans. Shecontinued:

Im Singaporean. My parents are part Chinese and Indian. MyChinese grandmothers became Muslims when Muslim familiesadopted them. My grandfathers spoke Tamil when they emigratedfrom India, and they learnt Malay when living in the villages. Itook Malay as mother tongue in school. I have multiple identitiesbased on race, religion and language.

To her, identity was formed in relation to difference, and unlike thenationalistic teachers, the socially concerned teachers recognisedrace, ethnicity, language and local community as constitutive ofidentities. It was observed that these differences were woven intodebate and discussion on national identity within classrooms, clearlydemonstrating the impact on teacher practice. In particular, theseteachers emphasised perspective taking and deliberation on issues asessential citizenship skills in their classrooms.

A sense of disengagement from society was very apparent in theperson oriented teachers discourse, a reaction to a state perceivedto be paternalistic and authoritarian, It means I am right, listen tome, I know better, follow. We are like kids being disciplined byharsh laws to socialise citizens into acquiescence. It is for our good,the state says, for economic stability. They felt disempowered asDavid stated, I have been brought up to understand that if I stickout my tongue, I will get knocked.

Identifying with the country requires a sense of attachment to it,I dont feel the warmth of home . . . I dont have a sense of thenational identity. Ying, however, praised Singapore for its clinicalsecurity, safe streets, and efficiency. Her disengagement was one ofyouthful scepticism. She said, Im starting work yet I have manyresponsibilities and constraints. I feel burdened being a Singaporean.David added, I feel stifled here . . . Im not welcomed, I cant identifywith it. He was not able to fit into the Singaporean-Chinese ethnicidentity because he could not speak the official Chinese mothertongue. He was also not academically inclined, but caught in a systemthat for a long time based success on scholastic achievements.Seeing himself as a victim of my own citizenship, David advocateda flexible citizenship identity inclusive of diversity.

Both person-oriented teachers sought to break out of conventionsand not be limited by views of who they could become. They experi-enced how national identity was problematic because it sought totypecast them. Both teachers emphasised in their practice personaldevelopment of students by promoting positive self-concept and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


391


personal efficacy. They felt society would be better served if peoplewere confident, self-governing, responsible and of good character. Intheir classrooms they emphasised meaning-making and encourageddifferent ways of learning beyond the textbooks, through role-plays,music, art and fieldtrips. Lessons were noticeably more inclusive ofstudent voices, giving them greater freedom to decide with teachershow they wanted to learn.

7.

Rights and Responsibilities

The teachers responded to the rights and responsibilities aspect ofcitizenship differently. The nationalistic teachers had little under-standing of the citizen as an individual. Unsurprisingly, they under-stated rights, as the following interview excerpt illustrates.

Researcher: You have not talked about rights.Vind: Rights . . . like voting . . . freedom of speech? No, I

didnt think about rights. Here we seldom talk aboutrights, we arent very concerned. Rights didnt cometo my mind. I supposed I do have rights, but theydont really matter, we value bread-and-butter goodjobs, security . . . were very materialistic.

Citizenship was seen as being about duties and responsibilities tothe nation. Peter and Leong talked in terms of duties, non-negotiable . . . and fundamental to the survival of the nation. Typically,the men referred to the duty of military service, and felt it wasmeaningful to serve the country. Carolyn and Vind talked aboutresponsibility, suggesting a level of willingness in performing thetasks. Carolyn described responsibility as contributing back to thesociety with a grateful heart. Vind spoke of doing well in your workto help our economy.

By contrast, the socially concerned teachers regarded both rightsand responsibilities as central to citizenship. They did not avoid talkingabout rights, instead problematised the lack of them in Singapore.Rights are our entitlements as citizens. Frida added that not talkingabout rights, and pretending they dont matter can breed suspicion.She explained, During the Jemaah Islamiah incident, Muslimleaders were questioned about their teaching, philosophy andthinking. . . . Religious harmony is not about infringing privacy andtightening control . . . instead we need to learn to talk about issues,and deliberate together. They stressed that individuals have a degreeof autonomy that must be exercised with respect to the welfare ofothers and in meeting community interests.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


392


Their reference to responsibility did not indicate a nationalisticcommitment, but was an expression of obligation towards othersfor their own sake. The socially concerned teachers discussedresponsibility in relation to developing ties, emphasising cooperationand reciprocity in contrast to the nationalistic teachers ideas ofcontributing to an abstract nation. In lessons observed, both teacherstried to create safe and trusting classroom environments to encouragestudents to speak up responsibly.

Similarly, the person-oriented teachers understood rights to beinherent to citizenship. David and Ying were vocal about their ineffec-tiveness here. To Ying, citizenship was elitist in Singapore, whererights and active citizenship were perceived to be exclusive to theelites. While we have the right to speak . . . feedback from thesmarter ones seemed more valued. She shared how she had givenfeedback but felt brushed aside. It is the system . . . we spoke butthere was no effect . . . so why bother!

Citizenship was experienced as obligations for David. Itsimposing . . . the stringent requirements to fit in . . . to pass themother tongue in school, which he failed and had to pursue hisstudies overseas. Unlike the nationalistic teachers, David saw hismilitary obligation as an imposition. He confessed, In my 20s, Iwanted to emigrate at every opportunity. But having lived overseasfor four years he acknowledged, Things work here, but elsewhere,government services can shut down. While we are not as free, weenjoy an efficient system. Citizenship became a dilemma for David,Should it merely be about material needs and convenience? Thisreflected the broader tension between fulfilling personal and societalneeds. In lessons observed, students were encouraged to share theirfeelings about issues as a way of dealing with such tensions.

8.

Participation

All eight teachers agreed that participation was important to citizenship,though how they understood it varied. The nationalistic teachers sawparticipation not as a democratic process but as essential to nation-building. Good citizens were required to participate actively in buildingthe nation for these are duties to carry out, obligations to fulfill, andresponsibilities to perform. Participation was seen as a continuum;on one end was a less active form emphasising the need to stayinformed as the basis for action. Peter and Vind explained, Oneneed not be an activist, but know what the issues are, and be readyto serve when needed. These teachers were concerned about theacquisition of a set of correct information, teaching students in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


393


highly structured ways, with well-crafted arguments for students tolearn. On the other end was a more active form, where Leong andCarolyn equated participation with contribution, like giving back tothe nation. Contribution is a thoughtful form of participation, theemphasis is on being useful. In the classrooms, they discussed therationales for national decisions, so that students understand whySingapore cannot do certain things, and how they can participate byworking within the circumstances.

The socially concerned teachers described participation as a socialobligation to be exercised for the common good. This meant activelyengaging in issues, taking collective initiative to resolve them. Marcusand Frida encouraged student decision-making within the schoolsand performing acts of service in the community as means by whichstudents can develop their citizenship. They emphasised interde-pendence and collective efforts, negotiation and diverse viewpoints.In lessons, these teachers often used cooperative learning structures.They took seriously the responsibility to participate, modelling itwith examples of their own efforts, with Marcus participating innational feedback, and Frida championing action research in herschool. This distinguished them from the nationalistic teachers whoreferred to participation with little lived experiences.

The person-oriented teachers, however, felt that the authoritariancontext in Singapore discouraged active participation. While Davidand Ying avoided public participation, they were not averse to it.David explained, If it happensgood, otherwise whats important isto be confident with the choices you made. Participation meantoperating on a life as usual mode, and be a good person. Davidelaborated, Everyday living is citizenship. By studying and doingwell, students are playing their part as citizens. Personal developmentwas stressed in their classrooms where the teachers provided oppor-tunities for individual growth and self-fulfillment through engagingstudents in authentic experiences. For example, in one of Yingsclasses, students studied different medical bills, and wrote to governmentagencies and insurance companies to learn about their insuranceschemes.

9.

National History

All teachers deemed knowing the nations history important, buttheir concepts of national history differed. The nationalistic teachersembraced the Singapore Story as definitive. Peter explained, Weneed to create the Singapore Story to make us emotionally attachedto Singapore. Leong added, We are vulnerable, the Singapore Story

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


394


keeps us vigilant. In their classrooms they regarded the subjectmatter selected by the authority as indisputable facts and pivotalfor developing social cohesion, therefore not open to challenges. Thereality was that the teachers were consumers of the given meanings.

By contrast, both the socially concerned and person-orientedteachers were against a single version of the nations past. Thesocially concerned teachers problematised the construction of theSingapore Story. They saw gaps in the selection and presentation ofthe subject matter. Marcus argued that while the national agendawas important, it is also important to be more upfront with theissues if the government is serious about engaging the citizens. Theywere tentative in their treatment of the Singapore Story, becausenew evidence can emerge and alter the nature of knowledge.Claims to knowledge should raise questions and foster scepticism,where multiple perspectives on issues are sought.

Similarly, with their students the person oriented teachersemphasised the need to consider the historical phenomenon fromvarious viewpoints, particularly to enlarge the Singapore Story toinclude ordinary voices. The official history, David explained, alwaysattributed Singapores success to the government. However, withoutthe will of the people to support the policies, this is not possible.We have to show that ordinary people are critical to the success ofpolicies. Citizens, they contended in lessons, need to develop con-fidence in their own meaning-making. If common people wereinvolved in social change, then citizens would feel valued withinsociety. They were thus not mere consumers of the conclusions ofothers, but also producers of meanings for themselves.

10.

Conclusion

This study sought to identify social studies teachers understandingsof citizenship in response to the official government policy onNational Education. Using a case study method it explored the under-standings and practices of a small group of social studies teacherswho, by virtue of their subject and position, were expected to followgovernment orthodoxy. While generalisations from such a small groupcannot be made, this study has provided an insight into how theparticipating teachers understood multiple concepts of citizenshipand then addressed those issues in their classes. The study contextwas Singapore, with its highly centralised educational bureaucracyand even more powerful centralised government, where it wasexpected policy would be applied rigorously into practice to createa nationally oriented Singaporean citizen. This was the intention

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


395


behind the curriculum. But with the enacted curriculum, policy andpractice in citizenship education diverged, with the teachers readingthe policy text quite differently depending on their personal historyand experience. Consequently, the case studies revealed, even in ahighly centralised state, an unexpected diversity of understandingsof citizenship amongst the eight teachers.

Four broad themes were identified in their concepts of citizenshipeducation, namely a sense of identity, rights and responsibilities,participation and national history. The nationalistically orientedteachers focused on national interests and most closely conformedto the policy on National Education. The socially concerned andperson-oriented teachers took different perspectives from the officialdiscourse, emphasising local communities and individuals respectively.An individual construction of citizenship, particularly with the lattertwo groups of teachers, was too powerful for the blanketing effect ofgovernment policy that focuses only on national interests. Whileteachers clearly were aware of education policy and governmentpolitical doctrines, their backgrounds and experiences frequentlyoverrode such policy as evidenced by their discourse.

This was not what the policy intended, but complexity, as Ball(1993) argues, is a major theme in policy development in education,and this study has shown that not everything can be reduced to therequirements of policies no matter how well managed, nor to theplay of political ideology even in tightly controlled Singapore.Complexity increases with citizenship because it is personal andvalue-laden, confronting deep-seated issues of identity and status, equityand access. Further, this is also a question of the interplay betweenindividual values and those embedded in policy (Kogan, 1975). Con-sider David, who held more liberal values such as the freedom tocreate an environment where individuals can excel and expand theirfutures. Are his values validated by a policy that emphasises nation-building? How amenable is the policy to difference? Davids valueswere somewhat different from those of National Education. By contrast,Peters values emphasised the national interests and were congruentwith the policy, so Peters concept of citizenship is more similar tothat prescribed by the policy than Davids. Unsurprisingly, those withcompeting values and differential access to power will seek to formand re-shape policy in their own interests, and it is through this con-tinuous and contested process that policy develops. Policy thus mustbe seen as a dialectical process with those affected by it wanting tobe involved in shaping its development (Bell and Stevenson, 2006).

In Singapore the MoEs authority represented a downward flow ofpower, bounded by bureaucratic processes with clear expectations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


396


that subordinates would implement decisions. Yet at the school level,to the extent that teachers exerted their agency, the result was adifferential interpretation and practice of citizenship. For example,Frida problematised the lack of rights in Singapore, encouraging herstudents to speak up on issues that affected them. In one lessonobserved, when students complained about having too many tests ina school week, Frida discussed options of taking action with students,referring them to the platforms citizens have used to address issues.So students wrote a petition to the principal. Frida therefore put intopractice a citizenship that emphasised rights and action for change,somewhat different from the official conception.

The sources of influence included factors such as personal charac-teristics, expertise, status and teaching experience. Among theteachers, Frida was the most assertive in interpreting the policy andputting into practice her understanding of citizenship. Her standingwith colleagues and confidence helped. As head of the humanitiesdepartment, she was highly respected by both colleagues and theprincipal. While her formal status as head of department gave herauthority, it was her humility and willingness to slog it out with theteachers that earned her their respect. This was augmented byFridas confidence in her multiple identities, Im a Singaporean ofmixed parentage, part of every ethnicity. I can discuss sensitive issueswithout fear of being biased.

Where the power to determine the nature of citizenship educationlies is not clear-cut after all. Clearly, wider structural factors can power-fully shape and circumscribe the scope for agency and responses tothe policy. The nationalistic teachers certainly conformed to officialpolicy on citizenship. They understood nationalism as support forthe nation and nation-building, with citizenship education a processof socialisation that emphasised social and cultural reproduction.By contrast, the socially concerned and person-oriented teachersdisplayed a strong reforming position (MacNaughton, 2003); theformer focusing on improving and renewing society by developingactive and concerned citizenship, with rational individuals capableof independent thought, the latter focusing on personal growth,leading to the betterment of society.

Unsurprisingly, none of the teachers held a transforming positionpremised on confronting injustice and resisting oppressive govern-ment policy. Teachers in this study were generally supportive of thegovernments educational vision for the nation, and were reluctantto question the meaning of citizenship in ways that were critical ofthe system, reflecting an ideological consensus with the governingpowers (Chua, 1995). Clearly, policies are sites of contestations (Bell

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


397


and Stevenson, 2006). While human agency in re-shaping policy isrecognised, the capacity to operationalise it is circumscribed bypowerful structural pressures, such as the economic imperative forsurvival. Consequently, teachers understood citizenship in relativelysafe approaches within the status quo.

Education policy on citizenship goes to the heart of core valuesrelating to the nature and purpose of schooling. Therefore it isimportant to recognise the link between education policy and differingand shifting conceptions of citizenship among the key players. Thisstudy revealed a broadening perspective of citizenship among theparticipating teachers, which superseded national loyalty andchallenged assumptions about existing notions of citizenship inSingapore in a globalised context. Nationalistic goals in citizenshipeducation are important, but to centre citizenship

only

on territorialborders, is parochial. Even if the nationalistic intention of thegovernments policy and implementation of citizenship educationwas tacitly agreed by teachers, as state employees, their understandingsand classroom practice demonstrated an independence of citizen-ship education landscape, despite the appearance of tight controls.

The findings have some broader implications. While ideologicaland economic forces decisively shape policies, the crucial role ofhuman agency in the development and application of policies mustbe recognised. It seems local conditions have very important effectson whether a policy works or not. Teachers are the key figuresin implementing education policies (Lee and Fouts, 2005). In thecentralist model of government however, teachers have beenpositioned as passive recipients of policies, perpetuating the viewthat policy generation is separated from its implementation. Thisfails to account for the way policies are personally negotiated. Insteadwe need to view policy as a single process where both its generationand implementation are interdependent (Bell and Stevenson, 2006;Bowe

et al.

, 1992). For the future, teachers must believe that they willhave a meaningful voice in the policy process. The present findingsreinforce Fullans (2001) call for the need to focus on how teachersmake sense of policies. Only then can we develop a better informed,theoretical, and empirical understanding of what is happening inour schools.

11.

References

APPLE, M. (2003)

The State and the Politics of Knowledge

(London, RoutledgeFalmer).ARTHUR, J., DAVIES, I. and HAHN, C. (Eds) (2008)

The Sage Handbook of Educationfor Citizenship and Democracy

(London, Sage).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


398


BALL, S.J. (1993) What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes,

Discourse

, 13 (2),1017.

BELL, L. and STEVENSON, H. (2006)

Education Policy: Process, Themes and Impact

(London, Routledge).BOWE, R., BALL, S.J. and GOLD, A. (1992)

Reforming Education and ChangingSchools

(London, Routledge).CHAREKA, O. and SEARS, A. (2006) Civic duty: young peoples conceptions of

voting as a means of political participation,

Canadian Journal of Education

, 29 (2),521540.

CHUA, B-H. (1995)

Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore

(London,Routledge).

COGAN, J.J. and DERRICOTT, R. (2000)

Citizenship for the 21st Century: an Interna-tional Perspective on Education

(London, Falmer Kogan Page).CRICK, B. (Ed.) (1998)

Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy inSchools

(London, QCA).DALE, R. (1999) Specifying globalization effects on national policy,

Journal ofEducation Policy

, 14 (1), 117.FAULKS, K. (2006) Education for citizenship in Englands secondary schools:

a critique of current principle and practice,

Journal of Education Policy

, 21 (1),5974.

FULLAN, M. (1993)

Change Forces: Probing the Depth of Educational Reform

(New York,Falmer Press).

FULLAN, M. (2001)

The New Meaning of Educational Change

(London, Routledge-Falmer).

GOPINATHAN, S. (2007) Globalization, the Singapore developmental stateand education policy: A thesis revisited,

Globalization, Societies and Education

, 5 (1),5370.

GREEN, A. (1997) Education and state formation in Europe and Asia. In K.J.KENNEDY (Ed.)

Citizenship Education and the Modern State

(London, FalmerPress), 926.

HAN, C. (2000) National education and active citizenship: implications for citizen-ship and citizenship education in Singapore,

Asia-Pacific Journal of Education

, 20(1), 6372.

HARGREAVES, A., EARL, L., MOORE, S. and MANNING, S. (2001)

Learning toChange: Teaching beyond Subjects and Standards

(San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).HILL, M. and LIAN, K.F. (1995)

The Politics of Nation-building and Citizenship inSingapore

(New York, Routledge).KOGAN, M. (1975)

Educational Policy-making: a Study of Interest Groups and Parliament

(London, Allen and Unwin).KYMLICKA, W. (2002).

Contemporary Political Philosophy: an Introduction

(Oxford,Oxford University Press).

LEE, H.L. (1997)

National Education

. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/1997/170597.htm (accessed 19 August 2008).

LEE, W.O. and FOUTS, J.T. (2005)

Education for Social Citizenship: Perceptions of Teachersin USA, Australia, England, Russia and China

(Hong Kong, Hong Kong UniversityPress).

LINCOLN, Y. and GUBA, E. (1985)

Naturalistic Inquiry

(California, Sage).MacNAUGHTON, G. (2003)

Shaping Early Childhood: Learners, Curriculum andContexts (London, Open University Press).

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (2008) National Education website. Available online at:http://www.ne.edu.sg/(accessed 19 August 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2


399 2009 The AuthorsJournal compilation 2009 SES

NORRIS, P. (1999) Introduction: the growth of critical citizens? In P. NORRIS (Ed.)Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress), 130.

OSLER, A. and STARKEY, H. (2006) Education for democratic citizenship: a reviewof research, policy and practice 19952005, Research Papers in Education, 21 (4),433466.

PYKETT, J. (2007) Making citizens governable? The Crick Report as governmentaltechnology, Journal of Education Policy, 22 (3), 201319.

PUTNAM, R. (2001) Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community(New York, Simon and Schuster).

SAHA, L., PRINT, M. and EDWARDS, K. (2005) Youth, Political Engagement and Voting,Report 2 (Canberra, Australian Electoral Commission).

SCHMIDST, M. and DATNOW, A. (2005) Teachers sense-making about com-prehensive school reform: the influence of emotions, Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21 (8), 949965.

SHARPE, L. and GOPINATHAN, S. (2002) After effectiveness: new directions in theSingapore school system, Journal of Education Policy, 17 (2), 151166.

SIM, J.B-Y. (2008) What does citizenship mean? Social studies teachers under-standings of citizenship in Singapore schools, Educational Review, 60 (3), 253266.

SIM, J.B-Y and PRINT, M. (2009) Citizenship education in Singapore: controlling orempowering teacher understanding and practice? Oxford Review of Education, 35(6).

SPILLANE, J.P., REISER, B.J. and REIMER, T. (2002) Policy implementationand cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research, Review ofEducational Research, 72 (3), 387431.

STAKE, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research (Thousand Oaks, Sage).TAN, K.P. (2007) Singapores National Day rally speech: a site of ideological nego-

tiation, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 37 (3), 292308.TAN, T.W. and CHEW, L.C. (2004) Moral education and citizenship education as

statecraft in Singapore: a curriculum critique, Journal of Moral Education, 33 (4),597606.

TORNEY-PURTA, J., SCHWILLE, J. and AMADEO, J-A. (1999) Civic Education acrossCountries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project(Amsterdam, IEA).

TORNEY-PURTA, J., LEHMANN, R., OSWALD, H. and SCHULZ, W. (2001)Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagementat Age Fourteen (Amsterdam, IEA).

TROWLER, P. (2003) Education Policy (London, Routledge).WINEBURG, S.S. and WILSON, S.M. (1991) Subject matter knowledge in the teaching

of history. In J. BROPHY (Ed.) Advances in Research on Teaching, 2 (Connecticut,Jai Press), 305347.

CorrespondenceJasmine B-Y SimCurriculum, Teaching and Learning Academic GroupNational Institute of Education1, Nanyang WalkSingapore 637616Republic of SingaporeE-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 13

:09 26

Nov

embe

r 201

2

Documents

Sim, B-Y. & Print; M. (2009) the State Teachers and Citizenship Education in Singapure Schools (1)