A Comparative Study Of Social Curriculum Standards In Primary Schools Between China And Singapore

China and Singapore are both Asian countries, they have a lot in common, although China and Singapore development in the economic, political and other aspects of each are not identical, but both countries are deeply influenced by Confucian ethics, the two countries have suffered in the modernization of Western culture differences and conflicts. However, Singapore moral education in schools through successful, give a better solution to the relationship between Western culture and common values of the nation, cultivate civic national identity and social cohesion, after more than thirty practice years, Singapore has become a unique and meet the conditions of the school moral education system. Similarly Asian countries, China in civic education, moral and other aspects of Singapore have similar content, it is worth our reflection and inquiry.This paper selected New Zealand high school grade social studies curriculum standards for analysis, China’s "compulsory morality and society curriculum standards (2011 edition)" Singapore "Character and Citizenship Education (Primary)" comparative, mainly taken comparative analysis and literature research, develop background similarities and differences, the basic framework, objectives, content and other aspects of the implementation of the proposed curriculum standards both through research, curriculum reform society have a more in-depth understanding of the two countries. Curriculum framework section, the overall layout of the two programs are similar to the standard framework, emphasizing the teaching curriculum content periodically from six levels of detail frame structure but different, different emphasis on pedagogy and evaluation. The basic idea of the standard part of the curriculum, the two countries have stressed the "Health-oriented", focusing on the return of life, focusing on subjects penetration, reflecting the comprehensive curriculum, emphasis on the expansion level, openness embodied course, but the focus of the course is different, reflecting the different development needs. In the course objectives section, the values of both countries and the ability to focus on training, curriculum goals are different specific degree. In the course content, both are from six levels of division and made a detailed presentation, but different frameworks and specific course content degree. The last part of the course evaluation, the two countries using a variety of evaluation methods, focusing onstudent development, curriculum evaluation, but the focus is different. Meanwhile, the two primary social curriculum standards stages of reflection and exploration, provide a reference for curriculum reform our current society.