Reframing Citizenship Education: Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 11/19/2019 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 1/24/2020 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 1/24/2020 education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 28 Number 83 May 18, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Reframing Citizenship Education: The Shifting Portrayal of Citizenship in Curriculum Policy in the Province of Ontario, 1999-2018 Jesse K. Butler & Peter Milley University of Ottawa Canada Citation: Butler, J, K., & Milley, P. (2020). Reframing citizenship education: The shifting portrayal of citizenship in curriculum policy in the province of Ontario, 1999-2018. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(83). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5162 Abstract: State-mandated curriculum policy documents have an important political function. Governments use them to make ideological statements about the role of schools and how the next generation of citizens are to be shaped. Beginning from this premise, we use a frame analysis methodology to examine how citizenship in the Province of Ontario, Canada is framed in four consecutive versions of the curriculum policy documents that prescribe citizenship education for secondary schools. Our analysis spans 20 years, during which two political parties – one conservative, the other liberal – held power. Our inductive analysis is presented using a typology of citizenship with five dimensions: political, public, cultural, juridical, and economic. We illustrate consistency across the decades, including a preoccupation with: 1) external and internal threats to the stability and unity of Canada (political); 2) fostering nationalistic identification (political); 3) developing transferrable skills for the globalized economy (economic); 4) establishing a pre -set role for the individual citizen, characterized by legal and ethical obligations (juridical). We http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5162 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 2 reveal a gradual de-emphasis of opportunities for citizens to actively participate in reshaping their communities and society (public, cultural). This shift in the political and ideological meaning of citizenship conceives citizens as isolated individuals in a reified state and society. Keywords: Canada; Ontario; Education; Secondary School; Curriculum; Policy; Politics; Citizenship; Citizen Education; Frame Analysis Reenmarcar la educación para la ciudadanía: La representación cambiante de la ciudadanía en la política curricular en la provincia de Ontario, 1999 -2018 Resumen: Los documentos de política curricular exigidos por el estado tienen una función política importante. Los gobiernos los usan para hacer declaraciones ideológicas sobre el papel de las escuelas y cómo se formará la próxima generación de ciudadanos. A partir de esta premisa, utilizamos una metodología de análisis de marcos para examinar cómo la ciudadanía en la Provincia de Ontario, Canadá, se enmarca en cuatro versiones consecutivas de los documentos de política curricular que prescriben la educación para la ciudadanía en las escuelas secundarias. Nuestro análisis abarca 20 años, durante los cuales dos partidos políticos, uno conservador y otro liberal, tenían el poder. Nuestro análisis inductivo se presenta utilizando una tipología de ciudadanía con cinco dim ensiones: política, pública, cultural, jurídica y económica. Ilustramos la coherencia a lo largo de las décadas, incluida la preocupación por: 1) amenazas externas e internas a la estabilidad y la unidad de Canadá (política); 2) fomentar la identificación nacionalista (política); 3) desarrollar habilidades transferibles para la economía globalizada (económica); 4) establecer un rol preestablecido para el ciudadano individual, caracterizado por obligaciones legales y éticas (jurídicas). Revelamos una disminu ción gradual de las oportunidades para que los ciudadanos participen activamente en la remodelación de sus comunidades y sociedad (pública, cultural). Este cambio en el significado político e ideológico de la ciudadanía concibe a los ciudadanos como indivi duos aislados en un estado y sociedad reificados. Palabras-clave: Canadá; Ontario; Educación; Escuela secundaria; Plan de estudios; Política; Política; Ciudadanía; Educación ciudadana; Análisis de marco Reformulando a educação para a cidadania: A mudança no retrato da cidadania na política curricular na província de Ontário, 1999-2018 Resumo: Os documentos de política curricular exigidos pelo estado têm uma importante função política. Os governos as usam para fazer declarações ideológicas sobre o papel das escolas e como deve ser formada a próxima geração de cidadãos. A partir dessa premissa, usamos uma metodologia de análise de estrutura para e xaminar como a cidadania na Província de Ontário, Canadá, é enquadrada em quatro versões consecutivas dos documentos de política curricular que prescrevem a educação para cidadania nas escolas secundárias. Nossa análise abrange 20 anos, durante os quais do is partidos políticos - um conservador e o outro liberal - detinham o poder. Nossa análise indutiva é apresentada usando uma tipologia de cidadania com cinco dimensões: política, pública, cultural, jurídica e econômica. Ilustramos a consistência ao longo das décadas, incluindo uma preocupação com: 1) ameaças externas e internas à estabilidade e à unidade do Canadá (política); 2) promoção da identificação nacionalista (política); 3) desenvolvimento de habilidades transferíveis para a economia globalizada (econômica); 4) estabelecer um papel predefinido para o cidadão, caracterizado por obrigações legais e éticas (jurídicas). Revelamos uma Reframing Citizenship Education 3 gradual ênfase nas oportunidades para os cidadãos participarem ativamente na remodelação de suas comunidades e sociedade (pública, cultural). Essa mudança no significado político e ideológico da cidadania concebe os cidadãos como indivíduos isolados em um estado e sociedade reificados. Palavras-chave: Canada; Ontário; Educação; Ensino Médio; Currículo; Política; Política; Cidadania; Educação do Cidadão; Análise de quadros Introduction Curriculum guidelines are policy instruments for the ideological steering of school systems. (Connelly & Connelly, 2013, p. 66) In its attempt to embody the hopes of society, [the curriculum] has been characterized by different, often contradictory aims and messages. The messages of one period were not replaced by the next; traces of former aims and older visions remained so that by the end of the century, there were many different visions of society and citizenship reflected in the curriculum. (von Heyking, 2006, p. 151) State-level curriculum policy documents have a pedagogical function in directing what is taught in schools and how it gets taught. When researchers directly analyze such documents they generally do so with this pedagogical function in mind – often resulting, for example, in critiques of the documents’ clarity and effectiveness as pedagogical instructions to teachers (e.g., Lavrenteva & Orland-Barak, 2015; Priestley & Sinnema, 2014). However, curriculum policy documents also have an important political function in making ideological statements about the role of schools in society and how the next generation of citizens should be shaped through education. This latter function has received less attention in the research literature (Connelly & Connelly, 2013; Westbury, 2008). No matter what their political stripe is, most governments care about these policy documents because of both of these functions: the instrumental role the documents play in shaping the content and form of teaching and learning, and the opportunity they provide for articulating a political vision and objectives for public schooling to the educational community and general public. In this article, we invert the customary way of analyzing curriculum policy documents by emphasizing their political function over their pedagogical function. We focus on curriculum policy documents related to citizenship education, which is arguably the subject area where political ideologies about what it means to be a citizen and about the role of the state in developing citizens should be most pronounced. Specifically, we use a frame analysis methodology (Fernández, 2018; Park, Daly, & Guerra, 2012) to examine four consecutive versions of the Province of Ontario’s Canadian and World Studies 9 and 10 (CWS 9 & 10) curriculum policy document – which covers five courses central to citizenship education in secondary schools in the province. This analysis spans 20 years, during which five provincial elections took place, four different premiers were elected to lead the government, and two political parties – one conservative, the other liberal – were in power at different times. Our analysis builds on Pinto’s (2012) landmark study of the process of curriculum policy reform in Ontario as part of the Progressive Conservative (PC) government’s 1995 to 2003 “Common Sense Revolution,” which emphasized smaller government, lower taxes, and public accountability of public institutions and organizations. In her study, Pinto (2012) took up frame analysis to describe how the PC government justified their curriculum reform through a systematic effort to publicly frame education in business terminology: Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 4 This series of events framed the issue: the school system was ‘broken’ and could be ‘fixed’ through sweeping reforms, including a new and better curriculum policy. These repairs, the framing continues, would address the ‘needs and wants’ of education’s ‘customers.’ (p. 56) Pinto went on to describe how the PC government also attempted to balance this economic framing of education against appeals to the importance of education for citizenship. However, she concluded in a footnote that: “A closer examination of the resulting curriculum policy documents would be necessary to further define the citizenship aim, though such analysis is beyond the scope of this research” (p. 214). We directly take up Pinto’s suggestion through a close document analysis of the framing of citizenship in the original CWS 9 & 10 document introduced in 1999 by the PC government, while also expanding on this suggestion by studying how this framing has changed over the three subsequent revisions of the document up to 2018. Citizenship Education Curriculum as Public Policy While there is a great deal of research on “curriculum,” in a broad sense of the term, much of this work emphasizes pedagogy and classroom context, rather than how curriculum documents function as public policy instruments. Connelly and Connelly (2013) suggest that insofar as curriculum has been studied as public policy, the research has focused on the political context of curriculum creation and on classroom implementation, while the curriculum documents themselves remain a “black box” (p. 54). According to Connelly and Connelly (2013): From the literature it is clear that many think curriculum policy guidelines per se are inconsequential. On the one side, they are seen as buffeted by political forces with little independent life of their own. On the other side, they are seen as documents that are mostly ignored in practice. (p. 65) However, there is a growing body of literature that draws attention to curriculum policy documents as significant policy instruments in their own right (Connelly & Connelly, 2013; Luke, 2013; Westbury, 2008). This literature suggests that state-created curriculum documents should be understood not only as providing practical guidance on what should be taught in classrooms, but also as making ideological statements about the role of schools in society (Westbury, 2008). The political function of curriculum documents is important in democratic societies because public schools are often subject to public controversy. On the one hand, schools are central institutions, which play a significant role in the lives of most citizens (Levin, 2008). On the other hand, there is a lack of consensus on the overall purposes of schools and the means by which these purposes should be attained (Westbury, 2008). Schools in Ontario, as elsewhere, have been and are subject to repeated controversy about whether and how they are adequately preparing students for participation in society as adults (Gidney, 1999; Manzer, 1994). Such controversies are periodically and tentatively resolved through the formation of broad public consensus on the purposes of schooling (Luke, 2013; Manzer, 1994). It is in this context of recurrent public crises over the purposes of schooling that curriculum policy documents play an important political role as public statements that seek to periodically re-articulate a consensus. As Westbury (2008) describes: From this viewpoint the state’s curriculum making is not an activity directed at the inner, educational work of schools but is directed instead at forming and reforming both the public’s and teachers’ canopy of understandings about schooling. It is an Reframing Citizenship Education 5 instrument for the construction and reconstruction of societal narratives around schools and school systems. (p. 58) Curriculum policy documents serve as expressions of a new consensus over the role of schools in society, and as attempts to merge the new understanding with previous understandings, resulting in documents with many ideological layers (Broom & Evans, 2015; Luke, 2013; von Heyking, 2006). Arguably, this political function is particularly important for studying citizen education curriculum as policy (e.g., Iacovino and Nootens, 2011). While there is significant public consensus around the need for the state to actively form future citizens, there are relatively few policy instruments to accomplish this work (Lewis, 2011). Civic education policy documents, therefore, serve an important political function as symbolic gestures toward state-directed citizen formation, regardless of how effective civic education actually is in practice (Lewis, 2011; Ortloff, 2005). In Canada, the ideological role of citizen education policy has historically been centred on responding to the diversity of Canadian society through efforts to develop “social cohesion” by fostering a common national narrative and identity (Bickmore, 2014; Hughes & Sears, 2008; Sears, 2010). At the same time, there has been a longstanding tension between the role of schools in forming citizens as socio-political actors and as economic agents, with a trend toward emphasizing economic formation since the late 20th century (Manzer, 1994; Osborne, 2000). These two themes can also be related because, as Joshee (2007) notes, social cohesion policies in Ontario can be seen as reinforcing the government’s broader economic objectives. In recent years, a new policy consensus has emerged in the form of citizen education curriculum policies that emphasize a generic form of individualized citizenship that is imagined as transferable between socio-political contexts (Hébert, 2009; Iacovino & Nootens, 2011; Kennelly & Llewellyn, 2011). In this new consensus, as Iacovino and Nootens (2011) describe: Citizenship is akin to a vocation, something you learn to do, not as a member of a particular nation or culture, not through the lens of conflicting national identities, but as an individual endowed with faculties associated with critical thought. (p. 225) This generic, individualized citizenship is being driven in a large part by external pressures related to globalization. In particular, globalized economies exert considerable pressure on states to foster “citizens” who are willing and able to relocate internationally and compete in a transnational marketplace (Mitchell, 2006; Rezai-Rashti, 2003). In this context, citizen education policies have displayed an increasing emphasis on global rather than national perspectives, although this often involves tensions between “ethical” global perspectives related to human rights, social and environmental justice, respect and tolerance for diversity, and peace and sustainability versus “neoliberal” economic perspectives emphasizing liberalization of markets and trade as well as human capital and economic development (Bickmore, 2014; Evans, Ingram, MacDonald, & Weber, 2009; OECD, 2018; Toukan, 2018). Along with these external pressures, Peck and Sears (2016) suggest that the shift to a generic and individualized citizenship has also been driven by an emerging sense of the difficulty of fostering a single national Canadian identity: Policymakers and educators were and are genuinely concerned that a focus on identity, particularly any sense of national or collective identity, marginalizes and excludes some people and groups. Approaches that recognize and attempt to include multiple understandings of identity and nation often get subverted because they are complex, difficult to deal with and have the potential to generate conflict. (p. 70) Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 6 While the causes of this shift have been complex, therefore, the shift toward a generic and individualized citizenship is a pattern that has been noted in numerous citizenship education policies across Canada (Hébert, 2009; Iacovino & Nootens, 2011; Kennelly & Llewellyn, 2011). The Policy Context for the Canadian & World Studies 9 & 10 Curriculum Constitutionally, provincial governments in Canada hold exclusive jurisdiction over education. They are therefore commonly understood to have a mandate and an obligation to provide citizenship education to young people through their public systems of schooling (Hughes & Sears, 2008; Lewis, 2011). In the Province of Ontario, one of the key policy documents responding to this political imperative is the Canadian and World Studies 9 and 10 (CWS 9 & 10) curriculum policy document. This document prescribes the goals, content, priorities for learning, and learning outcomes (uniquely termed “expectations” in all Ontario curriculum documents since the late 1990s) for five courses that are central to citizenship education in public schools. These courses include Grade 9 geography, in both “academic” and “applied” streams; Grade 10 history, also in “academic” and “applied” streams; and Grade 10 civics. To graduate from secondary school, Ontario students must complete one of these two geography courses, one of these two history courses, and the civics course. These are the only mandatory secondary school courses in these subjects. The mandatory nature of the CWS 9 & 10 courses, along with the high relevance of their subject matter to citizenship education, signals the symbolic, if not the practical, significance of this policy document as part of the Ontario government’s engagement with the political task of citizenship education. The Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) has also portrayed this document as its key policy statement on citizenship education (e.g., OME, 2016). The curriculum reform that produced the original CWS 9 & 10 document in 1999 was part of a comprehensive reform of secondary education in Ontario in the late 1990s. The PC government elected in 1995 made educational reform a central policy commitment, and pushed through a range of specific reforms, including the elimination of the fifth year of high school (Grade 13), a reduction in the number of secondary courses from approximately 1400 to 200, the introduction of compulsory community service hours as a graduation requirement, and a complete redevelopment of the curriculum policy documents (Anderson & Ben Jaafar, 2003; Levin, 2008; Pinto, 2012). The new curriculum policy documents were primarily developed by teams of teachers, but there also appears to have been a significant degree of political direction. This direction began, in what has become a common approach to curriculum development (Luke, 2013), with writing teams being given a standardized “template” specifying the structure of the document. This included a required number of “expectations” specifying student learning outcomes, namely “overall” expectations broken down into a series of “specific” expectations, grouped under a set number of organizing “strands” specifying key topics (Pinto, 2012, p. 77). However, even the content of this set structure was subjected to varying degrees of political control. Based on a series of interviews with writing team members and bureaucrats, Pinto (2012) describes: Writers’ perceptions of how and whose power shaped policy texts varied. Some claimed they flew ‘under the radar’ (their words) and had autonomy to shape their policy texts. Others involved in subjects perceived to have higher political priority (such as English, mathematics, and history) reported they were closely monitored and their draft documents were often challenged or simply changed. (pp. 92-93) Reframing Citizenship Education 7 Pinto adds elsewhere that the “mysterious” revisions seem to have been done by bureaucrats in the provincial ministry and political staffers. John Fielding, who was co-project manager of the Canadian and World Studies writing team, recounts similar experiences in a personal narrative published in the magazine Our Schools/ Our Selves. Fielding (2002) describes how political staff provided very specific direction, including the requirement that the courses describe the “contribution” of the Canadian Manufacturing Association, while forbidding the use of the word “contribution” in relation to Indigenous peoples, women’s groups, and labor unions. He suggests, furthermore, that the “final” versions of the documents were edited by political staff to ensure this direction was followed. With such political imperatives overriding pedagogical concerns, the 1999 curriculum documents were rushed in both their development and implementation, leading to implementation problems (Pinto, 2012). In particular, the division of courses into “Academic” and “Applied” streams, combined with the compression of content resulting from the elimination of Grade 13 and a political imperative for “high standards,” led to significant failure rates in Applied courses (Anderson & Ben Jaafar, 2003; Levin, 2008; Pinto, 2012). After the PCs were replaced by a Liberal government in 2003, Ontario curriculum policy was subjected to a process of cyclical review, in which a few subjects were reviewed and rewritten per year (Pinto, 2012). This practice, which still exists as of 2019, allows for revisions to be accomplished through a slower, more intentional policy process than the rushed and politically motivated process through which the documents were first written. The cyclical review typically takes more than a year, and involves consultation with a range of stakeholders and experts, along with careful review of policies and practices from other jurisdictions (Connelly & Connelly, 2013; Levin, 2008). Connelly and Connelly (2013) suggest this cyclical review process enables a better balance of the political and pedagogical functions of the curriculum policy documents. Bureaucrats interviewed by Pinto (2012), meanwhile, suggested the revisions under the Liberal government resulted in a change in tone, including more explicit references to equity and diversity. This became most explicit in the 2018 revision, which incorporated the perspectives of Indigenous peoples throughout the history courses, in response to Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (OME, 2017). However, the revisions to the documents have not altered the original structure (strands, overall expectations, specific expectations, etc.) established by the PC government in 1999. The Canadian and World Studies 9 and 10 document has been revised three times since its initial publication, but there is not a clear sense in the existing literature as to what the overall effect of these revisions has been in terms of content, and as related to their political function. Lewis (2011) briefly reviews the 2005 revision of the Civics course in comparison to the original, and concludes that “the main components have remained the same” (p. 187). The remainder of the existing research has tended to focus on a single version of the curriculum document (mostly the 2005 revision) in comparison to policy documents from other jurisdictions. In this regard, Clausen, Horton and Lemisko (2008) and Pashby, Ingram and Joshee (2014) suggest the 2005 version of the curriculum emphasizes a historical progress toward a unified and inclusive Canada, with divisions and injustices confined to the past. Hébert (2009) and Kennelly and Llewellyn (2011), meanwhile, find the 2005 version undermines any thick sense of civic belonging and instead places significant responsibilities on the individualized “neoliberal” citizen. In one of the few studies of the 2013 revision, Broom (2015) suggests that the revised History curriculum should be understood as a social history of Canada that introduces a greater sense of collective responsibility for past injustices. We add to this knowledge base a chronological perspective on how the CWS 9 & 10 curriculum policy document has developed and changed over time, and with changes in the political context, including the most recent 2018 revision. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 8 Theoretical Framework Our study is broadly framed in relation to Charles Taylor’s (2004) theory of social imaginaries, which he conceived as broad collective understandings that give shape to particular societies. Social imaginaries incorporate both ideas and practices, but these elements are complexly entangled. According to Taylor (2004): “Ideas always come in history wrapped up in certain practices, even if these are only discursive practices” (p. 33). The underlying understandings give meaning to the practices, and the practices give shape to the understandings, and it is difficult to separate them out into any kind of linear causality. In a previous paper (Butler, 2018), we drew on Taylor’s analysis of modern social imaginaries to expand on previous typological analyses of citizenship proposed by Marshall (1964), Cohen (1999), and Banks (2008). This typology attempts to look beyond analyses of citizenship as either a purely legal matter of a person’s institutional status or as a purely affective domain of identity and belonging. The typology provides for an understanding of citizenship as a social imaginary through which we imagine and enact our relationship to society. The typology includes five dimensions of citizenship: political, public, cultural, juridical, and economic. The political dimension incorporates the ways in which we imagine ourselves as participating in collective decision-making, with particular emphasis on formal democratic structures at the level of the nation-state, and on formal processes within or beyond the nation-state (e.g. municipal politics). The public dimension incorporates the ways in which we imagine ourselves as constituting a shared realm of social interaction and communal participation beyond any particular situated community, with particular emphasis on the nation-state as an “imagined community” in Anderson’s (2006) sense. While the public realm blurs into the political realm, the public dimension captures the mechanisms of collective action that operate beyond or outside of formal state-enforced structures, such as through civil society organizations. The cultural dimension is related to the public dimension, but emphasizes smaller-scale and more organic communities, whether these are localized, face-to-face communities or transnational, mediated communities (Banks, 2008). The organic communities of the cultural dimension can also be understood as the experiential basis from which the imagined community of the public realm is projected (Anderson, 2006; Taylor, 2004). The juridical dimension incorporates the ways in which we imagine ourselves as operating within a universalized moral order that both endows us with inherent rights but also imposes ethical obligations on us (Cohen, 1999; Taylor, 2004). The juridical dimension incorporates the formal legal status of citizenship, but also looks beyond it to the philosophical assumptions that underpin contemporary legal structures, including a sense of individualism. In her analysis of different models of citizenship, Cohen (1999) contrasts a juridical to a political approach, and notes that: “when dominant, the juridical model seems to be depoliticizing and desolidarizing” (p. 249). The economic dimension is similar to the juridical dimension in its emphasis on individualism. It incorporates the ways in which we imagine ourselves as autonomous actors operating within a universalized realm of mutually-beneficial exchange (Taylor, 2004). Like the juridical dimension, the economic dimension is universalizing but also individualizing, as opposed to the political dimension (and, to a lesser degree, the public and cultural dimensions), which imagine delimited and exclusive communities but also enable “thicker” forms of participation and belonging. To apply this typology to the analysis of curriculum documents, we operationalize it through a frame analysis methodology. While frame analysis can take many different forms, we employ it primarily as a basis to understand the discursive practices used in policy texts (Fernández, 2018; Reframing Citizenship Education 9 Ortloff, 2005). A key element of this is analysis of how a policy document links its descriptions of society to normative requirements for action (Wagenaar, 2011). As Rein and Schön (1996) describe: Given such a text—a speech, memorandum, or journalistic essay, that may be produced by a politician, advocate, critic, journalist, or policy intellectual—the frame analyst must ask what gives the text its appearance of coherence, persuasiveness, and obviousness. In our terms, how does the writer make the normative leap from is to ought? In answering such questions, we look for evidence in the actual language employed in the text. (pp. 90-91) For frame analysts, therefore, the effectiveness and motivational force of a policy text lie largely in the internal coherence between its descriptions and its prescriptions (Gusfield, 1981). This core premise of frame analysis aligns closely with Taylor’s (2004) theory of social imaginaries, which similarly emphasizes a “natural” and expected coherence between the ideological narratives we use to explain our reality and the concrete practices through which these ideological narratives are enacted. In this sense, frame analysis can be understood as an operationalization of Taylor’s political philosophy within a social science context. For frame analysts, one of the key devices through which a policy text creates a sense of internal coherence between its descriptions and its prescriptions is through a presentation of the policy domain in terms of problems and proposed solutions (Fernández, 2018; Park et al., 2012; Rein & Schön, 1996). In this regard, frame analysis builds on research suggesting that public policy does not simply respond to problems that are objectively present and universally acknowledged. Rather, it must first rhetorically establish that a problem exists, and that it requires a collective response, in order to justify an intervention by the government into the lives of citizens (Bacchi, 1999; Gusfield, 1981). Following Fernández (2018), our analysis takes up this analysis through the identification of diagnostic and prognostic frames. Diagnostic frames, in this context, are passages of the policy text that are identified as framing the policy domain in question by rhetorically presenting a societal problem that requires public intervention. Prognostic frames, then, are passages of the policy text that are identified as proposing policy interventions as solutions to the identified problem(s). Methodology This article focuses on a qualitative, inductive frame analysis of the original CWS 9 & 10 curriculum policy document and its three subsequent revisions over a 20-year period. This frame analysis involved a combination of inductive and deductive analysis of the policy texts based on the theoretical framework and methodological guidance from Wagenaar (2011) and Saldaña (2012). We began with two rounds of initial coding to develop a first survey of the data that was both closely detailed and open-ended. We follow this with a round of focused coding to develop theoretical categories. All coding was conducted on the entire text for each version of the document, involving an exhaustive analysis of the frontmatter, the course descriptions, and the curriculum expectations for each course. These rounds of coding are summarized in Table 1, which includes the total number of pages and the total number of curriculum expectations for each version. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 10 Table 1 Summary of Coding Cycles for the Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Document Version Pages of Text Coded # of Curriculum Expectations Coding Cycle Coding Method # of Codes 1999 58 416 1 initial/in vivo coding 540 2 initial/process coding 40 3 focused/process coding 15 2005 67 333 1 initial/in vivo coding 577 2 initial/process coding 48 3 focused/process coding 14 2013 156 333 1 initial/in vivo coding 756 2 initial/process coding 60 3 focused/process coding 14 2018 164 343 1 initial/in vivo coding 782 2 initial/process coding 63 3 focused/process coding 14 The first round of coding primarily used in vivo codes to summarize passages of text with a brief quotation capturing a key phrase (Saldaña, 2012). Following Wagenaar’s (2011) advice, we coded “systematically and exhaustively” (p. 271) and by open-ended “meaning units,” ranging from a single phrase to a whole paragraph (p. 270). The curriculum expectations in the documents provided natural units of analysis, and each was summarized with a single in vivo code. The frontmatter of the documents, however, was often repetitive and redundant, and variable meaning units enabled us to extract the most relevant passages and create meaningful units of analysis for subsequent cycles. The literature on methods for inductive frame analysis calls upon researchers to focus on actions at this stage in the coding process. Doing so keeps the analysis on what problems are being diagnosed and what solutions are being proposed, rather than jumping too quickly to the construction of theoretical categories (Wagenaar, 2011). Our second round of coding thus employed what Saldaña (2012) calls process coding, in which gerunds are used to code for the actions implicit in the data. In the second round, then, we began to develop descriptive codes that captured key actions in the texts. These actions sometimes described what the text required students or teachers to do. Sometimes the process coding captured actions attributed to a theoretical ideal citizen (such as “transferring skills”), and even actions the text itself seemed to be enacting (such as “downloading educational responsibility”). It was at this stage that we explicitly drew on the frame analysis literature to identify diagnostic framing as one specific type of action enacted by the text, using a standard gerund construction that started with “problematizing …” (e.g., see Table 2). Prognostic framing was not specifically identified at this stage, but we considered potential relationships between diagnostic frames and potential prognostic frames in an ongoing, interative manner throughout the coding process through analytic memos. Finally, in our third round, we used focused coding to identify theoretical categories with particular explanatory power, using these to cluster other codes (developed during the previous round of coding) under them (Saldaña, 2012). We carried out this analytic process separately for each of the four policy documents, starting chronologically with the 1999 version. The coding process was reflexive and iterative, and we constantly compared each version with the previous versions to ensure that similar or identical passages were coded consistently. As the categories Reframing Citizenship Education 11 became clear, along with the codes subsumed by them, we created brief narrative summaries that described the categories. As a final step, the categories were organized according to the dimensions of the typology of citizenship and the two frame types. Findings The inductive coding of the four successive versions of the CWS 9 & 10 document captured more nuances of framing than can be described in a single article. As an entry point, we offer Figure 1 which provides a basic quantification of the weight given to each dimension of the citizenship typology in each successive revision of the document, based on the number of curriculum expectations (overall and specific expectations combined) coded under each dimension. As we explain below, we found the diagnostic framing in CWS 9 & 10 is concentrated in the political dimension. Figure 1 thus subdivides the political dimension into diagnostic and prognostic framing. In deriving this figure, we elected to use the data on curriculum expectations, and not data from the frontmatter, because the expectations provided a consistent and comparable unit of analysis across all four document versions. As the total number of expectations varies across the documents (e.g., the quantity decreased significantly from 1999 to 2005), we calculated the expectations coded for each dimension as a percentage of the total expectations within each of the four documents, creating this ratio to provide a more meaningful comparison than a raw count. Figure 1. Expectations Coded Under Each Citizenship Dimension, Expressed as a Percentage of Total Number of Expectations in Each of the Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents. As can be seen in Figure 1, based on this ratio, the economic and juridical dimensions are quite stable over time, and therefore are treated as relatively unproblematic for the sake of this quantitative aspect of our analysis. The two aspects of the political dimension diverge, with an Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 12 increase in diagnostic framing that corresponds with a decrease in prognostic framing. The most noteworthy transformations are in the public dimension, which witnesses a decline in the relative number expectations across the four revisions, and in the cultural dimension, which sees sizeable fluctuations over time. In what follows, we break the findings down according to the five dimensions of citizenship (political, economic, juridical, public, and cultural) and the two frame types (diagnostic and prognostic). Because all of the diagnostic frames fell within the political dimension of citizenship, these are presented first. We then present the prognostic frames according to all five dimensions. Diagnostic Framing of the Political Dimension The problem framing in the 1999 version of the document can be summarized narratively into an overall problem statement, as follows: Rapid global change and increasing internal pluralism present threats to national unity and the integrity of Canada as a nation-state. The challenges to the nation-state include both external pressures (e.g., economic globalization and ecological degradation) and internal pressures (e.g., divisions within an increasingly pluralistic citizenry), as can be seen in the following expectations. Note how the curriculum explicitly problematizes these external and internal challenges as “concerns” and “challenges”: • “research and report on global concerns that affect Canadians (e.g., wilderness protection, economic impact of globalization)” (Ontario Ministry of Education and Training [OMET], 1999, p. 13) • “demonstrate an understanding of the challenges of governing communities or societies in which diverse value systems, multiple perspectives, and differing civic purposes coexist” (OMET, 1999, p. 50) While the problems described here extend beyond the borders of the nation-state, the diagnostic framing nonetheless falls within the political dimension, because the problem is framed in terms of its effect on the nation-state, and the nation-state is the primary locus of identification and action in responding to these problems. As can be seen in Table 2, the diagnostic framing from 1999 remains similar across the three revisions of the document. However, there is an increasing use of ethical language, which contrasts with the self-conscious “value-neutrality” (Pinto, 2012, p. 140) of the 1999 document. This becomes particularly pronounced in the 2018 revisions relating to Indigenous peoples, which contain an explicit sense of Canada’s colonial history as a problem in itself. For example: • “Students learn about the historical and contemporary impact of colonialism, the Indian Act, the residential school system, treaties, and systemic racism on Indigenous individuals and communities in Canada” (OME, 2018, p. 11) This limited change in the diagnostic framing leads to some apparent internal discrepancies or tensions. For example, compare the appeal to “systemic racism” above with the “challenges” of cultural diversity presented in the following expectation: • “…assess the opportunities and challenges presented by immigration and cultural diversity in Canada (e.g., … neighbourhood segregation and lack of social integration, hate crimes)” (OME, 2018, p. 82) This discrepancy is due in part to the limited scope of the 2018 edits, which focused on the history curriculum but left the geography curriculum completely unchanged. On the whole, therefore, the diagnostic framing is similar across the four documents, and the prognostic framing across the five Reframing Citizenship Education 13 dimensions of citizenship can be understood as various responses to this framing of the central problem. Table 2 Results of Coding for Diagnostic Framing in the Political Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Category Narrative Summary of Diagnostic Framing Segments Coded Ov. Sp. Oth. 1999 Problematizing national impact of global change Rapid global change presents a threat to the integrity and unity of Canada as a nation- state 19 67 23 Problematizing national pluralism Canada’s increasing internal pluralism presents a threat to national unity 7 18 4 2005 Problematizing national impact of global change Rapid global change presents Canada with new challenges, and with new responsibilities as a member of the global community 18 51 37 Problematizing national power disparities Canada’s internal pluralism presents new challenges, including power disparities between groups 4 17 7 2013 Problematizing balance of inclusion & cohesion Canada needs to become more ethical and inclusive while still fostering a cohesive national society 20 49 15 Problematizing national impact of global change Rapid global change presents new challenges to the global community, and Canada must contribute to solutions 10 45 19 2018 Problematizing balance of inclusion & cohesion Canada needs to resolve the inequities of its past, including colonialism, while still fostering a cohesive national society 20 61 25 Problematizing national impact of global change Rapid global change presents new challenges to the global community, and Canada must contribute to solutions 10 44 19 Note: In this and subsequent tables, the abbreviations in the column heading of Segments Coded mean the following: Ov.=Overall expectations; Sp.=Specific expectations; Oth.=Other document text. Prognostic Framing of the Political Dimension The prognostic framing of the political dimension in the 1999 version of the document is largely characterized by attempts to develop students’ identification with a unitary nationalistic narrative: • “demonstrate an understanding of how individual Canadians have contributed to the development of Canada and an emerging sense of Canadian identity” (OMET, 1999, p. 32) It also attempts to foster a sense of personal responsibility for Canada’s continuing economic prosperity: Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 14 • “demonstrate an understanding of the challenges associated with achieving resource sustainability, and explain the implications of meeting or not meeting those challenges for future resource use in Canada” (OMET, 1999, p. 20) As Table 3 demonstrates, this framing is changed in several ways in the subsequent revisions to the document. First, the focus on national economic prosperity is maintained, but becomes gradually nuanced with a sense that economic development needs to be balanced against ethical responsibilities, including environmentalism. See, for example: • “describe Canada’s major exports and imports, and assess some of the environmental, economic, social, and political implications of Canada’s current export and import patterns” (OME, 2018, p. 97) Identification with Canada, meanwhile, becomes increasingly focused on developing a sense of pride for Canada’s diversity and inclusion. The focus on a unitary Canadian identity is maintained until the 2013 version, where it is manifested through repeated references to Canada’s “identity, citizenship, and heritage” (e.g., OME, 2013, p. 118). One of the broader changes in the 2018 revision is the systematic replacement of the term “identity” with the pluralized “identities.” The point of this change appears to be an increased emphasis on pluralism, and therefore a critique of the idealization of a unitary “Canadian identity” that exists in the 2013 revision as a holdover from the original 1999 version. The effect is to reinforce the emphasis on Canadian pluralism as the sole source of nationalistic pride. Table 3 Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Political Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Ov. Sp. Oth. 1999 Identifying with nationalistic narratives Canadians need to develop a strong affective identification with Canada through a common national identity 8 48 16 Fostering collective responsibility for national economy Canadians have a common responsibility to ensure continued national economic prosperity 8 13 0 Informing democratic citizenship Canadians need to understand how to participate in, and influence, Canada’s political institutions 6 26 9 2005 Identifying with nationalistic narratives Canadians need to develop a strong affective identification with Canada through a common national identity 8 42 13 Fostering collective responsibility for national economy Canadians have a common responsibility to ensure continued national economic prosperity 7 10 0 Informing democratic citizenship Canadians need to understand how to participate in, and influence, Canada’s political institutions 5 20 15 Reframing Citizenship Education 15 Table 3 (Cont’d.) Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Political Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Ov. Sp. Oth. 2013 Identifying with nationalistic narratives of pluralism Canadians’ national pride should emphasize the inclusion in Canadian society of many diverse groups 7 19 5 Fostering collective responsibility for national economy Canadians have a common responsibility to ensure continued national economic prosperity 5 17 5 Identifying with nationalistic narratives Canadians need to develop a strong affective identification with Canada through a common national identity 1 14 15 Informing democratic citizenship Canadians need to understand how to participate in Canada’s political institutions 1 11 16 2018 Identifying with nationalistic narratives of pluralism Canadians’ national pride should emphasize the inclusion in Canadian society of many diverse groups 8 23 10 Fostering collective responsibility for national economy Canadians have a common responsibility to ensure continued national economic prosperity 5 17 5 Informing democratic citizenship Canadians need to understand how to participate in Canada’s political institutions 1 11 16 Identifying with nationalistic narratives Canadians need to develop a strong affective identification with Canada through a common national identity 0 3 4 The political dimension in the 1999 version is also characterized by the desire to foster citizens who are informed about Canada’s democratic processes, primarily through the civics curriculum. This theme is retained through the subsequent revisions, but is gradually reduced in weight. As shown in Table 3, the category “informing democratic citizenship” declines from 6 overall expectations and 26 specific expectations in 1999 to 1 and 11 in 2018. There is also a change in content. The 1999 version emphasizes participation in the nation-state through both the political and the public realm. While the public realm will be discussed in more detail below, it is noteworthy that the 1999 version presents the public and political realms together as a relatively continuous realm of citizen action, rather than the discrete (and limited) realms of citizen action they become in the later revisions. See, for example, the following edit of an expectation from 1999 to 2005. Note the change from “conflict resolution” to “policy formation,” indicating the reification of the political realm as a space of formal democratic structures but not of broader public citizen engagement and interaction: Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 16 • “analyse important historical and contemporary cases that involve democratic principles in the public process of conflict resolution and decision making” (OMET, 1999, p. 52) • “analyse important contemporary cases and issues that have been decided or resolved through the public process of policy formation and decision making (e.g., mandatory retirement, censorship, racial profiling), taking into account the democratic principles that underlie that process” (OME, 2005, p. 69) The reification of the political realm continues in the 2013 and 2018 revisions. There, what remains of this theme is largely focused on understanding formal political structures, with very little connection to the public realm or space for grassroots citizen action. Prognostic Framing of the Economic Dimension In the 1999 version of the document, the economic dimension is characterized primarily by an emphasis on transferable skills that can be learned in the subject courses but that are intended for application in the broader globalized economy. These skills are mostly related to forms of decontextualized critical analysis, including “research, critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making” (OMET, 1999, p. 3). The connection between globalization and the necessity of developing transferable skills is explicit: “As the world undergoes continual change, students need many different kinds of knowledge and skills to be successful” (OMET, 1999, p. 7). While students are encouraged to develop an affective and active connection to their nation-state, therefore, they are simultaneously encouraged to develop a detached awareness of their career potential within the globalized economy. These two ideas are not necessarily contradictory – a contemporary nation-state will strengthen its economic position by advancing the global marketability of its citizens – but they do exist in a certain degree of tension. Table 4 Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Economic Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Ov. Sp. Oth. 1999 Promoting transferable skills Canadians need a core set of skills that can be used across school, work, and life 11 66 8 transferring skills to changing workplace Canadians need to be prepared with the skills to adapt to a rapidly changing workplace 3 6 9 2005 Promoting transferable skills Canadians need a core set of skills that can be used across school, work, and life 11 60 19 transferring skills to changing workplace Canadians need to be prepared with the skills to adapt to a rapidly changing workplace 0 5 16 2013 Promoting transferable skills Canadians need a core set of skills that can be used across school, work, and life 5 45 59 transferring skills to everyday contexts & future careers Canadians need to be able to apply their core skills across a range of workplaces and other contexts 5 15 36 2018 Promoting transferable skills Canadians need a core set of skills that can be used across school, work, and life 5 45 59 Reframing Citizenship Education 17 Table 4 (Con’t) Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Economic Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Docum. Code Transferring skills to everyday contexts & future careers Canadians need to be able to apply their core skills across a range of workplaces and other contexts 5 15 36 As Table 4 helps reveal, there is significant continuity in the economic dimension across the four version of the document. Starting with the 2013 revision, however, the relationship between citizenship and participation in the globalized economy becomes more direct. Citizenship is seen explicitly (at least in part) as an economic activity: “Finally, to become responsible citizens in the global economy, they will need to understand the social, environmental, and ethical implications of their own choices as consumers” (OME, 2013, pp. 49-50). This idea of “citizens in the global economy” is nonsensical in terms of a traditional understanding of citizenship as official membership in a nation-state. However, as an expression of the idealized relationship between the person and society, this framing can be understood as a vision of the autonomous, disembedded individual who defines their personhood largely as self-directed agents within a transnational economic marketplace (Taylor, 2004), whether as workers or consumers. Practically, this is manifested in the curriculum largely through a continued emphasis on transferable skills. See, for instance, this expectation from Civics, which has a parallel in each of the other four courses in the 2018 revision: • “describe some ways in which political inquiry can help them develop skills, including the essential skills in the Ontario Skills Passport (e.g., skills related to reading texts, writing, computer use, oral communication, numeracy, decision making, problem solving) and those related to the citizenship education framework, that can be transferred to the world of work and/or to everyday life” (OME, 2018, p. 158) Aside from the explicit emphasis on transferable skills, this expectation is notable for its reference to the “Citizenship Education Framework”, which was added in the 2013 revision and is presented in the document frontmatter as a source of “the knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with responsible citizenship” (OME, 2013, p. 9). However, in both the 2013 and the 2018 revisions, this single curriculum expectation in Civics is the only one that mentions the framework. Furthermore, this expectation de-emphasizes any substantive understanding of citizenship by framing the framework as a way to foster “essential skills” (as opposed to, say, belonging or participation). Prognostic Framing of the Juridical Dimension The juridical dimension in the 1999 version is characterized by the core idea that there is a specific, pre-defined “role” students are expected to step into as citizens. This is expressed clearly in the following quotation: “It is important that students understand the role of the citizen, and the personal values and perspectives that guide citizen thinking and actions” (OMET, 1999, p. 46). This role is partially prescribed through legally-defined rights and responsibilities, but it also captures a broader range of cognitive and affective characteristics that the citizen is expected to internalize and enact: Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 18 • “describe fundamental beliefs and values associated with democratic citizenship (e.g., rule of law, human dignity, freedom of worship, respect for rights of others, work for common good, sense of responsibility for others, freedom of expression)” (OMET, 1999, p. 50) While the primary emphasis of the 1999 version is the citizen’s position in the nation-state, there is also some discussion of global citizenship. Similar to the national context, the role of the global citizen is defined both in terms of legal constructs (e.g., human rights as defined by the United Nations) and a broader range of ethical obligations (particularly in terms of personal ecological responsibility). As Table 5 illustrates, the subsequent revisions of the policy text place greater emphasis on global citizenship. Ultimately, they position global citizenship as essentially interchangeable with national citizenship, as in this expectation: • “analyse key rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship, in both the Canadian and global context, and some ways in which these rights are protected” (OME, 2018, p. 152) The 2013 and 2018 revisions also build on a shift that begins in the 2005 version, away from the value-neutrality of the 1999 version and toward positioning citizenship, and global citizenship in particular, as a type of ethical imperative. Table 5 Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Juridical Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Ov. Sp. Oth. 1999 Standardizing individual citizen role Canadian citizens have a specific role to perform, prescribed by a set of legal and ethical obligations 3 5 23 Fostering ethical global citizenship Canadian citizens also have certain legal and ethical responsibilities to the global community 1 19 3 2005 Fostering ethical global citizenship Canadian citizens have legal and ethical responsibilities to the global community 4 23 8 Standardizing individual citizen role Canadian citizens have a specific role to perform, prescribed by a set of legal and ethical obligations 2 6 72 2013 Fostering ethical global citizenship Canadian citizens have legal and ethical responsibilities to the global community 1 14 12 Standardizing individual citizen role Canadian citizens have a specific role to perform, prescribed by a set of legal and ethical obligations 1 4 109 2018 Fostering ethical global citizenship Canadian citizens have legal and ethical responsibilities to the global community 1 14 13 Standardizing individual citizen role Canadian citizens have a specific role to perform, prescribed by a set of legal and ethical obligations 1 4 110 Reframing Citizenship Education 19 This process of establishing a standardized role for the citizen aligns practically with the rigid policy imperatives laid out in the frontmatter of the curriculum document, which similarly establish fixed roles for teachers and students. As with the broader curriculum reform enacted by Ontario’s PC government in the late 1990s, the 1999 version of the document signals a strong turn toward prescriptive, centralized control over teachers’ pedagogical practice in classrooms (Anderson & Ben Jaafar, 2003). The document lays out a highly structured policy framework around the course content, including course requirements in the form of outcome-focused expectations, compulsory and prerequisite courses, and an achievement chart intended to provide “a standard province-wide method for teachers to use in assessing and evaluating their students’ achievement” (OMET, 1999, p. 56). These policy imperatives are enforced through a combination of accountability structures and exhortative policy language. At the same time, the 1999 version allowed for some carefully delineated areas of local policy flexibility, such the option to teach certain courses as a half-semester course. The effort to delineate teachers’ agency through exhortative policy imperatives can be seen in the following passage that cautions about the dangers of leaving the school building: Out-of-school fieldwork provides an exciting and authentic dimension to students’ learning experiences. It also takes the teacher and students out of the predictable classroom environment and into new settings. Teachers must preview and plan expeditions carefully to protect students’ health and safety. (OMET, 1999, p. 55) This passage is repeated with only minor edits in each of the three subsequent revisions. Indeed, all of the policy imperatives established in the 1999 document have remained with remarkable consistency through the three subsequent revisions of the CWS policy document overseen by the Liberal government that held power from 2003 to 2018. As with the juridical dimension more broadly, the primary change during this time has been a strengthening of the document’s exhortative language through moralistic framing that presents teachers’ policy compliance as a type of ethical imperative. Prognostic Framing of the Public Dimension The 1999 version places a strong emphasis on the public dimension of citizenship, which is reduced in the subsequent revisions. The public dimension incorporates 8 overall expectations and 45 specific expectations in the 1999 version, but by the 2018 version this is reduced to 2 and 11. Arguably, the public dimension is central to the overall framing of the 1999 document, setting out one of the key domains of action in which to move from the core problem (socio-political fragmentation) to the desired end result (collective political identification). This process begins with situating oneself within the field of diversity: • “articulate clearly their personal sense of civic identity and purpose, and understand the diversity of beliefs and values of other individuals and groups in Canadian society” (OMET, 1999, p. 50) However, while the later revisions retain this initial step, the 1999 version goes farther in placing a responsibility on citizens to actively participate in resolving social divisions. The following expectation and others like it are systematically removed in the 2005 version: • “describe ways citizens can be involved in responding to issues in which contrasting value systems, multiple perspectives, and differing civic purposes coexist, and determine their own sense of responsibility in relation to these opportunities for involvement” (OMET, 1999, p. 51) Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 20 The 1999 version, therefore, presents an active public realm, in which citizens engage with each other to resolve conflicts with the overall goal of overcoming the socio-political fragmentation of the Canadian nation-state. As Table 6 helps show, in the subsequent revisions what remains of the public dimension becomes more detached from the political dimension and draws closer to the juridical dimension, with the citizen understood more as an autonomous individual within a globalized community. This is manifested in several ways. First, there is a shift away from emphasizing the national public realm as the primary sphere of citizen identification and action, and toward an open-ended form of citizenship that extends to the global realm. See, for instance, the following expectation: • “communicate their own position on some issues of civic importance at the local, national, and/or global level […], explaining how their position is influenced by their beliefs/values” (OME, 2018, p. 161). Secondly, there is a shift away from “civic issues” being treated as somehow commonly defined within the public realm toward them being defined by the autonomous individual based on “personal interest” (e.g., OME, 2018, p. 165). Relatedly, and building on the shift that began in 2005, there is a shift away from the public realm being understood as a forum for overcoming diversity through processes of conflict resolution. Instead, the goal of the public realm is simply to build understanding and appreciation of diversity, primarily through developing affective and moral traits, such as empathy: “Students develop empathy as they analyse events and issues from the perspectives of people in different parts of Canada or the world, or from different historical eras” (OME, 2018, p. 47). In the 2013 and 2018 revisions, therefore, understanding diversity is no longer an initial step toward resolving divisions in the nation-state. Rather, acknowledging and appreciating diversity becomes an end in itself. Table 6 Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Public Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Ov. Sp. Oth. 1999 Identifying through common public issues Canadians develop shared understandings through common encounter with national concerns 6 14 6 Identifying with civil society Canadians can shape society through multiple forms of social and political organization 2 17 1 Identifying with regional communities Canadians form their identities through thick belonging in specific, localized communities 0 14 8 2005 Identifying with civil society Canadians can shape society through multiple forms of social and political organization 2 9 0 Identifying with regional communities Canadians form their identities through thick belonging in specific, localized communities 0 10 11 Reframing Citizenship Education 21 Table 6 (Con’t) Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Public Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Docum. Code Identifying through common public issues Canadians develop mutual understanding through common encounter with national concerns 0 8 7 2013 Positioning individual values in multi-level pluralism Canadians need to clarify their opinions on civic issues at multiple levels, and develop empathy for other perspectives 2 6 38 Identifying with civil society Canadians can shape society through multiple forms of social and political organization 0 3 3 2018 Positioning individual values in multi-level pluralism Canadians need to clarify their opinions on civic issues at multiple levels, and develop empathy for other perspectives 2 7 43 Identifying with civil society Canadians can shape society through multiple forms of social and political organization 0 4 3 Prognostic Framing of the Cultural Dimension The cultural dimension of citizenship in the 1999 version is primarily characterized by an emphasis on civic participation in relation to the local community. Most of these expectations are limited to learning about the local community. However, in spite of the warning about the danger of leaving the schoolgrounds discussed above, there are a few key expectations that require students to take civic action in relation to the local community. This is most explicit in the following specific expectation: • “participate effectively in a civil action or project of interest to them and of importance to the community (e.g., attend public hearings, plan religious or cultural event, join special interest group, write letters to editor)” (OMET, 1999, p. 53) Note how the selection of a project is defined not only in terms of personal interest but also in terms of “importance to the community.” Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 22 Table 7 Results of Coding for Prognostic Framing in the Cultural Dimension in Four Versions of CWS 9 & 10 Curriculum Policy Documents Docum. Code Narrative Summary of Prognostic Framing Segments Coded Ov. Sp. Oth. 1999 Enabling local learning Civic education should include learning about and in the local community 2 20 7 Enabling local civic participation Civic education should include direct participation in local civic affairs 1 3 1 Identifying with multi-level citizenship Citizenship should include affective identification with communities at different geographic scales 0 3 6 2005 Enabling local learning Civic education should include learning about the local community 1 7 23 Participating in multi-level citizenship Civic education should include self- directed activities in relation to chosen issues and communities 1 2 16 2013 Planning for sustainable communities Civic education should foster sustainability in local communities through planning potential actions 3 15 46 Planning critical multi-level participation Civic education should foster critical engagement in various communities through planning potential actions 3 12 45 2018 Planning for sustainable communities Civic education should foster sustainability in local communities through planning potential actions 3 15 46 Planning critical multi-level participation Civic education should foster critical engagement in various communities through planning potential actions 3 12 45 As Table 7 helps illustrate, starting in the 2005 revision, the cultural dimension is modified in two significant ways. First, the emphasis on it is substantially reduced, including a fairly systematic removal of expectations related to civic engagement in the community. Secondly, where discussion of civic engagement is maintained it is mostly in relation to what might be called “multi-level citizenship” – that is, citizenship as open-ended engagement in “communities” at local, national, and global scales. References to multi-level citizenship in the 1999 version were mostly in the frontmatter, and arguably were intended to be vague and open-ended in order to capture the varied content of the expectations. In the 2005 revision, this language starts to move into the expectations, and multi-level citizenship becomes operationalized as something students must engage with directly, as can be seen in the revision of the main specific expectation requiring civic action: • “demonstrate an understanding of their responsibilities as local, national, and global citizens by applying their knowledge of civics, and skills related to purposeful and active citizenship, to a project of personal interest and civic importance (e.g., participating in food and clothing drives; visiting seniors; participating in community festivals, celebrations, and events; Reframing Citizenship Education 23 becoming involved in human rights, antidiscrimination, or antiracism activities)” (OME, 2005, p. 69) Note that where students were required to “participate effectively” in 1999, the 2005 revision only asks them to apply their knowledge and skills to a project. There is no requirement that the project should be effective or even complete. The de-emphasizing of civic action in the 2005 revision appears to align with the concerns raised about risks relating to students leaving the school, which also parallels the emergent policy network around “safe schools” in Ontario over this period (Winton, 2012). However, this results in a tension in the curriculum: the internal logic of the curriculum points in the direction of civic engagement as a natural and necessary outcome of its vision of citizenship, but such civic engagement becomes problematic when student activity outside of the school is seen as a liability. The 2013 and 2018 revisions resolve this tension by limiting student civic activity to planning actions that they could potentially undertake at some point in the future. The key specific expectation calling for civic action is expanded into a full overall expectation, but the requirement for action is removed: • “analyse a civic issue of personal interest and develop a plan of action to address it” (OME, 2018, p. 164) This overall expectation is followed by a series of specific expectations that call on students to analyze an issue and develop a plan of action along with a plan to evaluate successful implementation, but never to actually implement the plan. Along with the forms of local civic engagement discussed here, our understanding of the cultural dimension of citizenship, drawing on Banks (2008), explicitly includes ethnocultural and other identity-based communities, whether localized or dispersed (see Butler, 2018). It is a noteworthy negative finding that participation in such communities was not a significant emphasis of the framing practices we identified. Discussion Since the initial creation of the Ontario Canadian & World Studies 9 &10 curriculum in 1999, the three subsequent revisions to the document have maintained a great deal of continuity. Throughout the different versions, the diagnostic framing has emphasized the political dimension of citizenship through a focus on the challenges presented to Canada as a nation-state by globalization and by the pluralization of the population. This problem-framing underscores the political function of the curriculum, as a public statement by the government about – and a symbolic gesture toward – the utilization of the school system for the formation of Canadian citizens prepared for the challenges of the 21st century (Lewis, 2011; Westbury, 2008). In response to the core problem, the subsequent versions of the document present prognostic framing across the five dimensions of citizenship. Politically, the curriculum suggests that citizens must develop both an affective identification with Canada and a sense of personal responsibility for Canada’s economic prosperity. Economically, the curriculum positions the citizen outside the boundaries of the nation-state, preparing them with skills that can be transferred throughout the globalized marketplace. Juridically, the curriculum establishes a pre-defined role for the citizen within both the nation-state and the global community (and, on a pedagogical level, within the school), through both legal and ethical obligations. The prognostic framing across these three dimensions highlights a tension in the 1999 version of the curriculum between the preparation Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 24 of citizens for strong identification with and participation in the nation-state and the preparation of citizens as economic and ethical actors within a globalized community. In relation to the problem- framing, this tension suggests that responding to the challenges of globalization requires the formation of Canadian citizens who are both nationalistic in their identification and transnational in their activities. In the subsequent revisions, this tension is somewhat resolved through an increasing emphasis on participation in the global realm as an end in itself and a concomitant de-emphasizing of nationalistic identification except insofar as Canada exemplifies juridical and globalistic ideals of pluralism. Within this context, we can return to the question raised earlier about the shifting emphases on the cultural and public dimensions. As illustrated in Figure 1, the cultural dimension declined in emphasis from 1999 to 2005, before rising back above the 1999 level in 2013 and 2018. This fluctuation can be explained, at least in part, by the complex positioning of civic action. In the 1999 document, the cultural dimension plays a small but important role in encouraging civic action within the local community. In 2005, civic action is significantly de-emphasized, and what remains is situated more vaguely in relation to an open-ended form of multi-level citizenship. In 2013 and 2018, there is a renewed emphasis on civic action, but now it is limited to planning potential civic actions. In this sense, the fluctuation of the cultural dimension in Figure 1 is somewhat superficial, and the change is perhaps best understood as a consistent de-emphasizing of genuine civic action over the subsequent revisions. As discussed above, the internal evidence of the curriculum policy documents suggests that these changes can be explained at least in part by concerns about liability related to student activities outside the school, which aligns with the broader policy emphasis on student safety (Winton, 2012). However, there were likely other factors at work in this complex policy shift, possibly including concerns about the initial difficulty of the revised curriculum and desires to decrease student workload in order to raise graduation rates (Pinto, 2012). So far, however, this analysis of the changes in the cultural dimension is primarily focused on practical, pedagogical factors. In keeping with the focus of this article, we also want to consider the broader political and ideological implications of how civic action is reframed throughout subsequent revisions of the curriculum. For this purpose, we turn now to the changes in the public dimension of citizenship. As illustrated in Figure 1, the emphasis on the public dimension is significantly reduced over the successive revisions of the document. The general de-emphasizing of the public dimension aligns with a significant transformation of its content. In the 1999 version, the public dimension is an important domain of citizen action, in which citizens encounter the problematic diversity of society, then undertake public action, primarily involving forms of conflict resolution, to help build a new public consensus within the nation-state. The subsequent revisions maintain the first step of the process laid out in the 1999 document – positioning oneself within the field of diversity – but then eliminate the public action that followed. In the later revisions, therefore, diversity is primarily framed as a feature to be acknowledged and valued, rather than an obstacle to be overcome, and recognizing diversity becomes an end in itself. Considering the changes in the cultural and public dimensions together, we get a broader picture of the ideological changes across the subsequent revisions of the curriculum. While the cultural dimension, considered alone, suggested that student action was de-emphasized due to practical and pedagogical concerns, the context of the public dimension suggests a more systematic de-emphasizing of citizen action. Where citizenship in the 1999 version is characterized by participation in collective actions, it is gradually transformed through the three revisions to become more of an individual and cognitive activity. This may also explain the increased emphasis on problem framing, as intellectual consideration of societal problems moves from an initial step toward encouraging citizen actions to become a significant citizen activity in itself. Reframing Citizenship Education 25 In the 2018 document, therefore, citizenship involves building awareness of the ethical complexities of contemporary societies, accepting personal responsibility for societal problems (including accounting for the past wrongs of one’s nation), reflexively positioning oneself within the field of globalized diversity, engaging in critical analysis of contemporary problems, and carefully planning potential actions within this ethical complexity. In this sense, the obstacles to student action are not only practical concerns about liability, but also ideological concerns reflecting the complexity of ethical action in a pluralistic public sphere (Peck & Sears, 2016). Conclusion This article has presented the findings of a frame analysis of the four subsequent versions of the Ontario Canadian and World Studies 9 and 10 curriculum policy document. The initial 1999 version of the document was created under a conservative and populist PC government, while the three subsequent revisions were created under a Liberal government in 2005, 2013, and 2018. These two political parties position themselves as ideologically opposed, and in certain ways the findings of the frame analysis mirror this ideological divergence. Most notably, the three revisions completed under the Liberal government have systematically removed the initial emphasis of the document on citizen action, both in relation to participation in the local community and in relation collective action in the national public realm. We have suggested that this parallels the new emphasis in the documents on diversity and inclusion, and that the removal of civic action reflects an ideological liberal concern over the complexity of ethical action within a pluralistic public sphere. At the same time, however, there is a remarkable degree of continuity across the different versions of the document. The three revisions maintain some major themes of the initial document, including its strong emphasis on developing individualized transferable skills for participation in the globalized economy. This accent on preparing students as economic actors is consistent with Rogers’ (2018) critical discourse analysis of curriculum policies over a similar timeframe and across four successive governments of differing political stripes in Nova Scotia, another Canadian province. The revisions have also maintained the emphasis on forming the individual citizen to fit a predefined role based in relation to both legal and ethical obligations, along with the rigid accountability structures embedded that similarly position teachers and students in relation to rigidly predefined roles. Following the typology of dimensions of citizenship that provides the theoretical framework for this article, these areas of continuity reflect the economic and juridical dimensions of citizenship, which are universalistic and inclusive but also tend to individualize the citizen and reify social structures (Cohen, 1999; Taylor, 2004). This emphasis on the individualized citizen within a reified globalistic society, therefore, can be understood as the new consensus on citizenship education in Ontario, which has remained remarkably stable over the last twenty years. Following the most recent revision of CWS 9 & 10, the PC party was returned to power in the 2018 Ontario election. This government takes a similar populist tone to the PC government of the late 1990s, and it will be interesting to see what, if any, further changes they make to the curriculum. It is almost certain that they will seek to remove the emphasis on diversity and inclusion that the Liberal government gradually incorporated. They have already cancelled curriculum writing sessions intended to continue revising CWS 9 & 10 in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Desmarais, 2018). However, it is less certain that they will seek to restore other aspects of the curriculum that the Liberal government removed, particularly the emphases on civic action in the public realm. While the PCs are unlikely to share the Liberals’ ethical concerns about the complexity of civic action in a pluralistic public sphere, they may have other reasons to keep these elements out. In her analysis of the Common Sense Revolution, Pinto (2012) suggests that the Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 26 emphasis on economic formation in the curriculum reflected a genuine ideological concern of the PC government, but that the emphasis on the formation of citizens as socio-political actors was more likely a politically-motivated response to a perceived public desire for a balance between economic and civic preparation. Now that the elements of civic action and public participation have already been removed, the PCs may find it unnecessary to restore them, and may instead follow a more ideological path toward citizenship as primarily, if not exclusively, economic formation. References Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London, UK: Verso. Anderson, S. E. & Ben Jaafar, S. (2003). Policy trends in Ontario education: 1990-2003. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08317501 Bickmore, K. (2014). Citizenship education in Canada: ‘Democratic’ engagement with differences, conflicts and equity issues? Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 9(3), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.9.3.257_1 Broom, C. (2015). Social studies in three Canadian provinces: A comparative exploration. Comparative and International Education, 44(1), Article 4. Broom, C. & Evans, R. W. (2015). Social studies within and across borders: Exploring the transfer of ideas in time and space. Citizenship Education Research Journal (CERJ), 4(1), 56-69. Butler, J. K. (2018). Heterogeneous practices and homogenizing policies: Towards a typological analysis of Canadian citizenship education in Ontario. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.13.1.61_1 Clausen, K. W., Horton, T. A., & Lemisko, L. S. (2008). Democracy and diversity: A content analysis of selected contemporary Canadian social studies curricula. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 35-49. Cohen, L. G. (1999). Changing paradigms of citizenship and the exclusiveness of the demos. International Sociology, 14(3), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580999014003002 Connelly, F. M. & Connelly, G. (2013). Curriculum policy guidelines: Context, structures and functions. In A. Luke, A. Woods, & K. Weir (Eds.), Curriculum, Syllabus Design and Equity: A Primer and Model (pp. 54-73). New York, NY: Routledge. Desmarais, A. (2018, July 17). Ontario curriculum cuts a “major setback” to reconciliation: Indigenous educators. iPolitics. Retrieved from: https://ipolitics.ca/2018/07/17/ontario- curriculum-cuts-a-major-setback-to-reconciliation-indigenous-educators/ Evans, M., Ingram, L. A., MacDonald, A., & Weber, N. (2009). Mapping the “global dimension” of citizenship education in Canada: The complex interplay of theory, practice and context. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 5(2), 17-34. Fernández, M. B. (2018). Framing teacher education: Conceptions of teaching, teacher education, and justice in Chilean national policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(34), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2806 Fielding, J. (2002). Tales from the crypt or writing the Ontario Canadian World Studies Curriculum. Our Schools / Our Selves, 11(3), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08317501 https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.9.3.257_1 https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.13.1.61_1 https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580999014003002 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2806 Reframing Citizenship Education 27 Gidney, R. D. (1999). From Hope to Harris: The reshaping of Ontario’s schools. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442675087 Gusfield, J. R. (1981). The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hébert, Y. (2009). Responsibility and citizenship education: Shifting meanings, policy and curricula. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 4-15. Hughes, A. S. & Sears, A. (2008). The struggle for citizenship education in Canada: The centre cannot hold. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 124-138). London, UK: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200486.n11 Iacovino, R. & Nootens, G. (2011). A clash of ideals? Federalism, citizenship and education in the multinational state. In M. Behiels & F. Rocher (Eds.), The state in transition: Challenges for Canadian federalism (pp. 217-238). Ottawa, ON: Invenire Books. Joshee, R. (2007). Opportunities for social justice work: The Ontario diversity policy web. The Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 18(1&2), 171-199. Kennelly, J. & Llewellyn, K. R. (2011). Educating for active compliance: Discursive constructions in citizenship education. Citizenship Studies, 15(6-7), 897-914. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2011.600103 Lavrenteva, E. & Orland-Barak, L. (2015). The treatment of culture in the foreign language curriculum: An analysis of national curriculum documents. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(5), 653-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1056233 Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 7-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976572.n1 Lewis, J. P. (2011). The unavoidable struggle of Canadian citizenship education: An analysis of historical and contemporary challenges of producing a cohesive policy narrative (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. Luke, A. (2013). Introduction: The practical problem of curriculum making. In A. Luke, A. Woods, & K. Weir (Eds.), Curriculum, syllabus design and equity: A primer and model (pp. 1-5). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833452 Manzer, R. (1994). Public schools and political ideas: Canadian educational policy in historical perspective. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487575809 Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Mitchell, K. (2006). Neoliberal governmentality in the European Union: Education, training, and technologies of citizenship. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1068/d1804 OECD. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD Pisa Global Competence Framework. Paris: Directorate for Education and Skills. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (1999). The Ontario curriculum grades 9 and 10: Canadian and world studies. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education and Training. Ontario Ministry of Education (2005). The Ontario curriculum grades 9 and 10: Canadian and world studies. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education. Ontario Ministry of Education (2013). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Canadian and world studies. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2013.pdf. Accessed 6 April 2017 https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442675087 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200486.n11 https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2011.600103 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1056233 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976572.n1 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833452 https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487575809 https://doi.org/10.1068/d1804 https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2013.pdf.%20Accessed%206%20April%202017 http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2013.pdf.%20Accessed%206%20April%202017 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 28 Ontario Ministry of Education (2016). 21stcentury competencies: Foundation document for discussion. Retrieved from: http://www.edugains.ca/resources21CL/About21stCentury/21CL_21stCenturyCompetenci es.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017, November 8). Ontario ensuring students learn Indigenous histories and cultures: Province equipping educators to teach Indigenous contributions and perspectives. Retrieved from: https://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2017/11/ontario-ensuring- students-learn-indigenous-histories-and-cultures.html Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Canadian and world studies. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2018.pdf Ortloff, D. H. (2005). Becoming European: a framing analysis of three countries’ civics education curricula. European Education, 37(4), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934370403 Osborne, K. (2000). Public schooling and citizenship education in Canada. Canadian ethnic studies/Études ethniques au Canada, 32(1), 8-37. Park, V., Daly, A. J., & Guerra, A. W. (2012). Strategic framing: How leaders craft the meaning of data use for equity and learning. Educational Policy, 27(4), 645-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811429295 Pashby, K., Ingram, L.-A., & Joshee, R. (2014). Discovering, recovering, and covering-up Canada: Tracing historical citizenship discourses in K-12 and adult immigrant citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Education, 37(2), 1-26. Peck, C. L. & Sears, A. (2016). Canada. In Chong, K. M., Davies, I., Epstein, T., Peck, C. L, Peterson, A., Ross, A., Schmidt, M. A., Sears, A., & Sonu, D. (Eds.), Education, Globalization and the Nation (pp. 59-80). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Pinto, L. E. (2012). Curriculum reform in Ontario: ‘Common sense’ policy processes and democratic possibilities. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Priestley, M. & Sinnema, C. (2014). Downgraded curriculum? An analysis of knowledge in new curriculum in Scotland and New Zealand. The Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 50-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.872047 Rein, M. & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832235 Rezai-Rashti, G. M. (2003). Educational policy reform and its impact on equity work in Ontario: Global challenges and local possibilities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(51), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n51.2003 Rogers, P. (2018). Tracing neoliberal governmentality in education: Disentangling economic crises, accountability, and the disappearance of social studies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/37232/3/Rogers_Pamela_2018_thesis.pdf Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Sears, A. (2010). Possibilities and problems: Citizenship education in a multinational state: The case of Canada. In A. Reid, J. Gill, & A. Sears (Eds.), Globalization, the nation-state and the citizen (pp. 191-205). New York, NY: Routledge. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822385806 Toukan, E. V. (2018). Educating citizens of ‘the global’: Mapping textual constructs of UNESCO’s global citizenship education 2012–2015. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 13(1), 51– 64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197917700909 http://www.edugains.ca/resources21CL/About21stCentury/21CL_21stCenturyCompetencies.pdf http://www.edugains.ca/resources21CL/About21stCentury/21CL_21stCenturyCompetencies.pdf https://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2017/11/ontario-ensuring-students-learn-indigenous-histories-and-cultures.html https://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2017/11/ontario-ensuring-students-learn-indigenous-histories-and-cultures.html http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2018.pdf https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934370403 https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811429295 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.872047 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832235 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n51.2003 https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/37232/3/Rogers_Pamela_2018_thesis.pdf https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822385806 https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197917700909 Reframing Citizenship Education 29 von Heyking, A. J. (2006). Creating citizens: History and identity in Alberta’s schools, 1905-1980. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6gqpzs Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Oxon, UK: ME Sharpe. Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula: Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976572.n3 Winton, S. (2012). Positioning Ontario’s character development initiative in/through its policy web of relationships. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 1-16. About the Authors Jesse K. Butler University of Ottawa, Canada jessekbutler@gmail.com Jesse K. Butler recently completed his Ph.D. in the faculty of education at the University of Ottawa, specializing in the intersection of educational policy, secondary school curriculum, and citizenship education. His doctoral research was supported by a 2016 –19 Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship. He has published his research in several peer- reviewed journals, including Urban Education, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Citizenship Teaching & Learning, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration & Policy , and Citizenship Education Research Journal. Peter Milley University of Ottawa. Canada pmilley@uottawa.ca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5819-8086 Peter Milley is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education and Senior Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services at the University of Ottawa. He has written on the moral, political, emotional, and aesthetic dim ensions of educational leadership, drawing theoretical inspiration from the Critical Theory tradition. Dr. Milley has significant practical experience in leadership development and policy research from a career in the Canadian federal public service. His recent publications include two books (co-edited with Eugenie A. Samier and published by Routledge) International Perspectives on Maladministration in Education and Educational Administration and Leadership Identity Formation . https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6gqpzs https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976572.n3 mailto:jessekbutler@gmail.com mailto:pmilley@uottawa.ca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5819-8086 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 30 education policy analysis archives Volume 28 Number 83 May 18, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Reframing Citizenship Education 31 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Gary Anderson New York University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Aaron Bevenot SUNY Albany Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University ofColorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 83 32 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento), Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech ( Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Carmuca Gómez-Bueno (Universidad de Granada), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela (Universidade de Chile), Antonia Lozano-Díaz (University of Almería), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), María Teresa Martín Palomo (University of Almería), María Fernández Mellizo- Soto (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Tiburcio Moreno (Autonomous Metropolitan University-Cuajimalpa Unit), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), César Lorenzo Rodríguez Uribe (Universidad Marista de Guadalajara), Maria Veronica Santelices (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804') Reframing Citizenship Education 33 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGVl), Sheizi Calheira de Freitas (Federal University of Bahia), Maria Margarida Machado, (Federal University of Goiás / Universidade Federal de Goiás), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro), Maria Lúcia Rodrigues Muller (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso e Science), Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil