This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 13 November 2014, At: 12:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Westminster Studies in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cwse19

Discovering democracy: an analysisof curriculum policy for citizenshipeducationElizabeth Criddle a , Lesley Vidovich a & Marnie O'Neill aa The University of Western Australia , AustraliaPublished online: 10 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Elizabeth Criddle , Lesley Vidovich & Marnie O'Neill (2004) Discoveringdemocracy: an analysis of curriculum policy for citizenship education, Westminster Studies inEducation, 27:1, 27-41

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0140672040270103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Westminster Studies in Education jink Carfax PublishingW f / V Taylor 8. Fraocis Croup

Vol. 27, No. 1, April 2004

Discovering democracy: an analysis ofcurriculum policy for citizenshipeducationElizabeth Criddle, Lesley Vidovich* and Marnie O'NeillThe University of Western Australia, Australia

Citizenship education has become the focus of renewed interest internationally as governments arestruggling with issues of national identity in an era of globalisation where there is much 'talk' ofthreats to the legitimacy of nation states. Within this context, the Australian CommonwealthGovernment took another step in an accelerating trend of becoming involved in curriculum policywith the introduction of its citizenship education curriculum package, Discovering Democracy, inthe late 1990s. Legally, education in Australia is a State government responsibility. However, overthe last half century, the Commonwealth Government has increasingly set education agendas,justified in terms of'the national interest' and has achieved them using financial levers which resultfrom the vertical fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the States.

This article examines citizenship curriculum policy processes and practices associated with theenactment of the Commonwealth's Discovering Democracy curriculum package in the State ofWestern Australia (WA). The study employed a framework of a policy trajectory extending fromthe Commonwealth Government (macro level) through State (WA) policy enactment (meso level)to individual classrooms (micro level). Documents and interviews with key players, including theCommonwealth Minister for Education, were the main data sources.

Analysis of the policy process revealed the emergence of power struggles as a result of theprovision of a national curriculum on citizenship education by the Commonwealth Government,and these struggles occurred at national, State and local levels. These power struggles resulted inextensive transformation of Commonwealth and State level policy intent as the policy enactmentproceeded at the classroom level. The study demonstrates the need for better alignment ofconceptualisations and discourses in the processes of curriculum development if a greatercongruence is to be achieved between expectations and realities in curriculum renewal. Meta-levelissues to emerge from the data, in particular the nature of policy consultative processes and theconstruction of teacher professional identity, have broader implications for education policyprocesses in other domains and in other countries.

Introduction and background

Education for citizenship currently holds international significance as governments

*Corresponding author. Graduate School of Education, The University of Western AustraliaCrawley, WA 6009, Australia. Email: lesley.vidovich@uwa.edu.auISSN 0140-6728 print/ISSN 1470-1359 online/04/010027-15© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0140672042000224943

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

28 E. Criddle et al.

are struggling with citizenship and identity issues in schooling (Davies, 2000) in acontext of globalisation where there is much 'talk' of threats to the legitimacy of nationstates. This trend is widely reflected in increasing awareness of the great variety ofcontexts in which citizenship education is taught and its importance to young people(Hall et al., 1998; Ichilov, 1998). In Australia, citizenship education has been re-elevated to a level of importance in government policy, and struggles over the right toestablish such policy have emerged between the Commonwealth Government, whichfunds targeted areas of schooling 'in the national interest', and States/Territorieswhich are legally responsible for the provision of education and which provide thebulk of funding for government schools.

At the national level in Australia, as a result of ongoing concerns about citizenshipeducation raised by Senate Committees, the Civics Expert Group was establishedin 1994 by the Keating Labor Government to develop a framework for civicseducation in Australian schools. The Civics Expert Group (1994) report, Whereasthe people: civics and citizenship education, broadly concluded the existence of'uniform support for a greater emphasis on civics and citizenship education inschools' (Civics Expert Group, 1994, p. 50) and suggested this be supported by'high quality resource material accessible to all schools' (Civics Expert Group,1994, p. 63), and considerable expenditure on professional development ofteachers. The 1996 Howard Coalition Government altered the name of theCivics Expert Group to the Civics Education Group (CEG), and appointedadditional members. The CEG developed the policy which generated theDiscovering Democracy curriculum resource package through the CommonwealthCurriculum Corporation (Curriculum Corporation, 1998). Curriculum packageswere provided free to all government and non-government schools in Australia in thelate 1990s. Concurrently, professional development for teachers was carried out at aState and Territory level as part of the Discovering Democracy curriculum policyprocess.

In the State of Western Australia (WA), no formal approval for the use ofDiscovering Democracy in schools was given and it was not officially incorporatedinto the curriculum. Concerns were raised about disparities between the organisationof the Discovering Democracy package and its relationship to outcomes-focusededucation emerging across Australia, including WA's Curriculum Framework(Curriculum Council, 1998; Carter et al., 1999). Nonetheless, the WAGovernment set up a professional development project for Discovering Democracymanaged by a team consisting of a Programme Director, Coordinator and Committee(Coordinating Committee, 1998a). The Director was a representative of the StateEducation Department and signatory to the agreement with the CommonwealthGovernment. Professional development 'trainers' in WA presented the DiscoveringDemocracy package to WA teachers.

A year after the Discovering Democracy package was released, a major recom-mendation of the interim report, Evaluation of the program (Erebus ConsultingGroup, 1999)—which was commissioned by the Commonwealth Government—was the continuation of funding for Discovering Democracy. Funding for the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Discovering democracy 29

project was renewed in 2001, heralding another phase of citizenship education inAustralia, although the funds were for further professional development on existingmaterial and not for obtaining feedback and building modifications to the curriculumpackage.

The study reported here focused on the Discovering Democracy curriculum policyprocesses, including professional development for teachers, and the impact in theState of WA. The first author of this article was one of the curriculum 'trainers' in WA(she teaches in the non-government sector), and the other two authors were academicresearchers. This article presents an analysis of interactions between National, Stateand local (individual school) levels as reported by respondents. The remainder of thearticle is divided into sections which present the methodology employed in the studyand the empirical findings, followed by a concluding discussion which identifies keymeta-level themes to emerge from the study.

Methodology

The policy analysis conducted in this study employed a conceptual framework of a'policy cycle' developed by Ball and colleagues (Bowe et ah, 1992; Ball, 1994) andmodified and elaborated for empirical investigation by Vidovich (2002). While thepolicy cycle is seen as continuous, separation into macro, meso and micro levels of apolicy trajectory between the Commonwealth Government and individual classroomsfacilitated analysis. Documents and interviews were the main sources of data. Thedifferent 'situated meanings' people make of the policy process depend on thedifferent 'worlds' in which they are located and the different 'discourses' available tothem (Gee & Green, 1998). In this study, different 'worlds', 'discourses' and 'situatedmeanings' occur at different levels of the policy trajectory, and also within any onelevel.

The reliance on documentary sources decreased down the policy trajectory, asdocuments were more available at the macro level, but very few documents weregenerated in response to Discovering Democracy at the micro level in schools. At themacro level, the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee (1995) andCivics Expert Group (1994) were initial sources of data. In addition to CurriculumCorporation documents, several media releases and speeches made by the Ministerand by his Parliamentary Secretary were used as data sources at the macro level.Documents produced at the meso level in WA included the Discovering Democracyprofessional development for teachers schools' resource file (Coordinating Committee,2000, first and second edition) and the text of the Professional development for teacherstrainers' resource file (Coordinating Committee, 1998b). Documents as data sourcesare not unproblematic given their socially constructed nature. Further, certaindocuments such as media releases, ministers' speeches and curriculum packages oftenhave a number of different authors, leading to a concern with the anonymity of texts,and as Gill & Reid (2000, p. 65) have noted in relation to Discovering Democracy:'The very anonymity of the materials lends them an aura of handed down truth ...silence constructs the materials'.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

30 E. Griddle et al.

Interview respondents at each level of the policy trajectory were as follows: themacro level consisted of policy initiators within the Commonwealth Government(including the Commonwealth Minister for Education); the meso level consistedof professional development trainers (hereafter referred to simply as 'trainers')within WA (many of whom were classroom teachers identified as key changeagents within schools); and the micro level consisted of classroom teachers whoused the Discovering Democracy curriculum package (Curriculum Corporation,1998) with their classes after attending the professional development sessions.Purposive sampling (Punch, 1998) was used and the numbers of respondentsincreased along the policy trajectory. The Commonwealth Minister for Educationand one of the members of the Civics Education Group (CEG) were interviewed atthe macro level. A total of 12 professional development 'trainers', as well as onemember of the Discovering Democracy Professional Development CoordinatingCommittee were interviewed at the meso level of the policy process in WA. Interviewswere individual face-to-face or telephone interviews and generally lasted one to twohours. Telephone interviews were crucial due to the geographical dispersion ofrespondents around Australia. Interviews were semi-structured, to allow theresearcher to seek 'both clarification and elaboration on the answers given' (May,1993, p. 111), and allowed probing for further information when required. At themicro level, questionnaires were sent to classroom teachers who had attended theDiscovering Democracy professional development in each of WA education districts,with 58 completed questionnaires returned out of 120 (approximately 50% returnrate). The intent of interviews and questionnaires at each level was to inviterespondents to reflect on their own experiences of the policy process at their level, andalso to reflect 'up' and 'down' the policy trajectory to elicit their perspectives on othercontexts in which the policy was operating. From responses received at the macrolevel, a series of clarifying questions were added and used at the meso level. Theseresponses were also used to formulate questions used at the micro level. The useof similar questions assisted analysis as this structure allowed for triangulation ofdata both within each level of the trajectory and between interview and documentarydata sources.

Empirical findings

The findings are organised in a way which triangulates perspectives about theDiscovering Democracy curriculum policy processes from respondents at differentlevels of the policy trajectory. This involved comparing and contrasting theperspectives of policy initiators in the Commonwealth Government (macro level),with WA professional development 'trainers' (meso level) and WA teachers (microlevel) on:

• Curriculum policy production.• Curriculum policy practices.

In separating 'policy production' and 'policy practices' for analytic convenience there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Discovering democracy 31

is no intention to imply a linear progression from policy 'formulation' to 'implemen-tation.' In fact, the following analysis highlights the constant interactions between alllevels of the trajectory, revealing the 'messiness' of the Discovering Democracycurriculum policy processes.

At the outset, it is important to highlight competing discourses in approaches tocitizenship education which have been noted in the literature (see Gilbert, 1996;Pascoe, 1996; Meredyth & Thomas, 1999), and which permeate both policyproduction and policy practices across all levels of the Discovering Democracy policytrajectory. These competing discourses revolve around an emphasis on passiveconsumption of knowledge about citizenship with a strong historical focus, which islabelled as an 'historical knowledge' approach, on the one hand, and citizenshipeducation for critical and active participation in change which is labelled as an 'activecitizenship' approach, on the other. Whilst the documents and interviews analysedbelow often set these two types of discourse in contra-distinction, we would see themmore as endpoints on a continuum of differing approaches to citizenship educationrather than as a dichotomy.

Curriculum policy production

Commonwealth (macro level) policy initiators and State (meso level) 'trainers' notedduring interviews that under the influence of Minister Kemp (Coalition) from 1996 amore conservative Civics Education Group (CEG) than originally appointed underthe previous (Labor) minister produced the key framework of the curriculum policy.This resulted in the curriculum package (Curriculum Corporation, 1998) comingfrom an 'historical knowledge' perspective rather than a more 'active citizenship'perspective, according to respondents, as reflected in the comment by one that thepolicy changes resulted in 'a shift from what we desired here in Western Australia,which was an active citizenship focus, to one that tended to be ... about the schools ofcitizenship in a fairly formal sense.'

The speech made by Commonwealth Minister Kemp at the launch of theDiscovering Democracy materials noted the decline in the teaching of history inschools and announced a plan to test student knowledge of the 'workings ofAustralia's governments and democratic foundations' (Kemp, 1997, p. 1). However,after Discovering Democracy (Curriculum Corporation, 1998) was developed anddistributed, members of the CEG started to assess the wider possibilities for thepackage. Interviews we conducted revealed that these macro level policy initiatorsbegan to see the value of 'active citizenship' policy, through examples set by trialgroups and class teachers at the micro level. By 2000, the Minister himself asserted ina media release (Kemp, 2000) that in addition to knowledge of Australia's'democratic tradition', students now needed to be equipped with the skills requiredto participate as a citizen and, in the same media release, that students should have an'active and informed part in community life' (Kemp, 2000, p. 1). Thus, teachers wereable to project their influence back 'up' the policy trajectory to the policy initiators,and to affect their attitudes toward citizenship policy. Teachers were analytical and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

32 E. Criddle et al.

thoughtful in their interpretation of the package, especially in employing a more'active citizenship' approach, according to meso and micro level respondents,although this had not been the intention of the policy initiators who had assumedteachers would simply use the package unquestioningly. One policy initiatorexpressed surprise at this professionalism and the use of quite 'sophisticated'participatory civics education, stating during interview that 'it has been a learningprocess for us as well.'

There was a consistent view from respondents at all levels of the policy trajectoryabout the top-down processes involved in developing the Discovering Democracycurriculum package. The macro level policy initiators held a controlling influence;notwithstanding some limited influence by teachers at the micro level. In particular,the Commonwealth Minister was omnipresent in the development of the curriculumpolicy and package, as revealed in a comment by one CEG member who stated duringinterview that the Minister 'reads just about anything' and went 'through everything.'The Minister drove the composition of the CEG and members of the CEG were wellaware that he would read every page of the work, and that he was keeping a closeinterest and watch over the curriculum policy process. However, the extensive powerof the Commonwealth Minister was not 'total' as tensions, and even power struggles,were evident in the ensuing policy process. In particular, the narrow 'historicalknowledge' version of citizenship education (Reid, 1996; Gilbert, 1996) provided inthe Commonwealth's Discovering Democracy curriculum policy was contested at theState level in WA.

The WA State Curriculum framework (Curriculum Council, 1998) reflects aphilosophy of 'active citizenship', according to respondents at the State level, and WAState professional development coordinators and 'trainers' wanted to utilise thisbroader definition of citizenship, where teachers and students are active change agentsrather than passive consumers of historical knowledge. However, the 'trainers' did nothave any sense of 'ownership' over the Discovering Democracy curriculum policy, asthey felt it was presented to them as a fait accompli. Commonwealth policy initiators,during interview, pointed to the Commonwealth's unusual level of involvement in thisparticular curriculum policy development, acknowledging that the DiscoveringDemocracy curriculum package was 'imposed' on the States, through tied funding.However, despite Commonwealth intentions, these 'trainers' were determined toimpress their own agenda onto teachers to encourage, for example, critique ofgovernment, in a more comprehensive 'active citizenship' model of citizenshipeducation. A number of WA 'trainer' respondents believed the DiscoveringDemocracy package was more about providing 'publicity' for the Australiangovernment. As one such respondent noted 'it was probably a PR exercise for thegovernment ... to promote themselves.'

Teacher respondents at the micro level of WA classrooms saw the intentions ofthe policy initiators in broader terms than the 'trainers' had done. According toteachers in the study, the Discovering Democracy package gave equal importanceto 'historical knowledge' of government and 'active citizenship' skills, althoughteachers did not believe that historical understandings were especially important.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Discovering democracy 33

Thus, respondents at macro, meso and micro levels of the policy trajectory haddifferent views of the intentions of the curriculum package. Interestingly, theCommonwealth policy initiators did not see any differences of opinion—a viewpointwhich was reflected in the comment by one respondent that there was very broadsupport for the content of Discovering Democracy and 'no real disagreement over theaims of the package.'

On the surface, trials and consultation for the development of the DiscoveringDemocracy curriculum package appeared to be wide-ranging and consultative ofvarious groups. However, respondents within WA believed that developers of thepackage did not give feedback serious attention. Trial feedback was not given directlyto policy initiators, but was channelled through the curriculum writers in theCurriculum Corporation, and, in effect, this created a buffer, or filtering process,between the policy initiators and interest groups. While the Commonwealth Minister,during interview, could list many interest groups that were involved, respondents atmeso and micro levels were less able to name groups which had participated in thedevelopment of Discovering Democracy. Even those respondents involved in trialshad difficulty naming interest groups.

Trial participants were concerned that their feedback did not appear in the finalpackage, that they were not given a response to their feedback and that the time framewas too short for carefully considered feedback. As one respondent explained:

With the materials, I got them a bit late, I think it had been decided anyway. Itwould have been better had we been given consultation early in the piece, and theopportunity to trial more of the materials rather than just read through them and makecomments.

This respondent's perspective is consistent with the observation of Gill and Reid(1999, p. 34) about the Discovering Democracy process that the trial period was tooshort, and that criticisms were not taken into account in the reworking of the finalpackage. Policy initiators even admitted that they had only selectively listened tointerest groups. The consequence is that even though the policy process apparentlyinvolved trials and consultation, in reality the development of the DiscoveringDemocracy curriculum package took a 'top down' approach. However, despite this, itis doubtful that policy initiators at the macro level achieved what they expected. Someof the reasons for this 'policy failure' became apparent as the 'worlds' of thelower levels of the trajectory impinged on enactment of the policy. That is, 'trainers'and teachers in WA modified the curriculum policy produced by the Commonwealth.While it was difficult to have their feedback heard, State level participants werestill able to reduce the controlling influence of the Commonwealth Minister byactively interpreting the policy to suit their own needs, as explored in the followingsection.

Curriculum policy practices

The Commonwealth produced the Discovering Democracy package with little input

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

34 E. Criddle et al.

from the State level. However, it was at the State level that this curriculum policywould be put into practice by teachers in their classrooms. Within the State of WA,two levels of the policy process can be distinguished: a meso level of professionaldevelopment by 'trainers' and also a micro level of teachers who had undergoneprofessional development prior to using Discovering Democracy with their students.These two levels are considered separately below, although there is clearly overlapbetween them.

State level professional development practices. Comments by the macro levelrespondents revealed during interview that the Commonwealth Government hadno interest in, or sphere of action for, directly influencing the professionaldevelopment of teachers who would teach this new curriculum. Professionaldevelopment was left to the States and Territories. It was assumed byCommonwealth policy initiators that the curriculum intent would be faithfullytranslated to the classroom, and, as such, professional development was viewed bythem only as a vehicle to encourage teachers to adopt the curriculum packagebecause the Commonwealth could not mandate Discovering Democracy forteachers. As one policy initiator stated, 'trainers' were to 'encourage the adaptationof [the] curriculum and its innovative use.'

The Coordinating Committee and 'trainers' in WA (meso level) commentedduring interview that they saw professional development as much moreimportant than the Commonwealth policy initiators did, although they tookon board the need to 'sell' the package to teachers and achieved this byemphasising the links between the package and the new WA Curriculum framework(Curriculum Council, 1998) as part of the professional development sessions.In addition, interview responses reveal that 'trainers' also envisaged theprofessional development sessions as an opportunity to make up for whatthey perceived as the inadequacies of the curriculum package, especially an over-emphasis on 'historical knowledge.' 'Trainers' used various methods to presentprofessional development during network meetings of teachers. In general, thesewere informal meetings, providing for the sharing of experiences and ideas.Comments by 'trainer' and teacher respondents show that thesegroups held contrasting perspectives on the usefulness of such network meetings.'Trainers' saw them as a valuable opportunity to make the curriculum packageavailable, to develop support networks amongst teachers and to build strategiestowards 'active citizenship' education. Teachers, on the other hand, tended to find thenetwork meetings less useful. Some were highly critical, questioning the relevance andusefulness of their professional development. Most teacher respondents believed thatthe meetings were mainly to encourage them to look at the curriculum package andconsider using it, with one respondent claiming the sessions were aimed at 'lettingteachers know the resources existed.' Thus, despite the intentions of 'trainers' toemphasise a pedagogy of active participation and teacher choice, the reality forteachers was more passive.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Discovering democracy 35

Overall, different conceptualisations of the role and effectiveness of State levelprofessional development were held by respondents at different levels of the policytrajectory.

Classroom level practices. Commonwealth policy initiators had clear expectationsthat teachers should use the Discovering Democracy curriculum package as itwas presented (unchanged), stating in interview that the materials were wellstructured for immediate use in the classroom. As one meso level respondentstated:

The purpose is to provide materials in a very accessible way ... the readers are very goodlooking publications and presented in a way that students will find very attractive andthey will encourage students therefore to read and discuss the materials that arepresented.

The Commonwealth Government's report Evaluation of the Discovering Democracyprogram (Erebus Consulting Group, 1999) was critical of teachers who did not use theunits in the package as a whole, finding that teachers who 'pick and choose' from unitswere using the package in 'less educationally productive ways than the potentialallows' (Erebus Consulting Group, 1999, p. xix). This implies a wish by the policyinitiators to control teaching at the micro level of the classroom. However, at a State(meso) level, the Schools resource file advises teachers to 'select the most interesting anduseful sections in each unit which are appropriate for ... their curriculum needs'(Coordinating Committee, 1998b, p. 28). The WA Coordinating Committee and'trainers' also emphasised the importance of professional judgements by teachers assummed up by one respondent: 'We're facilitators and don't own all the knowledge.'At the micro level, teachers completely rejected any notion of a prescribed curriculumwith the most popular approach being to use parts of the Discovering Democracymaterials, as required. The approach by teachers was very individual and dependenton the specific circumstances of their school environment, demonstrating thedifficulties that policy initiators face in attempting to impose specific policy intentionson teachers in schools.

Commonwealth (macro level) policy initiators had expected that DiscoveringDemocracy would make a significant impact on citizenship teaching and learning.However, according to teacher respondents, the package did not have the priority inschools that policy initiators had expected. In particular, teachers had manycompeting demands on their curriculum time and Discovering Democracy was justone curriculum resource amongst many. One respondent had difficulty finding thepackage at his or her school and after searching discovered 'the resources were storedsomewhere out of the way.' Teachers had to have a strong personal interest incitizenship education to take notice.

Respondents at the classroom level, however, did report that the CurriculumCorporation's Readers and CD Roms (Curriculum Corporation, 1998) met thepolicy initiators' purpose of 'selling' the package to teachers and students. TheseReaders and CD Roms were 'marketed' to teachers and students as an interesting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

36 E. Criddle et al.

alternative approach to citizenship education, and, judging from classroom teacherresponses to our questionnaire, they were received positively at the classroom level.The learning outcomes for students from Discovering Democracy were difficult tomeasure and beyond the scope of this study. However, teacher respondents did notethat in spite of attempts at the State level to broaden the Commonwealth's intendedoutcomes to include 'active citizenship' and critical analysis of government, thisoutcome was relatively unlikely to have been achieved. Interestingly, both 'trainers'and teachers identified increased 'historical knowledge' of students as more likely than'active citizenship.'

Overall, teachers modified the curriculum resource package as required.Policy initiators (macro level), 'trainers' (meso level) and teachers (micro level)held differing perspectives on classroom practices associated with DiscoveringDemocracy.

Concluding discussion

The focus now returns to the competing discourses around citizenship education, (asindicated at the start of the findings section) between 'historical knowledge' and'active citizenship' (Gilbert, 1996; Pascoe, 1996; Meredyth & Thomas, 1999).. TheDiscovering Democracy package has been criticised for taking a minimalist approachto civics education and for its heavy reliance on an 'historical knowledge' approach, atthe expense of 'active citizenship' (Robison & Parkin, 1997; Hogan & Fearnley-Sander, 1999; Hunter & Jimenez, 1999; Gill & Reid, 1999). Shanker (1998)supported this type of emphasis on history, arguing that learning 'content' in civiceducation programmes is important as education for democracy is an essential form ofenculturation. However, in contrast to the view that citizenship education should notbe policy challenging, Gilbert (1996) maintained that people will respond to activelearning and participation, supporting a conceptualisation of the learner as anengaged participant who is an agent of change, not a compliant policy consumer.Further, Pascoe (1996, p. 18) has maintained that 'citizenship education ... shouldprovide opportunities for values clarification and for the development of a sense of selfin relation to community. It should empower young people with the confidence andcompetence to engage in public life.'

The findings of this study reveal differences between Commonwealth (macro level)policy initiators, State 'trainers' (meso level) and teachers (micro level) on thediscourses they privilege around citizenship education. Policy initiators saw theprofessional stance taken by some teachers, to set their own agenda of teachingstudents to be change agents, as subversion of their policy agenda, as they (the policyinitiators) had wanted to focus mainly on 'historical knowledge.' However, most'trainers' and teachers saw the Discovering Democracy curriculum policy as anopportunity to engage with 'active citizenship.'

This difference between the policy intention at the macro level and policy practiceat the micro level reflects the inability of policy initiators to control completelyclassroom practices. Even the provision of funding and curriculum content did not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Discovering democracy 37

ensure the Commonwealth held complete control over the enactment of thecurriculum policy at the school level. The Discovering Democracy curriculum policywas filtered, reinterpreted, renegotiated and reconstructed by State and school levelparticipants in the policy process. Views about the policy process from respondents atthe macro, meso and micro levels of the trajectory were often divergent, reflectingtheir different 'worlds' (Gee & Green, 1998) and also clearly pointing to the'messiness' (Ball, 1994) of the policy process.

Several meta level issues emerge from the findings of this study which have broadrelevance and implications in other contexts; for example, where the enactment ofcentrally prescribed 'national' curriculum interacts with more localised educationauthorities and grassroots participants in schools. In particular, issues of consultationand issues around construction of teacher professional identity are paramount, asbriefly highlighted here.

Consultation

This study has revealed the negative impact of poor consultation with interest groupsin policy production and practice. Although there was apparent trial of DiscoveringDemocracy, in the view of teachers and 'trainers', there was insufficient time forcarefully considered feedback and little change evident in response to the feedbackthat was received. This suggests 'contrived' rather than 'genuine' consultation. Thetop-down approach of Commonwealth policy initiators combined with theirperceived lack of responsiveness to feedback from lower levels of the policy trajectoryarguably ignores one of the key resources in curriculum policy construction, which isteachers. The process of policy making employed did not model democraticparticipation.

Hunter and Jimenez maintain that policies on civics education should beresponsive to interest groups and remain 'contestable and debatable, open toinput from all individual and community groups interested in contributing'(Hunter & Jimenez, 1999, p. 29). The issue of who should be consulted iscrucial. There has been a significant, and, we would argue, adverse, shift in thepower of interest groups from those at the grassroots (such as teachers, parentsand students) to increasing control by politicians and bureaucrats. We are notarguing that governments do not have a legitimate role in education policyprocesses, but that their power should not overshadow that of participants mostintimately associated with teaching and learning. Governments have acted to moveaway from 'provider capture', where 'insiders' are all powerful in setting educationdirections, to instead force increased accountability to external 'stakeholders'. We areadamant, however, that while external accountability is important, the pendulum hasswung too far—such that external controls have marginalised interests at thegrassroots level.

In the policy example reported in this article, the Commonwealth Ministerwas extremely powerful, reflecting a trend towards 'ministerialization' ofeducation policy (Dudley & Vidovich, 1995). Also in this example, the particular

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

38 E. Criddle et al.

issue of Commonwealth-State power struggles in education resulting fromAustralia's federal structure is evident; the former level of government withlegal power and the latter with fiscal power coupled with an ideological argumentabout needing to intervene to serve 'the national interest'. The Commonwealthclearly tried to direct State policy and education spending towards its own policypriorities, but, in the case of WA, the participants at the State level insisted on theirright to 'interpret' Commonwealth policy, in this instance using professionaldevelopment for teachers as one vehicle for disrupting the potential hegemony ofthe Commonwealth.

A far more effective strategy for change would involve greater attempts by policyinitiators, in particular, to understand the 'worlds' inhabited by teachers, and otherinterested groups, through genuinely consultative processes. In the Australiancontext, greater acknowledgement by the Commonwealth of the education contextwithin States and greater Commonwealth-State cooperation would facilitate policyenactment in the spirit of 'cooperative federalism' rather than 'coercive federalism'.Genuinely consultative processes must be established.

Teacher professional identity

It was assumed by Commonwealth policy initiators that the intent ofDiscovering Democracy would be faithfully translated into classroomsaround Australia. Professional development was therefore envisaged only as avehicle to encourage teachers to adopt the curriculum package. Arguably, this reflectsa lack of understanding about teaching and a lack of respect for teachers asprofessionals who make their own discretionary judgements. State 'trainers' andteachers, however, positioned themselves as active constructors of policy andpractices in the classroom. Thus, this study revealed competing discourses aboutthe professional identity of teachers, varying between that akin to a technician, whomust passively respond to directions imposed by 'others', to that of a self determiningprofessional, making context-specific judgements and requiring minimal externaldirection.

In relation to the Discovering Democracy curriculum policy, Robison & Parkin(1997) identified an implicit assumption within the curriculum materials thatgovernments can control what teachers do. However, they assert that the packagecan be used in a manner that differs from merely transmitting knowledge, thusrejecting a perspective of teachers as technicians and claiming for them a moreproactive role as professionals in curriculum processes. The approach adopted by theteacher will alter the impact of the package, thereby emphasising that theprofessionalism of teachers is of importance (McRae, 1998). Recommendationsfrom the Informed Citizenship Project of 1997 further support a conceptualisationof the teacher as an engaged, self-developing professional (Brown, 1997; Blackmore &Prior, 1997; Hogan, 1997).

Proudford (1998) has argued that although teachers are usually cast in adependency situation with regard to policy implementation, they need to be actively

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Discovering democracy 39

empowered as professionals. Sachs' (2003) argument for an activist teachingprofession also strongly articulates this view. Teachers' professional identity can bestrengthened through the provision of an environment where they are encouraged toconstruct, indeed to reconstruct, the curriculum. It is our view that the purpose ofprofessional development should expand beyond narrow considerations of 'whatworks' in implementing policy set by others, to empower teachers to develop theirown professional judgments in, and beyond, the classroom. Thus, tailoring theprofessional development of teachers to meet their needs, as they define them, is apreferable strategy for policy enactment.

In conclusion, application of a conceptual framework of a policy trajectory in thisresearch might inform other policy studies. Its value lay in enabling triangulation andcritical reflection 'up' and 'down' the policy trajectory. One limitation of this researchwas that students and parents were not directly involved as respondents, so futureresearch could incorporate their perspectives. The current research emphasised theanalysis of policy processes rather than measurement of learning outcomes, but futureresearch might also involve a longitudinal study of the impact of the DiscoveringDemocracy curriculum policy on learning outcomes across the different States ofAustralia. More generally, a similar type of analysis of citizenship education policy isalso pertinent in many other countries, especially with rising concerns about nationalidentity in an era of globalisation.

ReferencesBall, S. (1994) Education reform: a critical and post-structural approach (Buckingham, Open

University Press).Blackmore, J. & Prior, W. (1997) Citizenship education and professional practice, in: M.

Fearnley-Sander & H. McCann (Eds) Men and women of Australia: a national professionaldevelopment project on informed citizenship in SOSE (Hobart, University of Tasmania),108-118.

Bowe, R., Ball, S. & Gold, A. (1992) Reforming education and changing schools (London,Routledge).

Brown, L. (1997) Evaluation, in: M. Fearnley-Sander & H. McCann (Eds) Men and women ofAustralia: a national professional development project on informed citizenship in SOSE (Hobart,University of Tasmania), 119-135.

Carter, D., Ditchburn, G. & Bennett, G. (1999) Implementing the Discovering Democracy schoolmaterials project in Western Australia: a question of 'fit', Curriculum Perspectives, 19(3),53-57.

Civics Expert Group (1994) Whereas the people ... civics and citizenship education (Canberra,Australian Government Publishing Service).

Coordinating Committee (1998a) Discovering democracy in Western Australian schools. Discoveringdemocracy in Western Australian schools, professional development for teachers: resource file (Perth,WA).

Coordinating Committee (1998b) Discovering Democracy in Western Australian schools. ProfessionalDevelopment for teachers: schools' resource file (Perth, WA).

Coordinating Committee (2000) Discovering Democracy in Western Australian Schools. DiscoveringDemocracy in Western Australian schools professional development for teachers: schools' resource file(2nd edn) (Perth, WA).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

40 E. Griddle et al.

Curriculum Corporation (1998) Discovering Democracy—-primary and secondary kit (Victoria,Curriculum Corporation).

Curriculum Council (1998) Curriculum framework for kindergarten to Year 12 education in WesternAustralia (Osborne Park, WA).

Davies, L. (2000) Citizenship education and human rights education: 1 key concepts and debates(London, The British Council).

Dudley, J. & Vidovich, L. (1995) The politics of education: commonwealth schools policy 1973-1995(Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research).

Erebus Consulting Group (1999) Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy program (Canberra,Commonwealth Department of Education, Training & Youth Affairs).

Gee, J. & Green, J. (1998) Discourse, literacy and social practice, in: P. Pearson (Ed.)Review of research in education (Washington, DC, American Educational ResearchAssociation).

Gilbert, R. (1996) Where are the people? Education, citizenship and the civics expert group report,Curriculum Perspectives, 16(1), 56-61.

Gill, J. & Reid, A. (1999) Civics education: the state of play or the play of the state? CurriculumPerspectives, 19(3), 31-40.

Gill, J. & Reid, A. (2000) Curriculum as political text: the case of Discovering Democracy, in:B. Johnson & A. Reid (Eds) Contesting the curriculum (Australia, Social Science Press),60-73.

Hall, T., Williamson, H. & Coffey, A. (1998) Conceptualising citizenship: young people and thetransition to adulthood, Journal of Education Policy, 13(3), 301-315.

Hogan, D. (1997) Framing civics, in: M. Fearnley-Sander & H. McCann (Eds) Men and women ofAustralia: a national professional development project on informed citizenship in SOSE (Hobart,University of Tasmania), 8-17.

Hogan, D. & Fearnley-Sander, M. (1999) An education for heteronomy: a critique of theDiscovering Democracy project, Curriculum Perspectives, 19(3), 57-63.

Hunter, J. & Jimenez, S. (1999) Civics and citizenship education: what pedagogy? Whatpossibilities? Curriculum Perspectives, 19(3), 20-30.

Ichilov, O. (1998) Patterns of citizenship in a changing world, in: O. Ichilov (Ed.) Citizenship andcitizenship education in a changing world (London, Woburn Press), 11-27.

Kemp, D. (1997) Discovering Democracy, a ministerial speech, presented at the CurriculumCorporation Conference, Sydney, 8 May.

Kemp, D. (2000) School students are discovering Australian democracy. Available online at:www.detya.gov.au/ministers/kernp/mar00/k036_160300.htm

May, T. (1993) Social research: issues, methods and process (Buckingham & Bristol, PA, OpenUniversity Press).

McRae, D. (1998) Lots of good pickings, EQ, Australia, 3, 16-19.Meredyth, D. & Thomas, J. (1999) A civics excursion: ends and means for old and new citizenship

education, History of Education Review, 28(2), 1-15.Pascoe, S. (1996) Civics and citizenship education: the Australian context, Unicom, 22(1), 18-29.Proudford, C. (1998) Implementing educational policy change: implications for teacher

professionalism and professional empowerment, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,26(2), 139-150.

Punch, K. (1998) Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches (London,Sage).

Reid, A. (1996) Selling civics, The Social Educator, 14(1), 9-16.Robison, J. & Parkin, G. (1997) Discovering Democracy: a missed opportunity? The Social

Educator, December, 16-20.Sachs, J. (2003) The activist teaching profession (Buckingham, Open University Press).Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee (1995) Discussion paper on a system of

national citizenship indicators (Canberra, Senate Printing Unit).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Discovering democracy 41

Shanker, A. (1998) Can democracy be taught? Education Quarterly, Australia, 3, 5-7.Vidovich, L. (2002) Expanding the toolbox for policy analysis: some conceptual and practical approaches

(Hong Kong, Comparative Education Policy Research Unit Department of Public andSocial Administration).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

24 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014