View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Official Language Minorities and Geographic Perspectives: Ontario's Dual Approach to Curriculum Development

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Official Language Minorities and Geographic Perspectives: Ontario's Dual Approach to Curriculum Development
Language: English
Authors: Joanne Pattison-Meek (ORCID 0009-0000-4657-2694)
Source: Curriculum Journal. 2026 37(2):299-314.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Language Minorities, Curriculum Development, Official Languages, Foreign Countries, Childrens Rights, Language of Instruction, French, English, Native Language, Geography Instruction, Language Dominance
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1002/curj.70002
ISSN: 0958-5176
1469-3704
Abstract: Since the enactment of the "Canadian Charter of Rights" in 1982, the federal government has recognized Canadian citizens' right to have their children educated in their first official language (French or English), including in settings where a minority of the population speaks that language. As a case in point, Francophones (a term commonly used to describe people who speak French as their first language, and/or speak French in the home) have gained a degree of autonomy in developing curriculum for its French-language schools in Ontario, a majority English-speaking province. Ontario has two distinct versions of curriculum: an English-language version (ELV) for use in English-language schools and a French-language version (FLV) for use in French-language schools. Drawing on a qualitative content analysis, this paper explores the two language versions of the curriculum through the lens of the grade 9 "Issues in Canadian Geography" course. The study of geography examines the nature of patterns and connections between different places and peoples, and the ways places are transformed through cultural and linguistic processes. The analysis provides insights into the ways and the extent to which Ontario's dual approach to curriculum development supports the socio-spatial and spatial-linguistic perspectives and experiences of Francophones as the province's official language minority population. The dual approach is theorized as a curricular core-periphery dynamic, whereby elements of the French-language version are peripheralized in relation to the perspectives and priorities of an English-language dominant core.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 20260101
Accession Number: EJ1503391
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEZLVz-rGxgEeFXA0vgo6R7AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN36IjAR36d55TW75wIBEICBmxnyltTPASc4roPTxqBUriPXT7avaALmVIbX1y7-ojTsWSU60rErpyLS511wrrlH3Q9k8khniIvaPhC0j_zGka7fvsBrJOEXIwIVpSXTtq8uj-V_7VYguneXici8GG3Ex8Sg5Uv1YQjjjnffjR27q3_sNa9z6yzCzhQZQSrLqt7pXibn9BC5b4Jhg_bL2nHhLGLbB9C91YLY-w8_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193085915;5az01jun.26;2026Apr21.02:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193085915-1">Official language minorities and geographic perspectives: Ontario's dual approach to curriculum development </title> <p>Since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights in 1982, the federal government has recognized Canadian citizens' right to have their children educated in their first official language (French or English), including in settings where a minority of the population speaks that language. As a case in point, Francophones (a term commonly used to describe people who speak French as their first language, and/or speak French in the home) have gained a degree of autonomy in developing curriculum for its French‐language schools in Ontario, a majority English‐speaking province. Ontario has two distinct versions of curriculum: an English‐language version (ELV) for use in English‐language schools and a French‐language version (FLV) for use in French‐language schools. Drawing on a qualitative content analysis, this paper explores the two language versions of the curriculum through the lens of the grade 9 Issues in Canadian Geography course. The study of geography examines the nature of patterns and connections between different places and peoples, and the ways places are transformed through cultural and linguistic processes. The analysis provides insights into the ways and the extent to which Ontario's dual approach to curriculum development supports the socio‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic perspectives and experiences of Francophones as the province's official language minority population. The dual approach is theorized as a curricular core‐periphery dynamic, whereby elements of the French‐language version are peripheralized in relation to the perspectives and priorities of an English‐language dominant core.</p> <p>Keywords: dual approach; Francophone; geography; official language minority</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Canada is regarded as one of the most decentralized countries in the world (Lecours, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]). Lawmaking powers in key policy areas are shared constitutionally among the federal government (Government of Canada), 10 provincial governments and 3 territorial governments. Education is one of these vital areas; there is no national department or ministry of education, and very little federal oversight or direction. Instead, 13 distinct education systems operate independently, each responsible for the organization, delivery and assessment of education at both elementary and secondary school levels. Importantly, each province and territory determines their own curriculum, through the direction of a department or ministry of education. This constitutional arrangement has resulted in significant differences across provinces and territories with respect to curriculum, assessment and accountability measures, reflecting the country's diverse geographies, histories and populations.</p> <p>The <emph>Constitution Act, 1867</emph> and the <emph>Constitution Act, 1982</emph>, however, do require the Government of Canada to protect the rights of specific religious minority schools, and the rights of French and English language minority communities, in elementary and secondary education. Since the enactment of the <emph>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</emph> in 1982, the federal government has recognized Canadian citizens' right to have their children educated in their first official language (French or English), including in settings where a minority of the population speaks that language. Section 23 of the <emph>Charter</emph> guarantees minority official language education rights as a tool to resist assimilation and linguistic inequality and guarantees that such rights are sustained through generations of rights holders. Protecting official language minority education rights is a means to preserve and build the identity and culture of French‐speaking communities outside the province of Quebec, which, along with English‐speaking communities in Quebec, form Canada's official language minority populations. Section 23 thus has consequences for the autonomy of official language minorities in curriculum development at provincial and territorial levels.</p> <p>The social studies (e.g., geography, history, civics) are deemed important curricula for official language minority students as venues for learning about education rights enshrined in the <emph>Charter</emph> (Advisory Board on English Education (ABEE), [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]). A review of social studies curricula can provide insights into the ways each province and territory enacts its Section 23 responsibility to attend to the concerns of their official linguistic minority population. While previous research has examined provincial history curriculum in this regard (e.g., Brunet & Gani, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Wallner & Chouinard, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref4">45</reflink>]), the current study focuses on Ontario's geography curriculum. The study of geography examines the nature of patterns and connections between different places and peoples, and the ways spaces are transformed through linguistic and cultural processes. Geography curriculum, therefore, serves as fertile ground from which to explore the research question: in what ways and to what extent can the development of curriculum support and/or impede the socio‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic perspectives of an official language minority group?</p> <p>In what follows, an overview of three curriculum development models for the social studies in Canada is presented. A brief review of geographical education and geographic perspectives follows, leading to a description of the study's curricular context. Next, qualitative content analysis is explained as the method framing the study. Key findings are then offered, followed by a discussion drawing on spatial theory to offer insights for the field of curriculum development and design more broadly.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-3">CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGE MINORITIES</hd> <p>Who has access to the development (e.g., writing) of curriculum can influence whose experiences and perspectives are embedded in programs of study, and how they are represented. Drawing on case studies from Quebec, Alberta and Ontario, Gani ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]) identified three distinct approaches to developing social sciences curricula that consider input from official language minorities. In the first, Quebec's <emph>advisory</emph> approach, Anglophones, as the province's official language minority, tend to have a minimal consultative role and no direct involvement in the writing of the history program. Quebec's two systems of K‐11 education, including French‐language service centres and English‐language school boards, each deliver a common social studies curriculum (the English‐language version being a direct translation of the French‐language document). Widespread discontentment with this approach has been expressed among the English‐speaking community, which they argue has resulted in their lack of visibility in Quebec's past, as well as wrongly portrayed 'as being in perpetual opposition to the French‐speaking community' (Commins, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>A <emph>partnership</emph> approach in Alberta led to the development of a common K‐12 social studies curriculum for implementation in 2005. In this approach, a trio of stakeholders, including Anglophone, Francophone and Indigenous program writers, partnered to develop learning outcomes involving 'the total inclusion' of Francophone and Indigenous perspectives (LearnAlberta, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref7">18</reflink>]). The curriculum was developed in French and English, producing a single program for English‐language and French‐language schools, translated integrally from English to French. While this approach no longer operates in the province, Gani argues that it stands as an unparalleled approach to curriculum development in the social studies, widely embraced by Francophone minority communities and others, to include Francophone and Indigenous perspectives.</p> <p>Ontario, the curricular backdrop of the current study, is home to 650,000 official minority Francophones, more than any other province or territory outside of Quebec (Statistics Canada, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>]). Ontario's Francophones, also referred to as Franco‐Ontarians, hold the right to educate their children in French in schools. Four publicly funded school systems operate in parallel in the province: English public, English Catholic, French public and French Catholic. The two Catholic systems include religious classes and practices in their schools and must also provide mandated courses that align with provincial curricular requirements.</p> <p>Since the formation and consolidation of French‐language school boards in Ontario in the 1980s and 1990s, Francophones have gained a degree of autonomy in developing curriculum for French‐language schools (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]; Sylvestre & Lévesque, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref10">41</reflink>]). The province's method of developing social studies curriculum is referred to as a <emph>dual</emph> approach (Gani, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]). This means that English‐speaking schools and French‐speaking schools each have distinct curriculums—albeit English‐speaking and French‐speaking versions of a similar program. As a result, the province has two curriculum versions: an English‐language version (ELV) and a French‐language version (FLV). Of note is that French Immersion programs implemented in English‐speaking schools must use the English version of curriculum documents as they belong to English school boards.</p> <p>The Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) has a French‐Language Education and Policy Branch responsible for the review and revision of curriculum (Office of the Auditor General of Ontario [OAGO], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>]). Separate program managers oversee their respective French and English writing teams, with each team having discretionary authority to tailor learning content specific to their populations (Fortin‐Gauthier, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]). Those involved with the French‐language writing team integrate greater prominence to Francophone cultural dimensions of knowledge in the curriculum, for example, cultural references to the French‐speaking world (Ministère de l'Éducation de l'Ontario [MÉO], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]; Yamatualé, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref15">47</reflink>]). Such oversight, particularly in the social studies, can lead to the inclusion of distinct cultural interpretations of actors and issues, as is the case with Ontario's history program (Brunet & Gani, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; Wallner & Chouinard, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref17">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ontario's <emph>dual</emph> approach to curriculum development is in keeping with James Banks' ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]) additive approach to multicultural curriculum reform. In this additive approach, content, concepts and perspectives are inserted into a curriculum without altering its core goals or structure. This approach to curriculum development has been described as 'fostering contentment' among curriculum stakeholders in Ontario (Gani, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]). Little critique of this approach has befallen the representation of Francophone minorities within the French‐language version of Ontario's history curriculum. However, the English‐language version of the mandatory grade 10 history curriculum has been scrutinized for its lack of Franco‐Ontarian minority representation and presence (Bolduc & Poulin, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-4">GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES</hd> <p>The extent to which the study of geography—through the development of provincial and territorial curriculum—can enhance the geographic perspectives of official language minority groups, has not yet been explored in scholarship. Geography curriculum, it is argued, connects to history curriculum in elementary and secondary schooling more than most other disciplines (Murphy & Hare, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]). While history curricula are bound together through <emph>temporal</emph> perspectives (interest in how and why things converge at particular instances in the past), geography curricula examine <emph>spatial</emph> perspectives through the location of people, places and phenomena (Murphy & Hare, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>]). Wallerstein ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]) contends that both curricula have supported a central social function of schooling since the late nineteenth century: national integration through the preparation of national citizens. History, as a pillar of this training, supports students to see themselves as 'part of a single national structure whose roots lay deep in time' (p. 79). Geography, also a pillar, teaches a 'hypothetical unity' of a nation, through knowledge of place and appreciation for regional variations (p. 79).</p> <p>In Canada, the study of geography as a discipline has traditionally taught the spatiality of political and social processes that support nation‐building narratives, thus (re)producing the country as a socio‐spatial idea(l) (Laliberté et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]). As a result, the design of geographic curriculum has effectively served as a political practice, privileging 'certain geographic imaginaries while downplaying or erasing others' (Laliberté et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>], pp. 520–521). Critical geographers, however, reject the neutrality of one single epistemological vantage point, or perspective, from which to view the world (Millner, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]; Noxolo, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref27">28</reflink>]). Since people's constructed knowledge and understandings about spaces and places are as important as where things are located, geographical education should be especially concerned with a diversity of human contexts and perspectives (Murphy & Hare, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>In curriculum theorizing, while important to consider the how, why and where (geography) curriculum is developed, Helfenbein ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]) also invites consideration of how the spatial is presented and what it teaches, what he terms the <emph>spatiocurricular</emph>. Such an approach includes a close examination of the social forces that inform such characterizations, as all interpretations of the spatial are inherently value‐laden, influenced by political, economic and cultural processes (see Soja, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]). Helfenbein ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]), drawing on critical geography, explains how spaces and places 'express ideologies, affective forces, and power relations, and are ontological processes filled with living politics that shape how we are as subjects' (p. 7). It is through lived, imagined, discursive and interpretive practices that space comes to be place (Soja, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref32">37</reflink>]). In other words, places are constructed through the interactions that make them possible (Helfenbein, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]). Embedded within these practices and interactions reside opportunities to conceive curriculum as a spatial text (Helfenbein, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The field of curriculum development can benefit from analyses that consider how curricula present and shape what is to be taught and learned from and through the spatial. Because human experiences occupy spaces and places, 'the social constructs that divide, marginalize, empower and oppress' are also, consequentially, spatialized (Helfenbein, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>], pg. 37). Thus, examining whose geographies and perspectives are included (and excluded) in the official geography curriculum, the focus of the current study, can render visible the distinctive socio‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic experiences of certain groups of people (while invisibilizing others) and how they make sense of their places and contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-5">CONTEXT OF STUDY</hd> <p>In the province of Ontario, geographical education in the elementary curriculum (grades 1–6) is blended with history and citizenship education in one <emph>Social Studies</emph> curriculum. <emph>Geography</emph>, as a distinct curriculum, is introduced in middle school (grades 7 and 8), with a focus on global themes (e.g., global settlement). <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]; Ministère de l'Éducation de l'Ontario [MÉO], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]), a grade 9 course in secondary school, is the only geography curriculum (in grades 1–12) dedicated to examining various interrelationships within and between Canada's natural and human systems and how these systems interconnect with those in other parts of the world. It is also a required course to graduate from secondary school and so may be the only geography content students engage with in upper grades.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>] Given this curriculum's emphasis on geographic perspectives within Canada (e.g., examining an issue from multiple points of view) as well as mandatory enrolment, it is well suited to address the focus of this study.</p> <p>An analysis of the two language versions of <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> (FLV and ELV) curricula can help us to understand the ways and the extent to which the dual approach to curriculum development can support the socio‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic perspectives and experiences of the province's official language, Francophone minority population. At a glance, there are at least three stories residing within the two language versions of the <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> curricula: one common story that lives across both versions, one story in English that is not told in French (ELV) and one story in French that is not told in English (FLV).</p> <p>Drawing on a qualitative content analysis, this study seeks to explore the following questions: In what ways do the three stories in the <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> curricula include (or not) the geographic perspectives of Francophones? To what extent does the French‐language version support distinct geographic perspectives about Canada and Francophones, their identities and spatial experiences (past and present)?</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-6">QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS</hd> <p>Qualitative content analysis is widely regarded as a flexible method for analysing textual data (Prior, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref39">33</reflink>]). This approach entails a systematic review of a body of texts through application of a consistent coding framework to capture and categorize explicit and implicit content (Neuendorf, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]; Schreier, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]). To gain a more holistic view of both language versions of the <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> curricula (the ELV and FLV) under study, the analysis in this study included an examination of the preliminary matter in each (e.g., preface, planning considerations for teachers), as well as the prescribed curricular content. In total, the analysis included 88 pages of text in the ELV and 89 pages of text in the FLV.</p> <p>The analysis entailed three stages. The first stage involved data familiarization, which included reading and rereading each language version separately and making notes of initial impressions and observations (e.g., identifying possible codes derived directly from the text). The second stage compared the preliminary matter of both language versions. This preliminary matter included prefaces, introductions, planning and assessment considerations as well as sections unique to each language version. The third stage entailed an exploration of the similarities and differences of geographic perspectives presented in the English‐language and French‐language versions.</p> <p>The researcher and two assistants conducted each phase of the analysis independently, followed by debriefing sessions to compare their notes and observations. NVivo software supported managing, coding, and annotating the data. As part of the de‐contextualization process, each reader examined the text and extracted meaning units, including phrases, sentences and questions (Graneheim et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]) in relation to Francophone identity, culture, language, perspectives and spatial experiences. Using a conventional inductive coding process, codes were defined during data analysis and derived from the data (Hsieh & Shannon, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]). A code (a conceptual tag to describe the meaning of that unit) was assigned to each condensed unit.</p> <p>The process of re‐contextualization involved the construction of categories by sorting codes with similar or identical meanings/concepts and identifying patterns (Lindgren et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]). The (re)development of codes and analytical categories to depict distinctive characteristics of the data was an ongoing, intuitive process. Categories converged to form larger themes (<emph>Language and linguistic identity, Population perspectives through the looking glass, Immigration and social integration, Rural realities</emph>) based on the meaning(s) ascribed to categories. Reviewing themes was an iterative process; themes were consistently checked against codes and the full data set. This qualitative approach allowed for analysis of the socio‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic context of content through consideration of meanings implied through the presence and absence of content across the two language versions.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-7">ORGANIZATION OF ONTARIO'S GRADE 9 ISSUES IN CANADIAN GEOGRAPHY CURRICULUM</hd> <p>In Ontario, learning expectations in the grade 9 geography curriculum are organized into four distinct yet interrelated major geographic themes (also referred to as strands). These themes include the following, in both the French language version (expressed as translations) and the English language version (shown in parentheses):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Natural environment and human activity (<emph>Interactions in the Physical Environment</emph>)</item> <p></p> <item> Natural resources and economic activity (<emph>Managing Canada's Resources and Industries</emph>)</item> <p></p> <item> Canadian communities (<emph>Changing Populations</emph>)</item> <p></p> <item> Sustainable communities (<emph>Liveable Communities</emph>)</item> </ulist> <p> <emph>Overall learning goals</emph> that describe the knowledge and skills students are expected to acquire by the end of the geography course guide each of these four themes. For example, take the theme entitled <emph>Canadian communities</emph> in the French‐language curriculum (Ministère de l'Éducation de l'Ontario [MÉO], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref45">22</reflink>], pp. 90–92) and its equivalent theme <emph>Changing Populations</emph> in the English‐language curriculum (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>], pp. 81–83). Their three common <emph>Overall learning goals</emph> are listed in Table 1 below:</p> <olist> <item> TABLE Overall learning goals for the geographic theme Canadian communities in the FLV and Changing Populations in the ELV.</item> </olist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left"><italic>Canadian communities</italic> (MÉO, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2018</xref>, p. 90, shown in translation)</th><th align="left"><italic>Changing populations</italic> (OME, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2018</xref>, p. 81)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">C1. analyse key demographic characteristics and human settlement trends in Canada</td><td align="left">D1. analyse selected national and global population issues and their implications for Canada</td></tr><tr><td align="left">C2. describe political, economic, social and environmental considerations related to immigration and the diversity of Canada's population</td><td align="left">D2. describe the diversity of Canada's population, and assess some social, economic, political, and environmental implications of immigration and diversity for Canada</td></tr><tr><td align="left">C3. describe the implications of demographic issues for Canada and the world</td><td align="left">D3. analyse patterns of population settlement and various demographic characteristics of the Canadian population</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>At the end of the <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> course, students following either the French‐language or English‐language curriculum are expected to achieve the same <emph>Overall learning goals</emph>.</p> <p>The knowledge and skills pertaining to each <emph>Overall learning goal</emph> are explained in detail in associated specific learning goals (referred to as <emph>Specific expectations</emph> in the curriculum guide). The example below (drawing on the same theme from Table 1) describes one specific learning goal (of five) that supports the <emph>Overall learning goal</emph> C1 in the FLV: <emph>analyse key demographic characteristics and human settlement trends in Canada</emph> (translation), and its equivalent in the ELV, D3: <emph>analyse patterns of population settlement and various demographic characteristics of the Canadian population</emph>. Suggested content examples (or big ideas) immediately follow each expectation in italics as well as sample question prompts, referred to as <emph>Pistes de réflexion</emph> in the FLV (Table 2).</p> <p>2 TABLE Comparable example of Specific expectations that support C1. (FLV) and D3. (ELV) (from Table 1).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">C1.3 (translation) describe the evolution of population settlement in Canada (e.g., increased population density and diversity in large urban centres, growth of surrounding cities and rural communities, and low demographics of those most remote; urban sprawl along major highways in metropolitan regions; remote communities whose transport and communication infrastructures are insufficiently developed)</td><td align="left">D3.1 describe patterns of population settlement in Canada (e.g., linear, scattered, clustered), and assess the importance of various factors in determining population size, distribution, and density (e.g., landforms; climate; proximity to food and water sources; connections to transportation, communications, energy, economic networks)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sample questions: What percentage of the population of Canada today lives in urban areas? What link can be established between the presence of transport infrastructure and population density in a given territory? Which regions of Canada are most likely to see their population grow in the coming years?</td><td align="left">Sample questions: Where do people live in Canada and why? What are some physical factors that may influence the location of a settlement? How might access to various forms of transportation influence the development and density of communities? Why might a city prefer to be called a town? Why do some settlements grow into large metropolitan areas and others stay as small towns?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: ELV, English‐language version; FLV, French‐language version.</p> <p>The sample prompts are meant to clarify the intended level of complexity of content associated with each <emph>Specific expectation</emph>. Importantly, suggested italicized content examples and question prompts are not required elements to be taught, but illustrations that act as a guide. How students arrive at the <emph>Overall learning goals</emph>, or course goals, drawing on which content, is ultimately determined by their teachers who plot a trajectory through the curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-8">ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193085915-9">Preliminary matter</hd> <p>Distinctive differences are expressed across the two language versions in the sections that precede the prescribed curricular content. French language, French culture and Francophone identity are all foregrounded in the preliminary matter of the FLV as core elements of students' identity construction. As one example, embedded in the preface is a section explaining the significance of the French Language School and its cultural approach to teaching. A cultural approach is designed to nurture students' <emph>openness and awareness</emph> (to/of Francophone realities), <emph>experience</emph> (Francophone socio‐cultural contexts) and <emph>affirmation</emph> (asserting Francophone identity) through language and cultural references. Teachers, as cultural role models, cultural facilitators and mediators of Francophone culture, are explicitly tasked with embedding French references into their teaching and assessment practices.</p> <p>Comparatively, there is no recognition of the English language as a marker of cultural identity in the preliminary matter of the ELV, nor any reference to the existence of French language schools in the province. There is no acknowledgement of language or culture, except for one section outlining program considerations for supporting English language learners. These omissions reflect the power and universality of English as the dominant language in Ontario, a force that, it seems, requires no explanation to legitimate its use in the development of curriculum (Wallner & Chouinard, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-10">Prescribed curricular content</hd> <p>The four shared geographical themes, inclusive of their <emph>Overall learning goals</emph> and <emph>Specific expectations</emph>, represent the common story told in the two language versions of the <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> curricula. All <emph>Overall learning goals</emph> align, though with subtle variations in their order of appearance (discussed below). Additionally, the ELV and FLV share most suggested content examples and question prompts. The FLV, however, contains some content, expressed as examples and prompts, that is distinct from the ELV in relation to Francophone perspectives and references to Canada's two official languages (French and English).</p> <p>Geographic perspectives in the FLV in relation to Francophones appear in three of the four main themes: <emph>Natural environment and human activity, Natural resources and economic activity</emph> and <emph>Canadian communities</emph>. These distinct perspectives are captured in the four findings discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-11">Language and linguistic identity</hd> <p>The presence, absence and application of terms and concepts relating to language and linguistic identity are significant markers that distinguish each curriculum version. Overall, curricular content in the FLV refers to language‐related terms on 14 occasions in the <emph>Canadian communities</emph> strand alone. Embedded as question prompts in the FLV, official languages and the co‐existence of two official language communities emerge as defining demographic characteristics of the Canadian population. Examples include the following:</p> <p>How is linguistic duality expressed in figures in Canadian society?</p> <p>What is the growth rate of the French‐speaking population in different regions of Canada? (C1.1, translation)</p> <p>The ELV, on the other hand, makes no mention of a national minority community within the boundaries of the province. The ELV does not recognize either of Canada's two official languages in either examples or sample questions, nor does it make any reference to the terms Anglophone or Francophone. Linguistic duality and official language minorities do not exist in the common story expressed in the two language versions, nor in the ELV on its own.</p> <p>As another illustration, within the <emph>Natural resources and economic activity</emph> strand of the FLV, under the learning goal <emph>determine the main factors influencing the location of an industry</emph> (translation), there is one textual reference to Francophones presented in the question prompts:</p> <p>Where are the main French‐speaking cultural industries in Canada located?</p> <p>What factors explain their location? What new industries could be established in our community given its current infrastructure? (B2.3, translation)</p> <p>While the ELV also acknowledges <emph>cultural industries</emph> (C3.4) within the same strand, it does not offer any specific cultural group as an example. The ELV does, however, offer the following sample question as a prompt:</p> <p>What industrial location factors make Sault Ste. Marie an attractive site for alternative energy development? (C3.4)</p> <p>While alternative energy is not typically associated with cultural industry, the community of Sault Ste. Marie, located in northern Ontario, has strong Francophone roots dating back to 1622. This Francophone presence resulted in the city's current name (in English, <emph>Rapids of St. Mary</emph>). There is no reference in the ELV to any socio‐spatial or spatial‐linguistic factors that may have led to the initial historic settlement of the area, based on its physical and natural resource features. By extension, the ELV does not include any toponymical examples to explain the emergence of industries; such geographic context appears only in the FLV.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-12">Through the looking glass</hd> <p>The bulk of geographic perspectives pertaining to Francophone cultural dimensions in the FLV are embedded in the <emph>Canadian communities</emph> strand. As Table 1 shows, this theme requires students to analyse demographic and settlement patterns and trends in relation to the Canadian population and evaluate their effects in local, national and global contexts. While the <emph>Overall learning goals</emph> do not suggest any substantial differences in the content embedded in each language version, the dissimilarity expressed in each of the wordings to describe the geographic theme does: <emph>Canadian communities</emph> (FLV translation) and <emph>Changing Populations</emph> (ELV). Each phraseology implies a different geographic perspective.</p> <p>The English‐language theme, <emph>Changing Populations</emph>, suggests that multiple populations, not necessarily those limited to Ontario or Canada, are in a state of flux or transformation. As observed in the order of appearance of the strand's three <emph>specific expectations</emph>, Canada's responsibilities regarding global population issues are discussed ahead of more local issues (refer to Table 1). The ELV's story begins by imagining Canada's role on the global stage to engage with demographic challenges (D1). For example, one learning expectation reads: <emph>determine criteria that should be used to assess Canada's responses to global population issues</emph> (D1.3). The story shifts to immigration (D2), focusing on social, political and economic elements of immigration and refugee policies at the national level. The story ends with a consideration of perspectives on settlement trends and patterns within Canadian communities (D3). The <emph>Changing Populations</emph> theme thus transitions from global, national, to local analyses of population perspectives.</p> <p>In the French‐language curriculum, the heading <emph>Canadian communities</emph> suggests a different geographic perspective, one that begins at local community and provincial (Ontario) levels (C1), progressing to the national (C2), then on to global analyses of populations (C3). In the opening of this story, the FLV brings to light historical factors as examples, such as linguistic and cultural communities that have established on the provincial territory for varying lengths of time. One sample question asks: <emph>What factors explain the settlement of Francophones in the different regions of Ontario, including ours?</emph> (C1.2, translation). In this story, Francophone communities and identities are framed as a collective in the acknowledgement that they are 'our own'. Such references to 'our' communities and distinct regions clearly signal that Francophone learners are centred as the intended audience and active participants in their own story. The <emph>Natural environment and human activity</emph> strand of the FLV also includes distinct references to Francophone cities and regions in Quebec as examples for further study (e.g., Saguenay, Gaspésie).</p> <p>The ELV does not make any similar reference to 'our' (English‐speaking) communities. Nor does the ELV, within the <emph>Changing populations</emph> strand, explicitly acknowledge any settlements specific to Ontario. The FLV, in contrast, refers to various historical, physical, economic and social factors explaining Franco‐Ontarian settlements within the province. Ontario attracts almost half of all new permanent residents to Canada. As a magnet for immigration, it is not surprising that the dominant perspective in the ELV prioritizes a global view. The silent equivalent of 'our' in the ELV may just be in reference to 'our world'—to support inclusion of the province's increasing immigrant youth who are likely to attend English‐speaking schools in greater numbers than French‐speaking schools (Ministère de l'Éducation de l'Ontario [MÉO], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>The ELV does, however, prompt students to reflect on local communities by comparing demographics of different communities. For example, <emph>choose two communities other than your own, one with a large population and one with a small population. How do the population characteristics of your community compare with the population characteristics of these communities?</emph> (D3.4). This approach can be likened to Lewis Carroll's (Carroll, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]) <emph>Through the Looking Glass</emph>. Drawing on this metaphor, the world can appear both recognizable and yet turned inside out, like looking outward from inside a mirror. Nurturing students' awareness of their own circumstances and lived experiences in one place, in contrast with distant others, may enable some students to see themselves more clearly in relation to others (Nieto, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]). Such comparative invitations are also included in the FLV, but only after students hold up a mirror, to invite inward reflections of Francophone identity and culture in their 'own' Ontario communities before casting their gaze outward (nationally and globally) through the looking glass. In these ways, the reverse ordering of the <emph>Overall learning goals</emph>, though seemingly benign, does appear a promising approach to enable each language version to convey a distinct geographic perspective.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-13">Immigration and social integration</hd> <p>While both language programs fundamentally support immigration and social integration as part of their common story (see Table 1: FLV, C2; ELV, D2), they each nonetheless convey distinct perspectives in this area. Immigration is regarded as one way to meet the social, demographic and economic needs of small populations. Francophones in Ontario represent only 4.6% of the province's total population (Statistics Canada, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref51">40</reflink>]). The Government of Canada collaborates with provinces and territories to encourage French‐speaking immigrants to settle in communities outside of Quebec (the only province having French as its official language) to bolster Francophone minority populations. It is not surprising then, to see the FLV describe as a political, economic, and social implication of immigration and refugee policies, the development of official language minority communities (C2.3). As such, the FLV describes specific provisions to support Francophone newcomers. For example: <emph>What initiatives are French‐speaking communities in Ontario or elsewhere in the country taking to meet the needs of French‐speaking newcomers?</emph> (C2.2, translation). A newcomer program, PANA (<emph>Programme d'appui aux nouveaux arrivants</emph>), is offered as a specific example of one initiative to support immigrant youth arriving in Ontario's French‐language schools.</p> <p>The FLV highlights as an implication of immigration and refugee policies the obligation to implement relevant programs under Canadian official languages legislation to support social integration (C2.3). With respect to language training for immigrants and refugees, the FLV specifies that language training programs for adult newcomers take place in the official language of their choice (C2.2). The ELV, which includes 4 mentions to language in its <emph>Changing Populations</emph> theme, are all in relation to the delivery of programs to support the social integration of new immigrants and refugees in Canada. Examples of program supports expressed in the ELV (and also in the FLV) include: <emph>language training</emph> and <emph>provision of cultural and social support services in several languages</emph> (D2.2). As a point of departure, unlike the FLV, the ELV does not recognize training specific to Canada's two official languages, English and French, but to <emph>several</emph> indistinctive languages.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-14">Rural realities</hd> <p>Each language version of the geography curriculum presents different perspectives of rural peoples and contexts. In both curricula, the term 'rural' appears in the <emph>Specific expectation</emph> that analyses internal migration trends among various groups within Canada (ELV, D3.5; FLV, 1.4). As an example, the ELV refers to <emph>rural residents moving to urban centres</emph> and prompts students to consider the question: <emph>Why would people choose to leave a rural life and move to an urban settlement?</emph> These are the only two considerations of rural settlement in the ELV, framed geographically through the perspective of urbanization.</p> <p>The FLV also recognizes processes of urbanization; however, they are explored as a rural exodus faced by Franco‐Ontarian populations:</p> <p>What explains the rural exodus? According to data from the latest Statistics Canada census on the French‐speaking community of Ontario, how is the growing urbanization of this population reflected in numbers? (C1.4, translation)</p> <p>This line of inquiry is not surprising given that many Francophone communities, particularly those in Northeastern Ontario, reside in rural settings that struggle with rural migration to more urban Central and Eastern Ontario. Franco‐Ontarians have deep historical roots in agriculture and natural resource industries that helped to establish Francophone settlements in rural areas. These socio‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic historical attachments to rural communities may also explain why local demographic perspectives make an earlier appearance in the FLV compared to the ELV: as a means to hold up the mirror to invite examination of 'our' connections to rural, Francophone communities.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-15">A summary of findings</hd> <p>As discussed in the analysis, the four major geographic themes, as well as their associated mandatory learning goals (<emph>Overall</emph> and <emph>Specific</emph>), are comparable across the two curriculum versions as the common curriculum. A key difference between the two versions is how some Francophone experiences, perspectives and issues have, in effect, been inserted as distinct suggested content examples and question prompts in the FLV—none of which are required to be taught. So, while the Ontario Ministry of Education's French‐Language Education and Policy Branch is afforded discretionary power to add content, this variation of the dual approach seems to highlight a potential weakness in the capacity of the curriculum to support the vitality of Francophone identity if left to the discretion of teachers in French‐language schools. The analysis further reveals that, although Ontario curriculum policy formally recognizes linguistic duality (through separate school boards and distinct versions of curriculum), such structural provisions do not ensure equivalent representation or visibility of Francophones across curricular texts.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-16">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Drawing on geographic thinking, a core‐periphery dynamic is a compelling theoretical tool to make sense of the dual approach to curriculum development and to curriculum design more broadly. Peripheries are geographical constructs, rooted in core‐periphery dynamics, resulting from processes of spatial polarization (Pugh & Dubois, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref52">34</reflink>]). The central notion underlying this spatial theory is distance and its role in encouraging or inhibiting recognition of different (or other/ed) perspectives. While peripheries are afforded a spatial status as being close to or far away from a core, peripheralization is a process to explain the production of peripheries owing to unequal social relations and their social implications (Willett et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref53">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Informed by the findings of the current study, Figure 1 depicts a curricular core‐periphery model based on this spatial theory. The mandatory core learning goals (<emph>Overall</emph> or <emph>Specific</emph>) shared by the two language versions (the common curriculum, or story) represent a curricular core. Framing the periphery, on one level, are the non‐binding, suggested content examples and question prompts (not required to be taught) also shared across the ELV and FLV. On another level, learning elements relating to Francophone social‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic perspectives in the FLV are peripheral to the common curriculum, or curricular core, and peripheral to the ELV. Francophones (as well as any reference to linguistic duality and official language minorities) do not exist in the English‐language version. Such perspectives are thereby further relegated—peripheralized as additive (see Banks, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>])—to the curricular margins.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5AZ/01jun26/curj70002-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNLe80Sepq84zdnyOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="curj70002-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 A curricular core‐periphery model based on spatial theory." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Qualitatively, conceptualizations of the periphery tend to be based upon binary analysis, that is, in contrast to the core. This core–periphery paradigm typically views the periphery as highly dependent upon and subordinate to the core. Planetary urbanists, for example, argue that the world should be understood through the lens of an urban core (e.g., see Brenner & Schmid, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref55">5</reflink>]). The periphery is, in effect, viewed as lagging‐behind places and perspectives, not significant or influential enough to penetrate the core. The periphery is relative, as the processes that shape it are continually contrasted and benchmarked against those in a more prominent core. This spatial relationship revealed itself as a rural–urban divide in this study's findings, based on how rural places are presented as peripheral and thereby deficit in both the ELV and FLV: as communities in decline. As one example, rather than consider why people would choose to leave urban life and move to a rural settlement, each curriculum instead focuses on migration from rural (periphery) to urban (core).</p> <p>Pertaining to linguistic identity, there is no acknowledgement of the English language as a marker of cultural identity anywhere in the ELV. This absence essentially positions English as an unnamed Anglo‐dominant core (see den Heyer & Conrad, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]). Sociologist Antonio Gramsci's notion of <emph>commonsense</emph> supports the idea that the perspectives and priorities of the dominant group (core) in society are embedded (assumed and not challenged) in official curricular content (Apple, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]). Curricular common sense refers to core knowledge, skills and dispositions that are normalized: naively fed to students by their teachers (Tupper et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref58">43</reflink>]). 'The uncritical acceptance of commonsense (embodied in core curriculum) may shut down possible alternative visions for what society might look like by consistently reifying a dominant vision' (Tupper & Cappello, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref59">42</reflink>], p. 40). In this way, the ELV reinforces the hegemonic dominance of the English language (Wallner & Chouinard, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]) as curricular common sense, closing opportunities to examine its authority and cultural influence.</p> <p>For Anglophone teachers (and their students) to disengage with minoritized perspectives through curriculum is at the core of their privilege (den Heyer & Conrad, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]). The dual approach to curriculum development in Ontario, based on the current analysis, has thus led to a geography of ignorance of Francophone perspectives in the ELV. Students attending English‐language schools in Ontario, especially those not attending French immersion programs, may have little opportunity to engage with the experiences of official language minority communities and how Francophones (and Anglophones in Quebec) make sense of their official language minority status (e.g., toponymical understandings, rural exodus). As an additional consequence, students attending English‐language schools risk leaving school with minimal (if any) understanding of linguistic dualism, official language minorities, and political and social processes that constitutionally support official language minority rights.</p> <p>Is the curricular periphery, however, a spatial obstacle to overcome? Rather than frame the curricular periphery as distanced (from), optional (to), and/or weaker (than the core), perhaps such curricular perspectives are legitimized by virtue of having their own distinct peripherality. Geography and rural scholars have long argued that peripheral places and peoples are distinct, worthy of recognition in and of themselves (e.g., Pattison‐Meek, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]; Sørensen & Svendsen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref63">38</reflink>]). They claim that if the periphery is absolute, then it should be studied based on its intrinsic qualities, independent from the core. The power to include Francophone perspectives in the official curriculum may not narrow Francophone students' geographic knowledge and understandings but may instead provide Francophone students a sense of belonging in an otherwise majority‐English official language province. These possibilities warrant future investigation to examine the extent to which the enactment of the FLV has the capacity to shape students' identity formation and cultural engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-18">IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This paper provides insights into one approach to curriculum development and its capacity to both support and impede the socio‐spatial and spatial‐linguistic perspectives of an official language minority group in Canada. Drawing on spatial analysis, a curricular core‐periphery model is presented to make sense of these insights and to think through (e.g., visualize) relations of power and privilege embedded in curriculum and its design. The model proves a useful tool to surface, conceptualize and map these power dynamics, including a rural–urban divide and the dominance of the English language as curricular common sense in curriculum development, albeit within one majority‐English provincial setting. This model expands possibilities in the field of curriculum development through incorporating spatial awareness and context into educational practices.</p> <p>Applying spatial analyses to curriculum need not be limited to geographical texts, as happened to be the case in the current study. A curriculum—textual or other—can be viewed as geography, in the ways its subjects (e.g., linguistic groups) are 'mapped, bordered, defined, and even erased' (Helfenbein, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref64">14</reflink>], p. 7). For critical geographers, however, any spatial representation, such as maps (as curriculum), presents opportunities to understand how space, place and power dynamics affect knowledge production and social relations: <emph>Who held the pencil to draw/define its borders? Whose perspective(s) decided who and where was centred?</emph> In this way, curriculum theory has much in common with critical geography (Helfenbein, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref66">14</reflink>]; Helfenbein & Huddleston, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]) and may benefit from further analyses that consider how curricula present and shape what is to be taught and learned from and through the spatial.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-19">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>The author gratefully acknowledges her research assistants, Ashley Henderson‐Croteau and Olivia Kidd Monette, for their insightful comments and contributions during multiple rounds of analysis. The author also extends a heartfelt thanks to Raphaël Gani for his ongoing encouragement and continued support during this project.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-20">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>The author received no funding for this project.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-21">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>No financial interest or benefit has arisen from the direct applications of this research.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-22">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0193085915-23">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>No ethical permission was required to conduct this research.</p> <ref id="AN0193085915-24"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> <emph>Issues in Canadian Geography</emph> (2018) is offered through two different learning streams (pathways) in Ontario: <emph>Academic</emph> and <emph>Applied</emph>. The former centres on theoretical and analytical applications of geographic concepts, whereas the latter affords students more practical, hands‐on experiences to acquire geographic skills. This study focuses on curriculum associated with the <emph>Academic</emph> stream because of its emphasis on conceptual knowledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0193085915-25"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Advisory Board on English Education (ABEE). (2018). Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. In Revisiting the 1992 task force report on English education in Québec. Gouvernement du Canada du Québec. Plusçachange,plusc'estpareil:Revisitingthe1992TaskForceReportonEnglishEducationinQuébec(gouv.qc.ca)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref57" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Apple, M. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (3rd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Banks, J. (2006). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, & M. Okazawa‐Rey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays (pp. 193–197). Teaching for Change.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bolduc, A., & Poulin, A. (2017). L'histoire des Franco‐Ontariens absente des manuels scolaires anglophones. Ici Toronto. https://ici.radio‐canada.ca/nouvelle/1053270/histoire‐franco‐ontarienne‐ecole‐anglophone</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref55" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban?City, 19(2–3), 151–182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brunet, M. H., & Gani, R. (2020). Les francophones (in)visibles: Comparaison du curriculum ontarien en histoire, version française et anglaise. Bulletin Du CREAS, 7, 23–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref49" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carroll, L. (1872/1999). Through the looking‐glass. Dover Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Commins, J. (2016). Proposed new Quebec history course gives minorities short shrift. The Gazette. https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/opinion‐proposed‐new‐quebec‐history‐course‐gives‐minorities‐short‐shrift</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref56" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> den Heyer, K., & Conrad, D. (2011). Using Alain Badiou's ethic of truths to support an 'eventful' social justice teacher education program. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27(1), 7–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fortin‐Gauthier, É. (2018). Éducation sexuelle: différences surprenantes en français et en anglais. ONFR+. Document accessible à l'adresse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gani, R. (2023). Three Approaches to Writing School Programs with Official Language Minorities. QUESCREN Research Brief #9. https://<ulink href="http://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/scpa/quescren/docs/Brief%5f9%5fGani%5fENG.pdf">www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/scpa/quescren/docs/Brief%5f9%5fGani%5fENG.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B. M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helfenbein, R. J. (2011). Thinking through scale: Critical geography and curriculum spaces. In E. Malewsky (Ed.), Curriculum studies handbook: The next moment (pp. 304–317). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helfenbein, R. J. (2021). Critical geographies of education: Space, place, and curriculum inquiry. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helfenbein, R. J., & Huddleston, G. (2021). Curriculum studies, critical geography, and critical spatial theory. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh, H.‐F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laliberté, N., Catungal, J. P., Castleden, H., Keeling, A., Momer, B., & Nash, C. (2015). Teaching the geographies of Canada: Reflections on pedagogy, curriculum, and the politics of teaching and learning. The Canadian Geographer, 59(4), 519–531.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LearnAlberta. (2007). Alberta social studies program development (interview response–question 1). https://<ulink href="http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/sscdi/html/shirley%5fdaniel%5fdebbie%5f1.html">www.learnalberta.ca/content/sscdi/html/shirley%5fdaniel%5fdebbie%5f1.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lecours, A. (2019). Dynamic de/centralization in Canada, 1867‐2010. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 49(1), 57–83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindgren, B. M., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H. (2020). Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 108, 103632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Millner, N. (2022). Unsettling feelings in the classroom: Scaffolding pedagogies of discomfort as part of decolonising human geography in higher education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–20. https://doi‐org.proxy.ubishops.ca:2443/10.1080/03098265.2021.2004391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministère de l'Éducation de l'Ontario [MÉO]. (2018). Curriculum d'études canadiennes et mondiale, 9e et 10e années: Enjeux géographiques du Canada, 9e année, cours théorique (pp. 77–95), French‐language version. <ulink href="http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2018fr.pdf">http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2018fr.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministère de l'Éducation de l'Ontario [MÉO]. (2009). Une approche culturelle de l'enseignement pour l'appropriation de la culture dans les écoles de langue française de l'Ontario. Document accessible à l'adresse. <ulink href="http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/amenagement/PourLaFrancophonie2009.pdf">http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/amenagement/PourLaFrancophonie2009.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministère de l'Éducation de l'Ontario [MÉO]. (2022). Facts about elementary and secondary education. https://<ulink href="http://www.ontario.ca/page/facts‐about‐elementary‐and‐secondary‐ed">www.ontario.ca/page/facts‐about‐elementary‐and‐secondary‐ed</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, A., & Hare, P. (2016). The nature of geography and its perspectives in AP human geography. Journal of Geography, 115, 95–100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity. In S. Nieto & P. Bode (Eds.), The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noxolo, P. (2022). Geographies of race and ethnicity 1: Black geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 46(5), 1232–1240. https://doi‐org.proxy.ubishops.ca:2443/10.1177/03091325221085291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of the Auditor General of Ontario [OAGO]. (2020). Value‐for‐money audit: Curriculum development, implementation and delivery. https://<ulink href="http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en20/20VFM%5f03curriculum.pdf">www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en20/20VFM%5f03curriculum.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ontario Ministry of Education [OME]. (2009). Une approche culturelle de l'enseignement pour l'appropriation de la culture dans les écoles de langue française de l'Ontario. <ulink href="http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/amenagement/PourLaFrancophonie2009.pdf">http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/amenagement/PourLaFrancophonie2009.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ontario Ministry of Education [OME]. (2018). Canadian and World Studies Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10. Issues in Canadian Geography, Grade 9, Academic (pp. 63–102), English‐language version. https://<ulink href="http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2018.pdf">www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2018.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pattison‐Meek, J. (2018). Challenging a single story of ruralness: Empathy libraries as a means to explore diversity in our midst. Ohio Social Studies Review, 55(2), 6–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, L. (2012). The role of documents in social research. In S. Delamont (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 426–438). Edward Elgar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pugh, R., & Dubois, A. (2021). Peripheries within economic geography: Four "problems" with the road ahead of us. Journal of Rural Studies, 87, 267–275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real‐and‐imagined spaces. Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sørensen, J. F. L., & Svendsen, G. L. H. (2023). What makes peripheral places matter? Applying the concept of political capital within a multiple capital framework. Journal of Rural Studies, 133, 103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Statistics Canada. (2023a). Profile of the Francophone population in Ontario—2016 (2021 census update). https://<ulink href="http://www.ontario.ca/page/profile‐francophone‐population‐ontario‐2016#section‐0">www.ontario.ca/page/profile‐francophone‐population‐ontario‐2016#section‐0</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Statistics Canada. (2023b). Key facts on the French language in Ontario in 2021. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89‐657‐x/89‐657‐x2023017‐eng.htm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylvestre, P.‐F., & Lévesque, S. (2018). Historique des écoles de langue française en Ontario. In C. Isabelle (Ed.), (dir.) Système scolaire franco‐ontarien. D'hier à aujourd'hui pour le plein potentiel des élèves (pp. 7–40). PUQ.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tupper, J., & Cappello, M. (2012). (Re)creating citizenship: Saskatchewan high school students' understandings of the "good" citizen. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(1), 37–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tupper, J., Cappello, M., & Sevigny, P. (2010). Locating citizenship: Curriculum, social class and the 'good' citizen. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(3), 298–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, I. (1998). The time of space and the space of time: The future of social science. Political Geography, 17(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962‐6298(96)00097‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallner, J., & Chouinard, S. (2023). Nation‐building and curriculum in Canada. In D. Trohler (Ed.), Education, curriculum and nation‐building (pp. 149–172). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willett, J., Williams, M., Akerman, L., Rawlinson, H., Ghezal, A., & Pitts, F. H. (2025). Peripheralization and economic development: a multi‐causal approach. European Planning Studies, 33(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2025.2492180</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamatualé, D. (2002). Le nouveau curriculum de l'Ontario face au défi de la formation identitaire de la jeunesse franco‐ontarienne: Étude comparative du programme‐cadre des études sociales destinées aux écoles anglophones et francophones [Unpublished master's thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education].</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Joanne Pattison‐Meek</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref67"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503391
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Official Language Minorities and Geographic Perspectives: Ontario's Dual Approach to Curriculum Development
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joanne+Pattison-Meek%22">Joanne Pattison-Meek</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4657-2694">0009-0000-4657-2694</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Curriculum+Journal%22"><i>Curriculum Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 37(2):299-314.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Minorities%22">Language Minorities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Official+Languages%22">Official Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Rights%22">Childrens Rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+of+Instruction%22">Language of Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22French%22">French</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Language%22">Native Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geography+Instruction%22">Geography Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Dominance%22">Language Dominance</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/curj.70002
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0958-5176<br />1469-3704
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Since the enactment of the "Canadian Charter of Rights" in 1982, the federal government has recognized Canadian citizens' right to have their children educated in their first official language (French or English), including in settings where a minority of the population speaks that language. As a case in point, Francophones (a term commonly used to describe people who speak French as their first language, and/or speak French in the home) have gained a degree of autonomy in developing curriculum for its French-language schools in Ontario, a majority English-speaking province. Ontario has two distinct versions of curriculum: an English-language version (ELV) for use in English-language schools and a French-language version (FLV) for use in French-language schools. Drawing on a qualitative content analysis, this paper explores the two language versions of the curriculum through the lens of the grade 9 "Issues in Canadian Geography" course. The study of geography examines the nature of patterns and connections between different places and peoples, and the ways places are transformed through cultural and linguistic processes. The analysis provides insights into the ways and the extent to which Ontario's dual approach to curriculum development supports the socio-spatial and spatial-linguistic perspectives and experiences of Francophones as the province's official language minority population. The dual approach is theorized as a curricular core-periphery dynamic, whereby elements of the French-language version are peripheralized in relation to the perspectives and priorities of an English-language dominant core.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 20260101
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503391
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503391
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/curj.70002
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 299
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Language Minorities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Official Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Rights
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language of Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: French
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Native Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geography Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Dominance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Official Language Minorities and Geographic Perspectives: Ontario's Dual Approach to Curriculum Development
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joanne Pattison-Meek
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0958-5176
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3704
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Curriculum Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1