International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

ISSN: 0951-8398 (Print) 1366-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tqse20

Rhetorical analysis in critical policy research

Sue Winton

To cite this article: Sue Winton (2013) Rhetorical analysis in critical policy research,
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26:2, 158-177, DOI:
10.1080/09518398.2012.666288

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.666288

Published online: 12 Apr 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2521

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2013
Vol. 26, No. 2, 158–177, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.666288

Rhetorical analysis in critical policy research

Sue Winton*

Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

(Received 29 June 2009; final version received 29 July 2011)

Rhetorical analysis, an approach to critical discourse analysis, is presented as a

useful method for critical policy analysis and its effort to understand the role
policies play in perpetuating inequality. A rhetorical analysis of Character Mat-
ters!, the character education policy of a school board in Ontario, Canada, pro-
vides an illustrative example of the method’s contributions to the field. I
identify rhetorical appeals of Character Matters! texts that aim to persuade the
policy’s audience to support a predominantly traditional approach to character
education. I then present contributions of rhetorical analysis for critical policy
research and possibilities of rhetorical analysis for democratizing policy pro-
cesses. I conclude by considering possible implications for York Region if the
rhetoric of Character Matters! successfully convinces its audience to support the
traditional approach to character education it advocates.
Keywords: rhetorical analysis; character education; critical discourse analysis

Why is character education back in Ontario schools? Character education is the

intentional effort by educators to teach values to students (Winton 2007). In Octo-
ber 2006, Ontario’s government introduced the Character Development Initiative
(Ontario Ministry of Education 2006). This policy required that character education
programmes be implemented in all schools during the 2007–2008 school year. This
policy is not the province’s first formal character education policy. In the 1970s and
1980s, the government advocated moral education based on Lawrence Kohlberg’s
theory of moral development for Ontario schools. By the early 1990s, Ontario’s
Ministry of Education had devolved responsibility for values education to individual
school boards and made no effort to determine whether this responsibility was
being met (Cochrane 1992). Formal character education policies re-emerged in
Ontario in the late 1990s, in a few school boards around the province. The board
policies advocated a predominantly traditional approach to character education and
promised to improve students’ academic achievement, employment skills,
interpersonal relationships, and civic behaviours.
Why did character education re-emerge in Ontario? Why is a traditional
approach widely advocated and adopted despite long-standing criticisms of this
approach (e.g. Hartshorne and May 1928; Kohn 1997; Nash 1997; Purpel 1997)?
The study described in this paper aimed to understand how the argument for
character education is constructed in a school board policy using rhetorical analysis.

*Email: swinton@edu.yorku.ca

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 159

Rhetorical analysis provides knowledge about persuasive strategies used in policy

texts to persuade audiences to accept and support particular constructions of reality,
points of view, and courses of action (Edwards et al. 2004; Kuypers and King
2004; Majone 1989). Knowledge of these strategies can be used to understand why
particular policy solutions are supported by groups with conflicting goals and
values, to question the version of reality proposed by policy, to imagine other
possibilities, and as grounds for political response (Edwards et al. 2004).
First, I locate my conception of policy as rhetoric and discourse in the field of
critical educational policy studies. Next, I discuss rhetorical analysis as a method
for critical discourse policy analysis. This discussion will interest scholars of critical
policy analysis, students of policy analysis, individuals interested in the intersection
of policy and politics, and others interested in alternate approaches to policy analy-
sis that address questions unanswered by rational, linear conceptions of policy. I
use my rhetorical analysis of Character Matters!, the character education policy of
the York Region District School Board (YRDSB) in Ontario, Canada, as an illustra-
tive example of the method’s contributions to the field. I discuss how the policy’s
rhetoric attempts to persuade individuals in York Region to support a predominantly
traditional approach to character education. I then present the contributions of rhe-
torical analysis for policy research and possibilities of rhetorical analysis for democ-
ratizing policy processes. Finally, since the purpose of rhetoric is to persuade, I
consider possible implications if the rhetoric of Character Matters! successfully con-
vinces its audience to support the traditional approach to character education it
advocates.

Critical notions of policy and rhetoric

This study is grounded in a critical understanding of policy and located in the field
of critical educational policy studies. A critical perspective of policy differs from
traditional policy analysis in important ways. First, whereas a traditional conception
typically views policy as authoritative decisions written in documents (Rizvi and
Lingard 2010), a critical perspective understands policy as much more than these
texts; it also includes individuals, groups, practices, events, ideas, power, struggles,
and compromises (Ball 1994; Blackmore 1995; Bowe, Ball, and Gold 1992). Policy,
from a critical perspective, is understood as complex, inherently political, and
infused with values (Bowe, Ball, and Gold 1992). This view differs from traditional
conceptions of policy-making as a rational and linear process. Policy problems, like
the social world, are viewed by critical policy analysis not as objective problems
but as social constructions, with language playing a central role in producing and
promoting these constructions (Edelman 1988). Finally, critical education policy
research aims to challenge inequalities by understanding the role policies play in
perpetuating them.
I bring this critical understanding to my view of policy texts as rhetorical texts.
Rhetoric has multiple meanings. For many, rhetoric is a matter of embellishment,
insincere talk, and half-truths (Edwards et al. 2004; Leach 2000). Rhetoric also
refers to the study of rhetoric as an academic discipline, the art of using rhetoric in
writing or speech, and the use of language designed to influence an audience
(Corbett 1999; Jasinski 2001). It is this final definition, the strategic use of
language, which I adopt in this study.
160 S. Winton

The study and practice of rhetoric has a long history. While it was originally
associated with speaking, rhetoric came to be widely applied to written discourses
with the invention of printing in the fifteenth century (Corbett 1999). Early teachers
of rhetoric divided it into five canons: invention, disposition, style, memory, and
delivery. These canons are still used in the contemporary study of rhetoric, although
their meanings and relevance have changed over the centuries (Corbett 1999;
Jasinski 2001).
The canon of invention is concerned with finding arguments to support one’s
point of view (Corbett 1999). These arguments are categorized according to whether
they aim to appeal to an audience’s reason (logos), emotion (pathos), or confidence
in the personal character of the speaker or writer (ethos). The second canon, dispo-
sition, is concerned with how discourse is organized for rhetorical effect. The third
canon of rhetoric, style, is multifaceted and difficult to define (Corbett 1999). It
includes the choice of words, their arrangement, figurative language, and conven-
tions of reading, interpreting, and representing (Leach 2000). The fourth canon is
memory. Traditionally, this canon was concerned with how well a speaker could
memorize a speech. A modern reinterpretation of this canon directs attention to the
use of shared cultural memories as a rhetorical strategy (Lipsitz 1990 in Leach
2000). The fifth and final canon is the canon of delivery. Like the canon of mem-
ory, this canon has been reinterpreted over time (Corbett 1999). Historically, the
canon of delivery was concerned with how well a speaker delivered a speech to an
audience. Attention was directed to the speaker’s voice and gestures. Today, this
canon is concerned with the relationship between the dissemination of rhetoric and
its content (Leach 2000).
Drawing from these canons, three kinds of persuasive discourses are developed:
forensic, epideictic, and deliberative. Forensic rhetoric is concerned with the nature
and cause of past events. While it is the genre often used in law and courtrooms,
any discourse that seeks to defend or condemn an individual or group may fall into
this category (Corbett 1999). Epideictic rhetoric focuses on current issues and
whether something or someone deserves blame or praise (Leach 2000). At the same
time, it is used to define acceptable and unacceptable ways of acting, speaking, or
thinking and exploited in hopes of strengthening an audience’s commitment to
selected values and increasing its inclination to act in accordance with those values
(Summers 2001). Finally, deliberative rhetoric is concerned with convincing others
to do something and/or accept a particular point of view (Leach 2000).
Policy is inherently rhetorical (Nicoll and Edwards 2004). The need to persuade
citizens to adopt a particular course of action arises because there are often many
courses of action that can be taken to address a policy issue (Majone 1989). Not
limited to policy texts, persuasion is an important aspect of all policy activity.
Majone (1989) argues:

Every politician understands that arguments are needed not only to clarify his [sic] posi-
tion with respect to an issue, but to bring other people around to this position. Even
when a policy is best explained by the actions of groups seeking selfish goals, those
who seek to justify the policy must appeal to the public interest and the intellectual mer-
its of the case … We miss a great deal if we try to understand policy-making solely in
terms of power, influence, and bargaining, to the exclusion of debate and argument. (2)

Circulating within fields of policy activity are various policy texts (e.g.
speeches, documents, and media releases). Policy texts, as rhetorical texts, operate
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 161

as both text and discourses simultaneously (Ball 1994). A policy-as-text orientation

views policy as “textual interventions in practice” (Ball 1994, 18). This conception
includes what policy texts argue should be done in practice and the strategies used
to construct this argument (its rhetoric). But policy texts are also discourses (Ball
1994). Discourses are “practices that systematically form the objects of which they
speak” (Foucault 1977, 49 in Ball 1994, 21). Policy texts, as discourse, limit what
can be said and thought in policy discussions (Bacchi 2000). Ball (1994) believes,
“the effect of policy is primarily discursive, it changes the possibilities we have for
thinking ‘otherwise’” (23). These limits affect how policy problems are understood,
discussed, approached, and ultimately experienced through the limits on action
imposed by the policy discourses.
Viewing policy texts as rhetoric and discourse runs counter to popular notions
of rhetoric as meaningless talk or talk without action. Instead, policy rhetoric may
be powerful since it affects how individuals understand the world and aims to move
audiences to action (Edwards et al. 2004). This action may include persuading audi-
ences to accept constructions of reality and truth as well as courses of action that
perpetuate inequity.

Rhetorical analysis: a method of critical education policy analysis

A number of methods are used to achieve the goals of critical education policy
analysis, including policy archaeology (Scheurich 1994), policy historiography
(Gale 2001), policy genealogy (Gale 2001), and various methods of critical dis-
course analysis (e.g. Goldberg 2006; Huckin 1997; Luke 1997; Taylor 2004).
Rather than a particular methodology, critical discourse analysis is better viewed as
an attitude or an approach to text (Huckin 1997). Luke (2002) describes it as:

a principled and transparent shunting back and forth between the microanalysis of text
using varied tools of linguistic, semiotic, and literary analysis and the macroanalysis
of social formations, institutions, and power relations that these texts index and
construct. (100)

Approaches to critical discourse analysis have the following elements in common:

recognition that text is highly context-sensitive; attempts to unite text, discursive
practices, and social context; addresses important societal issues; pays attention to
power and injustice; assumes a social constructivist view of discourse; and tries to
make findings accessible to a broad audience (Huckin 1997). Thus, various methods
of analysis meet these criteria and may be considered critical discourse analysis.
Rhetorical analysis is one of them.
Rhetorical analysis “involves the study of the ways in which we attempt to per-
suade or influence in our discursive and textual practices” (Edwards and Nicoll
2001, 105). It provides a method for identifying how arguments are constructed to
persuade audiences to accept and support particular constructions of reality, truth,
and courses of action. Rhetorical analysis has a long history but is relatively new in
education policy research (Edwards et al. 2004). This work has primarily been con-
ducted by Richard Edwards and Katherine Nicoll (e.g. Edwards and Nicoll 2001;
Edwards et al. 2004; Nicoll and Edwards 2004). Their work focuses on rhetoric of
lifelong learning and flexibility in the UK and how it contributes to the “politics of
discourse” in this area (Edwards and Nicoll 2001, 104).
162 S. Winton

Findings from my rhetorical analysis of Character Matters!, the character educa-

tion policy of the YRDSB in Ontario, Canada, illustrates how policies are written
to generate support for the ideas they propose. YRDSB serves York Region, an
ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse area with a population close to one
million residents (York Region n.d.-a, n.d.-b). Character Matters! aims to teach stu-
dents 10 values: respect, responsibility, honesty, empathy, fairness, initiative, perse-
verance, courage, integrity, and optimism (YRDSB 2003). It adopts a
predominantly traditional approach to character education (see Winton 2008a for a
detailed discussion). This approach assumes there are universal values that can be
learned through direct instruction, conscious adult modelling, and practice.
One hundred and eighty-one policy texts were analyzed and served as the data
for the study. These included: texts produced by the YRDSB that explicitly focus
on Character Matters!; The Attribute, “a character based e-newsletter” produced by
the YRDSB (YRDSB 2005, December 14); documents linked to the Character Mat-
ters! website or cited in texts available on the website but not published by
YRDSB; and texts that are not explicitly connected to Character Matters! but are
related to it (e.g. notes, minutes, and reports of board meetings and directors).
Rhetorical analysis entails examination of policy texts’ rhetorical situation, per-
suasive discourses, and the five rhetorical canons. Leach (2000) suggests a step-by-
step approach to examining these elements, whereas Edwards et al. (2004) suggest
thinking of these as “nodes in an interpretive art” (20). In my analysis, I used these
elements and their subcomponents as the initial categories and subcategories of my
analytic framework. As I began the analysis, I looked for words and phrases that
corresponded to one category at a time. As I grew more familiar with the categories
and subcategories, I identified and organized the rhetorical data as I encountered
them through multiple readings of each text. I created new subcategories to orga-
nize the data upon identifying new ideas or upon review of subcategories with large
amounts of data. For example, the subcategory metaphor was further divided upon
review of the accumulating data assigned to that subcategory. New sub-subcatego-
ries reflecting the type of metaphor used were created (e.g. construction metaphors,
community metaphors, and journey metaphors) and data were reorganized into these
new sub-subcategories. Even within new subcategories, data were sometimes
grouped. For example, in the subcategory logos, data were grouped into a sub-sub-
category of citizenship. Within this sub-subcategory, data were grouped into demo-
cratic citizenship, global citizen, and Canadian citizenship. Subcategories were also
sometimes merged, if upon review it appeared the data within each were closely
related. In the following paragraphs, I describe the purpose, components, and analy-
sis involved in examining the policy’s rhetorical situation, persuasive discourses,
and the canons of rhetoric.
Important components of any text’s rhetorical situation are its exigence and
audience. Leach (2000) defines exigence as the problem to which the policy
responds. Since I, like Edelman (1988), Scheurich (1994) and others, believe poli-
cies construct problems, I aimed to identify the problem constructed by the policy
rather than looking for a problem existing someplace outside the texts. I examined
the stated goals of the policy, indicators of success, claims about character educa-
tion, and definitions of character. To understand how the policy positions its audi-
ence, I considered both the content of the policy texts as well as the words used,
style conventions, structure of the texts, and the use of pictures. These can all be
used to construct and mobilize an audience in specific ways (Edwards et al. 2004).
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 163

I looked for evidence of the three types of persuasive genres in the texts and the
five canons of rhetoric: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. The
canon of invention includes the ethical appeal (ethos), the emotional appeal
(pathos), and the rational appeal (logos). These appeals are the “essential ingredi-
ents” of rhetorical analysis (Leach 2000, 214) and identifying strategies that appeal
to logos, pathos, and ethos constituted the bulk of my analysis.
I also examined the canons of disposition, style, memory, and delivery. To iden-
tify rhetorical strategies that fall into the canon of disposition, I examined how the
organization of each text was related to the argument presented within it. To iden-
tify strategies that come under the wide umbrella of style, I concentrated on the
form and content of the documents, popular discourses, and the use of metaphors. I
also identified the choice and meanings of frequently used words and phrases and
considered how they contributed to the policy’s argument. I considered the canon
of memory with the modern definition in mind; thus, I directed my attention to the
use of shared cultural memories as a rhetorical strategy. Finally, to take the canon
of delivery into account, I considered how the rhetorical messages of Character
Matters! were made available to the policy’s audience.
This process of rhetorical analysis directed my attention to various and specific
aspects of texts. These aspects are not mutually exclusive; nor are the canons. Many
aspects of the texts serve multiple purposes and reflect multiple rhetorical strategies.
In the next section, I present findings from my examination of Character Matters!’s
exigence, audience, and appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos. Throughout this discus-
sion, I include rhetorical strategies that also fall into the rhetorical canon of style. I
limit my discussion of the five canons to the canons of invention and style in this
paper due to the large number (78) and variety of strategies used to appeal to logos,
ethos, and pathos in Character Matters! texts and the central importance of these
appeals (Leach 2000).
In highlighting the various strategies, I do not mean to imply that it is inappro-
priate to use them. All authors draw on rhetorical devices in their writing and I am
no exception. My purpose in identifying the strategies is to understand how they
work together to persuade citizens to support Character Matters!

Rhetorical situation of Character Matters!

While describing character education as, “a deliberate effort to cultivate positive
personal attributes and civility among students … [and] a whole-school effort to
create a community in which positive attitudes, values and behaviours are fostered,”
the main problem constructed by Character Matters! is student behaviour (Winton
2008b). Students’ academic achievement, employment skills, interpersonal relation-
ships, and civic behaviours are identified as areas of concern. Improvements in each
of these areas are “some of the Board’s specific goals for character education”
(YRDSB n.d.-g). The policy cites: “fewer discipline problems; fewer suspensions;
reduced lateness and absenteeism; decreased school violence; higher scores on
achievement tests; higher reading scores; [and] better morale among school staff” as
evidence of the success of character education (YRDSB n.d.-g). These indicators
report changes in behaviour and achievement, which may or may not reflect
changes in students’ attitudes or values. None of the texts address the possibility
that changes in students’ behaviour may reflect students’ desire to meet expectations
164 S. Winton

or avoid penalties for failing to comply with them rather than reflecting changes in
character.
Instead, conformity to the behavioural expectations of Character Matters! is
emphasized. A document asserts that “character development is not a program; it is
an emphasis on how we behave” (YRDSB n.d.-e). An Attribute Editorial states that:
“Character education can provide a coherent set of behavioural expectations, rein-
forced both at school and at home, gently and overtly” (YRDSB 2004, July 12),
and the policy’s 10 attributes are described as “a standard for our behaviour”
(YRDSB 2003). These statements, the specific goals of Character Matters!, and its
indicators of success help construct students’ behaviour as the major problem to be
addressed by Character Matters!

Audience
Policy texts are written strategically to position and appeal to a diverse audience in
hopes of mobilizing them to support the policy’s proposed actions (Edwards et al.
2004). While many theorists recognize the importance of a policy’s audience, rhetori-
cal analysis directs attention to how the audience is constructed by policy. Character
Matters! constructs its audience as a unified group that shares the concerns, interests,
and assumptions of Character Matters! yet is relatively uninformed about character
education and character development. For example, the texts declare that, “The
principles and attributes of character education are universal and transcend religious,
ethnocultural and other demographic distinctions” (YRDSB 2003, 1) and there is no
effort made to convince the audience about the truth of this statement. Deeming the
initiative’s 10 attributes “universal” positions the audience as sharing them as well.
The policy also constructs its audience as having limited knowledge about char-
acter education and character development. This is achieved in part by defining
character education repeatedly in various documents, including text that poses and
answers the question, “What is character education?” In defining character educa-
tion, YRDSB is positioned as an authority in the field. The definition it provides is
limited to the traditional approach. Alternate approaches to character education (e.g.
developmental and caring approaches described in Howard, Berkowitz, and
Schaeffer 2004) are absent and the audience is assumed or constructed as not know-
ing about them. An important exception may be audience members who remember
the values clarification approach to values education (Raths, Harmin, and Simon
1966), an approach to moral education once advocated by Ontario’s government
(Cochrane and Williams 1978) and rejected by many for promoting relativism. List-
ing specific values to be taught to students distinguishes Character Matters! from
prior policies advocating values clarification, as does the policy’s use of the word
attributes rather than values. For those unaware of values clarification or other
approaches, describing only the traditional approach limits the way the audience
understands character education.
While constructed as possessing little or limited knowledge about character
education, audience members are given shared responsibility for its success. The
2002 Board Report explains that Character Matters! “involves all of us: administra-
tion, teaching staff, support staff, parents, students, and community – in fact, every-
one who comes into contact with the learner” (Havercroft 2002, 11). Parents are
encouraged to be role models, support and contribute to their schools’ character
development strategy, get involved in the community character initiative, talk with
students and with their own children about the issues they face today, use the
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 165

school’s 10 character attributes in their own home, take specially-designed work-

shops, and teach their children interpersonal skills (YRDSB n.d.-d). They are told:

You are a part of a dream of a community that lives to its fullest, that works together
to create a future we ourselves would want to be a part of and a future our children
can look upon with warmth and gratitude. Together, we can make this a reality.
(YRDSB 2002, 16)

The quotes above illustrate how first person plural pronouns (we, ourselves,
and our) are used throughout the policy for rhetorical effect. These pronouns
imply that the audience members and the authors are part of the same community
of moral individuals. The use of we and an implied they in discourses normalizes
the values of the author(s) and suggests a hierarchical relationship between the
author(s) and those who do not share the same point of view (Smagorinsky and
Taxel 2005).
Character Matters! invites employers and other community members to be part
of this moral community and become involved with the initiative. Suggestions for
involvement are published on the Character Matters! web site and include acting as
a role model, posting the character attributes in their places of business, volunteer-
ing with the local school council and at the local school, and creating or becoming
involved in a character education committee at their workplaces (YRDSB n.d.-b,
n.d.-c). They are also encouraged to become involved with the York Region charac-
ter initiative and participate in cooperative education placement opportunities
(YRDSB n.d.-c).
Encouraging audience members to be part of Character Matters! is reinforced
through the extensive use of the community metaphor, an element of style. This
metaphor is rich and multifaceted (Beck 1999). A community is often understood
as a group of individuals who share attitudes, values, and beliefs. Relationships
within a community are assumed to be supportive, intimate and long-lasting, and
individuals expect their needs will be met by others in this group (Beck 1999).
Members of a community believe their actions matter and that they can make a dif-
ference (Beck 1999). Character Matters! invites the audience to join YRDSB’s
“communities of character.” Inviting audience members to be part of the initiative
may appeal to them on an emotional level as it stirs feelings of shared purpose,
responsibility, and belonging.
Finally, another rhetorical strategy that constructs the audience as a unified
group is the absence of definitions of concepts such as democratic society, demo-
cratic principles, citizenship, and “the right thing” (YRDSB n.d.-a). The absence of
these definitions serves two, somewhat paradoxical purposes. On the one hand, the
absence unites the audience by implying that the concepts are commonly under-
stood and beyond question. At the same time, it enables audience members to pro-
ject their own definitions on the undefined concepts and feel satisfied that their
understandings are included in the policy. This will increase the likelihood that they
will accept the policy.
Constructing audience members as partially responsible for character education
and having shared beliefs about its importance and components, as well as using
undefined key terms and first person plural pronouns, help unite the audience as a
group and with YRDSB. However, these strategies are only starting points. Much
of the work to bring together diverse audience members involves appealing to a
166 S. Winton

range of concerns and priorities. These diverse and sometimes conflicting interests
are addressed and reflected in Character Matters!’s wide range of appeals to ethos,
pathos, and logos. I examine these appeals below.

Rhetorical appeals of Character Matters!

Much of Character Matters!’s rhetoric rests on appeals to logos (reason), ethos, and
pathos (emotions). Character Matters!’s appeal to reason lies, in part, in persuading
the audience that students’ character affects all citizens. Policy 380.0 (YRDSB 2003)
claims that “Good character is a cornerstone of a civil, just and democratic society”
(1), and The Attribute states that “Education for character is the critical foundation
for an education in democracy” (YRDSB 2005, January 24). While claiming that
good character is important, the policy says that individuals are not born with it, nor
does it develop naturally. One text explains that, “[w]e must explicitly practice, teach,
and learn tolerance, respect, caring, and love for one another – these do not
necessarily come naturally” (YRDSB n.d.-e).
This argument is reinforced by the extensive use of construction metaphors
(an element of style). These metaphors help structure how the audience thinks
about character and character education (Lakoff and Johnson 2003). The Attribute
describes a resource that “[o]ffers several free character building activities” (my
emphasis, YRDSB 2004, March 8), and the York Region Character Community
Council’s annual conference invites attendees to, “join in sharing and learning
more about how to develop and implement character-building programs” (my
emphasis, YRDSB 2004, March 22). By defining character as something that
must be built, the policy reinforces its argument that good character would not
exist otherwise.
Furthermore, Character Matters! compares character education to the foundation
of a building in order to strengthen its claim that character education is important.
An Attribute article, for example, describes character education as:

the critical foundation for an education in democracy. It provides the knowledge,

skills, and attitudes necessary for building healthy productive communities and strong
contributing members of those communities. (my emphasis, YRDSB 2004, April 19)

Construction metaphors help position character education as essential and in need

of deliberate attention. According to Character Matters!, the primary responsibility
for developing students’ character rests on parents and families (YRDSB n.d.-g).
However, the policy implies that some parents have neglected this responsibility. Sta-
tistics listed in the Family Workbook (YRDSB 2002), for example, suggest parents
do not spend adequate time with their children. Workshops are offered by YRDSB
and the York Region Character Council promising to create “families of character”
(YRDSB, n.d.-g), which also suggests that some parents are currently not fostering
their children’s character. Placing the primary responsibility for students’ character
development on families addresses the concerns of audience members who believe
that values should be taught at home. At the same time, Character Matters! argues
that schools can support parents through formal character education at school. Since
the policy claims that character education is not difficult to implement and because
students spend a large amount of time in school, teachers and school staff are well
positioned to help out.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 167

To further strengthen the rational argument for character education, Character

Matters! argues that schools that implement character education see positive results.
One such change is the creation of safer schools and classrooms (Havercroft, Kielven,
and Slodovnick 2004). The policy addresses concerns about the students’ safety;
indeed, character education in YRDSB was initiated following violent incidents in the
community. Character Matters! addresses concerns about safety by linking character
education to the “development of safe and supportive schools” (Havercroft 2002, 3)
and reporting that outcomes of Character Matters! include reduced violence and drug
use (Havercroft 2004b). Character Matters! is also linked to anti-bullying initiatives
and conflict resolution (e.g. YRDSB 2005, June 27, n.d.-f). The policy’s promise that
character education will enhance school safety is another example of how a single
issue may be used rhetorically to appeal to both pathos and logos.
Character education and school safety are linked to another concern: student
achievement. Building Character Schools: The York Region Experience (Havercroft,
Kielven, and Slodovnick 2004) states that: “A safe, supportive and empathetic learn-
ing environment allows more academic progress alongside attainment of life skills
and attitudes.” Academic achievement is linked to students’ future ability to be suc-
cessful in the job market. A relationship between character education and increased
student achievement is frequently stated (e.g. Havercroft 2004a; Havercroft, Kielven,
and Slodovnick 2004), and both higher academic achievement and enhanced
employment skills are specific goals of Character Matters! (YRDSB n.d.-g). In fact,
producing ‘team-based knowledge workers’ … explicitly underscore[s] [YRDSB’s]
vision for Character Matters!” (emphasis in original, Havercroft 2002, 3).
In addition to improved academic achievement and improved chances for
employment, Character Matters! claims that character education can improve stu-
dents’ relationships, engagement with school, and behaviour. Choices into Action
and Character Matters! states that:
solid research … demonstrates that when schools implement high quality social emo-
tional learning programs effectively, the academic achievement of children increases,
incidences of problem behaviour decrease and the relationships that surround each
child are improved. (emphasis in original, Kielven and Turnbull n.d., 4)

Claims that character education improves students’ relationships and behaviour

will appeal to individuals who believe that morality is in decline in society in
general and youth in particular (Nash 1997). Character Matters! claims to respond
to this “growing public concern about community safety, responsible citizenship,
common decency and respect” (YRDSB n.d.-f). This statement implies that all
citizens will benefit from character education. It also addresses concerns that
students are not engaged in their communities and upset about low voter turnout
and civic apathy in Canada. Character Matters! claims that students who adopt
the 10 attributes will become “active, responsible participants in community life”
(YRDSB n.d.-g).
Having argued that character education is necessary, effective, and beneficial to
students, their parents, the community, and the economy, the policy implies that
implementing Character Matters! will not be difficult. One reason for this is its
flexibility. Questions and Answers (YRDSB n.d.-g) states that:

There are many opportunities to incorporate a focus on character attributes within the
Ontario Curriculum without the addition of new teaching resources or scheduling.
Character education is not a separate subject. Rather it is a strategy that incorporates
168 S. Winton

guiding principles into the existing curriculum and into daily experiences and
interactions. The guiding principles for character education can be easily applied to
any subject as opportune moments arise.
Claims about Character Matters!’s flexibility serve multiple rhetorical purposes.
Stating that the policy can be implemented in many ways implies that it is flexible
and can meet a variety of needs and suit various teaching styles. This may suggest
to teachers that they will not really have to change much of what they are already
doing. Indeed, the policy “recognizes, honours and supports all initiatives, pro-
grammes and activities staff have done and continue to do that contribute to charac-
ter development” (YRDSB 2003). Celebrating teachers’ work may inspire feelings
of pride, appreciation, validation, and recognition in teachers who are already doing
what the policy asks of them. These teachers may also feel a sense of relief since
the policy appears to offer more material support for their efforts.
The credibility of the rational arguments for Character Matters! (its ethos) is
established through claims of broad community support; endorsements of education
experts, public figures, teachers, and students; references to other character educa-
tion programs; research citations; and YRDSB’s established position as an authority
in education.
One of the most frequently repeated claims in the policy is that Character
Matters! is fully supported by YRDSB’s diverse community. Many documents
report that the attributes: “were chosen through an extensive consultation process
involving parents, families, educators, community members, students, religious lead-
ers and business partners in a series of regional forums” (e.g. Havercroft 2002, 4;
YRDSB 2003, n.d.-g). These claims suggest the policy reflects the values of the
community, however, individuals who participate in school-related activities typi-
cally share the same values as educators (Crozier 1998). Many parents, especially
minority and economically disadvantaged parents, do not regularly participate in
these events (Carey and Farris 1996; Skau 1996).
The ethos of Character Matters! is further enhanced through its connections to
other policies in Ontario. Questions and Answers (YRDSB n.d.-g) explains that the
YRDSB’s mandate to deliver character education comes in part from Ontario’s
Education Act, the Ontario Ministry of Education’s guidance policy document, and
the 1999 Ontario Speech from the Throne. The policy also cites the Conference
Board of Canada’s Employability Skills profile which: “identifies personal manage-
ment skills including honesty, responsibility, initiative, integrity, persistence and
respect as being essential for the workforce of the future” (YRDSB n.d.-g). These
workforce skills are the attributes of Character Matters!
Citing research is a common rhetorical strategy that draws on society’s position-
ing of science as authoritative (Killingsworth 2005), and Character Matters! does so
extensively. Questions and Answers (YRDSB n.d.-g) explains that: “[w]hile
research into the effects of character education is still in its early stages, the poten-
tial and impact of character education has been widely affirmed by schools that
have adopted a character education focus.” A survey of Ontario residents is also
cited (Ipsos-Reid 2005). The survey asked respondents about their experiences of
character in their community.
The questions and findings of this survey reflect and reinforce the policy’s con-
cern with behaviour and its construction of character as behaviour. The survey
asked respondents to indicate how often they witness various character attributes,
such as integrity or optimism, in their community (Ipsos-Reid 2005). Responses that
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 169

suggest individuals do not witness these attributes are interpreted by YRDSB as an

indication that schools could and should do more to teach character. A press release
about the study’s findings written by YRDSB states that:

Ontarians say they witness “respect” (57%), “responsibility” (53%), “honesty” (51%),
and “compassion” (48%), almost always … but less than half witness acts of
“fairness” (47%), “integrity” (45%), “perseverance” (38%), and “optimism” (35%),
almost always … and only one-third almost always witness “initiative” and “courage”
in their community. (YRDSB 2005a, June 1)

These findings are interpreted in a YRDSB staff newsletter as evidence that:

While schools were generally doing a good job of promoting and developing charac-
ter, there was still more which could be done. Furthermore [the survey] suggests that:
[t]he mandate from the community five years ago to do character development in
schools has been reaffirmed. (YRDSB 2005b, June 2)

The possibilities that individuals do possess these attributes but do not display
them to others or that their displays are not interpreted by others as such are not
explored. From a rhetorical standpoint, these possibilities are not important.
References to other character education initiatives that promote a traditional
approach also enhance the credibility of Character Matters! The character education
partnership (CEP) and its advocates, for example, are mentioned and quoted exten-
sively. In addition to the CEP and other initiatives, Character Matters! includes
endorsements of education experts, politicians, and other public figures. For exam-
ple, Ontario’s former Minister of Education is quoted as stating:

Developing emotional skills is an important part of building character … We have to

ensure that our public education system helps our students succeed and become
responsible citizens. (Ontario Ministry of Education 2004)

Endorsements from parents, teachers, and students are also included in policy
texts. The Character Matters! website has a number of pages dedicated to sharing
staff stories about their positive experiences with Character Matters! (YRDSB n.d.-h).
In one story, a teacher describes a student who created and circulated a card for the
teacher’s son on the same day the student’s father died. Likely to stir up both sadness
and admiration for the student described, the story appeals to its readers on an emo-
tional level (pathos), which may convince them of the power of character education.
Notably, the narrator does not link the student’s actions with character education; per-
haps she would have acted this way without Character Matters! However, the story’s
position on the webpage implies a connection between her actions and the policy.
This story and others like it reinforce the rational argument that Character Matters!
can make a difference. Stories are published in a range of documents including The
Attribute, the Staff Stories page of the Character Matters! web site, Board Meeting
minutes, and letters to staff. Similar expressions of student and parent support are
published in Questions and Answers (YRDSB n.d.-g), Board minutes (YRDSB 2004,
October 28), and in The Attribute (YRDSB 2004, June 1). These endorsements
strengthen the policy’s ethos by suggesting that those most directly affected by the
policy support it.
170 S. Winton

The appeal of Character Matters!

Character Matters! includes a constellation of appeals to generate support for char-
acter education. The appeals include promises to raise student achievement, prepare
students for the workforce, make schools safer, improve interpersonal relationships
and behaviour, enhance civic participation, and focus on students’ personal
development. These claims have rhetorical impact because they are linked to, and
promise to address, wider societal concerns and discourses, including concerns
about: moral and civic deficits, school safety, social cohesion, and economic com-
petitiveness in national and global markets (Winton 2008b). The discourses are
legitimized in the media and by prominent public figures (e.g. Fullan 2002; Ontario
Ministry of Education 2004; Stack 2006), and Character Matters! addresses and rei-
fies them in its argument for a traditional approach to character education.
The traditional approach aims to teach students a set of values through explicit
teaching and practice. Character Matters! promotes respect, responsibility, honesty,
empathy, fairness, initiative, perseverance, courage, integrity, and optimism. Promis-
ing to instil values in students will appeal to audience members who believe that
youth are immoral and society is in a state of moral decay. These beliefs are often
combined with a desire to return to the “good old days” in which students were part
of a common culture that held traditional values in high regard (Apple 2006; Nash
1997; Smagorinsky and Taxel 2005). The number of audience members with these
beliefs and desires has increased in Ontario and across Canada (Lusztig and Wilson
2005). In 1995, a neoconservative government was elected in Ontario. Character
Matters!’s argument for a traditional approach to character education may be effec-
tive since a commitment to traditional values has played an important role in the
growth of neoconservatism in Canada (Lusztig and Wilson 2005).
In addition to teaching values, Character Matters! claims to improve academic
achievement. This claim addresses concerns about students’ ability to compete in
the job market since academic achievement is often connected to an individual’s
ability to find employment. Bussiere et al. (2004), in a report published by Canada’s
Minister of Industry, explain that:

The skills and knowledge that individuals bring to their jobs, to further studies, and to
our society, play an important role in determining our economic success and our over-
all quality of life … Elementary and secondary education systems play a central role
in laying a solid base upon which subsequent knowledge and skills can be developed.
Students leaving secondary education without a strong foundation may experience dif-
ficulty accessing the postsecondary education system and the labour market and they
may benefit less when learning opportunities are presented later in life. (10)

In addition to limiting students’ own employment opportunities, Canadians are told

that Canada will not be able to compete in the global marketplace if students’ aca-
demic achievement does not improve (Bussiere et al. 2004).
Character Matters! may also appeal to individuals concerned about school vio-
lence and school safety since it promises that character education will enhance the
safety of schools (YRDSB n.d.-f). Heartbreaking incidents in which individuals kill
or injure themselves and/or others remind citizens of the fragility of human life.
The media reports these tragic events in detail and plays and replays images of the
scenes. Stories about bullying further exacerbate these fears. Reports that one in
three students are bullied in Ontario’s schools (Centre for Addiction and Mental
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 171

Health 2004), and new government policy that mandates bullying prevention rein-
force the message that children are unsafe. In promising to create safe school envi-
ronments, Character Matters! offers a solution to parents concerned about their
children’s safety.
Character Matters! also includes appeals to audience members who are
concerned about civic engagement and social cohesion by promoting shared values.
Politicians, academics, popular authors, and the media in Canada and around the
world bemoan low voter turnout, low civic engagement, and the pervasive
ignorance of their citizenry (Hébert and Sears 2001), while others express anxiety
about increasing threats to social cohesion brought on by greater disparities between
the rich and poor (Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology 1999).
Character Matters! and its traditional approach to character education provide its
audience with reassurance and hope for the future. Unless audiences can be per-
suaded to embrace alternate means of addressing concerns (real and constructed)
about academic achievement, school safety, social cohesion, civic engagement, and
morality, a traditional approach to character education may be difficult to resist.

Contributions of rhetorical analysis to policy research

Rhetorical analysis and approaching policy as rhetoric has many applications in crit-
ical policy research. First, rhetorical analysis can help policy researchers understand
why some policies enjoy considerable support and how this support is generated by
the strategic use of language in these policies. The findings of this study’s rhetorical
analysis show that Character Matters! responds to concerns about academic
achievement, school safety, social cohesion, civic engagement, and morality; and
help explain why and how values education has found its way back into
prominence in Ontario’s curriculum.
Paying attention to policy rhetoric helps explain why policies often perpetuate
the issues they claim to address (Edelman 1988). For example, Character Matters!’s
efforts to foster social cohesion by promoting a set of shared values may instead
exacerbate individuals’ sense that politicians, governments, and schools do not rec-
ognize or respect who they are and what they value. This may ultimately encourage
more people to disengage from school and civic life. Furthermore, emphasizing
similarities and devaluing differences will leave citizens ill-prepared to empathize
and work with individuals with different perspectives, encouraging and perpetuating
anxieties about the unknown “Other.”
Rhetorical analysis directs attention to how policies construct policy problems,
their audiences, and individuals and circumstances the policies aim to affect. This
knowledge can help researchers understand how some policy texts, even those claim-
ing social justice goals, perpetuate the status quo. Character Matters! constructs stu-
dents, parents, and teachers as sharing its concerns and supportive of the policy’s
goals and assumptions. This construction positions Character Matters! as a response
to citizens’ concerns and encourages citizens to trust YRDSB, since it is acting in
everyone’s best interest. This positioning perpetuates power imbalances by discour-
aging citizens from becoming involved in policy making, since it suggests that the
state and its agencies are actively engaged in addressing the public’s concerns.
Rhetorical analysis also encourages researchers to consider the context and time-
liness of a policy response. These considerations can provide further understanding
172 S. Winton

about why particular appeals are used. For example, character education’s promise
to improve academic achievement and job preparedness in Character Matters! can
be linked to neoliberalism and pervasive concerns about Canada’s ability to
compete in global markets. Rhetorical analysis can also highlight differences
between similar policies that can then be examined to understand how and why
policy rhetoric varies across different contexts. The CEP, for example, emphasizes
moral decay and parental negligence much more strongly than Character Matters!,
but Character Matters! nevertheless cites the CEP extensively and shares many of
its assumptions (Winton 2008b). Rhetorical analysis can similarly be used in histori-
cal research as a means to identify appeals and strategies used at different points in
time.
Finally, while rhetorical analysis can highlight differences between policies, it
can also demonstrate how they are connected. Questions and Answers (York Region
District School Board n.d.-g), for example, explains that the YRDSB’s mandate to
deliver character education comes in part from Ontario’s Education Act which iden-
tifies the teaching of values as a duty of the teacher, the Ontario Ministry of Educa-
tion’s guidance policy document, Choices into Action, and the 1999 Ontario Speech
from the Throne which highlighted the need “… to foster principles of tolerance,
civility and good citizenship among Ontario’s youth …” (York Region District
School Board n.d.-g).
An important contribution of rhetorical analysis is its potential to democratize
policy processes. First, like other methods of critical discourse analysis, rhetorical
analysis challenges the notion of policy as objective and developed through rational
decision-making. It draws attention to how truths are constructed in policy (Ball
1994). Approaching policy as rhetoric and identifying rhetorical strategies also help
break down seemingly cohesive policy arguments and make it easier to interrogate
and challenge them piece by piece. Finally, rhetorical analysis’s attention to how
policies position and attempt to mobilize their audiences and its recognition that
policies are interpreted in multiple ways construct citizens as policy actors rather
than passive implementers.
Recognizing all citizens as policy actors is an important assumption of critical
policy studies. Public participation in policy deliberations is essential for the democ-
ratization of education (Osborne 2001). Democratic education envisions a different
world and invites all citizens to participate in conversations about what this world
might look like and supports efforts to achieve it.

Implications of a persuasive argument for traditional character education

The aim of rhetoric is to persuade. Thus, it is appropriate to consider possible
implications of Character Matters! should its rhetoric convince its audience to sup-
port the predominantly traditional approach to character education it advocates
(Winton 2008a). The traditional approach places a primacy on behavioural habits
and believes that character virtues must be explicitly taught. These virtues are pur-
ported to be “objectively good human qualities” (Lickona 2003, 18) assumed to
transcend “cultural differences, ethnic differences, and socioeconomic differences”
(DeRoche and Williams 2001, 5). The traditional approach advocates direct instruc-
tion, teacher modelling, rewards, highlighting virtuous heroes in literature, and
repeated practice of desired behaviours as methods for teaching character.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 173

The traditional approach promotes the status quo (Kohn 1997; Winton 2008b).
It does so in part by promoting capitalism and the Protestant work ethic (Kohn
1997; Smagorinsky and Taxel 2005). This ethic emphasizes the virtue of work and
it is linked to capitalism in traditional character education’s emphasis on, “produc-
tivity, punctuality, task completion, the entrepreneurial spirit, and other traits relat-
ing to free-market values” (Smagorinsky and Taxel 2004, 122). The links between
capitalism, the Protestant work ethic, and Character Matters! are evident in
YRDSB’s explanation of its mandate to deliver character education. The board cites
the Conference Board of Canada’s Employability profile, which lists “honesty,
responsibility, initiative, integrity, persistence and respect as being essential for the
workforce of the future” (York Region District School Board, n.d.-g). All of these
essential skills for the workforce are the values promoted by Character Matters!
In addition, the traditional approach’s focus on individuals allows political, eco-
nomic, and cultural institutions to remain unexamined (Purpel 1997). One of these
institutions is the school. Traditional character education positions teachers and the
state as moral authorities and positions students, parents, and society as dependent
on schools. Further, the traditional approach’s belief that character must be taught
through direct instruction reflects and perpetuates a deficit model of children. One
of the guiding principles of Character Matters! is the belief that, “The pre-skills,
skills and attributes of Character Matters! need to be overtly modelled, taught and
practiced by all members of the learning community” (Havercroft 2002, 5).
Rewarding students for demonstrating desired behaviours, another component of the
traditional approach, and one promoted by Character Matters! (Winton 2008a), fur-
ther reflects this negative view of students and positions them as “objects to be
manipulated rather than as learners to be engaged” (Kohn 1997). Also, rewards pro-
mote conformity and compliance and teach that an individual’s success comes at
the expense of others (Purpel and Shapiro 1995).
Finally, the traditional approach’s belief in universal values silences dissenting
voices, excludes different perspectives, and suggests there is one “best” set of val-
ues (Winton 2008a). This “best” set is class-based, conclude Smagorinsky and
Taxel (2005), following a review of federally funded state character education cur-
ricula. They found that the children constructed as most in need of character educa-
tion are those from poor backgrounds, non-English speaking, from racial or cultural
minorities or those who held values different from the white middle-class values
dominating US schools (Smagorinsky and Taxel 2004). While Character Matters!
recognizes differences between individuals, it constructs them as things to be over-
come rather than valued. YRDSB argues: “The principles and attributes of character
education are universal and transcend religious, ethnocultural and other demo-
graphic distinctions … The 10 Attributes of Character Matters! transcend differ-
ences and express our common humanity” (YRDSB 2003, 2).
Policies that promote a traditional approach to character education may never-
theless provide opportunities for teachers and students to engage in critical conver-
sations about values. These dialogues might focus on the complexity of values and
morality. For example, discussions about the 10 values promoted by Character Mat-
ters! could examine the YRDSB’s definitions of the values and explore whether
everyone would define them similarly. Differences in understanding could lead to
an exploration of how history, religion, geography, age, class, culture, or other fac-
tors affect how values are defined. A discussion about respect might consider why
an act might be deemed respectful by some and not others or how an individual’s
174 S. Winton

lack of respect might affect others. Alternatively, a discussion about honesty might
consider if it is ever appropriate to be dishonest and what to do when values con-
flict. Topics for discussion arise naturally in the classroom and can be used as the
starting point for the kinds of conversations proposed.
In addition to students’ personal values, the values that underlie classroom,
school, and societal expectations can also be examined through dialogue. Students
can discuss whose interests are served by these rules and whose are not. Many
schools have codes of conduct and lists of values (such as Character Matters!’s
attributes) that can be used to initiate these discussions. Alternatives can be
explored and examined to identify who would likely benefit from different options
and who might be penalized. At the same time, such discussions can lead to consid-
eration of the benefits of adopting shared expectations and the challenges of diverse
societies.
Discussions that critically examine value systems and claims of universality are
likely not the kinds of activities envisioned by traditional character education advo-
cates. But policies include both constraints and possibilities for policy actors, and
their careful attention to a character education policy’s rhetoric may help them iden-
tify its opportunities (Winton 2010). Character Matters!, for example, offers a lim-
ited definition of active citizenship that teachers can use to justify introducing
critical examinations of school rules. Critical discussions about values recognize
and honour their central importance in individuals’ lives and society without claim-
ing that certain values are superior to others, promoting compliance, or endorsing
the status quo. Through discussions, children may be exposed to ideas and values
they might not have otherwise considered and come to understand that not everyone
shares the same values and beliefs. Discussions about value differences and con-
flicts allow new and multiple points of view and help students learn to live with the
conflicts and differences expected in democratic societies.

Notes on contributor
Sue Winton is an assistant professor at York University. Her research investigates how
policies support or undermine critical democratic education. Her work appears in
Educational Policy, Comparative Education, Leadership and Policy in Schools, and the
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. Before pursuing a career in
academia, she taught elementary school in Mexico, Canada, and the USA.

References
Apple, M.W. 2006. Educating the right way: Markets, standards, God and inequality. 2nd
ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bacchi, C. 2000. Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 21, no. 1: 45–57.
Ball, S. 1994. Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
Beck, L.G. 1999. Metaphors of educational community: An analysis of the images that
reflect and influence scholarship and practice. Educational Administration Quarterly 35,
no. 1: 13–45.
Blackmore, J. 1995. Policy as dialogue: Feminist administrators working for educational
change. Gender and Education 7, no. 3: 293–313.
Bowe, R., S. Ball, and A. Gold. 1992. Reforming education and changing schools. London:
Routledge.
Bussiere, P., F. Cartwright, T. Knighton, and T. Rogers. 2004. Measuring up: Canadian
results of the OECD PISA study. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 175

Carey, N., and E. Farris. 1996. Parents and schools: Partners in student learning. Washing-
ton, DC: Office of Education Research and Improvement.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. 2004. CAMH population studies ebulletin. http://
www.camh.net/Research/Areas_of_research/Population_Life_Course_Studies/eBulletins/
ebulletinv5n3_0504.pdf (accessed December 31, 2006).
Cochrane, D.B. 1992. The stances of provincial ministries of education towards value/moral
education in Canadian public schools in 1990. Journal of Moral Education 21, no. 2:
125–37.
Cochrane, D., and D. Williams. 1978. The stances of provincial ministries of education
towards values/moral education in public schools. Canadian Journal of Education 3, no.
4: 1–14.
Corbett, E.P.J. 1999. Classical rhetoric for the modern student. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Crozier, G. 1998. Parents and schools: Partnership or surveillance? Journal of Education
Policy 13, no. 1: 125–36.
DeRoche, E.F., and M.M. Williams. 2001. Educating hearts and minds: A comprehensive
character education framework. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Edelman, M. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Edwards, R., and K. Nicoll. 2001. Researching the rhetoric of lifelong learning. Journal of
Education Policy 16, no. 2: 103–12.
Edwards, R., K. Nicoll, N. Solomon, and R. Usher. 2004. Rhetoric and educational
discourse. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fullan, M. 2002. Schools: Failing grades as Canadian students start a new school year, it’s
time we dedicated ourselves to a new school system, says educator. The Globe and Mail,
September 3, A11.
Gale, T. 2001. Critical policy sociology: Historiography, archaeology and genealogy as
methods of policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy 16, no. 5: 379–93.
Goldberg, M.P. 2006. Discursive policy webs in a globalisation era: A discussion of access
to professions and trades for immigrant professionals in Ontario, Canada. Globalisation,
Societies and Education 4, no. 1: 77–102.
Hartshorne, H., and M.A. May. 1928. Studies in the nature of character. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Havercroft, J. 2002. Character Matters!: First annual review. http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/
pdfs/a/agenda/ms/sc021015/yrdsb-sc021015-p3–54.pdf (accessed August 15, 2005).
Havercroft, J. 2004a. York region district school board: Character Matters! http://www.yrdsb.
edu.on.ca/pdfs/a/agenda/mp/bd041028/yrdsb-bd041028-p77–78.pdf (accessed August 22,
2005).
Havercroft, J. 2004b. York region district school board: Character matters!: Appendices.
http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/pdfs/w/charactermatters/SOReport041028Appendices.doc
(accessed August 22, 2005).
Havercroft, J., J. Kielven, and M. Slodovnick. 2004. Building character schools: The York
region experience. The Attribute 2, no. 6. http://yrlc.on.ca/charactermatters/attribute/
(accessed October 31, 2005).
Hébert, Y., and A. Sears. 2001. Citizenship education. http://www.cea-ace.ca/res.cfm?subsec-
tion=rep (accessed April 26, 2005).
Howard, R.W., M.W. Berkowitz, and E.F. Schaeffer. 2004. Politics of character education.
Educational Policy 18, no. 1: 188–215.
Huckin, T.N. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Functional approaches to written text:
Classroom applications, ed. T. Miler, 78–93. Washington, DC: United States Information
Agency.
Ipsos-Reid Corp. 2005. Ontario’s first report on community character. http://www.yrdsb.edu.
on.ca/pdfs/w/charactermatters/Factum.pdf (accessed August 17, 2005).
Jasinski, J. 2001. Sourcebook on rhetoric. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kielven, J., and P. Turnbull. n.d. Choices into action and Character Matters!: Working together.
http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/pdfs/w/charactermatters/choicesinaction.pdf (accessed October
12, 2005).
176 S. Winton

Killingsworth, M.J. 2005. Appeals in modern rhetoric: An ordinary-language approach.

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kohn, A. 1997. How not to teach values. http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/hnttv.htm
(accessed May 22, 2003).
Kuypers, J.A., and A. King. 2004. What is rhetoric? In The art of rhetorical criticism, ed.
J.A. Kuypers, 1–12. New York, NY: Pearson.
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Leach, J. 2000. Rhetorical analysis. In Qualitative researching with text, image and sound,
ed. M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 207–26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lickona, T. 2003. Educating for character: A comprehensive approach. Orbit 33, no. 2: 17–9.
Luke, A. 1997. The material effects of the word: Apologies, stolen children and public
discourse. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 18, no. 3: 343–68.
Luke, A. 2002. Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse
analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 96–110.
Lusztig, M., and J.M. Wilson. 2005. A new right? Moral issues and partisan change in
Canada. Social Science Quarterly 86, no. 1: 109–28.
Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Nash, R.J. 1997. Answering the virtuecrats: A moral conversation on character education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Nicoll, K., and R. Edwards. 2004. Lifelong learning and the sultans of spin: Policy as
persuasion? Journal of Education Policy 19, no. 1: 43–55.
Ontario Ministry of Education. 2004. Ontario acting to reduce bullying and violence in
schools [Media release]. http://ogov.newswire.ca (accessed October 28, 2005).
Ontario Ministry of Education. 2006. Finding common ground: Character development in
Ontario schools, K-12 discussion paper. Toronto: Government of Ontario.
Osborne, K. 2001. Democracy, democratic citizenship, and education. In The erosion of
democracy: From critique to possibility, ed. J.P. Portelli and R.P. Solomon, 29–62.
Calgary, AB: Detselig.
Purpel, D.E. 1997. The politics of character education. In The construction of children’s
character, ed. A. Molnar, 140–53. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Purpel, D.E., and S. Shapiro. 1995. Beyond liberation and excellence: Reconstructing the
public discourse on education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Raths, L.E., M. Harmin, and S.B. Simon. 1966. Values and teaching: Working with values
in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Rizvi, F., and B. Lingard. 2010. Globalizing education policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Scheurich, J. 1994. Policy archaeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of
Education Policy 9, no. 4: 297–316.
Skau, K.G. 1996. Parental involvement: Issues and concerns. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research XLII, no. 1: 34–48.
Smagorinsky, P., and J. Taxel. 2004. The discourse of character education: Ideology and
politics in the proposal and award of federal grants. Journal of Research in Character
Education 2, no. 2: 113–40.
Smagorinsky, P., and J. Taxel. 2005. The discourse of character education: Culture wars in
the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stack, M. 2006. Testing, testing, read all about it! Canadian press coverage of PISA results.
Canadian Journal of Education 29, no. 1: 49–69.
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. 1999. Final report
on social cohesion. http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/SOCI-E/
rep-e/repfinaljun99part1-e.htm (accessed December 22, 2006).
Summers, K. 2001. Epideictic rhetoric in the Englishwoman’s review. Victorian Periodicals
Review 34, no. 3: 263–81.
Taylor, S. 2004. Researching educational policy and change in new times: Using critical
discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy 19, no. 4: 433–51.
Winton, S. 2007. Does character education really support citizenship education? Examining
the claims of an Ontario policy. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and
Policy 66. http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/index.html.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 177

Winton, S. 2008a. Character education: Implications for democracy. International Critical

Childhood Policy Studies 1, no. 1. http://journals.sfu.ca/iccps/index.php/childhoods/index.
Winton, S. 2008b. The appeal(s) of character education in threatening times: Caring and crit-
ical democratic responses. Comparative Education 44, no. 3: 305–16.
Winton, S. 2010. Character development and critical democratic education in Ontario, Can-
ada. Leadership and Policy in Schools 9, no. 2: 220–37.
York Region. n.d.-a. The changing face of York region. http://www.york.ca/NR/rdonlyres/
5qlbuvbwma7jtoqofdixjv3d2ak6xov4u62rhjelgcb7asykmffcbdkideo7wdklizmblwqystryo/
DemographicFactSheet1.pdf (accessed March 13, 2007).
York Region. n.d.-b. York Region facts. http://www.region.york.on.ca/About+Us/York
+Region+Facts/default+York+Region+Facts.htm (accessed May 4, 2006).
York Region District School Board. 2002. Family workbook. http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/
pdfs/w/charactermatters/FamilyCharacterWorkshop.pdf (accessed September 9, 2005).
York Region District School Board. 2003. Character education; Policy #380.0. http://www.
yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=TPP3800000 (accessed April 26, 2005).
York Region District School Board. 2004, April 19. Editorial. The Attribute 1, no. 5. http://
yrlc.on.ca/charactermatters/attribute (accessed October 28, 2005).
York Region District School Board. 2004, June 1. Editorial. The Attribute 1, no. 8. http://the-
attribute.ca/archive/ (accessed March 13, 2007).
York Region District School Board. 2004, July 12. Editorial. The Attribute 1, no. 11. http://
theattribute.ca/archive/ (accessed January 18, 2007).
York Region District School Board. 2004, March 8. Quick tips. The Attribute 1, no. 2.
http://yrlc.on.ca/charactermatters/attribute/ (accessed October 28, 2005).
York Region District School Board. 2004, March 22. Professional development. The Attri-
bute 1, no. 3. http://yrlc.on.ca/charactermatters/attribute (accessed October 28, 2005).
York Region District School Board. 2004, October 28. Board meeting minutes. http://www.
yrdsb.edu.on.ca/pdfs/a/minutes/board/yrdsb-brdmin-20041028.pdf (accessed August 20,
2005).
York Region District School Board. 2005, December 14. The Attribute 3, no. 5. http://theat-
tribute.ca/index.php?y=05&m=12 (accessed January 11, 2006).
York Region District School Board. 2005, January 24. Commentary. The Attribute 2, no. 10.
http://yrlc.on.ca/charactermatters/attribute/ (accessed October 31, 2005).
York Region District School Board. 2005a, June. Benchmark opinion survey of Ontarians on
the character of their community released [Media release]. http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/
pdfs/w/charactermatters/PressRelease050601.pdf (accessed April 4, 2007).
York Region District School Board. 2005b, June. Community report card: Ipsos-Reid survey.
www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/pdfs/w/charactermatters/junenewsletter.pdf (accessed June 26, 2005).
York Region District School Board. 2005, June 27. In our schools – bullying. The Attribute 2,
no. 21. http://theattribute.ca/archive/charactermatters/PressRelease050601.pdf (accessed
March 13, 2007).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-a. Attributes. http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?
id=ICM000012 (accessed August 4, 2005).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-b. How to get involved: Community. http://www.
yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=ICM200204 (accessed May 1, 2006).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-c. How to get involved: Employers. http://www.
yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=ICM200205 (accessed September 1, 2005).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-d. How to get involved: Parents. http://www.yrdsb.
edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=ICM200206 (accessed September 1, 2005).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-e. How to get involved: Principal’s role. http://
www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=ICM200207 (accessed May 1, 2006).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-f. Peer mediation, peace, conflict resolution. http://
www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=ICM200670 (accessed September 9, 2005).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-g. Questions and answers. http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.
ca/page.cfm?id=ICM000002#2 (accessed March 23, 2004).
York Region District School Board. n.d.-h. Staff stories. http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.
cfm?id=ICM200405 (accessed May 1, 2006).