03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/20/2007 10:41 AM Page 45 - PDF document

03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/20/2007 10:41 AM Page 45 focus has typically been a local case,not on the case as an instantiation ofa larger institu-tional and organizational process.But as Placier,Walker,and Foster (2002) note in their study ofstandards making in one American state,“Although our findings are particular to onesetting,literature from Canada,Australia,andthe United Kingdom suggests that the patternswe identified are not entirely context-specific”(p.282).This is the insight I will pursue acrossthe pages ofthis chapter. EFININGTHEROBLEMWhatever their format or intention,state-mandated programs ofstudy present authoritativestatements about the social distribution oftheknowledge,attitudes,and competencies seen asappropriate to populations ofstudents.In addi-tion,they can mandate or recommend programsofstudy and/or methods ofteaching that reflect,for example,an understanding ofscience as inquiry,effective,or best practices.As such,we can see cur-riculum documents spelling out standards for thework ofschools,teachers,and students.Needless to say,all such standard-setting pre-supposes answers to the classical educationalquestion set out by Aristotle in the epigraph tothis chapter:What ideas,representations,values,norms and judgments about childhood andyouth,learning and teaching,life and culture,and so on should be represented in the stan-dards set out for schools? As Hutmacher (2001) Making Curricula47 Nova Scotia Department ofEducation:Provincial Curriculum DocumentsSubject categoriesArtsBusiness EducationEnglish Language ArtsEntrepreneurshipFrench ImmersionFrench,CoreGeneralHealth EducationMathematicsPersonal Developmentand Career EducationPhysical EducationScienceStudent ServicesTechnology EducationCurriculum documents for mathematicsMathematics 11/AdvancedMathematics 11Mathematics 12/AdvancedMathematics 12Mathematics Curriculum Grade 8Mathematics Curriculum Grade 9Mathematics Curriculum Grade 7Mathematics Curriculum Grades 4–6Mathematics Curriculum GradesPrimary–3Mathematics Curriculum,Pre-calculus 12Mathematics Curriculum:Mathematics 10Mathematics Foundations 10Mathematics Foundations 11Mathematics Foundations 12Foundation for the Atlantic CanadaMathematics CurriculumMathematics Grade 7:A TeachingResourceMathematics Grade 8:A TeachingResourceMathematics Grade 9:A TeachingResourceCurriculum documents for social studiesAfrican Canadian Studies 11Atlantic Canada in the GlobalCommunity:Grade 9Community Economic DevelopmentSocial Studies Curriculum:Grade 7Social Studies Curriculum:GradesPrimary–2Canadian History 11Foundation for the Atlantic CanadaSocial Studies CurriculumGeography 10Global Geography 12Global History 12Mi’kmaw Studies 10 Source:Adapted from Nova Scotia Department ofEducation (2006). 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 47 view ofeducational purposes is privileged—forexample,multiculturalism,constructivist learn-ing,and so on.The result has been approachesto understanding and prescribing for curricu-lum making that are idealistic and hortatoryrather than realistic.The complexities ofschool-ingare swept away in the name ofa single visionoflearning or education.There are few alternative,realistic analyses ofcurriculum making in the literature ofthe American curriculum field.One approach to such an account is found in Goodlad andAssociates’(1979) Curriculum InquiryStudy ofCurriculum Practice.The yield ofthestudy was the identification ofa set ofcontextsin which curricula are made:a societal context,which Goodlad and Associates associate with a school system’s controlling agency;a (local)institutional context and setting—that is,a par-ticular school,college,or university;a classroominstructional context,where the curriculum isgiven form by teachers;and the worlds ofthestudents who transform the curriculum intotheir own personal and/or experiential frames.Although Curriculum InquiryAssociates,1979) presents these contexts asloosely coupled,more often than not the set ofdecision-making contexts it sets out has beenreinterpreted as a hierarchy ofdecision-makinglevels—for example,ideally a curriculum reflect-ing an educational idea;intended,the curri-culum as developed at an institutional level;implemented,the curriculum as developed atthe school,classroom,and teacher levels;andattained or experienced,the curriculum as itemerges at the student level—with one oftheselevels presented as privileged.It is acknowledgedthat curricula are made at each ofthese levels,but rarely in ways in which they should be,con-sistently across levels.The resulting inconsis-tency is seen as slippage between,for example,the (privileged) ideal or intended curriculumand the enacted and experienced curriculum.In offering a reinterpretation ofGoodlad andAssociates’(1979) framework,Doyle (1992) pre-sents a reimaging oftheir abstracted scheme anda compelling critique ofthe privileging ofa hierarchical rationality found in many ofthederivatives oftheir model.He points out thatwhat Goodlad and Associates interpret as loosely-coupled settings for curriculum decision makingare in fact contexts associated with very differentactivities.In what he terms the societal context,the issues,discourses,and decisions center on thesymbolic intersection between schooling,culture,and society.In the institutional context the issues,discourses,and decision making center on theformal specification ofprograms ofstudy forschools,school types,and tracks,and the con-struction ofplans—for example,courses ofstudy,and so on—for these programs.In the instruc-tional context,the issues,discourses,and decisionmaking center on the pedagogical interpretationofsuch plans—with actual teachers,students,and communities with their biographies andhistories,intentions,meanings,and preferencesas the central participants in the process.To elaborate,in the societal context thediscourse—for example,the importance ofmathand science as an educational goal,the place ofsocial justice as an integrating theme across thecurriculum,and so on—rests on an imaginedcommunity and an imagined institution,andmore often than not the improvement ofthecommunity by way ofan enhanced schooling.The hope may be addressed to a specific socialproblem,such as youth unemployment,intercul-tural relations,and so on,or to more generalizedproblems such as economic,technological,polit-ical or cultural change (Rosenmund,2006).Butthe arguments,with their claims and counter-claims,center on idealizing narratives whose weftand warp are threads drawn from knowledge-heritages that accept without question Hopmann’s(1999) planning,learning,and effect premises.Inevitably,the referent ofsuch discourse is notthe realities ofschooling,and,as such,the dis-course has little immediate significance for prac-tice.Instead the debates themselves and theirresolutions yield frameworks for narrativesabout the role education and schooling as ideasplay in a social and cultural order.In the programmatic context the activity ofcurriculum making has a very different focus.Itseeks to precipitate societal and cultural symbolsand narratives into workable organizationalframeworks for the delivery ofschooling.A soci-etal resolution around the idea of,for example,excellence becomes,for example,the intro-duction of(elective) Advanced Placement orInternational Baccalaureate programs in a stateor district’s high schools.However,as Doyle(1992) emphasizes,such frameworks are onlyindirectly linked to actual classroom work.In programmatic discourse and decision mak-ing,teaching,classrooms,and students are Making Curricula49 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 49 Carlgren (1995) writes ofher experience in thesecretariat that supported the development oftheSwedish National Curriculum of1993,outsideraccounts ofcurriculum making “sometimes havethe tendency to create a mystical ‘being’who isrationally planning and implementing changes”(p.412).As she noted,in much ofthe discussionofthe curriculum making in the 1980s and 1990s,this new being was the new Right.For Carlgren(1995),however,curriculum-making is a problem-solving enterprise:The curriculum proposals [that were consideredwithin the 1993 curriculum commission] did notcome about as compromises in relation tosubstantive and ideological discussions,but froman interaction between the factors framing theprocess,incidental events and practicalconsiderations.Part ofunderstanding curriculumchange is therefore to understand what problemsthere are to solve e .(p.412)We can secure some insight into what thismeans from Hart’s (2002;see also Hart,2001)account ofher insider experience developing aphysics syllabus for an Australian state examin-ing authority.Hart began her work as a proj-ect officer within the authority as a reformerseeking to introduce a progressive,applications-based course,but this effort was frustrating.Following Goodson (1987) and Fensham (1993),she initially sought to understand the defeat ofthe reform group in terms on the influence ofconservative academic physicists on the decisionmaking.However,she came to realize that while“the academics wielded considerably morepower than I had anticipated...the mecha-nisms that enabled them to do so were moresubtle than suggested by the naive conceptionsofpower that I initially held”(Hart,2002,p.1068).As she came to see it,the primaryagents ofthe reformers’defeat were the author-ity’s managers.They intervened to reverse thedirection ofthe emergent,reforming physicscurriculum out ofa concern for the implicationsofthe reformed syllabus for fair,system-wideassessment and certification and their under-standing ofthe learning that defined physics.For Hart,the entry into her thinking and dis-course ofthe considerations around fair large-scale assessment was new insight.Hart (2002) interprets her account ofcurri-culum making in terms ofthe significance andpower ofunexamined knowledge-heritages thatframe discourse and understandings.She acknow-ledges implicitly that the reform discourse did notembrace the problems oflarge-scale assessmentand that her understanding ofvaluable learningdid not meet the understandings ofher colleaguesin the examination authority.Her narrative is anaccount ofthe development ofthe VictorianCertificate ofEducation (VCE) physics curricu-lum is an account ofincommensurable discoursesin a frame dominated by practical considerationsTo quote Carlgren (1995) again,“Part ofunder-standing curriculum change is therefore to under-stand what problems there are to solve”(p.412).The characters in Hart’s account,reformers andbureaucrats,were seemingly engaged in the sametask,but they were seeking to solve very differentproblems.URRICULUMAKINGAS NSTITUTIONALROBLEMOLVINGAs I have indicated at several points in thischapter,state-based curriculum making and the organizations that manage this activity arefound within many public education systemsand often have long histories as institutions.Viewed across time and settings,the successesand/or failings ofparticular instances ofcur-riculum making are simply cases within a largerinstitution.Is there a way ofunderstanding thework offormal curriculum making that bothilluminates individual cases and provides aframework for seeing the role and function ofthis institution within school systems?Hopmann (1991) pointed out that between1949 and the early 1990s more than 7000 sepa-rate curricula were developed by the states ofthe then Federal Republic ofGermany (FRG).He went on to observe that the development ofthese curricula had long been undertaken byway ofa process stretched over a set ofcommonsteps:(1) preliminary deliberations as a ministrysought public input;(2) the creation ofclustersofcurriculum-making committees,largelymade up ofexperienced teachers,to preparedrafts ofthe proposed curricula;(3) publiccomment on the drafts;and (4) formal adoptionand then implementation via inservice training.In the 1970s many advocates ofreform ofthetracked school system ofthe FRG agitated for amajor change in this structure ofcurriculum Making Curricula51 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 51 making for schooling,including ofcoursecurriculum making,as an activity framed withincommon understandings ofends and means.Instead,schooling is best characterized as a site ofstruggle and negotiation and ofconstanttranslation ofperspectives.These negotiations,framed as they often areby storylines ofhope,are further complicated bythe problems that flow from the organizationaltask ofroutinely deploying and managing school-ing.The legitimacy ofschools—for our children,for my child—requires the acceptance that schools are good,genuine schools.This requiresconformity to wider societal definitions ofwhat agood,genuine school is (Meyer,1980;Reid,1990,1999),which in its turn requires the agencies thatoperate school systems to have the administrativecapacity to routinely deploy real and effective—that is,legitimate—schooling:functioning struc-tures for managing teacher recruitment andcareers;for oversight ofindividual schools;forservices to special populations;and for build-ing maintenance and safety,finance,budgeting,payroll,and so on.School systems must create andmaintain structures to routinize service delivery.As is seen very clearly in Table 3.1,subjectsand courses are the building blocks for the routinization ofthe delivery ofthe inner work ofschools.They constitute the frameworkswithin which curricula are deployed.They arethe framework within which programs ofstudy,assessment,and certification for students andteachers are organized.Teachers come to theprofession on the basis oftheir subject com-mitments and are then educated by way ofpro-grams ofstudy that are often constructed interms ofwhat is needed to teach a subject in theschool.The administration and management ofthe inner work ofschool systems is organizedaround the management and supervision ofsubjects;and many,ifnot most,ideologies ofeducation emerge for and within institutional-ized subject-based communities.In other words,institutionalized subjectscreate the structures and professional com-munities that stabilize the delivery ofschooling(Goodson,1987;Grossman & Stodolsky,1994).But these bounded systems and bounded ratio-nalities limit what a curriculum can beDespiteadvocacy ofapplications in math and science,the preparation and commitments ofteachers ofmath and science give them,all too typically,nobackground in or knowledge ofthe applicationsoftheir subjects in,for example,engineering,industrial chemistry,and so on.In short,curriculum making for a school system cannot assume a tabula rasa that canrespond to the mandates ofauthoritative publicdecision making and/or the rationality ofplan-ning that is all focused on what the schools andcurricula should or might be in the best ofallworlds.Mechanisms for issue management arerequired.Thus Haft and Hopmann (1991) seethe structures and long-standing practices thatthe German reformers ofthe 1970s sought tochange as in fact core elements in a set ofwell-honed mechanisms for issue management in anill-defined field.With this analysis,they wereturning away from a view ofcurriculum makingas based in a search for best practices.Instead,they look to the ground oforganizational prac-tice for their understanding ofhow schools andschool systems as organizations in fact work,and need to work.While they locate their analy-sis in the history ofGerman education,theycontend that the set oftools for the issue man-agement that they identify is widely used.Inorder to unpack their framework and outlinethe curriculum-making tools they identify,I willoutline,as a case study,the American project ofthe late 1980s and early 1990s thrusting at sys-temic educational reform. NALYZINGYSTEMICSystemic reform embodies three inte-gral components:the promotion ofambitious outcomes for all students;alignment ofpolicy approaches and theaction ofvarious policy institutions topromote such outcomes;and restruc-turing ofthe public education gover-nance system to support improvedachievement.—Goertz,Floden,and O’Day,1996,p.1 What complex systems do is breakdown complex tasks into simple ones,deal with them as simple problems,andthen aggregate these solutions backtogether.—Meier and Hill,2005,p.63 Making Curricula53 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 53 federal programs.In other words,the new cur-riculum policies and documents were set on topofold documents,old policies and standingpractices.The difficult issues ofreconciling oldand new,with all their consequences for studentsand communities,were delegated to local deci-sion makers.This summary ofthe systemic-reform projectcan be restated in the following way.An open-ing for a political initiative around educationstimulated advocates to urge a complex educa-tional reform.The interest their ideas spawnedsparked abstracted public,political,and profes-sional discourse about the ideas ofschool andthe school system.The discussion and bargain-ing that followed had the consequence ofbothamplifying the original reform platform andcreating political opposition.The political backand forth between proponents and opponentsinevitably bounded the scope ofwhat had beeninitially presented as a major,nonincrementaleducational reform.As the reform agenda moved into the arenasoffederal legislation,appropriation and admin-istration—and confronted the electorcle—itbecame further bounded and further trans-formed.It became a set ofincentives offered to states to encourage them to redevelop,and in places extend,the administrative instru-used steer the work oftheir schools.As states processed how they would respond tothese incentives within their political culturesand their administrative systems and capabili-ties,further political bargaining,boundary mak-ing and administrative simplification took place as each state determined its programmaticambitions.And then those ambitions had to be instantiated in the activity ofthe workinggroups charged with developing the new cur-riculum frameworks.In the math and scienceworking groups,ambitious standards for allstudents could be formulated by transferring thetemplates offered by the national science ormath standards to their curriculum documents;for working groups in art or foreign language,and so on,there were no such consensual stan-dards;and thus there was no template for rou-tinizing what they had to accomplish!The outcomes ofthis state-level activity,thenew curricula,were then passed on to schoolleaders and teachers in local communities—withthe inevitable further recontextualization andsimplification.There the ambitious student outcomes ofthe original systemic-reform advocates only mattered as the slogan’s opera-tionalization in state tests—more often than notonly loosely-coupled to the state’s curriculumstandards—affected the task ofachieving accept-able local performance.The river ofadvocacyaround the platform ofsystemic reform hadflowed into the delta ofthe fragmented and dif-ferentiated structure that it had sought to change.ANAGINGTHE ROUNDCHOOLINGWriting from the perspective ofpublic adminis-tration,Meier and Hill (2005) contend that thecategorical simplification ofcomplex tasks isfunctional in that it allows discrete,expert orga-nizational units to deal with one or a few aspectsofa larger problem.The assumption is that ahierarchical,nested organization can,and will,reassemble the simplified pieces into somethingresembling the original shape and spirit ofthelarger program.Haft and Hopmann (1990) sug-gest that,in the case ofeducational reform,suchadministrative simplification more often thannot leads to the “taming”ofreform:the sim-plifying dispersion offocus offers a tool that isuseful for the management ofthe ever presentdifferences in perspective and discourse withinand around schooling.They write,The separation ofsyllabus editing [i.e.,curriculum making] from decisions aboutstructural [i.e.school types,school deliverystandards,school finance,assessment]...relievesplanners from pressures which would otherwisearise when basic structures ofknowledgedistribution are touched upon.(Haft &Hopmann,1990,p.162)Haft and Hopmann (1990) introduce theterm compartmentalizationto capture the struc-tural simplification and differentiation neces-sary for the administrative delivery ofeducationalchange and reform.But they also see this deviceas the most basic element in the tool kit availableto managers ofschool systems to tame what theyknow or believe cannot be attained.Compart-mentalization routes the implications ofcom-prehensive change platforms that,like systemicreform,could both threaten the equilibrium Making Curricula55 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 55 writing courses ofstudy.The public,through itsrepresentatives,dominates the committees that,on the basis offeedback,recommend revisionand/or formal approval ofthe new curriculum-as-text.By a self-conscious sleight ofhand on thepart ofthe managers ofprojects,self-containedworlds are constructed and/or linked only by thesymbols ofthe project’s platform.Each groupbelieves that its form ofdiscourse and its world isthe reality ofthe project and that the “means andends named by [their] symbols [and symbolmaking] are what the symbolic action is about”(Haft & Hopmann,1990,p.168).URRICULUMAKINGAS TEERINGOFAA political consensus around a policy platform,like the need for demanding curriculum stan-dards,systemic reform,or the contemporary NoChild Left Behind (NCLB) project,cannot bewilled away despite the reality-based convictionofschool people that it makes no sense.Thedemocratic premise ofeducational governancerequires that the words ofa platform,policy,or form ofdiscourse with significance and legit-imacy in authoritative public,policy and/orpolitical discourse be acknowledged by schoolsystems.This is always the case despite the(often) very different ideological,discourse,andpractice frames offrontline practitioners andtheir immediate constituencies—and the com-peting claims ofother platforms and prioritieson public attention.At the same time it has to berecognized that—given their resources,theirroutinized patterns ofwork and historical com-mitments,and their relationships with their con-stituencies—schools cannot respond to projectsthey do not know how to implement or to proj-ects for which they lack the human,physical,orfinancial resources that might be needed forimplementation.Political or legislative opinionor action cannot will the needed capacity forand/or give legitimacy to their mandates inschools and their communities;for students,teachers and schools legitimacy and expertisederives from their worlds and their capacities.For school systems that have the mechanismavailable—and increasing numbers ofsystemsare turning to it—state-based curriculum mak-ing offers a set ofpowerful tools for managingthe problems that flow from such dilemmas.Theprocess ofcreating curriculum documents canbe used to pilot notions ofreform and change,whether derived from without or within theschool system,into the safe harbors oftext pro-duction and text reading.By exploiting the gapbetween symbol and substance,school systemscan reflect,and even project,change and reformwhile maintaining their ongoing,unrecon-structed programs and activities.How can we come to terms with such anaccount ofcurriculum making? We can begin toanswer this question by recognizing the fact thatfar-reaching change is largely unachievable indeveloped educational systems over any short ormiddle run.Curricula cannot change the prefer-ences ofpopulations for forms ofschools—thatis,the German Gymnasium or the English selec-tive secondary grammar school—with all ofthesymbolic meaning and legitimacy oftheir tradi-tions and curricula.While curricula-as-texts caneffect changes in the formal programmatic cur-riculum by,for example,introducing courses inMandarin Chinese as a foreign language into theformal program ofstudies ofa system,the con-sequences ofsuch a change are moot ifthere isno body ofteachers ofChinese.Curricula candirect which major topics should be taught,butifteachers do not know how to teach the topics,the prescription will also be moot.Policy makerscan prescribe new classroom activities,but theycannot determine what will be done by individ-ual teachers during such activities.On the other hand,curriculum texts cansignal priorities,and thus set agendas foradministrative action.Indeed,Bähr et alconcluded after their study ofthe consequencesofcurriculum making for educational systemsin Switzerland that the most significant directimplication ofnew curricula was in the work ofeducational administrations—by declaring,forexample,the need to begin the widespread earlyintroduction ofEnglish into a German-speakingcanton to replace the previously taught French,one ofSwitzerland’s national languages.Can such a limited effective functionality serveto explain both the persistence ofthe institutionofstate-based curriculum making and the colo-nization ofnew territories by this institution?Haft and Hopmann’s (1990) analysis addressesthis puzzle by interpreting the activity ofcurricu-lum making as a tool designed,on the one hand,to mute the practical consequences ofpublic and professional demands for curriculum change Making Curricula57 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 57 express “images,myths,and sagas that are toplace people in a collective whole”(p.241).Thecurriculum has played,and continues to play,amajor role in forming the citizen as it institu-tionalizes the narratives that constitute the collective memory and shape individual’s rela-tionships with their natural and social environ-ments (McEneaney & Meyer,2000;Rosenmund,2006).As many have observed—although theyhave valued the consequences in differentways—modernity,globalization,mass migra-tion,and the like bring changes to both collectiveand individual narratives and pose very visiblechallenges to the very idea ofa self-governingnational community.A formal curriculum can articulate through itsselection and organization ofschool knowledgeold,new,or revised narratives about the individ-ual and the community and about both the indi-vidual’s and the community’s social and naturalworlds.It gives an authoritative form to a narra-tive or set ofnarratives and signals their implica-tions.Let us assume that was developed toconstruct and symbolize a new,public narrativeofNorway and Norwegians as an instrument forthe ideological steering ofthe networks oforga-nizations that make up the Norwegian school sys-tem.What did the curriculum makers seek to do?The Norwegian élite is part ofthe European élitethat is,to different degrees,embracing modernityand globalization and facing the forces that a newworld is creating.As in many countries,the valuesofthis new order do not always sit easily withthose ofolder orders.The challenge facingNorway’s political élites is the reconciliation ofthese different interests.The narrative and man-dates ofcan be seen as one attempt at such areconciliation:it highlighted the symbols ofedu-cational modernity,mathematics and science,and the state’s proactive response to the issuesfacing Norway in a globalizing world.The pro-grammatic decision to introduce English fromGrade 1 and German and French from Grade 8gave an explicit endorsement ofa view ofthe cul-tural and linguistic world that is most salient toNorway’s future,one that will be noted by allparents who have children entering the elemen-tary school.But at the same time,the narrative ofcomplemented its embrace ofmodernitywith a ringing,inward-directed endorsement ofthe nation and its culture and its social solidarity.In other words,the text ofwas successfulin that it was able to construct a convincing,forits time and place,narrative ofa school thatbalanced stability and change,old and new,andthe cultures ofthe nation and ofa new,globaliz-ing world.It offered a basis for a political and an educational response to the challenges ofthe new world—promises ofopportunity for thenation’s children and a reassuring vision ofthecontinuing significance ofnational traditions.The process around the making ofprovideda vehicle for steering a national dialogue (anddebate) about the narratives and metaphors ofthe nation and school.The resulting authorita-tive curriculum-as-document symbolized aninterim resolution ofthat dialogue. ONCLUSIONIn their review ofthe problems that might face American states as they developed contentstandards,Kirst and Bird (1997) pointed to therange ofinterest groups that would be necessar-ily engaged in the political process involved indeveloping authoritative,state-based sets ofstandards (see Table 3.3).They went on to out-line eight decision points and dilemmas thatwould face any deliberation about the structuresand patterns ofwork ofstate-based curriculum1.Who must be involved in the process for it tobe seen as inclusive? Ifevery group claiming aplace in the process is acknowledged,the resultwill be cumbersome and time-consuming.2.Ifappeals from interest groups for specificchanges (e.g.,inclusion ofphonics orexclusion ofevolution) are rejected,theprocess will be criticized for its lack ofpublicparticipation at the highest level and forleaving crucial decisions to technical panels.Ifall these protests are considered,the processwill become bogged down in time-consumingand fractious disputes.3.Ifappeals from subject-matter specialists (e.g.,too much physics,not enough biology) areheard,policy makers will become involved inarbitrating the balance among fields within asubject-matter area.4.Ifa curriculum is too general,it will becriticized for provided insufficientinstructional guidance for teachers.If Making Curricula59 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 59 Ten years later we can evaluate the statecurriculum making ofthe mid-1990s and see thatit was more successful than many expected—thestandards documents that emerged were,on the whole,well accepted by both publics andschools.The political contest that had occurred insome states around the state-level curriculummaking undertakings ofthe 1980s and early 1990shad offered lessons that were learned well.ofthese lessons was fundamental.Despite thenonincremental goals that Kirst and Bird saw asthe center ofthe systemic-reform platform,themanagers ofthe process ofputting the reform inplace opted for incrementalism:acceptance ofthe broad outlines oftheexisting situation with only marginal changescontemplated;consideration ofa restricted variety ofpolicyalternatives,excluding those involving radicalchange;consideration ofa restricted number ofconsequences for any given policy;adjustment ofobjectives to politics as well asvice versa;willingness to reformulate the problem as databecome available;andserial analysis and piecemeal alteration ratherthan a single comprehensive overhaul.(Kirst& Bird,1997,p.1)In proceeding in this way,the states’approachesto the political and professional platform ofsys-temic reform reflected the rationality articulatedby Haft and Hopmann (1990) and embracedtheir tool kit for taming reform:(1) The impactofthe platform at the heart ofthe systemic-reform project was thwarted as curriculummaking and assessment were placed in separate,noncommunicating administrative compart-ments;standards-setting was thus decoupledfrom any implications for the certification ofschools and students.(2) By their use ofthe tooloflicensing the state-level managers insulated thestate-level process from the issues around thecapacity ofthe schools and local school systemsto implement the new curricula.Blame for failurecould thus be placed on the schools and teachers,not on the policy or the policy makers.(3) Theyconsulted widely and found room for many inter-est groups in their projects,but segmented thesediscourse communities in ways that insulated the discourse ofpolitics and the public from thediscourse ofteachers,who were themselves segmented into subject-based committees.(4) Where there was actual or potential conflictwithin the process,it was (in the main) kept outofpublic view or highlighted in ways that sus-tained the legitimacy ofthe overall process.Inother words,the potential issues and problemsthat Kirst and Bird (1997) identified were wellmanaged.The narrative ofstandards wasaccepted and served to legitimate the emergenceofother,also new state-level steering mechanisms(i.e.,statewide assessment and test-based teachercertification).However,these instruments,whenalso well crafted,had few direct,nonincrementalconsequences for the social distribution oftheoutcomes ofschools.That a new,nationwide process ofstate-levelcurriculum making would be,overall,success-ful might not have been predicted.What waspredictable was that systemic reform would notresult in significant,nonincremental changes inschools.But this was not an outcome specific tothis American adventure,with its use ofthe new(for the United States) policy instruments ofstate-based curriculum making.Curriculum making isnot an effective policy instrument for steeringschooling.It is a mechanism,or tool,deployed tomanage the political,professional,and public fieldsaround schooling,more often than not designed tomute rather than amplify calls for educationalreform and change.Those with commitments toan idea ofeducation might wish it were otherwise,but what might that otherwise be? As Aristotle putPolitics,“The existing practice is perplexing[and] no one knows on what principle we shouldproceed”(trans.1941,VIII,2,p.1337b).The con-temporary answer to this conundrum is that sys-tems ofpublic schooling should serve all principlesthat might be identified,with decision makingabout emphases being left to local sites.School sys-tems cannot make such decisions;their task is lim-ited to the steering ofthe fields around and withinthe system.Curriculum making is one tool thatcan be exploited for such steering. OTES1.I am distinguishing the state-based curriculummaking directed at leading instruction in the first instancefrom the long-standing British-world institutions that specify courses ofstudy as the basis for external, Making Curricula61 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 61 Broadhead,P.(2002).The making ofa curriculum:How history,politics,and personal perspectivesshape emerging policy and practice.Scandinavian Journal ofEducational Research,Carlgren,I.(1995).National curriculum as socialcompromise or discursive politics? Somereflections on a curriculum-making process.Journal ofCurriculum Studies,27,411,430.Clandinin,D.J.,& Connelly,F.M.(1995).Teachers’professional knowledge landscapes.New York:Teachers College Press.Cohen,D.K.,& Hill,H.C.(2001).Learning policy:When state education reform works.New Haven,CT:Yale University Press.Cohen,D.K.,& Spillane,J.P.(1992).Policy andpractice:The relations between governance andinstruction.In C.Grant (Ed.),Review ofresearch in education (Vol.18,pp.3–49).Washington,DC:American EducationalResearch Association.Cohen,D.K.,Raudenbush,S.W.,& Ball,D.L.(2002).Resources,instruction,and research.InF.Mosteller & R.Boruch (Eds.),Evidencematters: Randomized trials in education research(pp.80–119).Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution Press.Cohen,D.K.,Raudenbush,S.W.,& Ball,D.L.(2003).Resources,instruction,and research.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,25,Craig,C.J.(2003).Narrative inquiries ofschoolreform: Storied lives,storied landscapes,storiedmetaphors.Greenwich,CT:Information Age.Doyle,W.(1992).Curriculum and pedagogy.In P.W.Jackson (Ed.),Handbook ofresearch oncurriculum: A project ofthe AmericanEducational Research(pp.486–516).New York:Macmillan.Drake,C.,& Sherin,M.G.(2006).Practicing change:Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative inthe context ofmathematics education reform.Curriculum Inquiry,36,Drake,C.,Spillane,J.P.,& Hufferd-Ackles,K.(2001).Storied identities:Teacher learning and subjectmatter context.Journal ofCurriculum Studies,Fensham,P.J.(1993).Academic influence on schoolscience curricula.Journal ofCurriculum Studies,Firestone,W.A.,Fitz,J.,& Broadfoot,P.(1999).Power,learning,and legitimation:Assessmentimplementation across levels in the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom.AmericanEducational Research Journal,36,Fore,L.(1998).Curriculum control:Usingdiscourse and structure to manage educationalreform.Journal ofCurriculum Studies,30,Fuhrman,S.H.(2001).Introduction.In S.H.Fuhrman (Ed.),From the capitol to theclassroom: Standards-based reform in the states(pp.1–12).Chicago:National Society for theStudy ofEducation.Goertz,M.E.,Floden,R.E.,& O’Day,J.(1996).Studies ofeducation reform: Systemic reform.Washington,DC:United States GovernmentPrinting Office.Goodlad,J.I.,& Associates.(1979).Curriculuminquiry: The study ofcurriculum practice.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Goodson,I.F.(1987).School subjects and curriculumLewes,UK:Falmer.Grossman,P.L.,& Stodolsky,S.S.(1994).Considerations ofcontent and thecircumstances ofsecondary school teaching.InL.Darling-Hammond (Ed.),Review ofresearchin education (Vol.20,pp.179–221).Washington,DC:American EducationalResearch Association.Haft,H.,& Hopmann,S.(1990).Curriculumadministration as symbolic action.In H.Haft &S.Hopmann (Eds.) Case studies in curriculumadministration history(pp.143–158).London:Falmer.Hart,C.(2001).Examining relations ofpower in aprocess ofcurriculum change:The case ofVCE physics.Research in Science Education,Hart,C.(2002).Framing curriculum discursively:Theoretical perspectives on the experience ofVCE physics.International Journal ofScienceEducation,24,Hendricks,M.(2005,June 13).Teachers can ignorethe state board [Electronic version].The KansasCity StarHill,H.C.(2001).Policy is not enough:Language andthe interpretation ofstate standards.AmericanEducational Research Journal,38,Hopmann,S.(1988).Lehrplanarbeit alsverwaltungshandeln [Curriculum work asadministrative action]Kiel,Germany:IPN.Hopmann,S.(1991).Current structures ofcurriculum making in the Federal Republic ofGermany and their impact on content.In B.B.Gundem,B.U.Engelsen,& B.KarsethCurriculum work and curriculum content:Theory and practice: Contemporary andhistorical perspectives(Report No.5,pp.158–180).Universitetet I Oslo,Pedagogiskforskingsinstitutt.Hopmann,S.(1999).The curriculum as a standardStudies in Philosophy andEducation,18, Making Curricula63 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 63 mathematics reform.Journal ofCurriculumStudies,31,Reid,W.A.(1990).Strange curricula:Origins anddevelopment ofthe institutional categories ofschooling.Journal ofCurriculum Studies,Reid,W.A.(1999).Curriculum as institution andpractice: Essays in the deliberative tradition.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.Roberts,M.(1995).Interpretations ofthe Geography National Curriculum:A commoncurriculum for all.Journal ofCurriculumStudies,27,Rosenmund,M.(2006).The current discourse oncurriculum change:A comparative analysis ofnational reports on education.In A.Benavot &C.Braslavsky (Eds.),School knowledge incomparative and historical perspective: Changingcurricula in primary and secondary education(CERC Studies in Comparative Education No.19,pp.173–194).Hong Kong:University ofHong Kong,Comparative Education ResearchCentre.Royal Ministry ofEducation,Research,and ChurchAffairs.(1999).The curriculum for the 10-yearcompulsory school in Norway.Oslo,Norway:Author.Sivesind,K.(2002).Task and themes incommunication about the curriculum:TheNorwegian compulsory school reform inperspective.In M.Rosenmund,A.-V.Fries &W.Heller (Eds.),Comparing curriculum-makingprocesses(pp.319–332).Bern,Switzerland:PeterLang.Sloan,K.(2006).Teacher identity and agency inschool worlds:Beyond the all-good/all-baddiscourse on accountability-explicit curriculumCurriculum Inquiry,36,Smith,M.S.,& O’Day,J.(1990).Systemic schoolreform.In S.H.Furhman & B.Malen (Eds.),Politics ofcurriculum and testing: The 1990Politics ofEducation Association Yearbook(pp.233–267).London:Falmer.Spillane,J.P.(2004).Standards deviation: Howschools misunderstand education policy.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.Tyler,R.W.(1950).Basic principles ofcurriculum andinstruction.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.Walker,D.F.(1992).Methodological issues incurriculum research.In P.W.Jackson (Ed.),Handbook ofresearch on curriculum: A project ofthe American Educational Research(pp.98–118).New York:Macmillan.Weniger,E.(2000).Didaktik as a theory ofeducation.In I.Westbury,S.Hopmann,& K.Riquarts (Eds.),Teaching as a reflectivepractice: The German Didaktik tradition(pp.111–125).Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Westbury,I.(2003).Evaluating a national curriculumreform.In P.Haug & T.A.Schwandt (Eds.),Evaluating educational reforms: Scandinavianperspectives(pp.189–207).Greenwich,CT:Information Age Press.Wilson,S.(2003).California dreaming: Reformingmathematics education.New Haven,CT:YaleUniversity Press.Wixson,K.K.,Dutro,E.,& Athan,R.G.(2003).Thechallenge ofdeveloping content standards.In Review ofresearch in education (Vol.27,pp.69–107).Washington,DC:AmericanEducational Research Association. Making Curricula65 03-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 65