Decentralization of educational policy offers schools and teachers possibilities to take initiatives to alter (parts of) their curriculum. Instead of adhering to pre-defined programs, they are enabled to renegotiate and redesign their curriculum. The Dutch educational policy context (with its tendency towards increasing autonomy of schools) offers a rich field to study schools that are renegotiating their school curriculum. Influenced by the increase in autonomy, there is a growing number of schools that strive to renew their existing curriculum and school organization. Within this context, there is a need for suitable methods (procedures, instruments and activities) that stimulate school-based developments towards a new coherent curriculum. In our study we aim at contributing to this field. While doing so, we take as a major principle that successful en sustainable school-based curriculum renewal efforts need synergy and productive relations between: 1. curriculum development at various levels (system, school and classroom); 2. professional development of teachers; and 3. school development (cf. Fullan, 2001; Hopkins, 2001). Moreover, we take as a starting point that teachers seem to have a central role in de curriculum design processes (Black & Atkin, 1996; Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995; Skilbeck, 1998) and, in order to realize synergy, collaboration among teachers seems to be indispensable for schools that are working towards a more relevant and coherent curriculum (Hargreaves, 2003; Hord, 2004; Lieberman & Miller, 2004; Little 1990; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). The study that we report on in this paper centers on the potentials of teacher design teams (TDTs) as a means to integrate curriculum development, teacher development and school development. TDT’s are groups of teachers of related subjects who cooperate in order to renew and redesign their common curriculum and to develop themselves professionally (at the individual, group and school level). They not only redesign but also commonly implement the new curriculum in their classes. In this context, teacher collaboration is seen as essential to bridge the gap between the work of individual teachers (within their own subjects and classrooms) and school-wide aspirations. The main research questions in this study were: a. What curriculum design activities (including analysis, design, evaluation and implementation activities) do teachers, team leaders and school leaders carry out when redesigning the curriculum? b. Which activities are considered beneficial from their perspective when redesigning their common curriculum? Although there is considerable research data showing that collaborative teacher teams are beneficial for student learning, much less is known about how such teams start and are sustained in their work (cf. McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). Literature offers many models and strategies for curriculum development, however, in daily practice, teachers tend to base their design decisions (on matters like fruitful learner activities, relevant content, suitable resources, appropriate timing, et cetera) predominantly on their practical knowledge (what will and will not work in the classroom), including personal survival concerns and beliefs about professional identity (Black & Atkin, 1996; Olson, 2002; Walker, 2003). Nevertheless, when teachers are working together as a team on the redesign of their curriculum, more efforts need to be put into discussing the ideas and consequences and finding ways to come to an agreement. These are topics that will be dealt with in this study.

In order to answer the research questions, TDT’s were followed within different school settings and different aspects of their design work were examined and compared. The main research methods were observations of the activities of the teacher teams and reflective (group) interviews with teachers, coaches and school leaders. During the interviews, the emphasis was put on critical events in the process, the support that the team received, and on the results of the process in the form of products and the impact on the team and individual teachers. Through a process of case analysis (analysis of the process within a team), in site cross-case analysis (comparison of teams within one school site), and cross-case analysis (comparison between different school sites), patterns, conditions, and effective activities within these teams were exposed

First results of the analysis of the work of teacher design teams During the start • The existence of a (emerging) vision of an alternative practice is very dominant in the design work that will follow in the TDT’s. Even when the team does not have this vision, the idea’s that are developed in the first two to three meetings are mostly the ideas that get implemented. • TDT’s seem to spend little time on explicit analysis of the goals and possibilities of the intended curriculum or the kind of context and students characteristics that influence its form and function. They also spend little time in consciously analyzing and planning the design process itself. During design and construction • TDT’s tend to focus on designing the overall lines and concrete construction of lesson materials. They base the design either on the emerging vision of practice (if already existing) or, if this vision is not apparent, on their current practice. • In teams that have an initial idea and more clarity of their goals the design and construction of the lesson materials take place simultaneously. Teams that miss these directions go through a relatively long period of exploration (mostly focussed on organizational constraints, such as teaching time and place) with a short burst of construction at the end of the school-year. • Discussing and solving the issues of teaching time and place are conditional to any other discussion and form a crucial point in the design work. For many teams, and certainly those that have only a vague idea of what their common goals are, the school-wide organizational framework forms a crucial element in when and how they start working on the redesign of their curriculum. • In most teams there is little discussion on the content of teaching because that is seen as dictated by the school-books they use. • The most productive activities of teams (leading the team some steps forward) are those that assist the teachers in acquiring a concrete image of an alternative practice – either by viewing examples or by getting information which provides a concrete picture. Also the drafting of concrete plans on paper – and due to that ending an abstract discussion - is seen as an important step that helps the team move from discussion to concrete decisions. During evaluation • Only few teams pilot or evaluate their products before the school-wide implementation. • The main criterion for success of the design is its practicality, First results of the analysis at the organizational level • arranging for common ‘free time’ for teachers to meet and guarding this time-slot for discussion on the redesign is the most important condition for the (design) work of the team • the role of the stream leaders seems to be highly influential. Regular and frequent contact between the stream leader and the team (which is not common practice in many teams) stimulates the work of the team to a great extent. This is probably due to both the information the leader can supply in face-to-face meetings and the building of an open relationship with the team based on the content of their work. • When the design takes place on school-wide level the school-leader has a central role. School in which redesign trajectories lead to concrete and positive results, are those schools where school-leaders are able to formulate an explicit reform strategy and match it with the capabilities of their teacher’s team. They can therefore negotiate with external coaches on the kind of support activities that are needed and can help redirecting sthenm. These leaders are also able to consciously adjust their strategy to the developments in the team. In the coming months further cross-case analysis is scheduled. The paper we will present the conclusions of this analysis.