There are various interpretations of curricular alignment (see Martone and Sireci, 2009). Most of these (eg Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and Yang, 2011) treat curriculum alignment as a static condition to be measured. In our research, curricular alignment is conceived as a purposeful process of selective interpretation and strategic reconstruction, repeated iteratively along an interpretive chain that begins with the aspirations of national curriculum documents and proceeds through state, regional and school level reconstructions to the ultimate realization of the curriculum in the classroom.

This symposium examines the dynamic nature of alignment through four distinct foci: that of assessment, scientific literacy, questioning practices, and curricular authorship. The intention is that each presentation takes a legitimate activity within the process of curriculum realisation and demonstrates empirically how that component participates in the dynamic process of curriculum alignment.

Well-articulated state and national mathematics and science curricula in Australia and China, together with the mathematics curriculum in Israel, provide the context for an investigation into both curricular alignment and the interpretive process whereby curricular aspirations are performatively realized in particular mathematics or science classrooms in Melbourne, Beijing, and Tel Aviv. An essential aspect of this study is the identification of the key points at which curricular interpretation is required and the influences that shape those interpretations in each country. The presentations in this symposium illustrate some distinctive analyses afforded by the research design, chosen because each offers a perspective not typically presented in previous studies of curricular alignment.

The overall project is non-interventionist, cross-cultural comparative, generating findings from:

•     the identification of performances valued in each setting with respect to curriculum, instruction, standards and assessment,

•     critical review of the alignment of these four elements within the chosen school systems for mathematics and/or science,

•     fine-grained documentation of the interpretive process, whereby state curriculum documents are progressively reconstructed for use by classroom teachers,

•     comparative analysis of performed knowings at each site to investigate the visible realization of the goals of mathematics and/or science classrooms.

The cross-cultural comparison of curricular alignment has the potential to illuminate systemic idiosyncrasies not otherwise evident.

Data sources included curriculum documents at all levels of the school system, interviews with key stakeholders (e.g., curriculum developers, policy makers, principals, school curriculum coordinators, heads of school mathematics departments, textbook publishers and authors, and classroom teachers of mathematics). In addition, video records of lesson sequences were generated in mathematics and science classrooms.

The four presentations that constitute this symposium illustrate some of the analytical possibilities. Each reported analysis identifies a distinctive aspect of curriculum alignment as this is enacted in Australia, China or Israel. Paper One examines the influence of assessment at national, state, school and classroom levels in Australia on the performative realisation of the curriculum in the classroom. Paper Two reports the analysis of the pedagogical tensions in teacher’s questioning practices as a reform-based mathematics curriculum is implemented in China. Paper Three reports teachers’ strategies for the classroom realization of “scientific literacy” as a curricular goal, including teacher-initiated assessment to provide insight into the classroom realization of scientific literacy in two contrasting science classrooms in Australia. Paper Four examines curricular authorship in Israel and the values and organisational practices that shape the authoring of curriculum documents and textbooks.

The major premise of this symposium is the need to recognise curriculum alignment not as a static pattern of association of curricular elements, but as an on-going dynamic process in which multiple actors at all levels of the school system contribute to the process generating the performances that constitute the daily realisation of the curriculum in every classroom.

Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 19(9), 11-16. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The New US Intended Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.