Curriculum alignment refers to the extent to which there is coherence between the intended curriculum, the enacted curriculum and the assessed curriculum across an education system. Curricular alignment research tends to focus on the degree of correspondence between the elements of a system as a static entity that can be measured (see Porter, 2007; Webb, 1999). However, curriculum interpretation and design at the school level is a dynamic process and has a significant role in the alignment between curriculum standards and how they are realized in classroom practice. At the school level, teachers are given the responsibility to interpret, design, align, enact and assess the mandated curriculum. This is an iterative process that is influenced by a range of factors that are both internal and external to schools (Ziebell & Clarke, 2015). Sullivan, Clarke, Clarke, Farrell and Garrards (2013) found that when making curriculum decisions, teachers access different sources of authority. Accessing ‘sources of authority’ beyond the mandated curriculum influences the authorship of various school curriculum planning documents. This inevitably has an impact on the types of performances that are privileged in classroom practice and the subsequent alignment with the mandated curriculum. The principal aim of this study was to explore the curriculum interpretation process when planning the enacted and assessed curriculum. By understanding the systems involved in curriculum interpretation and the various influences on these systems, the dynamic and complex nature of alignment can be explored. The primary research questions are: 1. What processes and systems do those responsible for the interpretation of curriculum use to plan, enact and assess the mandated curriculum standards? 2. What factors impact on the development of curriculum at the school level that are both internal and external to schools? This project also investigated the processes that schools undergo when curriculum is implemented and how the priorities in the curriculum are reconciled with existing school curriculum documents, organisational structures, school cultures and the values that are embedded therein. This research has implications for providing support materials that are sensitive to the school contexts and provide the relevant information required for planning and aligning new curriculum at the school level.

Porter A. C., Smithson J., Blank R., & Zeider T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. J., Clarke, D. M., Farrell, L., & Garrard, J. (2013). Processes and priorities in planning mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal 25 (4), 457-480. Webb, N. (1999). Research monograph No. 18. Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Ziebell, N & Clarke, D. (2015, September). Curriculum authorship and curriculum alignment. Paper presented at the European Educational Research Association, Budapest, Hungary.