Curriculum alignment ensures coherence between the intended curriculum, the enacted curriculum and the assessed curriculum (Porter, 2007; Webb, 1990; Ziebell, Ong & Clarke, 2017). This study sought to determine the enablers and constraints at all levels of the schooling system associated with curriculum design, development and re-alignment during a period of curriculum reform in Victoria. Drew, Priestley and Michael (2016) have reported on the issue of the “implementation gap between policy intention and classroom practice”. By understanding the systems impacting on the intended, enacted and assessed curriculum, the factors that influence curriculum, or ‘sources of authority’, can be investigated from policy to practice. The key research questions are: 1. What are the systems and sources of authority that impact on curriculum design and development at the school level? 2. To what extent do curriculum developers support those that are responsible for the interpretation of the mandated curriculum and its implementation at the school level? At the state level, it was identified that curriculum reform requires a ‘disruption’ to current practice. This is in acknowledgment of the purposes and priorities defined in the new curriculum. At the school level, the procedures for curriculum re-alignment ranged from using an updated textbook and minor ‘tweaking’, to taking the opportunity to make significant changes by rewriting the school curriculum. A significant finding is that in some schools, the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy has a role as an authoritative source for curriculum planning at the classroom level. Teachers adjust their curriculum to ensure that students are well-prepared for the test in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. While classroom practice has more emphasis on developing the skills required to sit the test, nationwide there have been modest improvements (Reading - years 3 and 5. Numeracy - year 5) or no improvements (Reading – years 7 and 9. Numeracy - years 3, 7 and 9) since the beginning of the national testing program in 2008 to 2016. Curriculum reform provides an opportunity to critically reflect on current practices, with consideration given to sources of authority that are used to complement the mandated curriculum. This can also create tensions between the competing purposes and priorities in terms of what knowledge and skills are valued by stakeholders at all levels of the schooling system. A recommendation is that adequate support for curriculum re-alignment is required if the goals of the new curriculum are to be met.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). NAPLAN Achievement in Reading, Persuasive Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2015. Sydney: ACARA. Bentley, T. & Cazaly, C. (2015). The shared work of learning: Lifting educational achievement through collaboration. Mitchell Institute research report No. 03/2015. Mitchell Institute for Health and Education Policy and the Centre for Strategic Education, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://mitchellinstitute.org.au Drew, V., Priestley, M., & Michael M. (2016). Curriculum development through critical collaborative professional enquiry. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(1), 92 – 106. Porter A. C., Smithson J., Blank R., & Zeider T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51. 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 Ziebelln, N., Ong, A., & Clarke, D. (2017). Aligning curriculum, instruction and assessment. In T. Bentley, & G. Savage (Eds), Educating Australia: Challenges for the decade ahead (pp255-274). Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.