This contribution focuses on how school-based curriculum development (SBCD) takes place in a global network of primary schools following the same curriculum framework and what helps or hinders their work. SBCD refers to direct involvement of teachers and/or school leaders in the creation of curricular products for use during class (e.g. teaching resources, learner materials) and/or outside of class/at the school level (e.g. progression schemes, assessment plans), (cf. Marsh, Day, Hannay & McCutcheon, 1990; Skillbeck, 1984; Law & Nieveen, 2010). Our study focussed on three essential perspectives of curriculum development (Goodlad, 1994), namely: the substantive, technical-professional, and socio-political perspectives. Further, we note that the curriculum development process in general, and attending to each perspective in particular, is influenced by the human, material, and structural aspects of the organizational infrastructure (McKenney, 2019). Bringing these together and informed by literature review of SBCD models and empirical SBCD studies, we examined factors salient to a school’s ability to attend to one or more of the curriculum perspectives. The overarching research question is: How do the networked primary schools attend to the substantive, technical-professional and socio-political perspectives of curriculum development and how do (human, material and structural) contextual factors shape that work? The research question was answered in two main phases. First, to gain a broad understanding regarding schools’ practices and influences, an online survey was sent to all schools in the worldwide network. In total, 680 schools were represented (response rate 33%). Second, for in-depth portrayal of the SBCD efforts and influences, five schools were selected for in-depth case-studies. With each school five online meetings were held, including a series of three two-hours online workshops as well as entry and exit interviews. Deductive as well as inductive coding has been undertaken. Findings from the survey provided first impressions, such as that the majority of respondents has SBCD experience at the classroom and school level. Two third of the respondents is somewhat satisfied and one third was very satisfied with the SBCD practices. The majority use resources and exemplary materials for (conceptual) understanding of the development activities and the future products. Granting freedom and reassurance from the school leadership positively influenced the process and a culture of involvement and existing communication structures facilitated stakeholder engagement. The in-depth case studies uncovered more detailed insights and aspects that helped or hindered the SBCD work. Emergent patterns and implications for supporting SBCD efforts will be discussed.

Goodlad, J. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262-1267). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Marsh, C. Day, C. Hannay, L. & McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualising school-based curriculum development. London: Falmer Press. McKenney S. (2019). Developing the Human, Material, and Structural Aspects of Infrastructure for Collaborative Curriculum Design: Lessons Learned. In: Pieters J., Voogt J., Pareja Roblin N. (eds) Collaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning. Springer, Cham. Law, E.H.-F., & Nieveen, N. (2010). (Eds.). Schools as curriculum agencies: Asian and European perspectives on school-based curriculum development. Rotterdam: Sense publishers Skillbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row.