Curriculum change is a recurring feature of education systems globally, including Australia, where teachers must continually interpret new curriculum documents to support student learning (Ross, 2024; Superfine, 2008). Internationally, this interpretive work is recognised as central to teacher professionalism, yet it is increasingly shaped by policy pressures, accountability demands, and the proliferation of centrally produced curriculum materials. European research similarly documents tensions between teacher autonomy, curriculum standardisation, and workload intensification, particularly in systems undergoing reform or centralisation (Priestley et al., 2015). These shared challenges position the Australian case within a broader international conversation about the conditions that enable teachers to engage meaningfully with curriculum.

The literature commonly distinguishes between the intended curriculum (policy documents and official materials) and the enacted curriculum, the lived interactions between teachers and students (Ben‑Peretz, 1990; Ellis, 2004). While widely used, this dichotomy obscures the interpretive processes teachers undertake to transform policy into practice. This interpretive space has become increasingly important as governments seek to address teacher workload by reframing curriculum planning as an administrative burden (Stacey et al., 2024). Across Europe, similar policy moves have led to the adoption of scripted or highly standardised curriculum resources, often justified as efficiency measures but criticised for narrowing pedagogical decision-making and reducing teacher agency (Birch et al., 2021; Wyse & Ferrari, 2015). Research suggests that such materials can diminish teacher satisfaction and limit opportunities for professional judgement (Poulton & Mockler, 2024), echoing concerns raised in international analyses citing teachers as renting their curriculum vision rather than owning it (Sahlberg, 2015).

This study investigates the experiences of five Australian primary teachers using scripted mathematics curriculum materials. The guiding research question is: What process of curriculum interpretation is undertaken by primary teachers using scripted curriculum materials to teach mathematics?

To address this question, the study draws on Remillard and Heck’s (2014) Curriculum Policy, Design and Enactment framework, which provides a nuanced account of how curriculum is shaped across multiple layers of policy, design, and classroom practice. Although developed in the United States, the framework resonates with European and international contexts in which curriculum systems similarly involve interactions among national policy, resource design, and teacher interpretation (Jameson & Bobis, 2023). Its international applicability strengthens the relevance of this study beyond Australia.

Remillard and Heck distinguish between the official curriculum (policy expectations), the designated curriculum (approved or mandated support materials), and the operational curriculum (teachers’ plans and classroom enactment). Central to their model is the teacher‑intended curriculum, the interpretive layer in which teachers translate curriculum aims into instructional pathways. This layer is shaped by social, political, cultural, structural, and cognitive factors, including societal expectations, research on learning, teacher beliefs, resource availability, and contextual constraints. These influences interact in complex ways, shaping how teachers understand and enact curriculum (Ross, 2017; 2024).

The framework is particularly useful for analysing scripted curriculum materials, which occupy an ambiguous position between designated and operational curriculum. When positioned as “classroom‑ready” solutions, such materials risk displacing the teacher‑intended curriculum, reducing opportunities for teachers to exercise professional judgement. European debates about teacher autonomy, curriculum coherence, and the risks of over‑standardisation echo these concerns (Priestley et al., 2015), making the Australian case a valuable contribution to international scholarship.

By applying Remillard and Heck’s framework, this study conceptualises scripted curriculum not simply as a resource but as a structural intervention that reshapes the curriculum system. The analysis focuses on how teachers navigate, adapt, or resist these materials, and whether the promised workload reductions materialise in practice. In doing so, the study contributes to global discussions about curriculum reform, teacher professionalism, and the conditions necessary for meaningful curriculum interpretation.

Context and Participants This paper reports part of a larger study examining teachers’ processes of curriculum interpretation when implementing the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics (ACARA, n.d.). Drawing on Remillard and Heck’s (2014) framework of mathematics curriculum enactment, the study focused on how primary teachers engaged with a scripted curriculum. Five teachers from a government primary school in Southeast Queensland participated. All volunteered for the study, were female, and had more than 10 years’ teaching experience across multiple primary year levels. At the time of the study, the school had adopted the Department of Education’s C2C (2015) materials, meaning teachers were enacting centrally developed curriculum plans aligned with the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. Data Collection An exploratory multiple case study design was used to capture teachers’ curriculum decision-making during the enactment of a mathematics unit. Data were collected through pre- and post-unit semi-structured interviews and teacher reflective journals. The interviews explored teachers’ preparation for, and reflection on, the unit, enabling open-ended discussion and detailed accounts of their decision-making processes. Semi-structured interviews are recognised as a key data source in case study research due to their capacity to elicit rich, contextualised narratives (Yin, 2012). Throughout the unit, teachers kept reflective journals documenting the curriculum decisions they made and the factors influencing those decisions. Journals provided contemporaneous accounts rather than retrospective recall and supported triangulation across data sources (Janesick, 1999). During post-unit interviews, journal entries were used as prompts to stimulate further reflection. Data Analysis Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2014) six-phase thematic analysis. For each participant, all data sources—the pre-unit interview, post-unit interview, and journal—were treated as a single case and analysed holistically before moving to the next participant. This approach preserved the integrity of each teacher’s curriculum interpretation process. This paper reports findings related to the theme curriculum interpretation, which captured teachers’ descriptions of how they engaged with and made sense of the curriculum. Data coded to this theme informed the development of diagrammatic representations illustrating each teacher’s pathway from the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics to classroom enactment. These representations, published in Ross (2017), enabled cross-case comparison of teachers’ curriculum interpretation and enactment processes.

There is a key resource implication that emanates from the relationship between the Curricular Aims and Objectives and the Teacher-Intended Curriculum highlighted in this study. One might ask, are these curricular elements supporting teachers with their curriculum making, or duplicating processes undertaken by teachers that assist with developing their knowledge of curriculum and students? Either way, current teacher workforce issues are leading to calls for more scripted curriculum materials to ease the burden of curriculum interpretation. However, the notion that materials like C2C will remove the necessity for teacher curriculum planning was not seen in the teachers' actions in this study. The teachers in this study still needed to invest time in developing their plans to best meet the needs of their students (Superfine, 2008). Teachers value this time to prepare for their students (Stacey et al., 2024); thus, teacher curriculum planning cannot be “fast-tracked” as easily as has been described in the current curriculum landscape. The evidence presented in this study is based on a small sample of teachers from one school involved in the implementation of the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics (ACARA, n.d.). Consequently, further research is needed to explore the impact of scripted curriculum materials in other schools and circumstances. Additionally, further research could be undertaken to compare the processes and products of curriculum support across teacher backgrounds and jurisdictions implementing the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. Regardless, this study provides strong support for the importance of teacher curriculum planning to ensure they feel adequately prepared to support the needs of their students.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (n.d.). Introduction to mathematics. Retrieved from www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/mathematics/ Ben Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher–curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. SUNY Press. Birch, P., Motiejūnaitė-Schulmeister, A., De Coster, I., Davydovskaia, O., & Vasiliou, N. (2021). Teachers in Europe: careers, development and well-being. Publications Office. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology (pp. 1947-1952). New York: Springer. Department of Education. (2015). Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C). Queensland Government. Ellis, A. K. (2004). Teaching and learning elementary social studies (8th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Jameson, E., & Bobis, J. (2023). Modelling curriculum reform: A system of agents, processes and objects. In: Shimizu, Y., Vithal, R. (eds) Mathematics Curriculum Reforms Around the World. New ICMI Study Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13548-4_27 Janesick, V. (1999). A journal about journal writing as a qualitative research technique. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 505–524. Poulton, E., & Mockler, N. (2024). Teachers’ experiences of scripted curriculum resources in Australian schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 22–40. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury. Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. (2014). Conceptualising the curriculum enactment system. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 705–718. Ross, E. (2017). Teacher curriculum interpretation in primary mathematics (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology). Ross, E. (2024). Curriculum interpretation and teacher workload in Australian primary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 68(1), 45–62. Sahlberg, P. (2015). ‘Finnish Schools and the Global Education Reform Movement’ in Evers, J. and Kneyber, R. (eds) Flip the System: Changing Education from the Ground Up. Abingdon: Routledge. Stacey, M., Gavin, M., Fitzgerald, S., McGrath-Champ, S., & Wilson, R. (2024). Reducing teachers’ workload or deskilling ‘core’ work? Analysis of a policy response to teacher workload demands. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 45(2), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2023.2271856 Superfine, A. C. (2008). Planning for mathematics instruction: A model of experienced teachers’ planning processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(3), 307–321. Wilson, R., Stacey, M., & McGrath-Champ, S. (2020). Teachers’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic: Shifts, challenges and opportunities. Work and Organisational Studies Discipline. Wyse, D., & Ferrari, A. (2015). Creativity and education: comparing the national curricula of the states of the European Union and the United Kingdom. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 30–47. Yin, R. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Sage.