This symposium examines School-Based Curriculum Development (SBCD) in three countries – England, Portugal and Scotland – in the light of an apparent recent trend to make curriculum policy less prescriptive than has been the case previously. Recent worldwide trends in curriculum policy suggest, in rhetoric at least, a renewed emphasis on the professional engagement of teachers in curriculum-making, and increased autonomy in teacher decision-making in curricular matters. Such trends are manifest in all three countries featured in this symposium. In England, the National Curriculum has been revised to provide ‘schools and colleges with more scope to adapt to their particular circumstances’ (QCDA 2009: 5). In Portugal since 2005, there has been a decentralizing trend in curricular policy, emphasising the active role of teachers in the process of curriculum innovation. In Scotland, the new Curriculum for Excellence highlights ‘the need for models to be developed at local level to address local needs and circumstances’ (Scottish Government 2008: 46).

This affirmation within policy of teachers as agents of change offers many opportunities for innovative teachers to transform their schools, and the educational experiences of young people. Flexible new curricula offer teachers spaces for manoeuvre in curriculum-making in their immediate contexts. However, the apparent extension of autonomy to teachers comes with attendant challenges. In England and Scotland, heavy-duty school inspection regimes restrict teacher autonomy, creating substantial levels of risk for teachers seeking to innovate and inducing a culture of surveillance and conformity (Edwards & Blake 2007). In all three countries, the evaluative use of assessment data to judge school performance represents an extension of central control over schooling through public accountability. This in turn places pressure on teachers to teach to the test, restricting possibilities for those seeking to innovate (Harlen & Deakin Crick 2003). Linked to this, the seemingly ubiquitous development of outcomes steering arguably restricts teacher autonomy to a greater extent than did former, more prescriptive curricula (Biesta 2004).

The three case studies presented in this symposium are indicative of both the opportunities and challenges presented by the development of new curricular policy in many countries and the stated goal of flexible curriculum development by innovative, activist teachers. The case studies are based upon empirical research data, generated in schools which have innovated in response to curriculum policy. They explore the forms that innovation has taken, and the ways in which such innovation is facilitated, shaped and sometimes impeded by the contextual issues described above.

References                                                                            

Biesta, G.J.J. (2004) Education, accountability, and the ethical demand; can the democratic potential of accountability be regained. Educational Theory, 54: 233-250.

Edwards, G. & Blake, A. (2007) Disciplining the practice of creative inquiry: the suppression of difference in teacher education. International Journal of Research & Methods in Education, 30: 33-55.

Harlen, W. & Deakin-Crick, R. (2003) Testing and Motivation. Assessment in Education, 10: 169-207.

QCDA (2009) The 11–19 curriculum: From implementation to development (London, QCDA).

Scottish Government (2008) Curriculum for Excellence: Building the curriculum 3 – a framework for learning and teaching (Edinburgh, The Scottish Government).