Scotland’s new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) was formally implemented in the 2010-2011 session, following an extended period of reflection since its first inception in 2004 (Scottish Executive, 2004). CfE requires a shift from the prescriptive culture of the previous 5-14 curriculum, towards a more developmental approach which positions teachers as agents as change and professional developers of the curriculum. It espouses more overtly student-centred practices than previously, based around the development of Four Capacities in young people – confident individuals, successful learners, responsible citizens and effective contributors.

The findings explored in this paper are based on research, conducted as part of a partnership between a Local Authority and Stirling University, and funded by the Scottish Government. The project comprised both development (supporting the implementation of CfE within a local authority) and research (exploring its enactment in schools via in-depth interviews with staff from associated school clusters and specialist subject working groups, and an online survey).

The success or otherwise of policy reform and implementation has been widely discussed within the research literature (e.g. Cuban 1998; Priestley et al., 2011). A major issue facing externally mandated reform is the ‘implementation gap’ (Supovitz & Weinbaum, 2008) between policy intention and classroom practice. This gap is largely due to the capacity for teachers to mediate curriculum reform (Osborn et al., 1997), often significantly modifying the intrinsic logics of the curriculum policy to match the institutional logics of the setting where it is enacted (Young, 1998).

Our research focuses on one of the factors that helps shape this process. This is the extent to which the philosophy of the new curriculum fits with the beliefs and values of teachers. Drawing upon the social theory of Margaret Archer (1988), we position CfE as a set of cultural forms, which are externally introduced to various social settings that are characterised by existing cultural forms. Our study analyses the extent to which there is congruence and disparity between these two sets of cultural forms (the old and the new), and how such tensions are mediated by teachers to produce hybrid cultural forms and emergent educational practices. Our analysis focuses on the need to understand the congruence between the intrinsic logics of the curriculum and teacher beliefs at two levels, which we term first and second order engagement with the underpinning philosophy of the new curriculum

First order engagement is related to whether or not teachers welcome – in general terms – the philosophy and ‘big ideas’ of CfE. However, we also investigate whether curriculum change is dependent upon second order engagement with the new curriculum. This relates to how CfE fits with teachers implicit theories of knowledge and learning, and whether there has been a thorough engagement with the underpinning ideas of the curriculum. We emphasise here that we are not passing judgment on the effectiveness of teachers in implementing CfE, but simply analysing whether there is congruence between old and new, and the nature of practices that emerge from teachers’ engagement with new policy.

Archer, M. (1988). Culture and Agency: the place of culture in social theory (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: redefining reform success and failure, Teachers College Record, 99[3], 453-477. Priestley, M., Miller, K., Barrett, L. & Wallace, C. (2011). Teacher learning communities and educational change in Scotland: the Highland experience. British Educational Research Journal, 37[2], 265-284. Scottish Executive (2004). A Curriculum for Excellence – The curriculum review group (Edinburgh, Scottish Executive). Supovitz, J.A. & Weinbaum, E.H. (2008). Reform Implementation Revisited. In J.A. Supovitz & E.H. Weinbaum (Eds.), The Implementation gap: understanding reform in high schools (New York, Teachers College Press). Young, M.D.F. (1998). The curriculum of the future: from the "new sociology of education" to a critical theory of learning (London, Routledge).