The paper explores the ways in which the prescribed curriculum is translated into the enacted one. Taking a particular curriculum area of sciences, the elaborating a class laboratory, developing of rules for classroom inquiry and investigation of the materials, we report on a research project that has sought to explore the curriculum-making practices in primary school classes in the context of Czech curricula reform. The goal of this research was to identify similarities and differences between the prescribed and enacted curricula, but also the factors that are at play in the translation of the prescribed curriculum into practice.

The formal autonomy of teachers in deciding about the content of school curricula and teaching objectives varies among the European countries (EURYDICE 2008). However, in practice, considerable differences between the prescribed curricula and the enacted ones exist not only in individual countries, schools but also in individual classes of a school. To consider the play of difference and creativity already employed by teachers within the constraints of prescribed curriculum framework should bring the better understanding why the curricula and innovation initiatives often do not carry the desired results (Edwards, Miller, Priestley 2009).

An important direction of the pedagogical research is to  look at the relationship that teachers forge with curriculum resources, the factors influencing that relationship, and the effect that the relationship has on the enacted curriculum is to achieve this understanding (Remillard 2005, Carroll at al. 2007, Mihalic 2004, Ruiz-Primo 2006). A focus on individual and organizational factors help to understand how the translation from prescribed to enacted curriculum occurs (Edwards, Miller, Priestley 2009). Curriculum designers need to acknowledge that their designs are not self-sufficient entities; instead, during implementation, they become assimilated as part of the cultural systems in which they are being realized (Squire at al. 2002).

Caroll C., Patterson, M., Wod, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., Balain, S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2007, roč. 2, č.1, 2007, p.40 - 49. Eurydice. Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. Eurydice, 2008. Mihalic S: The importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 2004, 4, s. 83-86. Remillard, J.T. Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers Use of Mathematics Curricula. Review of Educational Research, 2005, 75, č.2, 211- 246. Ruiz- Primo, M.A. A Multi-Method and Multi-Source Approach for Studying Fidelity of Implementation. CSE Report. Los Angeles: University of Carolinia, 2006. Edwards, R., Miller, K., Priestley, M. Curriculum-making in school and college: the case of hospitality. Curriculum Journal, 2009, 20:1, 27-42. Squire K.D., MaKinster, J.G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A.L., Barab, S.L. Designed Curriculum and Local Culture: Aknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Wiley Periodicals, 2003, Inc. SciEd 87: 468-489.