As interpreters and makers of curriculum, the teachers have a key-function in curriculum reform (Gundem 2008). In this study of a process of curriculum reform, the teachers’ interpretations of the curricula objectives and their knowledge base serve to unfold a discussion of the function of history teaching as it is formulated in the curriculum. The aim is to explore the teachers’ interpretation of the objectives of a newly introduced history curriculum in relation to their own idea of the function of history education in the curriculum of vocational upper secondary education and their understanding and knowledge of the students. The questions addressed are: How do the teachers understand the functions of history teaching for the students in vocational upper secondary education? How do the teachers assess the objectives and content stipulated in the curriculum in relation to the function of history teaching? What knowledge and conceptions concerning the vocational students do the teachers carry and how do they influence the teachers’ stands towards the curriculum? The introduction of history in the curriculum was part of a reform of Swedish upper secondary school in 2011 (Hellstenius & Elgström 2010). In general terms the overall time designated to general knowledge was decreased in favour of an increase in the time for vocational education in the curriculum for vocational educational programmes. Drawing on Young (1998), this highlights the question of the function of history and what counts as valuable knowledge for vocational upper secondary students. The subject has been ascribed shifting primary functions and, hence, emphasis on content and process depending on national context and time (e.g. Seixas 2000). The results from the inquiry will be discussed in relation to more perennial educational issues of the relationship between vocational and general education, the instrumentality of education in terms of a potential social and economic function (Carr & Harnett 2002) and educational systems reproductive power in society (e.g. Apple 2004). The process of realising the curriculum is situated in a broader theoretical framework where the history curriculum is seen as shaped and reshaped in different social contexts, i.e. the making of official curriculum, the transformation of the teachers and the enacted and perceived curriculum of the classroom (Gundem 2008, Goodlad et al., 1979). The teachers role in curriculum reform has been underestimated (Gundem 2008). Shulman’s model of pedagogical reasoning and action highlights the teacher’s knowledge base that consists of a wide variety of categories, among which “knowledge of the learners and their characteristics” is one (Shulman 1986, 1987; Hashweh 2005). This inquiry is formulated on the basis of the assumption that the teacher’s own idea of why and how history education is important for the group of students in vocational education, influences their interpretation of the curriculum and the teachers’ knowledge and belief of the students are an essential aspect of their interpretation of the curricular text.

Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Carr, W. & Hartnett, A. (1996). Education and the struggle for democracy: the politics of educational ideas. Buckingham: Open University Press. Goodlad, J. I. et al. (1979). Curriculum inquiry. The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gundem, B. B. (2008). Perspektiv på laereplanen. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical contructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 11, No. 3 273-292 Hellstenius, M. & Elgström, O. (2010) “How History Became a Core Subject in Swedish Upper Secondary Schools”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 54, Iss. 6, 2010 Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Seixas, P. (2000). “Schweigen! Die Kinder! Or, Does Postmodern history have a place in School?” In Stearns, P.N., Seixas, P.C. & Wineburg, S.S. (red.) (2000). Knowing, teaching, and learning history: national and international perspectives. New York: New York University Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching? Educational researcher. Vol. 15, nr 2, 4-14 Shulman, L.S. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review. 57 (1). 1-22. Young, M. F. D. (1998). The curriculum of the future. From the ‘new sociology of education’ to a critical theory of learning. London: Falmer.