This article was originally published in the International Encyclopedia of

Education published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier

for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-
commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in
instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know,
and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation

commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open
internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are
prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through
Elsevier's permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

Deng Z (2010), Curriculum Planning and Systems Change. In: Penelope

Peterson, Eva Baker, Barry McGaw, (Editors), International Encyclopedia of
Education. volume 1, pp. 384-389. Oxford: Elsevier.
 Author's personal copy
Curriculum Planning and Systems Change
Z Deng, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Systems theory, as conceptualized by theorists after the
1950s, views the world in terms of a unified whole and
self-organizing systems, with an emphasis on the interde-
pendent nature of the relationships that exist among all
components of the unified whole (Boguslaw, 2000). From
this perspective, significant change requires systems
change that entails impacting changes across all constitu-
ent systems. Such a theory is useful in analyzing the
nature, character, and complexity of curriculum planning
for significant change.
This article first describes three basic domains of cur-
riculum planning which can be viewed as three constitu-
ent systems. It then discusses their interrelationships and
the implications for curriculum planning for significant
change. This is followed by an examination of three com-
mon models of curriculum planning which are intended
to bring about significant curricular change. The article
concludes with addressing what is entailed in curriculum
planning for significant change.
Three Levels of Curriculum Planning
Curriculum planning refers to the decision-making pro-
cess concerning the substance of schooling, that is, the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions that constitute the
experience and outcome of schooling. Broadly construed,
it operates across three basic domains of curriculum;
institutional, programmatic, and classroom (Doyle, 1992a,
1992b). Each of these curriculum domains constitutes a
system or subsystem that, in varying degrees, has an impact
on what is taught and learned in school.
Institutional Curriculum Planning
The institutional curriculum embodies a conception or
paradigm of what public schooling should be with respect
to a society. Curriculum planning at this level is charac-
terized by discourse on curriculum policy at the intersec-
tion between schooling, culture, and society. It invokes
images, metaphors, or narratives to ‘‘typify’’ what could
happen in a school or school system (Westbury, 2000). For
instance, thinking School is used by the Ministry of
Education in Singapore to convey a vision of schooling
for the twenty-first century – a vision that defines the
development of critical thinking and creativity as a central
purpose of schooling. Institutional curriculum planning
384
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 1, pp. 384-389
frames what should go on in a school or school system in
terms of broad goals and general approaches to education.
It serves as a means of drawing attention to educational
ideals and expectations shared within a society and put-
ting forward the forms and procedures of schooling as
responses to those ideals and expectations (Doyle, 1992b:
70). Such curriculum links what is taught in schools to the
social and cultural systems beyond schooling, and is
always under pressure for change. Since social and cul-
tural contexts often change rapidly, school systems always
use the institutional curriculum as a convenient instru-
ment to communicate responsiveness to the outside com-
munities (Doyle, 1992a: 487).
Institutional curriculum planning is always a national or
regional political undertaking. In countries with centralized
education systems like France, Singapore, Malaysia, and
China, the legal responsibility for institutional curriculum
planning is the province of the central government.
National educational bodies (ministries, departments)
play a substantial role in the planning process. In countries
with decentralized systems such as Canada, UK, and
Australia, state or provincial governments are constitution-
ally responsible for making institutional curriculum deci-
sions. Regional educational agencies are instrumental in
the planning process. Regardless of it being in centralized
or in decentralized systems, curriculum planning at the
institutional level, more often than not, involves soliciting
the opinions and suggestions from various representative
groups – including policy advisory bodies, employment
agencies, educational specialists, heads of schools, and vari-
ous civic and special interest groups.
Programmatic Curriculum Planning
Programmatic curriculum planning is at the intermediate
levels between institutional curriculum and classroom
curriculum planning, with a focus on curriculum writing
in the form of curriculum documents and materials
(Doyle, 1992a). It translates the expectations and ideals
embedded in the institutional curriculum into operational
frameworks for schools, thereby bridging the gap between
the abstract institutional curriculum and the (enacted)
classroom curriculum (Westbury, 2000). In Singapore the
notion of thinking schools becomes the introduction of
thinking programs to be implemented in primary and
secondary schools. The programmatic curriculum is char-
acterized by an array of school subjects, programs, and
courses of study provided to a school or a system of schools.
 Author's personal copy
For those school subjects, programs, and courses of study,
the programmatic curriculum also spells out instructional
guidance in terms of content standards, instructional frame-
works, criteria for textbook approval and adoption, and
assessment criteria.
Programmatic curriculum planning refers to the formal
process of constructing the curriculum which involves
‘‘framing a set of arguments that rationalize the selection
and arrangement of content [knowledge, skills, and dispo-
sitions] and the transformation of that content into school
subjects’’ (Doyle, 1992b: 71). The planning process, Tyler
(1949) believes, entails addressing the questions concern-
ing purposes, content, organization, and evaluation in a
sequential fashion:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to
attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are
likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively
organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are
being attained?
Tyler’s model prescribes what steps one needs to follow
in planning a curriculum. However, it does not describe
what curriculum developers actually do when they are
engaged in curriculum planning (Westbury, 2008). In prac-
tice, programmatic curriculum planning is a highly sophis-
ticated undertaking. It is a collaborative and cooperative
endeavor that always involves committees made up of
representatives from governments, educational agencies,
schools, universities, business, industry, and the commu-
nity at large. It occurs within ‘‘webs of societal and cultural
ideologies and symbols, politics and organized interest
groups, organizational and administrative structures and
processes, and local understandings, beliefs and practices’’
(Westbury, 2008). As in institutional curriculum planning,
national and regional educational agencies play a key role
in programmatic curriculum planning.
Classroom Curriculum Planning
The classroom curriculum, also called curriculum as
event or the enacted curriculum, is characterized by a
cluster of events jointly developed by a teacher and a
group of students within a particular classroom (Doyle,
1992a, 1992b). It is an evolving construction resulting
from the interaction of the teacher and students. Curricu-
lum planning at this level involves transforming the insti-
tutional and programmatic curriculum embodied in
curriculum documents and materials into educative
experiences for students. It requires further elaboration
of the programmatic curriculum, making it connect with
the experience, interests, and the capacities of students in
a particular classroom (Westbury, 2000). Curriculum
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 1, pp. 384-389
Curriculum Planning and Systems Change 385
planning can be the effort of an individual teacher or a
team of teachers responsible for identifiable students,
deciding alone or with students what shall occur in a
specific educational setting. Such curriculum is shaped
in a powerful way by a range of local factors, including
teachers’ own classroom perspectives, students’ interests
and experiences, school principals’ requirements, and par-
ents’ expectations (Doyle, 1992b).
The three levels of curriculum planning together
imply a hierarchy of decision-making activities from the
institutional to the classroom arena. This, however, does
not mean that curriculum planning must begin with a
national ministry or state department of education in
formulating curriculum policy, proceed to writing curric-
ulum documents and related materials, and eventually
end up with school teachers in implementing the docu-
ments and materials in classroom. In practice, curriculum
planning could begin anywhere. It could, for example,
start with an individual teacher or a group of teachers
and a class of students. Teachers can participate in what is
called school-based curriculum development (SBCD) in
which they articulate their own visions and goals of teach-
ing, develop their own curriculum materials in the light of
their visions and goals, and put the materials into practice
with students. However, this does not mean that teachers
could completely ignore the existence of curriculum goals
and instructional guidelines developed at the national or
state level – a point that will be further addressed in
sections that follow.
The Interdependence of Three Levels of
Curriculum Planning
The three levels of curriculum planning are interrelated
and interdependent; each does not function in isolation of
others. Curriculum planning at the institutional level pro-
vides a departure point and a frame of reference for
curriculum planning at the programmatic level. It serves
to clarify the normative, ideological bases for curriculum
decision makings, drawing attention to the public charac-
ter of curriculum that goes beyond the private interests
and concerns of individuals. By articulating the aims,
purposes, ideals, and expectations for public schooling,
institutional curriculum planning points to a desirable
direction for programmatic curriculum planning. Without
attending to those aims, purposes, ideals, and expectations,
programmatic curriculum planning could lose sight of the
responsibilities that schooling as an institution needs to
bear in contributing to the common good of a society.
Classroom curriculum planning, although remote from
institutional curriculum planning, has an indirect yet sig-
nificant link with the institutional curriculum. The con-
struction of the classroom curriculum often involves a
teacher’s use of curriculum materials (e.g., textbooks
 Author's personal copy
386 Curriculum Development – Planning and Development
and teacher guides) adopted by a school or school system –
materials that are normally developed with reference to
what is desired and valued in the institutional curriculum.
In planning instructional activities, a teacher interprets
and transforms the materials in the light of his or her
knowledge and beliefs about the purposes of schooling,
about his or her students, about pedagogy, and about the
school and classroom contexts (Wilson et al., 1987). To a
certain extent, the classroom curriculum thus reflects the
teacher’s interpretation of ‘‘what is desired by unseen,
remote decision makers’’ (Goodlad et al., 1979: 21).
Furthermore, when the classroom curriculum becomes
visible in various ways (such as public examinations,
classroom surveys, and parent meetings) to administra-
tors, parents, and others interested in education, questions
concerning the interplay between schooling and society
could be inevitable: for example, what are the purposes of
schooling? How well does the curriculum prepare stu-
dents to meet the current and future challenges of the
social and political order? Social and political forces are
brought to bear at the school or classroom level. The
classroom curriculum thus is connected indirectly back
to the institutional curriculum which, in one way or
another, ‘‘serves as a normative framework for defining
and managing the work of teachers’’ (Doyle, 1992a: 487).
Apparently, institutional curriculum planning seeks to
affect classroom curriculum planning through the pro-
grammatic curriculum – curriculum that provides the
medium in and through which the institutional curricu-
lum operates. By translating the institutional curriculum
into an array of school subjects, programs, and courses of
study, programmatic curriculum planning creates the
organizational and operational structure for classroom cur-
riculum planning. School subjects, programs, or courses of
study constitute the locus of classroom teaching; they frame
the character of the classroom curriculum and the ways
in which the curriculum might be seen within the school
community (Grossman and Stodolsky, 1995). The ways of
teaching a traditional school subject (e.g., history) and an
integrated subject (e.g., social studies) in a classroom could
be substantially different, so are the criteria of judging these
two subjects. Furthermore, by developing content standards,
instructional frameworks, syllabi, assessment criteria, and
the like, for those school subjects, programs, and courses of
study, programmatic curriculum planning furnishes the
instruments that serve to regulate and control classroom
curriculum planning, guiding what is to be taught and
learned in the classroom (Doyle, 1992a). These instruments
could ‘‘steer’’ classroom curriculum planning in the direc-
tion set out in the institutional curriculum (Cohen and
Spillane, 1992). They could also be resources for teachers
to learn the ideals and reform visions embedded in the
institutional curriculum (Cohen and Hill, 2001).
The effect of programmatic curriculum planning on
classroom curriculum planning, however, is complex and
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 1, pp. 384-389
in no sense straightforward. It has to do with the gover-
nance structure of curriculum planning. As already men-
tioned, in centralized education systems programmatic
curriculum planning is carried out mostly by government
educational agencies (e.g., national ministries of educa-
tion). The programmatic curriculum, which more often
than not is linked with high-stakes public examinations,
tends to have high power and authority over the class-
room curriculum. Classroom teachers are supposed to
follow closely the standards, frameworks, and guidelines
laid out in the programmatic curriculum; they have rela-
tively less latitude in deciding what to teach and how to
teach it (Cohen and Spillane, 1992). Programmatic cur-
riculum planning thus could significantly influence class-
room curriculum planning. However, in a decentralized
education system where high-stakes public examinations
do not exist and local or regional authorities make most
programmatic curriculum decisions, classroom teachers
have considerably high latitude in shaping the content and
process of their curriculum. Programmatic curriculum
planning tends to have much less impact on the classroom
curriculum. The education system in the United States
typifies this governance structure of curriculum planning
in which state developed or mandated curriculum frame-
works and materials do not have formal authority over
classroom practice (Cohen and Spillane, 1992).
Furthermore, programmatic curriculum planning,
whether in a centralized or a decentralized system, de-
pends, for its effect, on those implementing the program-
matic curriculum in school and classroom. While school
leaders could make decisions concerning the adoption of
a particular curriculum framework and related materials
as the programmatic curriculum for the school, classroom
teachers are the ones ultimately responsible for carrying
out the programmatic curriculum in their classrooms.
Programmatic curriculum planning affects classroom cur-
riculum planning only if teachers understand and employ
the adopted framework and materials (Synder et al., 1992).
Teachers are not ‘‘conduits’’ for the use of a curriculum
framework and related materials; as mentioned earlier,
they interpret and transform the framework and materials
in the light of their experience, beliefs, and practice. This
could further compound the impact of programmatic
curriculum planning on the classroom curriculum. Tea-
chers’ entrenched beliefs, experience, and practice could
override the educational ideals and innovations embedded
in the programmatic curriculum.
Curriculum Planning for Systems Change
As highlighted in the above discussion, the three basic
domains of curriculum are interrelated and interdepen-
dent, together constituting an organic whole. Signifi-
cant curricular change thus cannot be achieved by just
 Author's personal copy
tweaking one or two domains in isolation; it entails sys-
tems change that requires impacting change across all
three domains of curriculum. To achieve this, all three
levels of curriculum planning are necessary and need to
work together in a way that ensures sustainable curricular
change at the classroom level. A defensible model of
curriculum planning for systems change, therefore,
needs to take account of all three levels of planning and
their relationships. None of the levels can be undermined
without undermining a vital factor in curriculum plan-
ning and development. With this in mind, three common
models of curriculum planning – namely top-down,
bottom-up, and combination – that intend to bring about
significant curricular change, or by implication, systems
change – will be considered.
Top-Down Model
The top-down model has been widely used in countries
with a centralized education system. For many centralized
countries, curriculum reform has been for a long time part
of national plans and development strategies. Usually, the
central government initiates curricular change by putting
forward new curricular visions and goals. These visions
and goals are then translated into programmatic or cur-
ricular frameworks that specify course structure, content
standards, pedagogy, and assessment. Using these frame-
works as a point of reference, the national education body
would implement a series of initiatives such as textbook
revision, assessment modification, teacher preparation,
and professional development restructuring. These initia-
tives are expected to steer teaching and learning in class-
room toward the reform visions and goals, resulting in
significant change in the classroom curriculum. Also
termed the framework approach (see Skilbeck, 1994),
the top-down model was adopted by many traditional
decentralized systems over the last two decades. For
example, in the 1990s following the lead of the federal
government, virtually all American states developed their
statewide curriculum frameworks. In Australia, Canada,
and other federated countries, there was a growing collab-
oration between state and federal authorities concerning
the construction of an overall framework for the school
curriculum based upon new curricular visions and goals
(Skilbeck, 1994). These curriculum frameworks were
believed to play a crucial role in steering the classroom
curriculum in the reform direction.
Such a top-down, centrally driven, and command-
oriented model places an extremely high emphasis on
institutional and programmatic curriculum planning
for change. Curriculum planning virtually becomes a
national or state enterprise under the authority of the
central educational agency. This model, however, rarely
works well at the school or classroom level. New curricu-
lar visions and frameworks often do not get implemented,
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 1, pp. 384-389
Curriculum Planning and Systems Change 387
or are not implemented in the way they were intended
due to various reasons. There could be problems in com-
munication between the central agency and schools. Tea-
chers might resist a new vision and a framework in the
belief that they know better than those working at the
central agencies (Chapman and Mählck, 1997). Further-
more, a reform vision and a curriculum framework can be
read and understood by teachers in very different ways
according to their varying beliefs, values, commitments,
and experiences, thereby leading to different ways of
implementing that vision and framework (Cohen and
Ball, 1990). The importance of curriculum planning at
the classroom level, and particularly the complex rela-
tionship between programmatic and classroom curri-
culum planning, is largely overlooked or ignored in the
top-down model. In addition, the means and support for
implementing curricular change at the classroom level is
always inadequate in top-down approaches to curriculum
planning for systems change.
Top-down, centralized planning for curricular change
can be seen as an effective instrument for steering cur-
riculum discourse at the institutional and programmatic
levels; the discourse, however, often gets lost in school and
classroom (Westbury, 2008). When coupled with high-
stakes tests and accountability measures, this model
could have a detrimental impact on the classroom curric-
ulum. The current implementation of the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act in the United States, Apple (2008)
argues, leads to an impoverished curriculum that is
defined and driven by the measure of student ability and
competency which is extremely narrowly defined, and
that creates greater inequalities between minority and
majority children in educational attainment.
Bottom-Up Model
In contrast to the top-down model, the bottom-up model
holds that significant curricular change comes from inside
out rather than the outside in or from the top down.
Central educational agencies (e.g., ministries of educa-
tion) can really do little to influence what happens in
school and classroom. To bring about change at the class-
room level, curriculum planning must be grounded in the
deliberative knowing and practical action of school prac-
titioners. By participating in bottom-up approaches to
curriculum planning like SBCD and action research, tea-
chers can become the central players in the curriculum
reform endeavor (MacDonald, 2003). Furthermore, a
school could become a learning organization by creating
conditions for school leaders and teachers to continually
develop new ideas and improve their quality of thinking
and capacity for reflection. They can work with students
and parents to form new curricular visions, translate their
visions into operational frameworks, and decide how best
to bring about change in the classroom curriculum
 Author's personal copy
388 Curriculum Development – Planning and Development
(Fullan, 1993). The assumption is that successful curricu-
lar change could be relatively easy to achieve in a local
school or a cluster of local schools, and a significant num-
ber of such local changes can, over time, in an innovation
diffusion process build from the bottom up into a major
change in the overall education system (Farrell, 1997).
This bottom-up, decentralized model, while appearing
promising, is fraught with problems and pitfalls. When the
entire enterprise of curriculum planning is reduced to
nothing but school and local business, the public character
of the school curriculum would be seriously undermined,
together with the public governance of curriculum
planning. Personal and local interests and powers would
prevail over those broader concerns for the society and
the welfare of mankind. Furthermore, when the full task
of curriculum planning is lobbed onto schools, at all
three levels, with all its complexity, it creates tremendous
demands on classroom teachers. Most teachers are neither
prepared for, nor do they have the experience and exper-
tise necessary to undertake, such a task. With respect to the
implementation of SBCD, MacDonald (2003) observes
that ‘‘what occurred in many Australian states and in the
USA were less demanding, poorly resourced and loosely
assessed curricula’’ (p. 141). The above innovation diffu-
sion assumption is indeed questionable. When planning
for curricular change is entirely left to the school, the
possible consequences include: (1) not much change at
school or classroom level; (2) changes in a problematic
direction; and (3) changes that do not spread out or endure
(Fullan, 2003). The basic problem of the bottom-up model
lies in the failure of recognizing the need for institutional
and programmatic curriculum planning that necessarily
go beyond the realm of school localities.
Combination
There has been an increasing interest in strengthening the
relationship between curriculum planning at the national
or state level and at the school and classroom level. This is
based on the realization that top-down guidance and
bottom-up initiatives need each other. While central edu-
cational agencies are incapable of dictating or mandating
change at the school and classroom level (Fullan, 1993),
they still have a fundamental role to play in designing
reform and translating reform into curricular frameworks,
documents, and materials that could support and enable
curricular change at the school or classroom level. While
classroom teachers need to have sufficient freedom and
autonomy in planning and carrying out curricular change,
they need guidance and support provided by schools and
external agencies as well.
A successful combination model needs to strike a bal-
ance between top-down and bottom-up approaches. It
needs to acknowledge, on the one hand, the key role of
classroom teachers as curricular change agents and, on the
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 1, pp. 384-389
other hand, the need for institutional and programmatic
curriculum planning in guiding, supporting, and enabling
curricular change at the classroom level. Three conditions
are critical with respect to institutional and programmatic
curriculum planning by external agencies. First, there
needs to be coherence among new curricular visions,
curriculum frameworks, assessments, and teacher profes-
sional development. Inconsistency would lead to different
and divergent interpretations of curricular change. Sec-
ond, curriculum frameworks and materials need to be
developed in a way that supports teachers’ planning for
significant change (Cohen and Hill, 2001). Curriculum
frameworks and materials can be an effective agent that
enables classroom teachers to plan for significant change
in a particular classroom context, if they were designed to
‘‘place teachers in the center of curriculum construction
and make teachers’ learning central to efforts to improved
instruction’’ (Ball and Cohen, 1996: 7). Third, teachers
need to have substantial opportunities for professional
learning that are grounded in practice and in specific
curricular changes (Cohen and Hill, 2001). In other
words, substantial professional learning is a key element
in curriculum planning for systems change.
Conclusion
Significant curricular change requires systems change that
entails impacting change across the institutional, program-
matic, and classroom curriculum. Curriculum planning for
systems change is a highly complex and challenging
endeavor. It entails a coordination of institutional, program-
matic, and classroom curriculum planning, the absence of
any of which would not result in significant change. It
requires a collaboration of a multitude of participants and
representatives from the government, educational agencies,
universities, business, schools, and communities at large.
It needs to provide teachers with sufficient support and
resources. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind
that curriculum reform is part of a larger effort to reform
the school system. Curriculum planning thus needs to be
related to larger issues of school change and improvement,
significantly influenced by other policies and factors.
See also: Curriculum and Teacher Change; Curriculum
Governance and Planning; Curriculum Reform.
Bibliography
Apple, M. (2008). Curriculum planning: Content, form and the politics of
accountability. In Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., and Phillion, J. (eds.)
Sage Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ball, D. and Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might
be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and
instructional reform? Educational Researcher 25, 6–8.
 Author's personal copy

Curriculum Planning and Systems Change 389

Boguslaw, R. (2000). Systems theory. In Borgatta, E. F. and Riquarts, K. (eds.) Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German
Montgomery, R. J. V. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd edn, didaktik Tradition, pp 15–39. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
vol. 5, pp 3102–3106. New York: Macmillan. Westbury, I. (2008). The making of formal curricula: Why do states make
Chapman, D. W. and Mählck, L. O. (1997). Changing what happens in curricula, and how? In Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., and Phillion,
schools: Central level initiatives to improve school practice. In J. (eds.) Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Thousand Oaks,
Chapman, D. W., Mählck, L. O., and Smulders, A. E. M. (eds.) From CA: Sage.
Planning to Action: Government Initiatives for Improving School-Level Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., and Richert, A. E. (1987). ‘‘150 different
Practice, pp 1–31. Oxford: Pergamon. ways’’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In
Cohen, D. K. and Ball, B. L. (1990). Policy and practice: A commentary. Calderhead, J. (ed.) Exploring Teachers’ Thinking, pp 104–124.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12, 331–338. London: Cassell.
Cohen, D. K. and Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning Policy: When State
Education Reform Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cohen, D. K. and Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The
relations between governance and instruction. In Grant, C. (ed.) Further Reading
Review of Research in Education, vol. 18, pp 3–49. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Beane, J., Toepfer, C. F., and Alessi, S. J. (1986). Curriculum Planning
Doyle, W. (1992a). Curriculum and pedagogy. In Jackson, P. W. (ed.)
and Development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Handbook of Research on Curriculum, pp 486–516. New York:
Eisner, E. W. (2000). Those who ignore the past. . .: 12 ‘‘easy’’ lessons
Macmillan.
for the next millennium. Journal of Curriculum Studies 32, 343–357.
Doyle, W. (1992b). Constructing curriculum in the classroom. In Oser,
Fullan, M. (2008). Curriculum implementation and sustainability. In
F. K., Dick, A., and Patry, J. (eds.) Effective and Responsible
Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., and Phillion, J. (eds.) Sage Handbook of
Teaching: The New Syntheses, pp 66–79. San Francisco, CA:
Curriculum and Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. I., et al. (1979). Curriculum Inquiry: The Study of Curriculum Gay, G. (1991). Curriculum development. In Lewy, A. (ed.) The
International Encyclopedia of Curriculum, pp 293–302. Oxford:
Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pergamon.
Grossman, P. L. and Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The
Levin, B. (2007). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be
role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational
learned in schools. In Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., and Phillion, J. (eds.)
Researcher 24, 5–11.
Sage Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction, pp 7–24. Thousand
Farrell, J. P. (1997). A retrospective on educational planning in
Oaks, CA: Sage.
comparative education. Comparative Education Review 41,
Posner, G. J. (1998). Models of curriculum planning. In Beyer, L. E. and
277–313.
Apple, M. W. (eds.) The Curriculum: Problems, Politics, and
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational
Possibilities, 2nd edn., pp 79–100. New York: State University of New
Reform. London: Falmer.
York Press.
Fullan, M. (2003). Change Forces with a Vengeance. New York:
Reid, W. A. (1992). The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public
RouledgeFalmer.
Interest. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
MacDonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the post-modern world:
Is the school curriculum-reform movement an anachronism? Journal Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical: Translation into curriculum. School
Review 81, 501–522.
of Curriculum Studies 35, 139–148.
Westbury, I. (2003). Curriculum, school: Overview. In Guthrie, J. W. (ed.)
Skilbeck, M. (1994). Curriculum renewal. In Husén, T. and
The Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edn, pp 529–535. New York:
Postlethwaite, T. N. (eds.) The International Encyclopedia of
Macmillan.
Education, pp 1338–1343. Oxford: Pergamon.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., and Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum
implementation. In Jackson, P. W. (ed.) Handbook of research on
curriculum, pp 402–435. New York: Macmillan.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago,
Relevant Websites
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might http://www.ascd.org – ASCD Learn. Teach. Lead.
didaktik teach curriculum. In Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., and http://www.curriculum.org – Curriculum Services Canada.

International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 1, pp. 384-389