Save

Traversing between Supra, Macro, and Meso Sites

Looking Closely at Curriculum Making Discourses and Practices in Scotland and Wales

In: Scottish Educational Review
Author:
Sinem Hizli-AlkanFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK, sinem.hizliaalkan1@stir.ac.uk

Search for other papers by Sinem Hizli-Alkan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

Abstract

This paper examines different curriculum making actors, discourses and practices at different sites and then situate Scotland and Wales within these. I illustrate the interconnected nature of different sites of curriculum making and explain how these exert influences in the two countries while acknowledging their social and cultural differences. Analysing of policy documents suggest that certain supra discourses and trends are evident in both countries following similar curriculum structures. Nevertheless, there are differences in the ways curriculum is constructed and the steps taken for increasing curriculum making capacity.

Abstract

This paper examines different curriculum making actors, discourses and practices at different sites and then situate Scotland and Wales within these. I illustrate the interconnected nature of different sites of curriculum making and explain how these exert influences in the two countries while acknowledging their social and cultural differences. Analysing of policy documents suggest that certain supra discourses and trends are evident in both countries following similar curriculum structures. Nevertheless, there are differences in the ways curriculum is constructed and the steps taken for increasing curriculum making capacity.

Introduction

The influence of supra actors, discourses and practices are evident in the ways different countries construct their curricula (Lingard and Sellar, 2013; Sinnema and Priestley, 2014). Scotland and Wales are no exceptions to this trend. As such, it is important to make such influence transparent and explain how different actors and activities might traverse between different sites and diffuse into education systems, in order to offer insights for future developments. This paper, therefore, aims to situate curriculum making practices in Scotland and Wales within a broader context. I present an account of the policy routes, discourses, and activities at different sites in relation to curriculum, rather than an in-depth policy analysis. I shall unpack different actors and forms of curriculum making activity at different sites of curriculum making by drawing upon Priestley et al.’s (2021) heuristic framing. Their framing considers curriculum as social practice that happens at different sites and practiced by different actors. Priestley et al.’s (2021) typology offers five sites of curriculum making activities: supra, macro, meso, micro, and nano. In different sites, actors, such as government organisations and teachers, engage in different forms of activities and produce a certain form of curriculum. To summarize, supra curriculum making entails transnational discourses, practices, and frameworks that potentially diffuse into national education policy/practice. Macro curriculum making refers to producing frameworks, policy and regulations. Meso activities aim to facilitate schools’ curriculum making practices that construct micro curriculum making. Finally, nano curriculum making involves activities that emerge from the interactions between students and teachers in classrooms. For the purpose of this paper, I shall focus on supra, macro and meso curriculum making.

Supra Curriculum Making

Different international organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Development (oecd), the European Union (EU), the World Bank, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (unesco), exert different influences on different countries. Educational reforms are justified or rationalised within various discourses, some of which are more influential than others. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (oecd), which is seen as one of the most powerful organisations in shaping national education policy, has identified some ‘megatrends’ shaping the world, in which education is deemed to be one of the key drivers to tackle the complexity and speed of change (oecd 2019a: 13). I shall examine three factors that have roots in different fields and are interlinked; namely, economic, social, and technological factors. These are often cited as the challenges countries face globally (oecd 2018a) and are key driving forces to reform curricula.

Economic Factors

The first factor, and perhaps most dominant, is the economic factor, with its sui generis discourses and agendas. The oecd and the World Bank, which is the biggest international funder of education (Mundy and Verger, 2016), come onto the stage in this respect to link education and economic transformations, mainly through the discourses related to the concepts of higher-order skills, transformative competencies, human capital and productivity. Human capital is defined as the totality of knowledge, skills, and personal characteristics, such as the attitudes and values that people possess for enhancing productivity and economic growth (oecd 2007a) to serve knowledge-based economies. This definition emphasises the assumption that educational provision and policies ‘manufacture’ human capital, which then maximises the wealth and economic growth of the country as a whole. Hence, modifications to such provision and policies, for example, developing the required higher-order skills and competencies for the students (e.g., creative thinking, meta-learning, etc.), should increase productivity levels and, to some extent, help them compete at the global economies more effectively (Bell and Stevenson, 2006). These skills and competencies, as well as being a ‘learning compass’ on how to design education, are provided by the oecd (2018a), drawing on large-scale data collection from several countries. The Programme for International Student Assessment (pisa), oecd’s programme for collecting and measuring international data on reading, mathematics and science, is responsible for analysing these data and providing evidence for countries to influence their future actions (oecdn.d.).

The Learning Compass 2030 identifies three forms of skills: cognitive and meta-cognitive skills; social and emotional skills; and physical and practical skills (oecd 2019b), each of which are deemed to be required for responding to the demands of the labour market and remaining competitive at the global scale. This emphasis on supplying skills for the labour market through education is explicit in the oecd’s recent publications (e.g., oecd 2019b). One example of how economic factors influence curricula across nations is the introduction of ‘financial literacy’, as a curriculum area or a cross-curricular theme, in the aftermath of the global economic crisis (oecd 2019c). Torres-Santomé (2019) brought a critical perspective to this way of influencing the curriculum. He argues that the oecd took advantage of the crisis (e.g., global economic recession) to establish their own economic agenda on education by creating new business opportunities through privatisation of some public sectors.

Social Factors

Social factors, for example, the fluid nature of the world, the mobility of people (with or against their will), and their influence on education, have been considered in policy texts and processes. The oecd (2018a) identified some social challenges facing societies, which require urgent action and adaptation. These include the growth of the global population, migration, an increase of social and cultural diversity, widening inequalities, and an escalation of war and terrorism, especially in some parts of the world. We can observe how the oecd (2018b) responded recently to such challenges, for example, by looking at the introduction of ‘global competency’ as one of the competencies in 2018. While Scotland took part in the pisa global competence assessment, Wales decided to opt out, which led to some discussions around increased racism in schools.1 Additionally, the United Nations (2015) published a broad policy agenda including some action plans and goals for the Member States to guide their national-level actions. In that report, inclusive and equitable quality education for all has been an emphasis in the context of educational policy. On the surface, it appears that the rhetoric in both the oecd’s (2018a) and the United Nations’ (2015) policy documents emphasises the social aspect of education rather than framing educational policy to build solely economic capital. Of course, how these aspects, for example, social justice, are conceptualised remains open to debate. Lingard, Sellar and Savage (2014), for instance, argue that the global ‘reworking’ of education, subsequently followed by national policies and practices as well as data-driven technologies, has transformed social justice and equity into an area for measurement and comparison. They also suggested that the oecd’s view on equity and social aspects of education, emphasising their role in developing human capital and increasing productivity, about which pisa collects data, is contradictory to the fairness and inclusion aspects of equity.

Technological Factors

The oecd (2018a) has suggested that technological advancements and the introduction of certain technologies (e.g., Artificial Intelligence) should be reflected in designing educational policy, as new economic models need to be developed. This is to re-emphasise the importance of developing human capital capable of tackling the speed of change in technological developments. There are two broad forms of integration of technology into education, each of which influences how countries shape their national education policy. The first refers to teaching technologies, and the second concerns the ways in which technology governs education, or, in Williamson’s (2016) words, ‘digital education governance’.

Starting with the first, the oecd (2019a) identifies the ‘right’ fields to develop the skills for the ‘best labour-market outcomes’ to be placed on the national education policy and the future targets of educational reforms. Transformative competencies for 2030 are offered to address the influence of the new and rapidly changing technologies by integrating them in national curricula (oecd 2019d). This can be linked to some projects being launched which value certain subjects more than others, such as the stem (Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics) subjects. Following this, a question emerged as to whether technology, for example, should be taught as a subject or across the curriculum. As might be expected, the learning areas that pisa targets play a great role in this shift, too. This necessitated the establishing of policies about adequate facilities and skill sets of the teachers. Several multi-national companies emerged to serve these needs and changed the language about teaching yet again (e.g., Appleteacher, Google certified trainer).

The second form relates to technology being used as a policy instrument to govern education (Williamson 2016). This is accomplished through the collecting of digital data from different sources, such as classrooms or social media, analysing them using quantitative measurements and generating visualisations, often for comparison purposes. Williamson (2019) draws our attention to some of the technology companies that are now more interested in, and perhaps also more vocal about, education than before. He argues that such companies attempt to transform schools under their own economic, social and cultural models by, for example, incorporating different pedagogical practices based on extensive data generated by the software. By doing so, they are placing themselves as a ‘techno-political centre of global education reform’ by seeing education as a marketplace – and even more so during the pandemic (Williamson and Hogan, 2020). Therefore, the introduction of information and communication technologies brings with it some risks, challenges and consequences to teaching and learning. The extent to which this distinctive style of governing influences different countries varies. One example is that the enhancements of digital technologies increase the amount of data collected. This results in what Ball (2003) suggested almost two decades ago; a rise in testing and focus on performativity. Hence, ‘the issue is not so much that these technological shifts are reinventing education but is instead the form and ultimate purpose of that invention’ (Slater and Seawright 2019: 379).

Macro Curriculum Making

Supra curriculum making exerts influences in discourses and practices on macro curriculum making, which consequently assisted the emergence of ‘new’ curricula internationally (Priestley and Biesta, 2013). Priestley et al. (2021) explain that macro curriculum making entails ‘questions about framing and regulation’ (p. 17).

Because there is recurring emphasis on supplying skills for the labour market in supra discourses, this is mirrored in the emerging curriculum reforms with the introduction of an array of skills, competencies and capacities. There is an international trend towards placing an emphasis on the 21st-century skills and competencies, for example, higher-order skills or transferable skills (Sinnema and Aitken, 2013). Many education systems (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, British Columbia) set the curriculum purposes broadly by using such competencies (Yates 2016) and/or situating them around ‘big ideas’ (e.g., Siemon, Bleckly and Neal, 2012). The purposes of different curricula resonate in different countries. In Scotland and Wales, there is a tendency to highlight: being active, informed and responsible citizens; the notion of lifelong learning; and being creative and critical thinkers (Scottish Executive 2004; Welsh Government 2017a). This indicates a transition from highly specified content, for example, a detailed description of learning outcomes, to a more flexible framing of the curriculum (Priestley and Biesta, 2013). Underlining attributes mirror some of the influences of the factors outlined in the first section about the supra discourses. For example, the notions of employability, individuality and enterprise appear in most of the documents. The purposes are also related to social justice. As outlined in the social factors, the equity agenda is also reflected in the new curricula internationally as a response to increasing inequities globally (Sinnema and Aitken, 2013).

The role of the subjects in organising the curriculum is also another facet of the new curriculum. Framing the subjects as curriculum areas in Scotland and Areas of Learning and Experiences (AoLE) in Wales provide examples of an international trend. There is much emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of learning in the emerging form of curricula documents. The extent to which interdisciplinarity has been truly realised is, however, contested in Scotland (Education Scotland 2020; Humes 2013). Wales justifies the organisation of subjects into AoLEs by suggesting that this promotes interdisciplinary, cross-curricular as well as subject-specific learning (Welsh Government 2017a). It can be argued that some of the complex social and environmental factors, such as climate crisis or migration, have influenced the interdisciplinary agenda; as Beane (1997) explained in ’90s, these will require the combining of knowledge from different disciplines to attempt to address their complexity.

Both the explicit emphasis on skills, competencies and capabilities, and the curriculum organisation around learning areas, have stimulated debate around the place of knowledge in the curriculum. The main criticisms include that the new forms of curriculum downgrade knowledge. More specifically, this has sparked debate about the difference between knowledge and skills and the distinction between academic knowledge and everyday knowledge (Yates and Collins, 2010; Young and Muller, 2010), with an ultimate aim to bring ‘powerful knowledge’ back into the curriculum, comprising the core of such criticisms.

Another area where global education trends are reflected in the new curriculum is the flexibility offered to teachers. For example, one of the oecd’s (2018a) documents about curriculum design cited ‘teacher agency’ as one of the key constructs to effectively ‘deliver’ the curriculum, which is practically an oxymoron. The extent to which teachers have spaces for flexibility (e.g., due to performativity agenda) and what support they are offered to achieve their agency is open to debate. Now I shall examine Scotland and Wales respectively to present their macro curriculum making actors and activities and examine the influence of supra actors and events in each context.

Scotland – Macro Curriculum Making

The initial steps taken before the introduction of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) (see Figure 2.1 for a summary of the main features) can be traced back to a National Debate on Education in Scotland in 2002 (Scottish Executive 2002), which was undertaken as a result of increasing concerns around the previous 5–14 curriculum (Scottish Office Education Department (soed) 1993). This former curriculum had been enacted in Scottish schools after its introduction in the 1990s and it was perceived as being overprescribed by some (Baumfield, Hulme, Livingston, and Menter, 2010). Following the national debate, the first CfE document was published (Scottish Executive 2004). This outlined four capacities as the purposes of the curriculum and as the principles of the curriculum reform agenda, and suggested reduced content and better transition between the stages in the curriculum and offered more choices to the students (Scottish Executive 2004). These features, for example, framing the curriculum around capacities, resonate with the common characteristics of the new curriculum models mentioned above. The change was justified on the grounds of enhancing the economic performance of Scotland, growing diversity, the demands of changing employment and work life, improving health, reducing poverty, and fully recognising technological advancements that all reflect the economic, social and technological supra discourses.

Macro actors mainly comprised the Scottish Government and Education Scotland,2 which produced a series of publications. More detailed information was provided through Progress and Proposals (Scottish Executive 2006a) and the Building the Curriculum (BtC) series, designed to guide practitioners on the curriculum areas, active learning, skills for work/life, etc., published between 2006 and 2010. Hundreds of experiences and outcomes (Es and Os) for each curriculum area were published in 2009 after an engagement process on the draft documents. The nature of these statements was argued to be used as assessment tools (Priestley and Humes, 2010; Priestley and Minty, 2013) which would be likely to drive the schools’ engagement with curriculum work. Benchmarks were developed in 2016 to tackle this issue by outlining how (not) to use the Es and Os in curriculum making activities in schools (Education Scotland, 2016). A series of Curriculum for Excellence Implementation Plan documents was published by Education Scotland, starting from 2013–2014 until 2016–2017, to set the agenda for national guidance and support. Another macro actor is the Scottish Qualifications Authority (sqa),3 which regulates and awards national qualifications. sqa publishes assessment support materials, including unit specifications and marking schemes, which mostly drive curriculum making in secondary schools (Hizli Alkan, 2021; Smith, 2019).

The diffusion of supra curriculum making practices to macro sites manifested itself broadly through the oecd publications. The oecd’s (2007b) report, Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland, was published in 2007. This review aimed to examine the strength and challenges of the school system in Scotland and was conducted by international reviewers who benchmarked the performance of the school system to international standards as a contribution to ongoing debates. The pisa and national data were used as a basis to make decisions on the strengths and challenges of Scottish Education. The ‘equitable’ school system,4 positive school principles, the ‘impressive’ capacity of Scottish primary schools, and testing the effectiveness of the curriculum and schools were noted as strengths of the Scottish schools (oecd 2007b). With particular attention to curriculum, it was stated that, ‘While there is no formal prescription of the curriculum, innovation appears to be modest’ (oecd 2007b: 16). As for challenges, the achievement gap, relabelled later as the poverty-related attainment gap (Ellis and Sosu, 2015), was highlighted as one of the major challenges. In fact, despite some improvements, this has remained the key ongoing target in the improvement agenda, and was repeated in the 2015 oecd report (oecd 2015). Similarly, the number of young people leaving with minimal qualifications was one of the persistent challenges outlined in the new report.

The 2007 oecd report suggested increased flexibility through local authorities in schools while acknowledging that the ‘promotion of change in schools is hampered by the vulnerability of schools to adverse perceptions and judgements based on examination results’ (oecd 2007b: 17). This report suggests that input regulation (e.g., flexibility in content selection) should be low, while there needs to be greater transparency and accountability, signalling the need for strong output regulation (e.g., accountability and examination systems) prescription in aligning with the international trends (see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion on curriculum (de)regulation). However, Raffe (2008) pointed out the risk of intensification of inequality and argued that some of the accountability practices may discourage curricular diversity and innovation. He also signalled the potential risk of downward incrementalism, that is, the influence of what happens in the later stages of education to the ones before (e.g., national exams at senior level shape Broad General Education).

The Improving Schools in Scotland report (oecd 2015) was an important milestone, with subsequent developments illustrating the oecd’s influence on Scottish Education. In that report, one of the main arguments was about the implementation gap; the gap between what was envisaged at macro sites and what has been translated in schools, and therefore a delivery plan for Scotland was published to address some of the recommendations of the oecd review (Scottish Government 2016). A Refreshed Curriculum for Excellence Narrative5 was published, partly to address some of the oecd’s recommendations, and partly to provide interactive, accessible and clear content and guidance for practitioners. Another step taken following the oecd’s report was that a National Improvement Framework was designed mainly to address the poverty-related attainment gap, where teacher professionalism was stated as one of six key drivers of improvement (Scottish Government 2016). The oecd (2012) has recently published a review after assessing the implementation of CfE. Although there were some praise, for example, regarding the bold and flexible nature of the curriculum, they identified several areas for development, including misaligned senior phase, limited capacity for curriculum making, and a lack of communication between stakeholders. Several discussions at different levels have already begun to emerge, however, time will tell how the oecd’s (2021) recommendations will make their way through macro curriculum making.

Wales – Macro Curriculum Making

A series of curricular activities in Wales has occurred intensively over the last decade (2010 onwards), due to the undertaking of a major curriculum policy change. The first steps can be traced back to unsatisfactory 2009 pisa results that initiated a national debate on the future of education. The Welsh Government then introduced some policy changes, starting with the Foundation Phase Reform leading to, finally, a major curriculum change in 2016. Before the new Curriculum for Wales (CfW) was designed, The Foundation Phase reform was introduced in 2010 and revised in 2015, and concerned the statutory curriculum for all 3–7-year-olds. This reform, which considered the influence of international evidence, marked an important shift in Wales, resulting in a change in the curriculum and pedagogy and the emergence of Welsh Dimensions as diverging from England (Taylor, Rhys and Waldron, 2016). It is, therefore, important to briefly explain this reform, as the new CfW was built upon it, and some argue that the outcomes of this reform should illuminate the potential challenges that enacting the new curriculum may face, such as inequalities in attainment (Power, Newton and Taylor, 2020).

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (uncrc) underpinned the Foundation Phase framework, which was introduced as a progressive, experiential, developmental framework to meet the diverse needs of children in Wales (Welsh Government 2015a: 3). This type of approach aligns with the international trends presented earlier in terms of placing an emphasis on the individuals as well as drawing on constructivist theories of learning. Seven statutory Areas of Learning6 were identified, including Welsh Language Development, Personal and Social Development, Well-being, and Cultural Diversity. These areas of learning were then changed to Areas of Learning and Experiences after Donaldson’s (2015) report. Pilot schools were involved in the development and implementation stage of the new framework. Similar actions were taken in the subsequent CfW development work.

Here, it is evident that international comparisons, such as pisa, had an impact on macro curriculum making. Wales’ pisa results in 2012 illustrated weaker performance compared to the other parts of the UK and were followed by similar results in 2015. In 2014, the oecd produced a report on the strengths and weaknesses of the Welsh Education system and provided some recommendations for system-wide changes and improvements (oecd 2014). They identified the need for meeting the diverse needs of students, clarity in policymaking with strong implementation strategies, and, overall, the development of a long-term and inclusive education vision (oecd 2014). Graham Donaldson, who previously engaged in the development work of CfE in Scotland, was commissioned by the Welsh Government to review the curriculum in Wales. The review report was published in 2015 (Donaldson 2015) and all the recommendations were accepted, signalling a large-scale education reform (Welsh Government 2015b). These recommendations included framing the curriculum around broad purposes, placing an emphasis on skills, in order to respond to emerging social, economic and personal challenges with some links to the needs of the workplace and developments in technology (Donaldson 2015). These resonate with the factors outlined in supra curriculum making.

Welsh curriculum reform was undertaken in a collaboration between several stakeholders, including teachers, headteachers, local authorities, Regional Consortia, Higher Education Institutions and Estyn.7 The Welsh Government, which oversees and regulates the development work, worked closely with the Pioneer Schools Network,8 which consisted of around 200 volunteer schools (oecd 2018b), to produce national and official curriculum requirements and supporting guidance. Higher Education Institutions offered research evidence and scholarship to the Pioneer Schools Network and the Welsh Government to improve different aspects of curriculum reform (e.g., the Progression Framework9Hayward et al., 2018) Another independent body, Qualifications Wales,10 which is similar to the sqa in Scotland, is responsible for the regulation of qualifications in Wales and they have started a series of consultations11 to support the new CfW.

The structure of the new CfW followed similar trends to those in Scotland, which were evident in the four purposes, the principles of designing the curriculum, and the six AoLEs (See Figure 2.2). In Wales, there are 27 What Matters statements under the six AoLEs, which act as the big ideas of the curriculum to be achieved by all learners (Welsh Government 2020). Under each, there are several ‘descriptions of learning’ to provide support and guidance on learners’ progression. There is an explicit emphasis on learner-centred approaches and an indication that Wales is following the international trend, which is moving away from traditional subjects and embracing a more flexible approach in organising knowledge, progression and assessment.

Meso Curriculum Making

This section will deal with meso curriculum making activities and provide a few examples of actors that aim to support schools in recontextualising national curriculum policy (Priestley et al. 2021). There is a strong connection between meso and macro curriculum making, as meso activities often include operationalising support that is established by governments. As Priestley et al. (2021) exemplify, Regional Improvement Collaboratives in Scotland are a good example of this connection, as they were established by the Scottish Government to facilitate schools’ curriculum making. Hence, I shall focus on the type of activities that refer to supporting schools’ curriculum making practices. Before explaining meso curriculum making in the two countries, I shall examine some of the international trends and discourses regarding meso activities.

Meso actors might include local authorities, various bodies of national governments, curriculum advisers, and textbook publishers (Priestley et al. 2021). Finland’s district-level stakeholders, which include municipal actors and school staff for local curriculum making, is a good example here, as they play a mediatory role in translating the curriculum reform (Soini, Pietarinen and Pyhältö, 2018; Sullanmaa, Pyhältö, Pietarinen and Soini, 2019a). One of the main purposes of this meso activity is to establish a shared understanding among key education actors, including teachers, to achieve the purposes set in the core curriculum reform while considering local contexts. Another aim is to maintain coherence between what the core curriculum attempts to achieve and meso curriculum activities (Sullanmaa, Pyhältö, Pietarinen, and Soini, 2019b). There are certain quality assurance practices at the district level which offer rigorous roadmaps for schools to improve their practice. Differently, in Norway, meso activity is seen as a tool to ‘deliver the national curriculum’ (Mølstad 2015) by providing extensive and detailed guidelines as to how to operationalise curriculum. Mølstad (2015) argues that such meso activity may inhibit teacher agency, whereas, in Finland, there is a greater opportunity for teachers to achieve their agency.

Overall, one of the key activities for meso actors is to be able to go beyond surface-level communication between key education actors in translating the core messages of curriculum reforms (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer, 2002). Hence, sense-making seems to be an essential task for meso curriculum making activities (Soini et al. 2018; Spillane et al. 2002). Soini et al. (2018) emphasise the importance of both allocating time to key actors and also employing different strategies intentionally to undertake curriculum work, such as a variety of hands-on strategies (e.g., mapping the current status of schools or local area, analysing curriculum reform demands in light of the capacity at hand, etc.). Leat and Thomas (2018) add to this the importance of establishing relationships between meso and micro actors and how trust plays a key role in mediating these relations. I shall now return to Scotland and Wales to provide examples of meso actors and activities.

Scotland – Meso Curriculum Making

Enacting the curriculum reform, established as part of macro curriculum making activities in schools, has been one of the major problems in Scotland, similar to international contexts (Priestley, Minty and Eager, 2014). Along with giving schools flexibitiliy came the responsibility of planning and enacting the curriculum as well as increased output regulation. The importance of meso curriculum making capacity and support was highlighted elsewhere (e.g., Priestley, Miller, Barrett and Wallace, 2011). This was also as a conclusion of oecd’s (2015) review, which called for a ‘strengthened middle’ in Scotland.

Education Scotland acts as one of the key meso actors in Scotland, alongside the 32 local authorities and six Regional Improvement Collaboratives (ric s). Education Scotland aims to support quality and improvement and provide ‘constructive challenge in new ways which will increase the pace of improvement’ in Scottish Education (Education Scotland 2012: i). They publish extensive documents and guidelines to facilitate curriculum implementation process. In one of these documents (Education Scotland 2016), it was stated that ‘there is currently too much support material and guidance for practitioners’ (p. 1). This signalled that there have been ‘over-bureaucratic’ approaches to curriculum enactment, and a lack of easy access for teachers to make the required changes. It was also stated that ‘teachers should be empowered to use the flexibility that CfE provides’ (p. 1) to reemphasise the importance of teacher professionalism, aligning with international trends. The requirement to support teachers in this was acknowledged in the Building the Curriculum document series (Scottish Government 2008) with a particular emphasis on Glow, a digital platform on which teachers could access several resources. Education Scotland also provided some ‘practice exemplars’ under the National Improvement Hub. Regular external inspections, which are carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIe), and How Good is Our School reports following the evaluations were also published with an intention to support schools in curriculum implementation. Insight benchmarking12 and the Broad General Education benchmarking tool13 are the two mechanisms to monitor the development and attainment levels of students for targeting improvements for schools and local authorities (Scottish Government 2019). This work is overseen by ric s and the Scottish Government. These tools aim to provide data for the schools about which students have what levels of success in different areas, and about the areas identified for improvements.

Local authorities are responsible for the provision of education, including the delivery of the curriculum according to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. A recent and controversial change in 2018 required the participation of these local authorities in new ric s.14 The purpose of this change was to improve education by addressing the attainment gap15 in particular, and by working closely with teachers, supporting schools, and sharing good practices and targeted advice (Scottish Government 2017). It can be also read as a response to the oecd’s (2015) call for a ‘strengthened middle operating through networks and collaboratives among schools, and in and across local authorities’ (p. 10), which marks a shift in the kind of support and guidance for meso curriculum making. For example, one of the ric s established several networks in 2019 such as subject networks, a digital network, as well as a Research Schools network to improve teaching and learning (see http://www.seicollab.co.uk/research-schools.html). These support mechanisms can be seen as a move away from technical support towards providing professional and expert support. There are also some independent teacher-led organisations and bodies (e.g., ideas, Learning for Sustainability Scotland, and Scotdec16) that aim to facilitate teachers’ curriculum making practices, as well as partnership programmes that bring together different stakeholders, including teachers (e.g., Partnership Schools Scotland), and also some collaborations between university researchers and local authorities (e.g., School Based Curriculum Development through Critical Collaborative Professional Enquiry; see Priestley and Drew (2019)).

Wales – Meso Curriculum Making

Four Regional Consortia, local authorities and the Pioneer Schools Network play a key role for meso curriculum making in Wales in supporting schools and realising the vision of the new Curriculum for Wales (CfE). Regional Consortia17 were established in 2012 to support schools and local authorities for school improvement, and their work is overseen by a joint committee, including the local authorities (Welsh Government 2015a). They have different structures (e.g., private companies as opposed to Joint Committees of local authorities in Scotland) and they operate differently. Nevertheless, each consortium has organised various events to provide professional support and establish small teams for sustainable developments in the school context. For example, local authorities are responsible for funding allocations to schools and are accountable for school performance. The Pioneer Schools Network has engaged both within macro curriculum making by developing different elements of the curriculum (e.g., the core principles, the AoLE framework) and also in and across their school regions. These steps can be seen as a multi-directional interaction between different sites of curriculum making.

As for specific meso activities, both the Regional Consortia and The Pioneer Schools Network had a pivotal responsibility in developing the Schools as Learning Organisations (slo) model as part of the National Approach to Professional Learning in 2017 (Welsh Government 2017b). oecd, as a supra actor, influenced the development of this model and published a report to inform the next steps of slo (oecd 2018b). The report identified some less developed dimensions of the slo model, such as developing a shared vision and establishing a culture of enquiry and innovation. Each consortium continued to provide a range of support, partly as a response to the report. For example, curriculum update events, training for school staff (e.g., change management), and the establishment of several teams (e.g., curriculum, collaboration and research) were implemented in supporting schools to engage with the rationale of the new curriculum and create the professional learning culture in schools. Some schools identified a curriculum leader who would attend the training and oversee the development of the curriculum in their schools. As a partnership, several strategy reports were published, such as the Numeracy and Literacy Strategy and the Self-Improving System Strategy (erw 2015).

The Pioneer Schools were responsible for disseminating information and gathering feedback in their regional clusters. Their work was supported by the Welsh Government, the Regional Consortia and a range of experts. Some other forms of networks emerged from these schools to refine the curriculum. For example, 16 Innovation Schools were identified to refine the curriculum guidance through their reflections on their engagement with the new CfW (Wavehill 2019).

The role of Estyn, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education and Training, is to inspect the schools and provide advice and guidance to the Welsh Government about the quality of education. In the curriculum reform process, sharing good practices across schools and supporting teachers and other stakeholders (e.g., parents) became more prominent roles of Estyn from 2015 onwards (Welsh Government 2015b). The Regional Education Consortia is comprised of four regions and coordinates professional support for teachers and other practitioners. Its members also work closely with the Pioneer Schools Network in designing the new curriculum and reviewing their accountability system. Meso activities include Regional Consortia and local authorities providing school improvement infrastructure and support. The Regional Consortia also established some professional learning networks (e.g., digital pioneer schools), offered engagement sessions for practitioners and organised workshops to facilitate the translating of macro curriculum making activities.

Overall, some aspects of the organisational structure are similar to Scotland, with perhaps differences in the operationalisation of some of the organisations. For example, this type of extensive partnership and engagement of teachers in macro curriculum making practices in Wales was not evident in Scotland (Baumfield, Hulme, Livingston and Menter, 2010). Nevertheless, the location of Wales within supra curriculum discourses and practices is very close to Scotland’s, as explained in the following section.

Conclusion: Current Tensions, Similarities and Differences – Scotland and Wales

The discussion presented above, relating to the policy documents and some academic critique and pertinent empirical research, suggests several shared features and different characteristics of macro and meso curriculum making practices in both Scotland and Wales.

The commonalities include the influence of the key supra actors, such as the oecd, in shaping macro curriculum making. The supra discourses are also evident in both countries, for example, emphasising the notions of skills, employability, equity, flexibility, and individuality. Both countries have devolved responsibility for their educational policy-making and there is a tendency to highlight distinctive Scottish and Welsh dimensions in the curriculum. It is important to note here that Scotland has a longer history of having curriculum independence compared to Wales. Similar to international trends, in both countries there is an emphasis on flexibility in school-based curriculum and the notion of teacher agency (e.g., Scottish Government 2008; Welsh Government 2019), as evidenced throughout. Before the new curricula were introduced, both Scotland and Wales had a prescribed curriculum, which means that the flexibility offered to teachers is novel. Although this is widely welcomed by teachers (Hughes and Lewis, 2020; Priestley and Minty, 2013), there are still enduring questions about the extent to which teachers use this flexibility and how the other components of the education system, such as the examination system, encourages them to use such flexibility. In Wales, the Pioneer Schools Network was envisaged as an effective way to achieve this, as evident in some of the pioneer teachers’ comments. For example, some of them stated that their experience has been a genuine engagement, where they felt that they led the process with support from an extensive collaboration (Crick, Priestley and Hizli Alkan, 2019). While there is a celebration of the extent of autonomy and flexibility to a great extent for some, there are still concerns around the consistency and subsidiarity of the practices (Newton 2020), as not all schools believed that they benefited from the Pioneer Schools Network (see Arad Research and icf Consulting 2018).

In terms of the curriculum structure, the two contexts share common characteristics. More specifically, the four purposes, the organisation of the content, and the design principles are very similar, although the Es and Os in Scotland are more detailed compared to the Descriptions of Learning in the CfW. The first reaction to the introduction of the new curriculum has been widely positive in both countries, albeit with some cautions and concerns emerging thereafter (Hughes and Lewis, 2020; Priestley and Minty, 2013). However, there was a critical debate in Scotland on the extent of purposeful selection of the four capacities and values, and also the lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity (Priestley and Humes, 2010). While the four capacities have a strong potential as being useful starting points for curriculum making (Priestley and Drew, 2016), these concepts are argued to be ambiguous (Millar and Gillies, 2013), incoherent, and individualistic (Hedge and MacKenzie, 2016) and subsequently developed as slogans or a kind of mantra in schools (Priestley and Humes, 2010). Another tension regarding the curriculum discourses was around the lack of clarity and guidance on the meaning and operationalisation of some of the terminology used, such as active learning and interdisciplinary learning (Priestley and Humes, 2010).

It is also important to note the structural and cultural differences between Scotland and Wales in relation to curriculum making. The steps taken for increasing curriculum making capacity and the way the curriculum is constructed seem to be the major differences in Scotland and Wales. The former includes conceptual debates around the key constructs of the curriculum, developing professional knowledge and skill sets for enacting the new aspirations of the curriculum, and engaging with other practitioners locally and nationally for collectively making sense of the curricular concepts and ideas. Wales established some support mechanisms (e.g., the Pioneer Schools Network) to achieve these, whereas, in Scotland, there has been a more limited level of development (Priestley, Biesta and Robinson, 2015). This indicates that meso curriculum making support in Wales has been stronger, starting from the initial stages of curriculum making. More recently, the ric s have offered promise for development in this area in Scotland, albeit that there is limited empirical evidence of their contribution to teachers’ curriculum making so far. The co-construction of curriculum with teachers was not evident in Scotland. There were consultation activities, which included surveys, focus groups, and questionnaires. However, these offered very limited space to engage in in-depth discussions or pilot some of the new ideas, and they were thus not perceived as effective (Baumfield et al. 2010). As the reform in Wales is still at an early stage, some research identifies several potential risks for the future of CfW. For instance, Power, Newton and Taylor (2020) argue that the flexibility for designing the curriculum and facilitating a learner-centred approach risks exacerbating the inequalities that already exist in the system. Sinnema, Daly, Liou, and Rodway (2020) add accountability, professional learning and social network context as being the main areas for the focus of future curriculum work.

In summary, I have examined supra, macro and meso curriculum making actors and practices and have situated Scotland and Wales within these sites. I aimed to illustrate the interconnected nature of different sites of curriculum making and determine how these exert influences in the two countries while acknowledging their social and cultural differences. Overall, we see the emergence of the new models of curriculum in Scotland and Wales, each of which requires active involvement of teachers at different sites of curriculum making. We therefore need more research evidence of how teachers mediate their way through these curriculum making practices.

References

  • Ball, S.J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18 (2), pp. 215228.

  • Baumfield, V., Hulme, M., Livingston, K., and Menter, I. (2010). Consultation and engagement? The reshaping of teacher professionalism through curriculum reform in 21st Century Scotland. Scottish Educational Review 42 (2), p. 57.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beane, J.A. (1997). Curriculum integration: designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Bell, L., and Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. London: Routledge.

  • Crick, T., Priestley, M., and Hizli Alkan, S. (2019). Co-construction of a national curriculum: The role of teachers as curriculum policy makers in Wales. In: Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Hamburg, Germany.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donaldson, G. (2015). Successful Futures: Independent Review of Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Wales. Retrieved from: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-03/successful-futures.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Education Scotland. (2012). Transforming lives through learning Retrieved from https://education.gov.scot/Documents/EducationScotlandFramework.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Education Scotland. (2016). A statement for Practitioners from hm Chief Inspector of Education. Retrieved from https://education.gov.scot/improvement/Documents/cfestatement.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Education Scotland. (2020). Interdisciplinary Learning: ambitious learning for an increasingly complex world. Retrieved from https://education.gov.scot/media/mkomulen/interdisciplinary-learning-thought-paper.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Education through Regional Working (erw) (2015). Self Improving System Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.erw.wales/media/1993/self-improving-system-strategy.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ellis, S., and Sosu, E. (2015). Closing poverty-related attainment gaps in Scotland’s schools: what works? University of Strathclyde.

  • Hayward, L., Jones, D.E., Waters, J., Makara, K., Morrison-Love, D., Spencer, E., Barnes, J., Davies, H., Hughes, S., Jones, C., Nelson, S., Ryder, N., Stacey, D., Wallis, R., Baxter, J., MacBride, G., Bendall, R., Brooks, S., Cooze, A., Davies, L., Denny, H., Donaldson, P., Hughes, S., Lewis, I., Lloyd, P., Maitra, S., Morgan, C, Pellew James, S., Samuel-Thomas, S., Sharpling, E., Southern, A., Stewart, S., Valdera-Gil, F., and Wardle, G. (2018). Learning about Progression: CAMAU Research Report Retrieved from Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Swansea: University of Wales Trinity Saint David.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hedge, N., and MacKenzie, A. (2016). Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: A Defence of Autonomy and Personhood. Oxford Review of Education 42 (1), pp. 115.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hughes, S., and Lewis, H. (2020). Tensions in current curriculum reform and the development of teachers’ professional autonomy. The Curriculum Journal 31 (2), pp. 290302.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Humes, W. (2013). Curriculum for excellence and interdisciplinary learning. Scottish Educational Review 45, pp. 8293.

  • Leat, D., and Thomas, U. (2018). Exploring the role of ‘brokers’ in developing a localised curriculum. The Curriculum Journal 29 (2), pp. 201218.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lingard, B. and Sellar, S. (2013). Globalization, edubusiness and network governance: The policy sociology of Stephen J. Ball and rethinking education policy analysis. London Review of Education 11 (3), pp. 265280.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lingard, B., Sellar, S., and Savage, G.C. (2014). Re-articulating social justice as equity in schooling policy: the effects of testing and data infrastructures. British Journal of Sociology of Education 35 (5), pp. 710730.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Millar, R., and Gillies, D. (2013). ‘Successful learners’: Concept, children’s views, and classroom practice. Scottish Educational Review 45 (1), p. 68.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mølstad, C.E. (2015). State-based curriculum-making: approaches to local curriculum work in Norway and Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies 47 (4), pp. 441461.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mundy, K., and Verger, A. (2016). The World Bank and the Global Governance of Education in a Changing World Order. In: K., Mundy, A., Green, B., Lingard, and A., Verger, eds., The Handbook of Global Education Policy, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 335357.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newton, N. (2020). The rationale for subsidiarity as a principle applied within curriculum reform and its unintended consequences. The Curriculum Journal 31, pp. 215230. doi: 10.1002/curj.37.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2007a). Human Capital: How what you know shapes your life. Paris: OECD.

  • oecd (2007b). Quality and equity of schooling in Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/reviews-of-national-policies-for-education-scotland-2007_9789264041004-en.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2014). Improving schools in Wales: An oecd Perspective. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/Improving-schools-in-Wales.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2015). Improving schools in Scotland: An oecd Perspective. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/Improving-Schools-in-Scotland-An-OECD-Perspective.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2018a). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2018b). Developing schools as learning organizations in Wales. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/developing-schools-as-learning-organisations-in-wales-9789264307193-en.htm.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2019a). Trends shaping education 2019. Retrieved fro: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/trends-shaping-education-2019_trends_edu-2019-en#page1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2019b). Future of education and skills 2030. Conceptual learning framework. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e26d2d6fcf7d67bbd37a92e/t/5e411f365af4111d703b7f91/1581326153625/Education-and-AI.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2019c). Core foundations for 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/skills/Skills_for_2030_concept_note.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2019d). Transformative competencies for 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/transformative-competencies/#:~:text=The%20OECD%20Learning%20Compass%202030,and%20dilemmas%2C%20and%20taking%20responsibility.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (2021). Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future. Implementing Education Policies, Paris: OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/bf624417-en.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • oecd (n.d.). What is pisa? https://www.oecd.org/pisa/.

  • Power, S., Newton, N., and Taylor, C. (2020). ‘Successful futures’ for all in Wales? The challenges of curriculum reform for addressing educational inequalities. The Curriculum Journal 31, pp. 317333.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Priestley, M., and Drew, V. (2016). Teachers as agents of curriculum change: closing the gap between purpose and practice. In: Paper presented at the European Conference for Educational Research, Dublin.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Priestley, M., and Drew, V. (2019). Professional Enquiry: an ecological approach to developing teacher agency. In: D., Godfrey and C., Brown, eds., An eco-system for research-engaged schools: Reforming education through research, London: Routledge, pp. 154170.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Priestley, M., and Humes, W. (2010). The development of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: amnesia and deja vu. Oxford Review of Education 36 (3), pp. 345361.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Priestley, M., Miller, K., Barrett, L., and Wallace, C. (2011). Teacher learning communities and educational change in Scotland: the Highland experience. British Educational Research Journal 37 (2), pp. 265284.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Priestley, M., and Minty, S. (2013). Curriculum for Excellence: ‘A brilliant idea, but. . .’. Scottish Educational Review 45, pp. 3952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Priestley, M., Minty, S., and Eager, M. (2014). School-based curriculum development in Scotland: curriculum policy and enactment. 22 (2), pp. 189211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Raffe, D. (2008). As others see us: a commentary on the oecd review of the Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland. Scottish Educational Review 40 (1), pp. 2236.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scottish Executive. (2002). The National Debate on Education in Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20180518132632mp_/http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/158359/0042897.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scottish Executive. (2004). A curriculum for excellence: The curriculum review group. Retrieved from http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2004-scottish-curriculum-review.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scottish Government. (2016). National Improvement Framework for Scottish Education - 2016 Evidence Report. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-improvement-framework-scottish-education-2016-evidence-report/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scottish Government. (2019). National Improvement Framework and Improvement Plan: 2020. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/2020-national-improvement-framework-improvement-plan/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scottish Office Education Department (soed) (1993). The Structure and Balance of the Curriculum 5–14. Edinburgh: SOED.

  • Sinnema, C., and Aitken, G. (2013). Emerging international trends in curriculum. In: M., Priestley and G.J.J., Biesta, eds., Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (London, London: Bloomsburry Academic.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Slater, G.B., and Seawright, G. (2019). Putting Homo Economicus to the Test: How Neoliberalism Measures the Value of Educational Life. In: K.J., Saltman and A.J., Means, eds., The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform, Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 371389.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., and Pyhältö, K. (2018). Shared sense-making strategies in curriculum reform: District-level perspective. Improving Schools 21 (2), pp. 111126.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., and Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research 72 (3), pp. 387431.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sullanmaa, J., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., and Soini, T. (2019a). Curriculum coherence as perceived by district-level stakeholders in large-scale national curriculum reform in Finland. The Curriculum Journal 30 (3), pp. 244263.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sullanmaa, J., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., and Soini, T. (2019b). Differences in state- and district-level stakeholders’ perceptions of curriculum coherence and school impact in national curriculum reform. Journal of Educational Administration 57 (3), pp. 210226.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taylor, C., Rhys, M., and Waldron, S. (2016). Implementing curriculum reform in Wales: the case of the Foundation Phase. Oxford Review of Education 42 (3), pp. 299315.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Torres-Santomé, J. (2019). Educating Mathematizable, Self-Serving, God-Fearing, Self-Made Entrepreneurs. In: K.J., Saltman and A.J., Means, eds., The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform, pp. 351370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Welsh Government. (2015a). Curriculum for Wales: Foundation Phase Framework. Retrieved from Cardiff, UK: https://hwb.gov.wales/storage/d5d8e39c-b534-40cb-a3f5-7e2e126d8077/foundation-phase-framework.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Welsh Government. (2015b). Qualified for life: A curriculum for Wales - a curriculum for life. Cardiff.

  • Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy 31 (2), pp. 123141.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williamson, B. (2019). Startup Schools, Fast Policies, and Full-Stack Education Companies. In: K.J., Saltman and A.J., Means, eds., The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform, pp. 283305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williamson, B., and Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19.

  • Yates, L. (2016). Europe, transnational curriculum movements and comparative curriculum theorizing. European Educational Research Journal 15 (3), pp. 366373.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yates, L.Y.N., and Collins, C. (2010). The Absence of Knowledge in Australian Curriculum Reforms. European Journal of Education 45 (1), pp. 89102.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Young, M., and Muller, J. (2010). Three Educational Scenarios for the Future: lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education 45 (1), pp. 1127.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
2

Education Scotland was created by merging Learning and Teaching Scotland (lts) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education in 2011.

3

For more information, see: https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/70972.html.

4

This referred to the performance levels of 15-year-olds as there was a small number of students in the lowest band.

5

More details can be found here: https://scotlandscurriculum.scot/.

7

See for more information: https://www.estyn.gov.wales.

8

There were originally two kinds of pioneers: curriculum and professional learning. The professional learning pioneer schools then became lead enquiry schools.

9

See for more information: https://bit.ly/3rVmX8U.

11

See for more information: https://bit.ly/2Nhh2vU.

13

See for more information: https://bit.ly/3vUVPc8.

14

See for more information: https://bit.ly/3tPfaLE.

15

See for more information: https://bit.ly/2MYVqoh.

16

These are third-sector organisations working with schools in Wales.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 112 112 29
PDF Views & Downloads 160 160 32