Abstract
Demands of a globalised knowledge economy and drive in accountability and performativity systems have seen top-down approaches to curriculum innovation dominate education reform efforts. Standards-based policies, prescribed curricula and standardised student assessment consistently challenge teachers’ agency. Although there is a growing interest in the role of teachers’ agency in curriculum reform contexts, limitations exist in the range of contexts explored, particularly those involving primary schools and dynamic top-down, bottom-up curriculum reform efforts. This article draws on a case study of an Australian primary school engaging in a top-down, bottom-up approach to curriculum reform from a teacher-researcher perspective. Framed within an ecological conceptualisation of teachers’ agency (Priestley et al. 2015), this article explores primary teachers’ reported experiences of agency and identifies potential enablers and constraints to agency in top-down, bottom-up curriculum reforms. Factors associated with assessment emerge as enablers and constraints to teachers’ agency in curriculum planning and teaching. Implications regarding the use of top-down, system-developed assessment and teachers’ assessment literacy exist for teachers, school leaders and governing authorities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Pseudonym used.
Note that to support ease of reading and to maintain context of interview responses, direct quotes taken from Interview One: Post-planning (PP) are referenced using the following format, Name of participant, PP, page reference. Direct quotes taken from Interview Two: Post-teaching (PT) are referenced using the following format, Name of participant, PT, page reference.
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012). The shape of the Australian Curriculum: Version 4.0. Retrieved from https://acaraweb.blob.core.windows.net/resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_v4.pdf.
Baird, J., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2016). Curriculum in the twenty-first century and the future of examination. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (Volume Two) (pp. 821–837). London: Sage Publications.
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Buchanan, R. (2014). Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practical research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 93–109). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Day, C. (2017). Teachers’ worlds and work: Understanding complexity, building quality. London: Routledge.
De Luca, C., & Johnson, S. (2017). Developing assessment capable teachers in this age of accountability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 24(2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2017.1297010.
De Luca, C., La-Pointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment Evaluation Association, 28(1), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6.
Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B., & Pell, S. (2002). Support for innovation in site-based-managed schools: Developing a climate for change. Educational Research Quarterly, 25(4), 36–49.
Department of Education and Training (2016). School improvement unit: 2015 annual report. Retrieved from https://www.acer.org/school-improvement/improvement-tools.
Education Queensland (2013). Curriculum into the classroom (C2C). Brisbane: The State of Queensland (Department of Education, Training and Employment) Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/c2c/.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294.
Erss, M., Kalmus, V., & Autio, T. H. (2016). Walking a fine line: Teachers’ perceptions of curricular autonomy in Estonia, Finland and Germany. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(5), 589–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1167960.
Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Greany, T., & Waterhouse, J. (2016). Rebels against the system: Leadership agency and curriculum innovation in the context of school autonomy and accountability in England. International Journal of Education Management, 30(7), 1188–1206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0148.
Hardy, I. (2015). Curriculum reforms as contested: An analysis of curriculum policy enactment in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Educational Research, 74(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.09.010.
Henderson, D., & Zajda, J. (2015). The national curriculum and history school textbooks in Australia and Russian Federation. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, ideology and politics of education reforms (pp. 25–40). Switzerland: Springer Publishing.
Kennedy, K. (2013). Singapore’s school curriculum for the future beyond: National development? In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K. Lee (Eds.), Globalisation and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 205–224). Singapore: Springer Publishing.
Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teacher and Teacher Education, 28(1), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.004.
Klenowski, V., & Carter, M. (2016). Curriculum reform in testing and accountability contexts. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 790–804). London: Sage Publications.
Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2014). Assessment for education: Standards, judgment and moderation. London: Sage Publications.
Leander, K. M., & Osborne, M. D. (2008). Complex positioning: Teachers as agents of curricular and pedagogical reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270601089199.
Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382.
Lingard, B., & McGregor, G. (2013). High-stakes assessment and new curricula: A Queensland case of competing tensions in curriculum development. In M. Priestley & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 207–228). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Lim-Ratnam, C., Atencio, M., & Lee, C. K. (2016). Managing the paradox of control: The case of ground-up implementation of active learning in Singapore’s primary schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 15(1), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9191-x.
Luke, A. (2000). New basics project technical paper. Retrieved from https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/115452/scpp-00433-qld-2000.pdf?sequence=1.
Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2016). Learning not borrowing from the Queensland education system: Lessons on curricular, pedagogical and assessment reform. The Curriculum Journal, 27(1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1147969.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (1989). The Hobart Declaration on Schooling and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/ECPublications/EC-Publications-archive/EC-The-Hobart-Declaration-on-Schooling-1989.aspx.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (1999). The Adelaide Declaration of National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publicationsarchive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved from http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/.
Ministry of Education (2017). The New Zealand curriculum. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum.
Ministry of Education (2018). ‘Learn for Life’–Preparing our students to excel beyond exam results [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/pressreleases/-learn-for-life%2D%2D-preparing-our-students-to-excel-beyond-exam-results.
Mockler, N. (2018). Curriculum integration in the twenty-first century: Some reflections in the light of the Australian curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 38(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-018-0047-9.
Priestley, M. (2011). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of Education Change, 12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-010-9140-z.
Priestley, M., & Drew, V. (2016). Teachers as agents of curriculum change: Closing the gap between purpose and practice. Paper presented at the European Conference for Educational Research, Dublin, IL. Retrieved from https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/hub/publication/22337
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Miller, K., & Priestley, A. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/23253807.
Priestley, M., Minty, S., & Eager, M. (2014). School based curriculum development in Scotland: Curriculum policy and enactment. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 22(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2013.812137.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury.
Pyhalto, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2012). Do comprehensive school teachers perceive themselves as active professional agents in school reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 13(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9171-0.
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2018). Introducing Queensland’s new senior assessment system: From syllabus to subject result. Retrieved from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_new_assess_syllabus_to_subject.pdf.
Queensland Studies Authority (2007). Essential learnings: Information statement. Retrieved from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/p_10/qcar_is_essential_learnings.pdf.
Ramberg, M. R. (2014). What makes reform work? School-based conditions as predictors of teachers’ changing practice after a national curriculum reform. International Education Studies, 7(6), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n6p46.
Reid, A. (2005). Rethinking national curriculum collaboration: Towards an Australian curriculum. Australian Government. Retrieved from https://digititisedcollections.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/115751.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalising education policy. New York: Routledge.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9157-y.
Schleicher, A. (2008). Seeing school systems through the prism of PISA. In A. Luke, K. Weir, & A. Woods (Eds.), Development of a set of principles to guide a P–12 syllabus framework: A report delivered to the Queensland Studies Authority. Queensland: Queensland Studies Authority.
Sinnema, C., & Aitken, G. (2013). Emerging international trends in curriculum. In M. Priestley & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 114–131). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Smyth, A., & Holian, R. (2008). Credibility issues in research from within organisations. In P. Sikes & A. Potts (Eds.), Researching education from the inside: Investigations from within (pp. 33–48). London: Routledge.
Tan, C. (2016). Teacher agency and school-based curriculum in China’s non-elite schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9274-8.
Vahasantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006.
Vahasantanen, K., & Billett, S. (2008). Negotiating professional identity: Vocational teachers’ personal strategies in a reform context. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & A. Etelapelto (Eds.), Emerging perspectives of workplace learning (pp. 35–49). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Willis, J., Adie, L., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. Australian Educational Researcher, 40(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9.
Winter, C. (2017). Curriculum policy reform in an era of technical accountability: ‘Fixing’ curriculum, teachers and students in English schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1205138.
Wong, Y., & Lai, W. (2007). Challenges and strategies to educational change: Introducing school-based curriculum development. New Horizons in Education, 55(2), 78–96.
Woods, A., Dooley, K., Luke, A., & Exley, B. (2014). School leadership, literacy and social justice: The place of local school curriculum planning and reform. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social (in) justice (pp. 509–520). New York: Springer.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010) The centrality of teachers’ judgement practice in assessment: a study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 17(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903565610
Yin, R. K. (2009). Doing case study research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express sincere gratitude to Mallihai Tambyah, Nicole Mockler and Annette Woods on their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Approval was obtained from Queensland University of Technology’s Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval: 1700000783) to conduct this study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Poulton, P. Teacher agency in curriculum reform: the role of assessment in enabling and constraining primary teachers’ agency. Curric Perspect 40, 35–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-020-00100-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-020-00100-w