Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act?



Educational change is a fact of life for teachers across the world, as schools are subjected to constant and ubiquitous pressures to innovate. And, yet, many school practices remain remarkably persistent in the face of such innovation. This paradox of innovation without change is perplexing for policymakers and practitioners alike. This paper investigates the gap between policy and practice, between innovation and the changes in social practices that occur in response to such innovation. It draws upon empirical data from two case studies in Scotland—schools responding to new curriculum policy—exploring contrasting approaches to the management of innovation. One is a laissez faire approach, and the other a more directive managerial strategy. Through an analytical separation of culture, structure, and agency, derived from the social theory of Margaret Archer, the paper sheds light on the social processes that accompanied innovation in these two settings demonstrating how teacher culture and differing management styles impact upon externally initiated policy.


Agency Change Culture Curriculum Innovation Interdisciplinary Structure 



I wish to offer my thanks to Professor Julie Allan for her continued interest in this work and for her valuable insights about the paper.


  1. Archer, M. (1988). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balkin, J. M. (1998). Cultural software: A theory of ideology. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explanations in policy sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of a democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benavot, A. (2004). A global study of intended instructional time and official school curricula, 19802000. Retrieved from UNESCO website:
  9. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control: Vol. 3. Towards a theory of educational transmissions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained. Educational Theory, 54(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biesta, G. J. J., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149.Google Scholar
  12. Blase, J. (1998). The micropolitics of educational change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), The international handbook of educational change: Part one (pp. 544–557). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Bowe, R., Ball, S., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Boyd, B. (1997). The statutory years of secondary education: Change and progress. In M. M. Clark & P. Munn (Eds.), Education in Scotland: Policy and practice from pre-school to secondary (pp. 52–66). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890–1980. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 85–105). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  17. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453–477.Google Scholar
  18. Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  20. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65.Google Scholar
  22. Fore, L. (1998). Curriculum control: Using discourse and structure to manage educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(5), 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gleeson, D., & Whitty, G. (1976). Developments in social studies teaching. London: Open Books.Google Scholar
  26. Goodson, I. F. (2003). Professional knowledge, professional lives: Studies in education and teaching. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hansen, K. H., & Olson, J. (1996). How teachers construe curriculum innovation: The science, technology, society (STS) movement as bildung. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(6), 669–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the post-modern age. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  29. Hargreaves, D. (1982). The challenge for the comprehensive school: Culture, curriculum and community. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Helsby, G. (1999). Changing teachers’ work. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education. (1992). Effective learning and teaching in Scottish secondary schools: Modern studies. Retrieved from
  32. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education. (1999). Standards and quality in secondary schools 199599: Modern studies. Retrieved from
  33. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education. (2000). Achieving success: A report on the review of provision in S1/S2 by HM Inspectors of Schools. Retrieved from
  34. Hill, B. (1994). Teaching secondary social studies in a multicultural society. Melbourne, AU: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  35. King, L. (1986). The story of a syllabus. In D. Holly (Ed.), Humanism in adversity: Teachers’ experience of integrated humanities in the 1980s (pp. 39–53). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lang, M., Day, C., Bunder, W., Hansen, H., Kysilka, M. L., Tilllema, H., et al. (1999). Teacher professional development in the context of curriculum reform. In M. Lang, J. Olson, H. Hansen, & W. Bunder (Eds.), Changing schools/changing practices: Perspectives on educational reform and teacher professionalism (pp. 121–132). Louvain, BE: Garant.Google Scholar
  37. Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2000). Environmental studies: Society, science and technology. 5–14 Guidelines. Glasgow, UK: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Levin, B. (1998). An epidemic of education policy: (What) can we learn from each other? Comparative Education, 34(2), 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers: Transforming their world and their work. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  40. Menter, I. (2007). Keynote address presented at the annual seminar of the Partnership for Professional Enquiry. Stirling, UK: University of Stirling.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, K., Edwards, R., & Priestley, M. (2010). Levels and equivalence in credit and qualifications frameworks: Contrasting the prescribed and enacted curriculum in school and college. Research Papers in Education, 25(2), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Osborn, M., Croll, P., Broadfoot, P., Pollard, A., McNess, E., & Triggs, P. (1997). Policy into practice and practice into policy: Creative mediation in the primary classroom. In G. Helsby & G. McCulloch (Eds.), Teachers and the national curriculum (pp. 52–65). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  43. Reeves, J. (2008). Between a rock and a hard place? Curriculum for excellence and the quality initiative in Scottish schools. Scottish Educational Review, 40(2), 6–16.Google Scholar
  44. Ross, A. (1995). The rise and fall of the social subjects in the curriculum. In J. Ahier & A. Ross (Eds.), The social subjects within the curriculum: Children’s social learning in the national curriculum (pp. 53–78). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. Oxford, UK: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Scottish Education Department. (1965). Primary education in Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar
  47. Scottish Education Department. (1977). The structure of the curriculum in the third and fourth years of the Scottish secondary school. Edinburgh, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar
  48. Scottish Executive Education Department (2001). A teaching profession for the 21st century. Retrieved from
  49. Scottish Executive Education Department. (2006). A curriculum for excellence: Progress and proposals. Edinburgh, UK: Author.Google Scholar
  50. Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  51. Skilbeck, M. (1998). School-based curriculum development. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), The international handbook of educational change: Part one (pp. 121–144). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Smyth, J., & Shacklock, G. (1998). Re-making teaching: Ideology, policy and practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spillane, J. (1999). External reform efforts and teachers’ initiatives to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spillane, J. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 377–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stark, S., & Torrance, H. (2005). Case study. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 33–40). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Supovitz, J. A. (2008). Implementation as iterative refraction. In J. A. Supovitz & E. H. Weinbaum (Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 151–172). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  57. Torrance, H. (1997). Assessment, accountability, and standards: Using assessment to control the reform of schooling. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, society (pp. 320–331). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wesley, E. B., & Wronski, S. P. (1973). Teaching secondary social studies in a world society. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Company.Google Scholar
  61. Whitty, G. (1992). Lessons from radical curriculum initiatives: Integrated humanities and world studies. In A. Rattansi & D. Reeder (Eds.), Rethinking radical education: Essays in honour of Brian Simon (pp. 96–117). London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  62. Wong, S. Y. (1991). The evolution of social science instruction, 1900–86: A cross-national study. Sociology of Education, 64(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wubbels, T., & Poppleton, P. (1999). Knowledge about change and its effects on teachers. In M. Lang, J. Olson, H. Hansen, & W. Bunder (Eds.), Changing schools/changing practices: Perspectives on educational reform and teacher professionalism (pp. 149–156). Louvain, BE: Garant.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Stirling Institute of EducationUniversity of StirlingStirlingScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations