State-based curriculum-making, Part I

References

• Achtenhagen, F., & Meyer, H. L. (1971). Curriculumrevision: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen [Curriculum revision: possibilities and limits]. Munich, Germany: Kösel.
   Google Scholar
• Apple, M. W. (2008). Curriculum planning: Content, form, and the politics of accountability. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 25–44). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781412976572
   Google Scholar
• Bähr, K., Fries, A.-V., Ghisla, G., Künzli, R., Rosenmund, M., & Seliner-Müller, G. (2000). Curriculum-making: Structures, expectations, perspectives: Implementation report (National Research Programme 33: Effectiveness of Our Educational Systems). Aarau: Schweizerische Koordinationsstelle für Bildungforsching (SKBF).
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (2006). What is policy: Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball (pp. 43–53). London: Routlege.
   Google Scholar
• Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carlgren, I. (1995). National curriculum as social compromise or discursive politics? Some reflections on a curriculum‐making process. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27, 411–430.10.1080/0022027950270405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charters, W. W. (1923). Curriculum construction. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, F. M. & Connelly, G. (2008). The curriculum guideline: Policy instrument and practical curriculum guide. In A. Luke, K. Weir & A. Woods (Eds), Development of principles to guide a P–12 syllabus framework (pp. 128–139). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Studies Authority. Retrieved May 13, 2016 from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/qsa_p-12_principles_dev_ppr.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, F. M., & Connelly, G. (2010). Curriculum policy. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 224–227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, F. M., & Connelly, G. (2013). Curriculum policy guidelines: Context, structures and functions. In A. Luke, A. Woods, & K. Weir (Eds.), Curriculum, syllabus, design and equity: A primer and model (pp. 54–73). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, K. (1995). A history of the right: The battle for control of national curriculum history 1989–1994. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43, 433–456.10.1080/00071005.1995.9974049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 486–516). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (1994). The national curriculum debacle. West Perth: Meridian Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, R. J. (2011). The scramble for Europe. London Review of Books, 33, 17–19.
   Google Scholar
• Frey, K. (1971). Theorien des Curriculums [Theories of the curriculum]. Berlin: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Frey, K. (1975). Curriculum-Handbuch [Handbook of curriculum]. Munich, Germany: Piper.
   Google Scholar
• Frey, K. (1986). European traditions of curriculum research: A comparative view. In U. Hameyer, K. Frey, H. Haft, & F. Kuebart (Eds.), Curriculum research in Europe (pp. 11–16). Berwyn, PA: Swets North America.
   Google Scholar
• Gilligan, G. (2002). Royal commissions of inquiry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35, 289–307.10.1375/acri.2002.35.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundem, B. B. (2011). Europeisk didaktikk. Tenkning og viten [European didactic: Thinking and knowing]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Haft, H., & Hameyer, H. (Eds.). (1975). Curriculum Planung: Theorie und Praxis [Curriculum Planning: Theory and practice]. Munich: Kösel.
   Google Scholar
• Haft, H., & Hopmann, S. (1990). Curriculum administration as symbolic action. In H. Haft & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Case studies in curriculum administration history (pp. 143–158). London: Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Haller, H.-D. (1973). Prozess-Analyse der Lehrplanentwicklung in der BRD [Process analysis of curriculum development in the Federal Republic of Germany]. Constance: Universität Konstanz, Zentrum I Bildungsforschung.
   Google Scholar
• Hameyer, U., Frey, K., & Haft, H. (Eds.). (1983). Handbuch der Curriculumforschung: Erste Ausgabe Übersichten zur Forschung 1970–1981 [Handbook of curriculum research: Reviews of research 1970–1981]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C. (2001). Examining relations of power in a process of curriculum change: The case of VCE physics. Research in Science Education, 31, 525–551.10.1023/A:1013145924470
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C. (2002). Framing curriculum discursively: Theoretical perspectives on the experience of VCE physics. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1055–1077.10.1080/09500690110098930
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. (1985). Prozeßanalyse der Lehrplan- und Curriculumentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Process analysis of curriculum and curriculum development in the Federal Republic of Germany]. Kiel, Germany: Universität Kiel, Institut für Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. (1988a). Lehrplanarbeit als Verwaltungshandeln [Curriculum development as an administrative action]. Kiel, Germany: Universität Kiel, Institut für Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. (1988b). Zugänge zur Geschichte staatlicher Lehrplanarbeit [Contributions to the history of state curriculum development]. Kiel, Germany: Universität Kiel, Institut für Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. (1991a). Retracing curriculum history: The multiple realities of curriculum making. In B. B. Gundem, B. U. Engelsen, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Curriculum work and curriculum content: Theory and practice: Contemporary and historical perspectives (Rapport No. 5, 1991) (pp. 49–68). Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt, Universitetet I Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. (1991b). Current structures of curriculum making in the Federal Republic of Germany and their impact on content. In B. B. Gundem, B. U. Engelsen, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Curriculum work and curriculum content: Theory and practice: Contemporary and historical perspectives (Rapport No. 5, 1991) (pp. 158–180). Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt, Universitetet I Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. (1999). The curriculum as a standard of public education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 18, 89–105.10.1023/A:1005139405296
   Google Scholar
• Hörner, W. (2007). France. In W. Hörner, H. Döbert, B. von Kopp & W. Mitter (Eds.), The education systems of Europe (pp. 263–283). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Husén, T., & Dahlöff, U. S. (1960). Mathematics and communication skills in school and society. Stockholm: Industrial Council for Social and Economic Studies.
   Google Scholar
• International Bureau of Education. (2001). National Reports on the Development of Education: Forty-sixth Session of the International Conference on Education. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/46english/46natrape.htm
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, A. (1983). Legitimationsmodelle in der Curriculumentwicklung [Legitimation models in curriculum development]. In U. Hameyer, K. Frey, & H. Haft (Eds.), Handbuch der Curriculumforschung: Erste Ausgabe Übersichten zur Forschung 1970–1981 [Handbook of curriculum research: Overviews of research, 1970–1981] (pp. 597–606). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2010). Conceptualising curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education, 45, 103–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König, E. (1983). Theorien der Curriculumlegitimation [Theories of curriculum legitimacy]. In U. Hameyer, K. Frey, & H. Haft (Eds.), Handbuch der Curriculumforschung: Erste Ausgabe Übersichten zur Forschung 1970–1981 [Handbook of curriculum research: Overviews of research, 1970–1981] (pp. 587–596). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Koritzinsky, T. (2000). Pedagogikk og politikk i L97: læreplanens innhold og beslutningsprosessene [Pedagogy and politics in L97: curriculum content and decision-making processes]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Koritzinsky, T. (2001). Educational reform in Norway in the 1990s: Civic pluralism and national unity in decision-making and curriculum contents. In S. Ahonen & J. Rantala (Eds.), Nordic lights: Education for nation and civic society in the Nordic Countries, 1850–2000 (pp. 204–225). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Künzli, R. (1999). Lehrplanarbeit. Über den Nutzen von Lehrplänen für die Schule und ihre Entwicklung [Curriculum development. The Usefulness of curricula for the school and its development]. Chur: Rüegger.
   Google Scholar
• Künzli, R., & Hopmann, S. T. (Eds.). (1989). Lehrpläne: Wie sie entwickelt warden und was von ihnen erwartet wird [Curricula: As they are developed, and what is expected of them]. Chur: Rüegger.
   Google Scholar
• Lindbloom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann, W. (1928). American inquisitors: A commentary on Dayton and Chicago (Barbour-Page lectures, University of Virginia, 1928). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Løvlie, L. (1998). Paradoxes of educational reform: The case of Norway in the 1990s. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue (pp. 195–214). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• McFee, G., & Tomlinson, A. (Eds.). (1993). Education, sport and leisure: Connections and controversies. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W. & Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Milburn, G. (1996). ‘Ring some alarm bells in Ontario’: Reactions to the report of the Royal Commission on learning. London: Althouse Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mølstad, C. E., & Hansén, S.-E. (2013). Curriculum as a governing instrument: A comparative study of Finland and Norway. Education Enquiry, 4, 735–753.
   Google Scholar
• Norway. Kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet. (1999). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen [The curriculum for the 10-year compulsory school]. Oslo: Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement.
   Google Scholar
• Nova Scotia, Department of Education and Culture. (1998). Foundation for active, healthy living: physical and health education curriculum. Halifax: Department of Education and Culture. Retrieved July 6, 2015, from http://www.ednet.ns.ca/files/curriculum/ActiveHealthyLiving2005_sec.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Aldershot,UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Prasser, S. (1994). Royal commissions and public inquiries. In P. Weller (Ed.), Royal commissions and the making of public policy (pp. 1–21). South Melbourne: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. (1995). Interpretations of the geography national curriculum: A common curriculum for all? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27, 187–205.10.1080/0022027950270204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinsohn, S. B. (1967). Bildungsreform als Revision des Curriculums und Strukturkonzept für Curriculumentwicklung [Education reform as a revision of the curriculum and a structural proposal for curriculum development]. Berlin: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Robinsohn, S. B. (1969). A conceptual structure of curriculum development. Comparative Education, 5, 221–234.10.1080/0305006690050303
   Google Scholar
• Rosenmund, M. (2006). The current discourse on curriculum change; A comparative analysis of national reports on education. In A. Benavot & C. Braslavsky (Eds.), School knowledge in comparative and historical perspective: Changing curricula in primary and secondary education (CERC Studies in Comparative Education No. 19) (pp. 173–194). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Sheriff, P. E. (1983). State theory, social science, and governmental commissions. American Behavioral Scientist, 26, 669–680.10.1177/000276483026005010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivesind, K. & Westbury, I. (2016). State-based curriculum work and curriculum-making: Norway’s Læreplanverket 1997. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48, 766–782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weiler, H. N. (1988). The politics of reform and non-reform in French education. Comparative Education Review, 32, 251–265.10.1086/446776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiler, H. N. (1990). Curriculum reform and the legitimation of educational objectives: The case of the Federal Republic of Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 16, 15–27.10.1080/0305498900160102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weniger, E. (1930). Die Theorie des Bildungsinhalts [The theory of educative content]. In H. Nohl & L. Pallat (Eds.), Handbuch der Pädagogik, Band 3: Allgemeine Didaktik und Erziehungslehre [Handbook of Education, Volume 3: General didactics and educational theory] (pp. 3–54). Weinheim: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Weniger, E. (1952). Didaktik als Bildungslehre, Teil 1: Die Theorie der Bildungsinhalte und des Lehrplans [Didactics as educative teaching, Part 1: The theory of educational content and curriculum]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Weniger, E. (2000). Didaktik as a theory of education. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 111–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might Didaktik teach curriculum?. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 15–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Westbury, I. (2016). State-based curriculum-making: The Illinois Learning Standards. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48, 783—802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westbury, I., Aspfors, J., Fries, A.-V., Hansén, S.-E., Ohlhaver, F., Rosenmund, M., & Sivesind, K. (2016). Organizing curriculum change: An introduction. Journal of Curriculum Studies.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wixson, K. K., Dutro, E., & Athan, R. G. (2004). The challenge of developing content standards. In Review of research in education, Vol. 27 (pp. 69–107). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar