1












DOES OUR REACH EXCEED OUR GRASP?
A CASE STUDY OF SCHOOL BASED CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.



































PAPER PRESENTED AT THE AARE CONFERENCE, ADELAIDE, NOV-DEC. 1989

Michael Bezzina, Catholic College of Education Sydney




DOES OUR REACH EXCEED OUR GRASP?
A CASE STUDY OF SCHOOL BASED CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.

Michael Bezzina, Catholic College of Education Sydney.



The big barrier is time. Teachers at my school get between half an hour and 
three quarters of an hour release time per week. In my three quarters of an 
hour I have to : program, plan, correct, organise, clean, write up my day book, 
organise Mass for Friday, devise a liturgical dance for Wednesday's 
paraliturgy, plan the sports carnival, do some photocopying and go to the 
toilet!   I'm just stating the sad fact that for many of us school based 
curriculum development is just another thing to do - however important.

From this Primary teacher's point of view, participation in school based curriculum 
development (SBCD) is an activity which is expected of teachers, one which is 
important, but which must compete for time with other important priorities. The 
view expressed raises some questions about her behaviour, and the behaviour of 
other teachers.  Why, for example, does she choose to continue to be involved in 
SBCD despite the apparently conflicting demands on time and energy? What view 
does she have of her participation? How is this point of view related to the methods 
and extent of her participation in SBCD?  The case study reported in this paper was 
part of a larger study which sought answers to some of these questions, and in 
particular those related to teachers' views of their participation in SBCD.

The significance of addressing this teachers' point of view is that there is 
considerable agreement among writers using this frame of reference that "what 
teachers do is affected by what they think" (Clark and Yinger, 1977). Teachers' 
subjective viewpoints have been shown to be 
important in research into areas such as classroom practice (Woods, 1977), school 
autonomy (Reynolds and Sullivan, 1982), innovation (Fullan, 1982), and teacher 
socialisation (Mardle and Walker, 1980). 

In this paper, the way in which teachers view themselves and their situation will 
be referred to as teacher perceptions. It seems reasonable to expect that these 
perceptions would have particular applications in the case of participation in SBCD. 
For example, two teachers in similar situations with objectively the same abilities 
may have more or less positive perceptions of self and situation, leading to 
different levels of participation in SBCD.

Research to date on teacher participation in SBCD has focussed largely on the 
decision-making dimension of that participation. This study takes a somewhat 
broader view, where, based on a review of the literature, and a process of 
consultation with experts (Bezzina, 1989), participation in SBCD is viewed as being 
made up of five groups of behaviours: gathering background information, 
planning, implementing, evaluating and working with others. SBCD itself is defined 
as a process in which some or all of the members of a school community plan, 
implement and/or evaluate an aspect or aspects of the curriculum offering of the 
school. This may involve adapting an existing curriculum, adopting it unchanged, 
or creating new curriculum. SBCD is a collaborative effort which should not be 
confused with the individual efforts of teachers or administrators operating outside 
the boundaries of a collaboratively accepted framework. 

In analysing the objective factors which influence teacher participation in SBCD, 
the significance of organisational variables is apparent, and well documented (e.g. 
Cohen and Harrison, 1982).  It is at the subjective level of perceptions, however, 
that the importance of the individual factors emerges, because these perceptions 
are unique to the individual, may be independent of notions of objective reality, 
and have been demonstrated in a range of fields to be significant influences on 
action, although the way in which they operate in influencing teacher 
participation in SBCD is not fully understood (Bezzina, 1988,1989).

Wilson (1977:247) argued that human behaviour cannot be understood without 
understanding the framework within which "subjects interpret their thoughts, 
feelings and actions". As part of the process of addressing the questions which have 
prompted this study, a need clearly exists, therefore, to determine the nature of 
teachers' perceptions of their participation in SBCD within a particular context. 
This paper discusses some aspects of a case study which takes up this focus. The 
paper has two purposes. The first is to describe SBCD practices in a particular 
school, and teachers' perceptions of their participation in SBCD in that context. The 
second is to explore possible relationships between perceptions and actual 
participation. 

THE NATURE OF THE CASE STUDY APPROACH ADOPTED

Because the type of data required in this study was not likely to be available to the 
outsider "occasionally coming in and talking to people", (Wilson, 1977: 254) a 
modified form of the role of participant 
observer was adopted within an approach known as condensed fieldwork 
(Stenhouse, 1981:33). This may be defined as a form of data gathering which 
requires the researcher to become a participant in the system being observed 
while structuring data collection according to explicit theoretical constructs. 

As fieldwork becomes condensed, the participant observer role in [the] full 
sense is attenuated and observation is located in a study where the main 
weight is carried by interviewing. Observation often provides cues for the 
agenda of interview or follows from remarks made by an interviewee.
(Stenhouse, 1981: 33)

The aspirant participant role adopted in the present study was that of occasional 
relief teacher whose basic role as researcher was clearly understood by all staff 
members. The approach taken was suggested by Ball (1982b: 80) as a way of 
legitimating the researcher in the eyes of teachers.

The case study school was a small primary school with a full time staff of seven in 
the southern suburbs of Sydney, and is referred to as Blackpool Primary School 
(BPS). It is one of the 145 primary schools or departments within the Catholic 
Education system of the Archdiocese of Sydney. BPS was a single stream school with 
a fluctuating enrolment of around 220 during the period of the researcher's 
involvement. The school was not in receipt of any funds beyond the standard 
allocation, and it was staffed according to regular Catholic Education Office 
guidelines. 1988 was the Principal's third year in charge of Blackpool, and her 
third as a Principal. In terms of these characteristics, BPS was considered to be 
quite typical of the schools within the system.

As this case study was part of a larger study, a major purpose of which was theory 
testing, critical research questions were clearly in the mind of the researcher at 
the onset of work in the case study school. Data were gathered between August 1987 
and June 1988 using both structured and unstructured methods, with the semi-
structured interview and observation being the main methods. Interviews were 
conducted at two levels at BPS. Initially all full time classroom teachers were 
interviewed using a format which focussed on perceptions of the behaviours 
involved in participation in SBCD, the aids and barriers to participation and the 
costs and benefits of participation. Later in the research, and based on responses to 
a questionnaire tapping different aspects of perceptions, two focus teachers were 
chosen for a series of 5 weekly interviews dealing with actual involvement in SBCD. 
These two were chosen on the basis of their representing the most and least 
positive perceptions respectively.


THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SBCD AT BLACKPOOL PRIMARY SCHOOL.

Table 1 categorises curriculum initiatives at BPS according to their focus, their 
source, and the participants involved. This table gives an indication of the 
opportunities available to staff to participate in SBCD, the extent to which the staff 
were involved in various initiatives, and the focus on different subject areas.

The initiatives noted in Table 1 are "major" initiatives, in that they were, for the 
most part, whole-school concerns. Most of them involved gathering background 
information or planning. This list does not include 
the various initiatives which involved the classroom implementation of plans made 
either within this time frame or prior to it, either by the whole staff, small groups 
of staff, or individuals. The resultant list of initiatives was, therefore, in terms of 
the definition adopted in this study, an underestimation of the extent of 
participation at the time of the study. In spite of this, the list of 16 initiatives is 
quite extensive. 

Table 1 highlights the importance of the Principal, the significance of the 
(perhaps unexpected?) external influences on the school, and role of the Catholic 
nature of the school in the SBCD initiatives identified. The predominant place of the 
Principal as an initiator is clear, with a role in over half the initiatives. Only three 
other individual members of staff (the REC, Social Science Coordinator and the PAP) 
were responsible for SBCD initiatives during the period under consideration. The 
breakdown of initiatives also indicates the dominant role of staff in curriculum 
development, while parents and outside personnel (usually C.E.O. or C.A.E. staff) 
were quite frequently participants in this school.

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF SBCD INITIATIVES AT BLACKPOOL PRIMARY SCHOOL

Focus of initiatives

Religious Education/Catholic philosophy of the school   	- 6

Other subject specific initiatives:
Language             						- 3
Social Studies       						- 2
Mathematics          						- 1
Music                						- 1

Other:                             
Personal Development 						- 1
Protective Behaviours						- 1
Discipline Policy    						- 1
                                                                
TOTAL                                        	 16

Initiator:
Principal - reacting to external influences        		- 5
- reacting to internal influences        			- 1
- implementing staff priorities          			- 3
- other                                  			- 1
SUBTOTAL                    				 10

Other    
- system initiative                      			- 1
- Religious Education Coordinator (REC)  			- 2
- Primary Assistant Principal (PAP)      			- 1
- Social Science Coordinator             			- 1
- whole staff concern                    			- 1
SUBTOTAL                   					  6
TOTAL                  					 16

Participants (Number of initiatives in which each group were
participants):
Staff                                               	-16
Parents                                             	- 6
Pupils                                              	- 2
Outside personnel                                   	- 5

                                                                     



Of the sixteen initiatives identified, 5 were a result of the Principal reacting to 
external influences (e.g. system priorities, availability of inservice, outcomes of 
further study) and an additional one was a result of a direct system initiative for 
school clusters to work on Language. Six of the sixteen initiatives identified in 
Table 1 concerned either Religious Education or the Catholic Philosophy of the 
school.

Particularly when viewed in the light of the tendency of Table 1 to underestimate 
the school's SBCD activity, there was a considerable number of initiatives in a wide 
range of areas in BPS in which teachers could, and did, become involved. During 
the period of observation there were approximately 30 weeks of school. The 
initiatives in Table 1 therefore represent, for some teachers, an average of more 
than one significant initiative every two weeks, and most of these had ongoing 
implications for teacher practice. If each had been fully and systematically 
implemented, the resultant demands on teacher time would have been great. 
However some initiatives did not survive the planning stage, or even the initial 
discussions. At times this was as a result of 
pressure on time, at times through apathy, and at times because of conscious 
decisions by individual teachers to deviate from policy.

Informal observation of classroom practice indicated that there was a disjunction 
between written documentation and practice. For example, in the area of language, 
the school policy was based on the principles of an early literacy project which had 
been sponsored by the diocese, and on process approaches to the teaching of 
language in particular. Both the researcher's observations and comments by the 
Principal would indicate that these principles were not always apparent in 
practice, despite the involvement of teachers in planning the curriculum.

In summary, there was a great deal of initiation of SBCD activity taking place at BPS, 
covering a range of subjects. All involved teachers. The Principal was the prime 
initiator although outside influences played a significant role in influencing her 
in this regard. Both observation and interview revealed that a number of initiatives 
failed to proceed beyond the discussion stage.


STRUCTURES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AT BLACKPOOL PRIMARY SCHOOL

The structures in BPS which allowed SBCD to take place included the establishment 
by staff of a school set of priorities for curriculum development, regular staff 
meetings, the provision of time for SBCD activities, the link made between SBCD and 
staff development, and the use of the expertise of outside personnel.

Curriculum development at Blackpool Primary School was taking place within a set 
of priorities established through staff consultation at the commencement of the 
term of office of the present Principal. The outcome of this consultation was that it 
was decided to address the curriculum areas in the following order: discipline, 
Language, Religious Education, Mathematics, Music. The focus for 1988 was to be 
Mathematics, with Music for 1989. Table 1 reveals that this has not been rigidly 
followed, probably as a result of the impact of external influences. Discussion with 
the Principal indicated a possible need for reassessment of priorities:

going to do nothing next year. In the plan the intention was to do Music in 
1989.The Discipline policy has been going on for two and a half years and is 
still not being implemented. There's a lack of follow through....

Maths is this year's priority. It will be a long process. I did intend writing a 
policy next year, but we'll be a couple of years before we get anywhere near 
that."


Here, in the case of the Discipline policy, and in the case of other initiatives like 
Language policy and Human Development discussed with teachers, is evidence of 
the fact that some initiatives had not proceeded to the implementation stage during 
the period of observation.

Curriculum issues were usually raised at the weekly staff meeting, although even 
finding a time for such meetings was seen to be hard when different members of 
the staff were completing part-time studies on three afternoons of the week during 
1987. The Principal was seen by some staff as controlling the agenda of these 
meetings to a great extent. These staff made no mention of the open invitation to 
record matters of concern in the staff communication book, which was always 
available in the staff room. During an extended absence by the Principal, access to 
the agenda of these meetings was perceived by these staff members to be more 
open, when the Primary Assistant Principal solicited agenda items by circular.

Other time allowances for curriculum development were made by the Principal and 
the P.A.P. using their own administration release time to relieve teachers from face 
to face teaching. The same procedure was used to allow staff to attend inservice. The 
Principal commented that using administration time for relief worked imperfectly 
because the time could not always be guaranteed. She also saw a strong link 
between SBCD and staff development and so used the approved staff development 
days (where the schools in the system were allowed to ask pupils to stay at home) to 
allow staff to work on the school's specified curriculum priorities.

The Principal made extensive use of her contacts in tertiary institutions and at the 
Catholic Education Office to invite people to the school on both formal and informal 
bases. She said, "I get everyone I know in so that something might rub off."  Such 
personnel had a role in initiatives in Social Science, Religious Education, and 
Mathematics. The Principal strongly encouraged staff in their own studies, both on 
a personal basis and through reports in the school Newsletter, although she did 
have some reservations about the extent to which formal studies were finding 
expression in professional practice.."I can't see evidence of anything anyone else 
[other than herself] has done being used."

The overview of SBCD structures revealed that they were generally supportive of 
participation in SBCD, through the provision of extra time and outside support. The 
role of the Principal was once again significant. The provision of support 
structures provided the opportunity for the extensive SBCD activities already noted. 
Having provided a description of the SBCD activities and support systems at BPS 
attention is now turned to a description of teachers' perceptions of their 
participation in these activities.


TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF SBCD AT BLACKPOOL PRIMARY SCHOOL

In the course of interviews, teachers were asked to identify the behaviours that 
might be involved if they were participating in SBCD, the advantages and 
disadvantages of participation in SBCD and the aids and barriers to such 
participation.

Behaviours involved in participation in SBCD

Teachers' responses to this item are summarised in Table 2.

TABLE 2. : TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF THE BEHAVIOURS REQUIRED FOR 
		PARTICIPATION IN SBCD AT BPS.         (N=7)

Skill                                                Number of
                                               times mentioned

Background reading/examining previous practice/
examining needs/analysis of situation                     	5
Sequencing/organisation/coordination                        	3
Working/discussing with others                              	2
Evaluation of approaches                                    	2
Document preparation                                        	1
                                                                      

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this table is the absence of implementation as an 
aspect of participation in SBCD. Significantly, the four other "ways of participating 
in SBCD" used in the research can be identified in the responses above, namely 
gathering background information, planning, evaluating and working with 
others. Implementing, however, does not figure. This could be interpreted as 
representing a distinction between what happens in the classroom and the 
processes of SBCD in the minds of respondents.

The majority of teachers in the case study school nominated very short lists of 
behaviours at a very broad level of inclusiveness. No teacher identified more than 
three behaviours which were part of participating in SBCD. Two staff identified 
three, one nominated two and the remaining four identified only one activity. In a 
subsequent interview one of the focus teachers said that she couldn't think of any 
particular behaviours. Table 2 demonstrates that teachers thought of the 
behaviours involved in SBCD in very general terms. No teacher provided a list of 
activities which might have been considered to represent a comprehensive 
coverage of perticipation in SBCD. Perhaps they have not been equipped by either 
training or experience to discuss participation in SBCD in these terms. 


Aids and barriers to participation

Responses in interviews were categorised according to the aids and barriers 
identified. The collated results are presented below in Table 3.

TABLE 3 : TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF AIDS AND BARRIERS TO 
PARTICIPATION
		IN SBCD AT BPS                      (N=7)


Factor                      Number of responses

AIDS
Principal                      		6                              
Provision of time              		4
School climate                 		4     
Skills of staff                		3
Part time study                		1

BARRIERS
Time                           		6
Conflicting priorities         		5
Part time study                		4
Staff burn out                 		4                              
No follow through              		3
School structure               
(Single stream)                		3
Poor consultancy process       
of outside advisers.           		2
                                                                      


Table 3 demonstrates that, within BPS, the Principal was viewed by teachers as an 
important aid to participation in SBCD. This perception accords with the prominent 
role of the Principal as an initiator of SBCD which was identified earlier. It also 
links to the second perceived aid, the provision of time for SBCD, the Principal's 
role in which has been previously discussed. A number of staff commented on the 
improved situation since the current principal had arrived. A typical comment was:

She (the current principal) will listen and give us more time to spend as a 
group, and that is working more...The previous principal thrashed it (SBCD) 
and thrashed it to the point that we became sick and tired of it - to the point 
that one even stood up in a staff meeting once and said, "I can't stand this any 
more. We've just had enough. We've done it." She was 
amazed. I don't know what went wrong there and I don't think she knew what 
went wrong. "   


Staff had a generally positive view of themselves as a team. No-one indicated that 
they felt that the Principal, or the level of staff skills or the school climate in any 
way inhibited SBCD. On the contrary, these figured among the most frequently 
mentioned aiding factors. 

While there were positive perceptions of the amount of time being provided for 
SBCD (4 respondents), a greater number (6), viewed the lack of time as a barrier. 
Thus , a number of teachers viewed time as both an aid and a barrier. This may be 
seen to present something of an anomaly in a school where considerable effort was 
made to provide time, but needs to be seen in the context of the large number of 
initiatives undertaken. The perceptions of a need for time were not, however 
atypical. During the period of observation at BPS a survey was conducted by the 
C.E.O. (C.E.O. Sydney, 1988) to gather background data for staffing primary schools 
during 1989. In response to one question, 94.7 per cent of school staffs in the 
Archdiocese agreed that relief from face to face teaching should be provided for 
curriculum development and cooperative planning. 

Related to this issue of lack of time are perceptions of competing priorities (6 
responses) and staff burnout (4 responses) which are echoed in the following 
quotation from a member of staff. 

There isn't enough time. I was studying until last year. I'm not studying this 
year, but I'm so tired. I think this school...the primary children are so 
disrespectful. I don't know what happens to them when they get upstairs, but 
I think this probably goes back to parental attitudes. Playground duty for 
example... I feel like I'm a dragon all the time. I find it very tiring. Teachers 
get fatigued by the stress. At college I was going to do all sorts of things, but 
when I got into the classroom I found my ideals were far too high. I don't get 
the satisfaction I thought I would as a teacher. Sometimes in the staffroom a 
teacher will walk in so dejected because they're ready to explode. They've had 
it."

The constant pressure on time from priorities both within and beyond the school 
(and significantly from part-time study) figured very clearly in teacher discussion. 
As well as pressure on time from sources other than participation in SBCD, the very 
range of SBCD initiatives attempted had become counter-productive. Data on the 
number and frequency of major initiatives identified in Table 1 would support this 
perception. Initiatives were sometimes commenced but not acted upon consistently 
or developed any further because they were superseded by newer priorities. One of 
the teachers put the point of view explicitly:

Things seem to start and they don't keep going. Like the discipline policy...We 
got a draft copy last year and its sitting in my drawer. Am I still supposed to 
follow that or not? Some of the things are outdated already. Revising the 
school policy..I'm supposed to go on that committee with the school Principal 
and some other teachers, but we haven't met for ages. I think it just breaks 
down due to time and people and their other things... You can't just start 
something and leave it. You've really got to follow it on.


In a discussion with one of the focus teachers about a Personal Development 
initiative in which she had previously reported being involved, she reported that 
nothing had happened for several weeks. When asked if the reason was time, she 
indicated that she had simply forgotten about it. Given the number of initiatives 
under consideration at any one time as identified in Table 1, and the other demands 
on teachers' time, this was not surprising.

Three of the seven teachers interviewed commented that the fact that BPS was a 
single stream school was a barrier to participation in SBCD, since there was no one 
else teaching the same year level with whom issues could be discussed. This factor is 
likely to be important for any school of similar size. Five of the eight barriers to 
participation in SBCD perceived by teachers at BPS were related to either the 
demands on time or the consequences of these demands. These barriers were lack of 
time, conflicting priorities, part-time study, staff burn out and lack of follow 
through on initiatives. In fact if the number of responses related to consequences 
of lack of time are summed, these can be seen to be more important than the lack of 
time itself.

While there seem to be more barriers than aids to participation in SBCD, much SBCD 
activity took place in the school during the period of observation. Results of a 
questionnaire (reported in Bezzina, 1989) reveal that in general, teachers were 
positively disposed to participate in SBCD. Explanations for this could be that 
participation was expected of staff, that it was one of the norms of the occupation, 
that the aids must have been stronger than the barriers in the minds of most 
teachers, or that the perceived advantages of participation outweighed the 
disadvantages for them. This issue is explored more fully in the report of the larger 
study of which this report forms a part (Bezzina, 1989).


Advantages and disadvantages of participation at BPS.

In interviews with teachers at BPS, one disadvantage and 5 advantages of 
participation in SBCD emerged. The only disadvantage identified was the time taken. 
This factor has already been discussed.

The advantages identified are listed in Table 4, with an indication of the frequency 
of mention.

                                                                      

TABLE 4 : TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ADVANTAGES OF 
PARTICIPATION IN  SBCD AT BPS                      
                                                

Factor                                       Number of responses      

Better response to needs/situation                		3
Allows better awareness of curriculum among staff 		3
Allows staff to share/work together               		2
Allows consistency in curriculum structure        		2
Is a form of staff development                    		1
Not sure                                          		1
                                                                      

Four respondents identified a single advantage, two identified two, and the seventh 
identified three.  Given that there was a considerable allocation of scarce time and 
energy to participation in SBCD, the advantages listed in Table 4 must have been of 
sufficient value to respondents to encourage them to overcome the various barriers 
posed by the lack of time and the disadvantage which the expenditure of time 
seemed to pose. Three of the five advantages of participation in SBCD which were 
identified related to the curriculum (staff awareness of, and consistency in 
structure) and its outcomes (better response to needs).


Other observations about SBCD

In the course of interviews and observations, some additional perceptions emerged 
about the opinions of parents and the role of the teacher as the final judge of what 
is taught.

All teachers interviewed expressed an opinion that parents might find either the 
process or the content of SBCD initiatives difficult to deal with. They felt under no 
obligation, however, to change their practice as a result of this. Teachers clearly 
felt that they were in the best position to make the appropriate judgements. One 
teacher, when asked whether the perceptions of parents would have any influence 
on her practice of SBCD, replied:

No, because..I think you've got to take into account their feelings, and then 
you've got to do what you're doing or you've got in mind, and you've got to 
carry them with you but you can't stop progress. If we're going to do it it's 
because we think its going to be better for the children, so you've got to get 
that idea over to the parents. 

While there was unanimity about the extent to which the opinions of parents ought 
to influence participation in SBCD, two teachers took this independent position 
further in arguing that they did not feel constrained by the school based 
curriculum where they felt that this was not in the best interests of their classes. 
One stated:

Even though it was supposed to be a school based thing, I didn't do it because I 
didn't feel it was right for the children at the time.

The major concern among staff who took this stand was always what would be best 
for their classes. The perception that parents' opinions need not be considered 
seemed to be based on a conviction that these opinions could not improve 
curriculum, and the importance of improved curriculum as an advantage was 
demonstrated in Table 4. 

It is of note that the action taken by the teachers when they did not think that 
school policy was in their pupils' best interests was to change their implementation 
practice. They made no mention of any attempt to review current policy to bring it 
more into line with perceived needs. It seems that teachers might have perceived 
the documents and the process of planning as end points, and as somehow unrelated 
to the act of teaching. This lack of connection has already been noted , where no 
teacher at BPS indicated implementation as one of the component activities of SBCD. 

The observations in this section point to a desire among teachers to have 
responsibility for deciding what is to be taught to their classes. They were prepared 
to implement SBCD in ways which went against the advice of parents, advisers, and 
even collaboratively devised school policies in particular instances where they 
considered it was in the best interests of their pupils. The comments made by 
teachers indicate that this was not a desire to control for its own sake, but rather it 
was a desire to implement what was best, appropriate and relevant for their own 
classes. This is in line with the importance attached to the meeting of needs as an 
advantage of SBCD (Table 4).


DISCUSSION

The practice of SBCD at BPS can be summarised as follows. There was a great deal of 
activity in a range of subject areas, with teachers involved in all new initiatives in 
at least the planning stages. The Principal established structures which provided 
for additional time and support from outside experts. Despite all this, some 
initiatives lapsed in the planning stages, and others were not finding expression in 
the classroom.

Teachers perceptions indicate that they did not see implementation as part of 
participation in SBCD, and that they had a limited view of what was involved in such 
participation. The benefits of SBCD were seen as largely related to improved 
curriculum rather than to personal benefits for the teachers. Despite the provision 
of additional time at BPS, lack of time and conflicting priorities presented the 
greatest set of barriers to participation in SBCD, while the Principal was seen as the 
greatest aid. Another significant barrier was the lack of follow through on 
initiatives. Teachers chose to depart from school policy in their teaching rather 
than to modify it where they felt that it was not in the best interests of their 
students.

To some degree teachers' perspectives at BPS are not unexpected. Cohen and 
Harrison (1982) and Brady (1986) have noted the significance of lack of time. 
Prideaux (1983) highlighted the important role of the principal. Conflicting 
priorities have been identified as a cost to the 
individual by Pitt and Jennings (1984). There are, however, some findings which 
are less predictable from previous research.

Many claims about the benefits of SBCD are made in the literature. For the 
individual, for example, it has been shown to increase job-satisfaction (Bezzina, 
1983; Imber, 1983) and to enhance feelings of ownership and self-efficacy 
(Duke,Showers and Imber,1980). For the school it produces such benefits as better 
and more effective decisions (Pitt and Jennings, 1984; Cohen and Harrison, 1982), 
improved student outcomes (Nettle, 1981) and increased commitment from 
participants (Imber, 1983). It is significant that advantages identified by teachers 
at BPS focussed on curriculum and outcomes to the exclusion of benefits which 
might accrue direct to the individual.

A second area in which the results are of particular interest is the parallel between 
perception and practice in terms of the disjuncture between the uptake of 
initiatives and their implementation. In terms of perception, implementation was 
not suggested by teachers as a behaviour which was part of SBCD. In practice, the 
production of curriculum documents or policies seemed to be treated as an end in 
itself. Such policies could be (and were, at times) ignored when teachers made 
decisions about what was best for their students. Where the collaboratively 
designed curriculum was seen as inappropriate, teachers chose to change practice 
rather than policy. It may be that the limited ability of teachers to discuss what is 
involved in participation in SBCD has been reflected in their practice. If teachers 
have no coherent model of how to proceed perhaps this limits their ability to do so. 
In theory and in practice, SBCD and what teachers did in the classroom were not 
necessarily related. Thus the considerable time and effort expended on SBCD was, in 
some cases at least, wasted.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has served two purposes. At a descriptive level it has provided some 
insights into both the practice of SBCD in a small Primary school, and into the 
perceptions of teachers in that school. At a more analytic level it has attempted to 
draw some parallels between the practice of SBCD in that school and teachers' 
perceptions of that behaviour.

Blackpool Primary School is a place in which a great deal was attempted by way of 
SBCD, but where several of the initiatives failed to make an impact on classroom 
practice. One explanation for these "failures" is that the reach of those in the 
school had exceeded their grasp, that they had tried to do too much. There is no 
doubt that this is true and that the roles of the Principal and external influences in 
this regard were significant. However, the parallels which emerged between 
practice and perception point to other possible explanations. If teachers perceive 
the job to be finished when the school curriculum sits on the Principal's desk, then 
it is not surprising that this curriculum is not finding a place in practice. If 
teachers do not have a coherent view of methodologies for SBCD, in the same way as 
they have methodologies for teaching, then it is not surprising that their execution 
is flawed. 

Both of these alternative explanations have serious implications for those of us who 
are involved in the teaching of curriculum development. If the teachers at 
Blackpool Primary School were typical in their perceptions, then there is clearly a 
need for us to explore the link between curriculum planning and curriculum 
implementation more closely with our students. There is also a need for us to 
consider why our graduates can discuss in some detail component behaviours of the 
act of teaching, but are less able, in response to open-ended questions to articulate 
what is involved in school based curriculum development. More generally, we need 
both to extend our understanding of teachers' perceptions of their participation in 
SBCD beyond the bounds of a single school, and to develop more comprehensive 
ways of understanding the nature of these perceptions and their relationship to 
SBCD behaviour.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ball, S., (1982) Participant observation as a method of research, in 
L.Bartlett, S.Kemmis and G.Gillard (Eds.)(1983) Case Study: An Overview. 
(2nd ed.) Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Bezzina, M. (1983) Participation in Decision-Making and Work-Satisfaction of 
Junior Secondary Teachers in N.S.W.: A Pilot Study. Unpublished B.A.(Hons.) 
Thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

________  (1988) Teacher Participation in SBCD: Indigenous Questions - 
Exotic Methods. Paper presented at the A.A.R.E. Conference, Armidale.

________  (1989) Teachers' Perceptions and their Participation in School-
Based Curriculum Development. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Macquarie 
University, Sydney, Australia.

Brady, L. (1986) An Educological Analysis of the Differential Perceptions of 
School Staff in Relation to School Based Curriculum Development. Educology 
'86: Papers of the Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and 
Development with an Educological Perspective. Canberra.

Catholic Education Office, Sydney (1988) Results of Staffing Survey. Sydney: 
Catholic Education Office.

Clark, C. and Yinger, R.J. (1979) Teachers' Thinking, in P.L. Peterson and 
H.J. Walberg (Eds.)Research on Teaching. Berkeley, Ca.: McCutchan Publishing 
Co.

Cohen, D. and Harrison, M. (1982) Curriculum Action Project Sydney: 
Macquarie University.

Duke, D.L., Showers, B.K. and Imber, M. (1980) Teachers and shared decision 
making: the costs and benefits of involvement. Educational Administration 
Quarterly,16, 1, 93-106.

Fullan, M. (1982) The Meaning of Educational Change. Columbia: Teachers 
College Press.

Imber, M. (1983) Increased decision making involvement for teachers: Ethical 
and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Thought, 17, 1, 36-42.

Mardle, G. and Walker, M. (1980) Strategies and structure: some critical 
notes on teacher socialisation, in P.Woods (ed.) Teacher Strategies. London: 
Croom Helm.

Nettle, E.B. (1981) School Based Curriculum Development : Survey of 
Teachers' Perceptions. Canberra: C.D.C.

Pitt, M. and Jennings, L. (1984) "Thirty four and where am I going?" A 
comment on the relationship between teacher stress and organisational 
change. Unicorn, 10, 3, 233-239.

Prideaux, D. (1983) School based curriculum decision making: From policy 
into action, in Shaping the Curriculum, Papers of the National Curriculum 
Conference, Adelaide.

Reynolds, D. and Sullivan, M. (1981) The Comprehensive Experience, in L. 
Barton and S. Walker (Eds.) Schools, Teachers and Teaching. Lewes: Falmer 
Press.

Stenhouse, L. (1981) Case study in educational research and evaluation in 
L.Bartlett, S.Kemmis and G.Gillard (Eds.)(1983) Case Study: An Overview. 
(2nd ed.) Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Wilson, S. (1977) The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research 
Review of Educational Research, 47,2, 247-265.

Woods, P. (1977) Teaching for survival, in P.Woods and M.Hammersley (Eds.) 
School Experience. London: Croom Helm.