Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcus20

Download by: [90.190.22.212] Date: 22 November 2016, At: 08:38

Journal of Curriculum Studies

ISSN: 0022-0272 (Print) 1366-5839 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20

Enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership viateacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making: the Estonian case

Rain Mikser, Anita Kärner & Edgar Krull

To cite this article: Rain Mikser, Anita Kärner & Edgar Krull (2016) Enhancing teachers’curriculum ownership via teacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making: the Estoniancase, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48:6, 833-855, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2016.1186742

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1186742

Published online: 22 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Journal of CurriCulum StudieS, 2016Vol. 48, no. 6, 833–855http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1186742

Enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership via teacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making: the Estonian case

Rain Miksera, Anita Kärnerb and Edgar Krullb

ainstitute of educational Sciences, tallinn university, tallinn, estonia; binstitute of education, university of tartu, tartu, estonia

ABSTRACTTeachers’ curriculum ownership is increasingly gaining attention in many countries. It is particularly important that under the conditions of centralized curriculum-making, teachers as final implementers of curricular ideas identify themselves with these ideas. This study investigates Estonian upper secondary school teachers’ views on the impact that teacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making has had on their feelings of curriculum ownership. Like elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the curriculum policy in Estonia after the fall of communism has attempted to combine state-based curriculum-making with measures to enhance teachers’ curriculum ownership. The study compares the views of two teacher groups—those who participated in state-level curriculum development and those who did not—regarding the curriculum-making process and curriculum documents. Data were gathered by interviewing 34 teachers. As for the theoretical framework, we used Hopmann’s concept of the three basic features of the social process in centralized curriculum-making: compartmentalization, licensing and segmentation. The study revealed that the proclaimed aim of educational policy of enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership—essentially an attempt at de-segmentation and licensing—has not been achieved due to the opposing tendencies of compartmentalization and segmentation, which are not enunciated but inherent in the curriculum-making process and curriculum documents.

Introduction

Enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership is a growing concern in many countries (Ballet & Kelchtermans, 2008; Brennan, 2011; Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen, & Voogt, 2013; Kennedy, 2010; Kirk & MacDonald, 2001; Westbury, 1994; You, 2011). Although defined in somewhat different terms by different authors, curriculum ownership is mostly seen as a particular psychological stance of teachers. Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2003, p. 86) define psychological ownership as ‘the state in which individuals feel as though the target of own-ership or a piece of that target is “theirs”’. Applying this definition to teachers as individuals and curriculum as a target can be called ‘curriculum ownership’. This is the definition which

© 2016 informa uK limited, trading as taylor & francis Group

KEYWORDSnational curriculum; school curriculum; curriculum development; teacher as curriculum developer

CONTACT rain mikser rain.mikser@tlu.ee

834 R. MIKsER ET AL.

we use in this paper, and when referring to ‘teachers’ curriculum ownership’, we have in mind the teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership, i.e. the psychological rather than the legal aspect of the concept of ownership.

In particular, teachers’ curriculum ownership is seen as a necessary complement to earlier curriculum practices in countries where key curricular decisions have traditionally been made centrally, outside schools, and where teachers’ curriculum ownership has not been considered important (Kennedy, 2010). It has also been considered necessary but largely neglected in traditionally decentralized curriculum policy contexts, such as in the Us (Westbury, 1994), the Netherlands (Nieveen & Kuiper, 2012) and Australia (Brennan, 2011).

Authors agree that teachers’ curriculum ownership is essential for ‘freeing the energy necessary for effective, collaborative curriculum problem solving’ (Westbury, 1994, p. 40). However, practices and research interests derived from this premise have been divergent. One significant outcome of the recognition of the need to enhance teachers’ curriculum ownership has been the promotion of teachers’ local or site-specific ownership over curric-ulum to enable them to perceive their activities as truly meaningful (Kennedy, 2010; Nieveen & Kuiper, 2012). Another practice and research tradition, well established in Central and Northern Europe (Gundem & sivesind, 1997; Hopmann, 1990a), and increasing internation-ally, involves opportunities and limitations of teachers’ curriculum ownership in regard to their participation in state-based curriculum-making (Westbury, 2008). As more and more countries practice state-based curriculum-making and introduce state curriculum docu-ments, enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership and evaluating its impact are not only local but also important state-level tasks.

In this study, we aimed to investigate Estonian upper secondary school teachers’ views on the impact that teacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making has had on their curriculum ownership.1 Estonia is among the former communist Eastern European countries that since the fall of communism have attempted to reconcile two important curriculum policy decisions: maintaining the state-based curriculum while enhancing teachers’ curric-ulum ownership. The latter task has been a serious challenge, since during the communist era teachers played no significant role in curriculum development. Key curricular decisions were handled centrally by ministries of education (Cerych, 1999; Pachociński, 1997).

In particular, our research interest stems from many studies recently conducted in Eastern European countries that describe teachers as unwilling and unable to take more responsi-bility and broaden their awareness of curricular issues (this topic is discussed, for example, in Erss et al., 2014). As, however, similar results have been reported in other traditionally centralized curriculum policy contexts, such as sweden (Lundahl, 2005) and China (Wong, 2008), and even in countries with traditions of decentralized curriculum in the past (Nieveen & Kuiper, 2012), we expect some underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon to be com-parable across countries. Thus, our study is potentially relevant not only for Eastern European countries but also elsewhere.

seeking to place our study within the broader international context, we were particularly inspired by the research from the Central and Northern European countries where teachers have long been engaged in state-based curriculum-making (Carlgren, 1995; Gundem & sivesind, 1997; Haft & Hopmann, 1990; Hopmann, 1990a, 1990b; Mølstad & Hansén, 2013). Estonia also has a long tradition of state-based curricula for schools of general education, with a strong tendency towards centralization (Erss et al., 2014), but research on the impact of this curriculum policy in Estonia has been scarce. Therefore, we expected the studies from

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 835

the above-mentioned countries to be illuminating regarding the regularities of state-based curriculum reforms, but also regarding the mechanisms that potentially ‘tame’ the reforms, i.e. prevent them from radically changing earlier, well-formed curricular practices (Rosenmund, 2000; Westbury, 2008). These studies also made us alert to the fact that teachers’ curriculum ownership is part of the broader question of maintaining the balance between political, public and professional interests of schooling, i.e. deciding who should ‘own’ a curriculum and participate in curriculum decision-making, and to what extent (Gundem & sivesind, 1997; Hopmann, 1990a; Westbury, 2008). Although convinced that enhancing teachers’ cur-riculum ownership was a justified endeavour within the post-soviet curriculum reforms, we kept from going too far in prioritizing teachers’ views over those of other stakeholders. Altogether, studies from the Central and Northern European countries seemed promising to us in conceptually shaping our study, in seeing issues in the broader international per-spective, and in generating and discussing possible solutions to emerging problems.

Our general research question was whether and to what extent the curriculum reforms undertaken in Estonia after the fall of communism have succeeded in bringing about the enhancement of teachers’ curriculum ownership. More specifically, we studied those Estonian upper secondary school teachers who had participated in curriculum development, whether at the state or at the school level, in order to find out their views on the curriculum devel-opment process and on the established curriculum documents. Combining the results of our empirical study with the relevant conclusions from the adopted conceptual framework, we finally aimed to investigate and discuss opportunities for seeking balance between teach-ers’ curriculum ownership and state-based curriculum-making.

Teachers’ curriculum ownership and different policies to enhance it

According to authors who have discussed the notion of teachers’ curriculum ownership, the fundamental characteristic of this concept is that teachers feel entitled to make decisions regarding how curricular problems should be solved (Ballet & Kelchtermans, 2008; Kirk & MacDonald, 2001; Westbury, 1994). Ideally, this feeling is connected with all levels at which curricular decision-making occurs: decisions regarding broader issues at the intersections between schooling, education and society (institutional curriculum), the ways in which pro-grammes of study are selected and specified (programmatic curriculum), and the ways in which these decisions are applied in the classroom context (classroom curriculum) (Doyle, 1992; Westbury, 2008). Teachers’ curriculum ownership also includes ways in which the cur-riculum development process and curriculum reforms are organized (Kirk & MacDonald, 2001).

Thus, for teachers, having ownership over curriculum means not only being curriculum implementers but also curriculum developers: a perspective that has followed different trajectories in different countries. In North America, Australia and New Zealand, as well as in some European countries, the importance of the teacher as a curriculum developer was elevated, beginning in the late 1960s, after many failed efforts to develop ‘teacher-proof’ curricula (Kennedy, 2010; Law, Galton, & Wan, 2007; Macdonald, 2003). such theorists as schwab (1983) in the Us, stenhouse (1975) in the UK, Connelly (1972) in Canada and Ben-Peretz (1990) in Israel represented this viewpoint.

An important initiative derived from this standpoint that directed the subsequent practice and research involved curriculum decentralization2 and the delegation of curriculum

836 R. MIKsER ET AL.

development to the local or school level. Arguably, centralized curriculum development had failed to bring about desired instructional changes and to take into account the social, economic and cultural factors that shape curriculum implementation in particular settings (Connelly, 1972; Law et al., 2007; Macdonald, 2003). ‘school-based curriculum development’ figured in the titles of important publications of the time (Eggleston, 1980; sabar, Rudduck, & Reid, 1987; skilbeck, 1984). This research and practice direction has remained influential in many countries (Law & Nieveen, 2010), despite backlashes in decentralized curricu-lum-making, such as poorly resourced and loosely assessed curricula (Macdonald, 2003) and teachers’ unwillingness to accept more ownership owing to curriculum decentralization (Kennedy, 2010). According to Westbury (2008, p. 50), even though state-based curricu-lum-making has recently been included in education policy studies, in the English-speaking world these studies have mostly focused on the evaluation of local projects rather than on a broader perspective that could be seen as a long-standing and widespread institution.

In Central and Northern Europe, curriculum centralization in itself is traditionally not seen as obstructing teachers’ curriculum ownership. Within the state-based curriculum-making practice, an attempt has been made to reconcile teachers’ curriculum ownership with the interests of political and public stakeholders (Mølstad, 2015; Westbury, 2008). Research from these countries helps to explain the regularities in teacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making.

Particularly relevant for our study was Hopmann’s (1990a) theory of the social differenti-ation processes that are inherent to large-scale systems of curriculum making. Hopmann (1990a, pp. 50–52) argues that, along with the invention of state-run curriculum making in Prussia in the late-eighteenth century, which served as a model in Central and Northern Europe, these processes were almost immediately applied to curriculum administration, because it was recognized that curriculum issues are impossible to solve as a whole. This led to the application of social processes in order to differentiate curriculum development, i.e. to divide it into smaller units, each regulated on its own (Hopmann, 1990a, p. 52).

Hopmann (1990a, pp. 51–55) distinguishes between three basic features of the social differentiation processes. The first of the processes is compartmentalization, meaning the differentiation of curriculum documents and other regulations into smaller, more easily manageable pieces (e.g. different syllabi for different school subjects and school types), so that no one would be held responsible for the whole.

The second process defined by Hopmann, clearly connected to enabling teachers to experience curriculum ownership, is licensing, which involves the delegation of certain pow-ers (e.g. the freedom to choose instructional methods) to teachers. This enables central curriculum-makers to evade responsibility for the outcomes of curriculum implementation in the classroom. But it also allows teachers to claim a distinguished professional status by their proven methodological abilities and to use centrally approved curricula in case there is any discontent on the part of other stakeholders (Hopmann, 1990a, p. 57).

The third process defined by Hopmann, segmentation, involves a separation of different discourse communities (political, public and professional) in solving complex tasks in cur-riculum-making and keeping them apart in different decision-making bodies. Hopmann (1990a, p. 60) maintains that segmentation is particularly important for reconciling and satisfying the different discourse communities (political, public and professional) who expect a role in decision-making regarding curricular matters.

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 837

As Hopmann (1990a) demonstrates, the interplay of these processes makes it possible to keep key curricular decisions in the state’s hands, while simultaneously satisfying other stake-holders, including creating a certain degree of teachers’ curriculum ownership. Being granted control over some curricular activities (licensing), teachers are kept at a distance from other, no less important curricular decisions, which are, via the processes of compartmentalization and segmentation, delegated to other curriculum stakeholders.

The concepts of compartmentalization, licensing and segmentation have been applied to analyse curriculum-making in countries with varied curriculum traditions, such as finland (Mølstad & Hansén, 2013), Hungary (szebenyi, 1992), Norway (Gundem & sivesind, 1997; Mølstad, 2015) and the Us (Westbury, 2008). Naturally, the social contexts of the post-soviet Eastern European countries were different from that described by Hopmann. Yet, as demon-strated below, the contradictory pursuits in curriculum policies of these countries almost immediately after regaining independence elicited essentially the same social processes of differentiation in curriculum administration. simultaneously striving for central control over assessment and certification and, on the other hand, for a shift in responsibility for curriculum development to teachers (see Cerych, 1999; Kallen, 1996), teachers were indeed left free to decide regarding school curriculum (sC) issues, especially concerning instructional methods (licensing). But at the same time, curriculum and assessment issues were separated from each other and inscribed in different regulatory documents (compartmentalization), and teachers were largely excluded from state-level decision-making bodies considering general issues of curriculum and assessment (segmentation). The interplay of these differentiation processes formed the social and conceptual context that inspired us to investigate teachers’ views on the impact of the new curriculum policy on their curriculum ownership.

Eastern Europe and Estonia: the curriculum-making context

Although education policies in communist Eastern Europe varied in certain aspects from country to country (Cerych, 1999), the common feature was that up to the late 1980s these countries belonged to the communist bloc led by the soviet Union. Education policy was almost entirely controlled by central governments (Cerych, 1999). Typically, school curricula were compiled by special institutions outside the schools that prescribed for teachers both the curriculum content and instructional methods (Krull & Mikser, 2010; Pachociński, 1997). Teachers’ curriculum ownership was not considered important.

The collapse of the communist bloc in Eastern Europe led to wide educational and societal reforms, including curriculum reform. The soviet-type state-imposed, unitary and standard-ized curriculum policy was quickly abandoned, and a search was begun for new structures that would reconcile the often contrary political, public and professional expectations. Kallen (1996, p. 43) has defined the following challenges of curriculum reforms in Europe in the 1990s, which, as Cerych (1999) further argues, were at the time particularly acute in the Eastern European countries:

• the call for a stronger and more articulate national curriculum policy, in parallel with a call for curricula that respond to the needs of the local community;

• the demand for a narrowed-down ‘core curriculum’ that offers the necessary guarantees of nationwide validity and coherence, in parallel with a demand for a broad curriculum that incorporates the full scope of cultural, sociopolitical and economic concerns;

838 R. MIKsER ET AL.

• the need for coordination between central control over the assessment and certifi-cation that is required as a result of the introduction of a restricted central national curriculum, together with a shift of responsibility for curriculum development to the local and school levels;

• a pressing demand for pluralism and for curriculum diversity, in parallel with a quest for transparency and for reduced complexity in educational provision.

The reform agenda included important institutional, programmatic and classroom-level tasks. However, in curriculum-making, the locus of the reforms was the institutional and classroom levels, rather than the programmatic level. The soviet-type curricula had essen-tially been subject programmes, and changes in these programmes after the fall of com-munism (apart from removing the explicitly ideological content) were a matter of degree rather than of character. But since schools were compelled to rigorously follow the soviet ideology, the soviet-type curriculum documents had no need to explain broader educational aims or methodology, because all this information was covered by the soviet textbooks of pedagogy that transmitted the canonized and standardized principles of education intro-duced by the communist authorities (Krull & Mikser, 2010). Now the curriculum-makers faced the problem of covering in curriculum documents the full scope of cultural, sociopolitical and economic considerations, along with the task of proposing a variety of methodological approaches. Another principal change was the intention of enabling teachers to experience curriculum ownership, both at the state and school levels. Teachers were expected to become the main actors in curriculum reforms (Cerych, 1999, p. 21).

Two major steps were taken at the state policy level to increase teachers’ curriculum ownership. firstly, teachers were engaged, along with other stakeholders, in committees for compiling national curricula (NC) (Pachociński, 1997, p. 14). NC as state-level documents were introduced in most of the Eastern European countries around the mid-1990s. A two-level curriculum development process was applied, where the NC functioned as the frame-work for schools to develop their own curricula (United Nations Educational scientific & Cultural Organization, 2011). secondly, at the school level, teachers were engaged as the initiators of and, together with other stakeholders, those responsible for sC development (Cerych, 1999). Essentially, these were steps towards licensing and de-segmentation, towards bringing teachers back into the curriculum development process.

Estonia

In Estonia, the new order of the curriculum development process was introduced along with designing the first NC for basic and upper secondary education, and enacting it as a gov-ernment regulation in 1996. Teachers were engaged in NC development, while being left the primary responsibility for compiling the sC (United Nations Educational scientific & Cultural Organization, 2011, p. 9).

The NC determined educational aims, time for study, the list of compulsory subjects with a syllabus and study time for each subject, options for choosing subjects, the requirements for finishing school and stages of study. structurally, the 1996 NC, like its two successors in 2002 and 2011, has two parts. The first part, called the ‘general part’, is a general policy cur-riculum document: a ‘core’ curriculum in the sense of, as Gundem and sivesind (1997, p. 11) put it, defining underlying aims and principles meant to be common to all schools and

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 839

addressing teachers and students as well as parents and the general public. As appendices to this general document, subject syllabi were also introduced in the NC.

The 1996 NC (Haridusministeerium, 1996) introduced the concept of ‘sC’ and defined the relationship between the NC and sC. The stated aim of the sC was to specify the NC in terms of the needs negotiated and agreed upon by the local stakeholders (teachers, students and parents). Through compiling and implementing the sC, it was intended that schools gain more freedom and assume greater responsibility to the public, thus contributing to the further development of the NC. It was intended that teachers increasingly become the devel-opers and drafters of educational policy.

Many queries about the reform issues were raised during and immediately after the intro-duction of the 1996 NC, ultimately leading to the question of the feasibility of enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership. Teacher representatives, school principals and educational researchers criticized the lack of democracy in engaging teachers in state curriculum com-missions (Jõemaa, 1996; Läänemets, 1997), the inconsistency between the general part and the subject syllabi of the NC, and the lack of mutual coordination between designing the NC and establishing state examination requirements (Leesi, 1997; Mikk, 1997). We general-ized these queries into three topics that could be described in terms of the processes of compartmentalization, licensing and segmentation.

first, it had been left unspecified in curriculum policy regulations who should represent teachers in state-level decision-making bodies, and on what basis. such imprecision was partly justified, as teachers’ professional associations were not equally well-formed on the different school levels and in the subject fields (Jõemaa, 1996). Many subject fields were not represented by officially recognized teacher associations. This lack, however, may have con-tributed to further segmentation, separating the teachers’ associations’ representatives from those teachers participating in the NC development.

Our second query pertained to the functional vagueness between the NC and the sC and, consequently, the dubious relevance of either of these documents to teachers. Both of these documents were meant to cover all three levels of curricular decision-making identified by Doyle (1992) and Westbury (2008). The general part of the NC was essentially an institu-tional curriculum. It introduced underlying principles of the curriculum, such as humanistic and democratic values, equal educational opportunities, openness, social and economic relevance, and the balance between the Estonian national identity, Europeanization and internationalization. It also provided a list of key competencies and cross-curricular topics. The subject syllabi (programmatic curriculum) in the NC thoroughly covered the specific objectives of a particular subject, the learning content and the expected outcomes. The description of these components was so detailed that teachers could use them directly for planning their lessons. Nevertheless, the sC was also expected to provide a general part that would cover general learning aims and objectives, as well as detailed and specified subject contents. The curriculum documentation was thus compartmentalized on two dimensions—between the NC and the sC, and between the general part and subject syllabi—but without a closer determination of which parts should be accommodated to the local needs of the sC, and under what conditions.

Thirdly, state examinations emerged as a new requirement for graduation from secondary schools, announced in the 1996 NC and applied for the first time in 1997. It was claimed that this innovation would ensure the standardization of student assessment all over Estonia and make gymnasium finals compatible with university entrance exams. Previously, graduation

840 R. MIKsER ET AL.

from secondary schools was based on school examinations. However, the NC did not describe state examination requirements in detail, stating that the regulations would be established by the Ministry of Education. The curriculum-making process was thus segmented into dif-ferent decision-making bodies (under the control of the Ministry of Education, but without clear regulations on how these bodies should be related to each other), one being respon-sible for the elaboration of the graduation credential system and others being responsible for the rest of the curriculum. This led to the question of whether licensing teachers to decide on the sC had truly increased their curriculum ownership, if ultimately they were subject to ‘steering with outcomes’ (Lundgren, 2013) according to criteria established by a body that was only loosely related to other curriculum decision-making bodies. Changes in the sub-sequent versions of the NC-documents and curriculum-making processes have been marginal.

In terms of our theoretical and contextual background introduced above, our major ques-tion was whether and to what extent teachers’ curriculum ownership was possible under conditions where de-segmentation and licensing intended to enable this innovation were contradicted by further compartmentalization of curriculum documentation and segmen-tation of curriculum decision-making bodies.

We formulated our research questions as follows: (a) As participants in NC and/or sC development, what are the Estonian upper secondary school teachers’ views of the curric-ulum development process and of the usefulness of the NC and sC documents in force? (b) What are the differences between the views of those teachers who have participated in NC development and those who have participated only in sC development? (c) What further opportunities are there for finding a balance between teachers’ curriculum ownership and the policy of state-based curriculum-making?

Methodology

We studied the views of Estonian upper secondary school teachers (grades 10–12, students aged 16–19) regarding the NC and sC. state tests and examinations influence students and teachers most at this school level, and thus the tension between the wider aims of education reflected in the general part of the curriculum and the pressure for providing good exami-nation results in subject areas might be most visible in teachers’ views. The study was con-ducted when teachers were about to finish the sC compilation based on the NC accepted in 2011.

The related research activities involved the development of an interview questionnaire for collecting data to answer the research questions, sampling the interviewees, conducting the interviews and processing and theorizing on the data.

Besides the three authors of the article, three other researchers were engaged in the elaboration of the interview questionnaire, the conducting of the interviews, and the devel-opment and discussion of the initial categories. All six researchers had experience in curric-ulum development and implementation, and in research on curriculum development. Guided by one of the researchers, who did not participate in writing the paper but had a great deal of experience in interview-based research, we homogenized the background knowledge and the principles for conducting, transcribing and analysing the interviews, relying on the principles of qualitative interviewing (Patton, 2002).

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 841

The interview questionnaire

for data collection, we used interviewing. some questions (e.g. about the official form and period of involvement in curriculum development) could have been easily asked and answered via the written questionnaire form. However, some core questions (e.g. about the respondents’ experiences of participation in curriculum development) needed ‘to capture participants “in their own terms”’ (Patton, 2002, p. 21). This meant establishing the trust of the respondents (Patton, 2002, p. 353), and giving them considerable freedom to express their opinions, for which we found the interview method most appropriate. In part, the interview questions were based on a written questionnaire that the authors elaborated in order to investigate the Estonian teachers’ views as developers and users of curriculum documents (Viirpalu et al., 2014).

We combined standardized open-ended questions with informal conversations (Patton, 2002, p. 347). To minimize variations across interviewers, the questions were carefully worded in advance and standardized according to consensus between the researchers. However, due to the potential sensitivity of some questions (e.g. the respondents were asked to talk about their opinions concerning educational political issues), the interviewers were free to reword the questions and to add informal conversational remarks when necessary to help the respondents to feel comfortable in expressing their opinions, while keeping the focus on the questions defined in advance, and ensuring that the questions were open-ended, neutral, singular and clear (Patton, 2002, p. 353).

After discussions between the six researchers, we reached a consensus about the initial version of the questionnaire. It included 20 questions that inquired about the respondents’ views and experiences as curriculum developers and curriculum users. The questions focused on the nature of the respondents’ experiences as curriculum developers, the main tasks of the respondents and the committees they belonged to, personal satisfaction with the work-ing process and its outcomes, the professional experience gained through the process, and the respondents’ opinions about the NC and sC documents. The interviewing also involved 16 questions for collecting data on the respondents’ background characteristics, including age, length of teaching experience, gender, subjects taught, work load and information on professional experience as teachers.

To ensure the content validity of the questionnaire and the feasibility of the interview procedure, we conducted pilot interviews with four teachers. The analysis of the pilot inter-views indicated the need to make two changes in the interview questionnaire. firstly, the respondents needed to be asked more precisely to distinguish between the NC and sC in their answers, since they tended to blur the differences between these two documents. This meant changing the wording in some questions. for example, instead of ‘Please describe the way in which you have been involved in curriculum development’, in the final version it became ‘Please describe the way in which you have been involved with the curriculum development—both at the state and the school levels’. (We considered that teachers who had not participated in the NC committees may have participated at the state level by pub-licly commenting on the draft versions of the NC). We also added ‘Please describe the rela-tionship between the NC and the sC in shaping your work’.

secondly, we needed to more precisely articulate the general part of the curriculum in interview questions, since teachers tended to become confused about it in their responses and to focus immediately on their subject syllabi. Consequently, we changed the question

842 R. MIKsER ET AL.

‘What have you liked in the NC so far?’ to ‘What have you liked in the NC so far, both in the general part and in the subject syllabi?’. (We then focused separately on each of these dimen-sions: liked/disliked and general part/subject syllabi.)

All of the changes in the final version of the questionnaire were discussed by the six researchers until we reached consensus. The final list of standardized open-ended questions on ‘Experiences related to developing and using curricula’ is given in Appendix 1.

finally, the group members discussed the specifics of face-to-face interviewing and agreed upon interviewing guidelines. The duration of each interview was 60–70 min.

Participants

According to the adopted research design, we needed two groups of respondents: teachers who had participated in the NC development and teachers who had participated in the sC development. In sampling teachers for these two groups, we applied the criteria of ‘theory-based’ and ‘maximum variation’ (Patton, 2002). Applying theory-derived criteria for sampling, we defined the whole population of potential respondents and the limits imposed by the data collection method. This meant following three principles: (1) all upper secondary school teachers were entitled to be involved in curriculum development according to the new policy of curriculum development, (2) nevertheless, only teachers who actually were involved in the curriculum development could serve as interviewees and (3) face-to-face interviewing imposed limits on the number of respondents who could be interviewed. Meeting the maximum variation criterion meant including teachers of all compulsory sub-jects taught at upper secondary school level, and ensuring that the respondents’ back-grounds varied in terms of gender, length of teaching experience, school size and location of schools (urban or rural area). The reason for adopting the maximum variation criterion was that we aimed to capture and describe the central themes that cut across a great deal of participant variation (Patton, 2002, p. 172). Apart from one study that reported teachers with different lengths of teaching experience viewing curricular issues differently (Erss et al., 2014), there was no research on how different teacher groups viewed the issues of curriculum-making in Estonia. However, the above-mentioned study indicated that probably there were variations in the views of different teacher groups.

The sampling of NC developers was based on the non-official list of the 2011 NC devel-opers that was available. It included the names of the 60 teachers on the subject syllabi committees for upper secondary schools. from this list, 11 teachers representing different subject fields agreed to be interviewed. five of them had been involved in the 2011 NC development, and six were involved in the 1996 and/or 2002 NC development.

To select the sC developers, we used convenient sampling but also met the maximum variation criterion. Altogether, 24 teachers involved in the sC development were invited to be interviewed, of whom 23 participated in the study. A total of 34 teachers were interviewed.

The respondents’ length of teaching experience varied from 4.5 to 43 years, with an aver-age of 19.3 years. This broadly corresponds to the average length of teaching experience of Estonian teachers according to the latest data (OECD, 2014, p. 267). The respondents repre-sented different regions of Estonia. 22 respondents taught in schools in urban areas. 12 taught in schools in rural areas, including two NC developers (teachers from rural areas were under-represented among the NC developers due to their limited resources for travelling,

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 843

as the committees met mostly in major cities). four respondents were male, including two NC developers. In terms of school subjects, the respondents represented: Estonian language and literature, history, science, music mathematics, foreign languages, physical education and sports, art, biology and geography. All teachers participated in the study voluntarily. We observed all ethical principles related to investigating human beings.

Data processing

Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed after being conducted. In transcribing the oral statements of respondents, we followed the transcription guidelines proposed by Jefferson (2004) to mark important pauses, intervals, stresses and the describers’ descriptions. Triple ellipses are used to indicate omissions.

We started the analysis of the respondents’ answers by identifying the main themes. We followed the principles of thematic analysis, combining inductive and theory-driven approaches (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012; Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013). Two categorizations that had been introduced as part of the theoretical framework of this study—‘teachers as curriculum developers versus curriculum users’, and ‘NC developers versus sC developers’—were later used as dimensions for analysis. In this sense, the approach was theory driven (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 88). However, as almost no previous research was available for our specific research in comparing the views of NC devel-opers with those of sC developers, we also adopted an inductive approach, meaning that within these broad categorizations, more specific categories were first determined individ-ually by the researchers, and then analysed, discussed and compared for inter-coder agree-ment between all the six researchers (Guest et al., 2012, p. 89).

The analysis revealed that although the respondents often returned to the same topics when answering different questions, five themes clearly emerged: (1) recruitment in curric-ulum development committees—inheritance rather than representation; (2) the curriculum development process as teamwork with subject syllabi; (3) diverging views on the advan-tages and disadvantages of the curriculum development process; (4) professional enrichment through participating in curriculum development; (5) the curriculum user’s viewpoint: focus on subject syllabi.

Thus, we made a consensus-based decision to divide respondents’ answers into five themes. Later, we explored teachers’ thematic statements separately for NC developers and for sC developers.

To increase the inter-coder agreement in dividing the respondents’ answers into the intro-duced themes, we compiled reading guide for categorization of respondents’ replies. When using the reading guide, the average agreement between two researchers who separately categorized the responses of two participants was 84%. In the consolidation phase, a 98% agreement was achieved. Theorizing on the data and writing the report was conducted by the three authors of the article.

Findings

The respondents’ views are presented regarding five themes defined on the basis of con-sensus reached through inter-coder agreement.

844 R. MIKsER ET AL.

Recruitment in curriculum development committees—inheritance rather than representation

Only one NC developer responded that she was invited on the basis of her involvement in a teachers’ union, and even she soon dropped out of the process.

I was a long-time member of the council of the Estonian Music Teachers’ Union. I also was a member of the state subject commission as a music expert. And (3.0) so I was listed (…). I was there in the national curriculum subject commission around 2008, but then I could not travel to Tallinn often enough and I dropped out. (NC8-M)3

Other NC developers were invited on the basis of their previous work in curriculum devel-opment, as well as in activities such as the preparation and review of textbooks and other study aids or the preparation of state examinations. The respondents saw this previous experience as the main reason they were invited again:

As I was the leader of the committee last time, it was probably considered necessary to call me again. (NC3-M)

I participated in the compilation of the 2002 national curriculum. My activity started in 1996. I was called into the national subject committee of sciences (…). simultaneously, I started to compile a textbook for science studies. so I was involved in two ends. Participating in the subject com-mittee was really valuable for writing the textbook (…). furthermore, I started to move towards school leadership. I became a head-teacher, and started to lead the curriculum development in this school. This was in turn very useful. (NC6-s)

Although the list of those having compiled the general part of the NC did not include teach-ers, it seemed natural to assume interaction between the developers of the general part and subject syllabi. Therefore, we asked our NC developers to comment on their experiences with the general part of the NC. Only one NC developer had also been involved in the com-pilation of the general part.

Already since 1991 (…), when we were involved with a large-scale swedish project that sup-ported the curriculum development in Estonia (…). At the state level, I have participated in the compilation of the general parts and subject syllabi for foreign languages. (NC2-Eng)

The sC developers never described participation in the process as an ‘invitation’, only as a ‘requirement’ imposed by school leadership:

No, it was not my personal initiative. It was (.) required. And then the tasks were distributed. (sC3-E)

The leadership appointed, but:: (.) it was not an appointment by command. We understood that no one else besides ourselves should arrange things for our school. (sC5-H)

The solid background and rich experiences of the NC developers did not necessarily lead them to leadership positions in sC development in their own schools. four NC developers reported having been the leaders of sC development. However, three were not engaged at all, and two others reported that their input was marginal. The NC developers claimed the main reason was heavy engagement in other activities. However, one of them reported her lack of participation to be involuntary (‘I do not remember that my knowledge was needed in the sC compilation’—NC3-M). Another one remained in the minority regarding important decisions in the sC:

I was together with a mathematician. The leadership put together these groups. Maybe they followed the principle that as varied people as possible should be together. (3.0) I don’t know what the principle was. We had good cooperation with the mathematician. We thought much the same way. Others thought differently. finally, we remained in silent opposition. It was about formative assessment, which we supported but others did not. (NC8-M)

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 845

The curriculum development process as teamwork with subject syllabi

The main task of the NC subject committees was to complete subject syllabi for the NC. We asked the NC developers to comment on this process. They described it as regular face-to-face discussions within the committee, alternating with homework and online conversations.

Regarding the proclaimed importance of the institutional curriculum, we asked the NC developers whether the general part was used while completing the subject syllabi. for the majority, this was not the case.

We discussed very specifically the syllabus of music education. We reconsidered the compulsory songs and topics and made proposals on these issues. We did not discuss (.) general things. We did not talk about competencies and cross-curricular topics. (NC8-M)

The sC development was also described as involving teamwork to complete subject syllabi. Although a few respondents reported cooperating with teachers from other subject fields, it was essentially teamwork in groups of teachers teaching the same subject.

With this last curriculum (…), we had subject sections. It was divided person by person, who would play in which sandbox, and then it came time to check through everything that concerned natural sciences. (sC18-s)

The general part of the sC was overwhelmingly completed by school administration. Only a few expert teachers were engaged in that process. Three sC developers mentioned the general part in their responses, but it seemed distant to them.

We didn’t deal with the general part (…). I think it had been completed. Probably it was even introduced in the school council, but it was:: (2.0) just shown once. I think the head teachers dealt with that. Perhaps some other people. (sC16-H)

We asked about the extent to which the NC was used and considered to be valuable for the completion of the sC. We expected that the NC developers would much more strongly adhere to the NC in sC compilation. However, this was not the case. Evaluations varied greatly within the groups of both the NC developers and the sC developers.

The national curriculum (.) it tends to be too sophisticated. To compile the school curriculum on the basis of that ((shrugging)) (2.0). All these cross-curricular topics and competencies and all this stuff (.), it’s too complicated to comprehend for a schoolteacher. (NC9-s)

The national curriculum nevertheless helps to complete the subject syllabus. It gives the guide-lines for that. (sC12-H)

The sC developers often mentioned that, as no conflict existed between the NC content and the local needs, they just copied relevant parts of the NC into the sC.

If people have already been working with it at the national level for several years, and then I have to do the school curriculum, then I, in fact, start from the national curriculum, don’t I? ((Wondering)). Basically, I did a copy-paste in the sense that I sorted out what would fit for me. (sC19-s)

Diverging views on the advantages and disadvantages of the curriculum development process

The NC developers’ evaluations regarding how the process was conducted were overwhelm-ingly critical. Yet the respondents were well aware of international perspectives on curriculum development.

846 R. MIKsER ET AL.

The result was the best that was possible, given the circumstances and the prescriptions. What I didn’t like was that the ‘American model’ was used too much. In our education, the German, or the Didaktik-type, approach is much more intrinsic, but apparently it was not heard about at all, or the process was deliberately aimed at the Americanization of our curriculum. (NC3-M)

Other important criticism from the NC developers included the over-politicization of the process, the neglect of professional expertise, and insufficient attention to reaching con-sensus through reasoned argumentation. All this was claimed as resulting in a lot of senseless work, unwarranted changes in the working order, and the lack of sufficient feedback.

No, I was not satisfied. The new Minister started from zero and felt that the predecessors had done nothing sensible. I would call it demolition (…). ((Ironically)) A politician decides how things need to be done, not professionals. (NC2-Eng)

The sC developers had a chance to comment on the draft versions of the NC and to suggest improvements, whether individually or through teachers’ unions. We found that not only was this opportunity left unused, but participating was not even seen as a true opportunity.

As I do not have knowledge and experience regarding what exactly constitutes the compilation of the national curriculum and its underlying principles, it’s very difficult for me to comment. (sC2-H)

I didn’t much like how these curricula were compiled. The thoughts of teachers were regarded as not worthwhile, and not even mentioned (…). All the business should be made public. Every time a certain piece is completed, it must be discussed with teachers. After all, we have to put it into practice! Don’t we also have some thoughts which might be of value to them? (sC5-H)

Regarding the sC development process, most of the respondents expressed satisfaction. They felt encouraged to think in terms of wider aims of education and to view their subjects from an interdisciplinary angle.

Very much satisfied in the sense that I did it just the way I really work! (…) Every teacher has to rise above her own subject, so that she knows what is taught at this grade and what is taught at another grade and what is taught even after five years. And when you do this subject syllabus, this is exactly what gives you an overview of what is taught, how it is taught, and what to pay attention to. (sC13-Ma)

This attitude, revealed by nearly half of the sC developers, was surprising, as when describing the sC development process teachers rarely mentioned that they had discussed wider aims and cross-curricular issues dealt with in the general part of the NC or sC.

Nevertheless, the majority of sC developers also had multiple problems with the process, such as the lack of professional competence to compile the sC, the vagueness of the tasks and procedures, the formality of the activities, the scarcity of time resources and the lack of adequate feedback. Above all, sC developers saw little value in translating the content of NC into the sC, and interpreted it as a mind-numbing mechanical action rather than an adaptation having true meaning.

It’s all so confusing and causes a lot of nervousness. Teachers are not trained to compile the school subject syllabi. It should be done by some higher professional (…). There was really a lot of sarcasm about it, because why should we re-write something that has already been written down before? (.) As it is already prescribed nationwide, it’s self-evident that it should be followed. (sC20-s)

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 847

Professional enrichment through participating in curriculum development

Although critical of the NC development process, the NC developers rather unequivocally claimed it to be professionally enriching. They experienced professional and personal growth and an added understanding of the curriculum.

It was like an (2.0) essential experience. It was really thought-provoking in the sense that it was also possible this way (…). And I think of cooperation with the university lecturers, listening to their perceptions of the learning process or subject content (.). It is wonderful when a group of people from very different places come together, not just university lecturers or school teachers. It all gave me a lot as a teacher and I am really grateful for that. (NC5-E)

Absolutely! I believe a hundred percent that this process really helped me to develop. I learned there all the time. (NC6-s)

The NC developers mentioned the opportunity to reflect on their critical and professional understanding of the curriculum and of pedagogy in general, and to imagine how to organize teamwork while developing the sC in their own schools:

It gave me a lot (…). When we were dealing with the compilation of our own school curriculum, it was much easier to organise, once you had already participated in the national. (NC7-G)

The reflection on the sC development process included two broad categories in which the sC developers saw the potential to enhance their personal and professional growth: ‘team-work’ and ‘increased knowledge of subject content’. The combination of these qualities led, at best, to interdisciplinary thinking and to recognition of the importance of integration.

Additional workload. But it was valuable time to think together with colleagues. To think a bit broader than in terms of one school lesson is always useful. Otherwise a teacher becomes dull. (sC7-H)

I came into contact with issues I had not considered before (2.0) or not considered important: namely, the content of other subjects. We tried to integrate something. I can say that I started to see possibilities of using integration. (sC4-E)

The sC developers rarely directly reflected on issues of their professional experience which reached beyond their school context. Two respondents expressed a wish for a deeper under-standing of wider curricular issues and for engagement in the NC development.

I would like very much to be engaged in the development of the national curriculum, at least as an experimenter of something. Or that somebody would ask my opinion. (sC6-Eng)

It has been an interesting experience, and a great deal has been discussed. It teases me that I should know so much more. (sC5-H)

The curriculum user’s viewpoint: focus on subject syllabi

The expected outcome of the curriculum development process was the sC, which was intended to function as the basic document for learning and educational activities in a particular school and which would be a reliable and useful resource for teachers as curriculum users. We asked the respondents whether and to what extent this expectation had been fulfilled, and about the relative importance of the NC and sC in their practice.

The majority of NC developers reported that they were experienced enough not to need any curriculum document for their work. The participation in NC development was seen as the major source for providing this experience.

848 R. MIKsER ET AL.

Once you have come through this process, you don’t look at this curriculum much any more. It’s (.) in your mind already. At the end of the day, you’ll do what you think is right anyway. Let them write in the law what they want. (NC11-s)

I confess, I haven’t read the school curriculum. I have had a look at some schools’ curricula many times, and I haven’t seen any difference from the national curriculum (…). I start with the student. I do what I have to do. for me, and I think for most teachers, the curriculum has no importance whatsoever. (NC9-s)

However, the NC developers did not regard the NC as of negligible importance. They empha-sized that it was the national standard for allowing students’ free movement from one school to another, for national comparison of learning content and learning outcomes, and for setting standards for state examinations. All this, however, was about external standards and not about the curriculum ‘educating teachers’ (schwartz, 2006).

The sC developers also differed in their evaluations of the relative importance of the NC and sC. Unlike the NC developers, the great majority of sC developers regarded one or both of these documents as necessary for their practice. seven of them clearly prioritized the sC.

If necessary, then, first of all, of course, the school curriculum. It can’t be in contradiction with the national one. But as it is adapted, I naturally look at the sC. (sC11-P)

seven respondents prioritized the NC, the main difference being that the NC proponents were less confident in their evaluations and, with one exception, clearly also recognized the value of the sC.

More, however, the national curriculum. In part, it is because in the school curriculum pieces do not fit together very well. We haven’t discussed these things yet. But the NC is a framework (…). It gives a sense of security. It’s good that someone else thinks the same way you do, and good if someone meets you halfway. so I know I’m on the right track. But of course it’s not a Bible which I need to follow word for word. (sC3-E)

Two other sC developers regarded the two documents as equally important for their work. seven respondents either did not respond or claimed that both documents were unnecessary.

Like the NC developers, the sC developers often failed to see any substantial differences between the two documents.

Actually I do not see big differences (2.0). Or I haven’t noticed big differences. I think that text-books are in accordance with the national, so I use them. (sC17-E)

Both NC developers and sC developers rather unequivocally claimed that the general part of the NC was irrelevant for teachers as a guideline. Many respondents from both teacher groups claimed the subject syllabi were the only parts of the NC of any practical value:

I::: am not sure if I have looked deeply into these general parts. I’ve read them through, yes, but whether I have also thought about them? (2.0) Our own has always been more important. The national curriculum, not quite as much; the subject syllabus has always been more important there. (NC4-Ma)

I like that the subject syllabus gives the framework within which I can act. so I find that the subject syllabus is the most valuable part of the national curriculum. The nice words presented there in the general part (.) you can just take it as that. There’s nothing practical in it. Okay, the list of compulsory courses, but that’s all. (sC9-Eng)

Two major reasons emerged for the reported inadequacy of the general part. firstly, it was the sophisticated wording and unnecessary verbosity that scared teachers away.

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 849

I don’t know how well the general part and subject syllabi are connected with each other. The question is how often does an ordinary teacher open the general part at all? When I think about the language, how it is written ((distrustfully)) (.) I would need a translator next to me. I am a teacher of Estonian language, and I take it easy. I don’t know how much a teacher can understand it at all. (sC23-E)

secondly, the standardizing educational policy forced teachers to focus on measurable learn-ing outcomes in terms of subject content, and thus to neglect wider aims and cross-curricular aspects of education. Nearly all of the teachers of subjects other than art, music and physical education mentioned the pressure of state examinations as the main factor shaping the focus of their work.

I am teaching in a gymnasium where there is a state graduation examination in geography and biology. so it is evident that I very strictly follow what is required at the state level. (NC6-s)

Definitely, the state examination in English! Everybody wants to do well. I have tried to teach in accordance with that. (sC6-Eng)

Nevertheless, theoretically at least, teachers seemed to regard components of the general part as important in their work.

This cross-curricular integration was already present in the previous curriculum, but it had just not materialised. And it is in the current curriculum. This has to be paid more attention to (…). Not all schools can catch up with the material standards, and I see that as the major disadvantage. There are beautiful things in there, but whether they will work at school? (sC17-E)

It emerged that ‘powerful institutional forces’ (Kirk & MacDonald, 2001, p. 555), rather than teachers’ ignorance, prevented teachers from taking the general part seriously enough.

Discussion

The five themes defined on the base of inter-coder consensus focused on: (a) teachers’ recruitment in the curriculum development process, (b) teachers’ descriptions of the process, (c) teachers’ evaluations of the quality of the process, (d) teachers’ evaluations of the process as affecting their professional development and (e) teachers as curriculum users’ evaluations of the curriculum documents. We used these themes as structural components to answer our research questions and to discuss them in terms of how the processes of compartmen-talization, segmentation and licensing had impacts on teachers’ curriculum ownership.

In the views of teachers, the state-based curriculum-making practice in Estonia involved many aspects of compartmentalization and segmentation that precluded the stated curric-ulum policy aim of enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership from materializing in practice.

Our first research question focused on the Estonian upper secondary school teachers’ views on the curriculum development process and on the usefulness of the NC and sC documents. Regarding the respondents’ recruitment in the curriculum development process, the NC developers were invited primarily on the basis of their personal merits and experi-ences. Unlike many sC developers, they were thus personally highly motivated to participate. However, this recruitment principle failed to provide the NC developers with curriculum ownership or to make them mediators of the curriculum ownership of other teachers. This became clear from their varying involvement in the sC development and from their contra-dictory evaluations of the process as generally deficient but nevertheless professionally enriching. Most probably, their limited power to act and their lack of ownership resulted

850 R. MIKsER ET AL.

from their not being true representatives. With one exception, they were not mandated by any professional body of teachers. for that reason, the curriculum policy aim of de-segmen-tation has not materialized in practice.

segmentation also emerged from the respondents’ descriptions of the development process. Rather unequivocally, the labour division between teachers and other stakeholders followed the compartmentalization of curriculum documents into the general part and subject syllabi. The general part was left to politicians, academicians (i.e. university professors and lecturers not working in schools) and administrators, whereas teachers, the NC devel-opers as well as sC developers, with rare exceptions, defined themselves as syllabi developers, and were targeted to do so because of having been recruited on the basis of their compe-tence in subject issues. This consequently alienated teachers from taking the general part into consideration while developing the subject syllabi.

A certain detachment of the general part (ideological curriculum) from the subject issues and direct classroom practice is natural. The ideological curriculum aims at ‘forming and reforming both the public’s and teachers’ canopy of understandings about schooling’ (Westbury, 2008, p. 58) rather than prescribing teachers’ daily work. However, segmenting teachers from other discourse communities on that basis, and with no mediators, as the NC developers ideally should be, raises the danger that, because of the sophisticated political and academic discourse in the institutional curriculum being distant from them, teachers become isolated from broader considerations of curriculum issues.

Regarding the curriculum user’s viewpoint, an essential part of teachers seeing the value of the curriculum documents would have been to accept the idea of differentiating between the NC and the sC. Our first important finding regarding teachers as curriculum users was that, again, both respondent groups similarly failed to see any basic differences between the two documents. The compartmentalization separating the NC from the sC did not have any true meaning for them.

secondly, paradoxically, having participated in the development process, the NC devel-opers no longer regarded a written curriculum as necessary for their own working practice. Consequently, they were unable to act as true models of how the curriculum developed by them could be used by others.

The third factor devaluing curriculum documents in teachers’ views, particularly concern-ing the general part, was the state examinations introduced in 1997. This innovation revealed to teachers the Janus-faced nature of the state curriculum policy which, on the one hand, stresses in curriculum documents the all-round education (Bildung) and accommodation of the curriculum to the local and individual needs but, on the other hand, sets strict standards for learning outcomes in subject content. This contradiction reflects what Westbury (2008, p. 54) calls ‘policy fragmentation’, with different programmes pulling in different directions. Decentralized governance and local flexibility are accompanied by central requirements to achieve results that are, surprisingly similar around the world, expressed in subject terms (Goodson, 2000; sundberg & Wahlström, 2012). In these circumstances, teachers can hardly see much value in their alleged freedom to choose instructional methods.

Our second research question concerned the differences between the views of the NC developers and sC developers. It turned out that the NC developers held essentially the same, and in many ways alienated, views on the curriculum development process and cur-riculum documents as did the sC developers. Primarily, this seems to be due to the contra-diction between the national and the local levels. On the one hand, the sC development

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 851

provided teachers with some curriculum ownership, not only with regard to their own sub-ject, but also to cross-disciplinary issues. This, however, was overshadowed by the alienation of teachers from state-level curricular issues, where they felt distanced from determining and discussing the broader issues of institutional curriculum and were subject to evaluation by nationally determined learning outcomes. Our main conclusion concerning the differ-ences between the views of the two groups of teachers was that, although they saw the ways in which they were engaged in the development process differently, there were no substantial differences in the ways in which the NC developers and the sC developers saw the curriculum development process and curriculum documents. Consequently, no sub-stantial differences emerged between the ways in which the two teacher groups perceived their curriculum ownership.

Our findings may contribute to understanding why the enhancement of teachers’ curric-ulum ownership in the Eastern European countries in particular (Erss et al., 2014), but also elsewhere where it is prioritized in curriculum policy, has not succeeded. Our findings are similar to those of Kirk and MacDonald (2001), who claim that large-scale educational reforms often fail to materialize because teachers’ voices are anchored solely in the local context of implementation. This expertise, the authors continue, ‘set limits on the majority of teachers’ opportunities to be co-producers (…) at the level of national and state documents’ (Kirk & MacDonald, 2001, p. 552). Elsewhere Mølstad (2015), comparing the local curriculum work in Norway and finland, concludes that, whereas in finland local curriculum work is con-structed as a pedagogical process for developing the local curriculum, in Norway, local cur-riculum work is constructed as a process for applying and thereby delivering the national curriculum. Controversially, it seems that the curriculum policy rhetoric in Estonia is about developing the sC, but the practice is much more about delivering the national curriculum. Even though in curriculum policy documents there are democratic procedures that provide the legitimacy acquired through engaging teachers in the curriculum development process (Mølstad, 2015; Mølstad & Hansén, 2013), teachers’ curriculum ownership is undermined by the combination of the very processes which are intended to license and de-segmentize teachers. As Rosenmund (2000, p. 603) has illuminatingly stated, there are common curric-ulum-making processes that keep the existing status structures maintained and reproduced right through fundamental systemic reforms. In Estonia, the compartmentalized and seg-mented structures tended to be maintained through the transition from the soviet unitary system to Western democracy, and in many ways have been amplified rather than abolished by the international curriculum policy trends.

As an answer to our third research question, the practical resources for finding a balance between teachers’ curriculum ownership and the policy of state-based curriculum-making seem to lie primarily in reorganizing the recruitment policy of teachers for the NC develop-ment. Those participating in state curriculum committees should represent teachers with all the rights and obligations resulting from that, thus functioning as mediators between the different interest groups, as well as between different curriculum policy levels. Optimistically—rather than abandoning the policy aim of enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership or seeing teachers as a professional group as a hindrance, the resources for de-segmentation and licence expressed in the curriculum documents still wait to be put into practice. To accomplish that aim, it seems promising to juxtapose curriculum policy document analysis with inquiry on the views of different interest groups in further research.

852 R. MIKsER ET AL.

Although we considered the proportions of the general teacher population in Estonia while drawing our sample, the number of respondents in our study was too small to allow for large generalizations. In addition, as mentioned above, teachers’ views should not be prioritized too much over the interests of other groups. However, the findings clearly indicate that the priorities enunciated in curriculum policy documents may be contradicted by implicit but powerful social processes that can be made explicit only by consulting with those to whom they claim to give a voice.

Notes

1. We make three conceptual clarifications. firstly, whereas in some countries (e.g. Germany and the Us) state and national refer to different levels, these terms are synonymous in Estonian curriculum policy. There is no intermediate curriculum decision-making body between the state (national) level and school level. secondly, relying on Hopmann (1990b, p. 161), curriculum-making encompasses both the curriculum development process (i.e. the social process of constructing a written curriculum) and curriculum implementation. Thirdly, state-based encompasses both the state level and school level, inasmuch as curriculum-making at both these levels is regulated centrally at the state level.

2. Distinguishing between the terms ‘(de)centralization’ and ‘(de)regulation’, De Groof, Neave, and Švec (1998, p. 40) define deregulation as the maximum reduction of regulations in order to maximize the personal choice of institutions and individuals, whereas decentralization seeks to assign more responsibility to regional and local authorities, with the central government maintaining the role of determining general strategic choices. Thus, decentralization does not imply deregulation (De Groof et al., 1998, p. 40). As our empirical context allows us to talk about (de)centralization rather than about (de)regulation, we stay with that term, acknowledging that not every author necessarily distinguishes between the two terms, or may distinguish between them in a different way.

3. The letter and number combinations following each quotation refer to each participant’s relation to the development of NC or sC, order of the interview, and the respective subject (E: Estonian language and literature; Eng: English; H: history and social studies; M: music; Ma: mathematics; P: physical education; s: science).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Ian Westbury from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and associate professor Kirsten sivesind from the University of Oslo, for their thorough and insightful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the European structural fund programme [grant number TA7610].

Notes on contributors

Rain Mikser is a senior research fellow in the Institute of Educational sciences, Tallinn University, Narva street 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia; email: rain.mikser@tlu.ee. His interests centre on curriculum theory and implementation and education policy.

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 853

Anita Kärner is an educational project manager and activity leader in the Institute of Education, University of Tartu, salme 1a, 50103 Tartu, Estonia. Her interests centre on curriculum innovation and didactics.

Edgar Krull is a professor of general education in the Institute of Education, University of Tartu, salme 1a, 50103 Tartu, Estonia. His interests centre on teacher professional development and curriculum history.

References

Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2008). Workload and willingness to change: Disentangling the experience of intensification. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40, 47–67.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: sUNY Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Brennan, M. (2011). National curriculum: A political-educational tangle. Australian Journal of Education, 55, 259–280.

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.

Cerych, L. (1999). General report on the symposium ‘Educational reforms in Central and Eastern Europe: Processes and outcomes’. European Education, 31, 5–38.

Connelly, f. M. (1972). The functions of curriculum development. Interchange, 3, 161–177.De Groof, J., Neave, G., & Švec, J. (1998). Democracy and governance in higher education. The Hague:

Kluwer Law International.Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum:

A project of the American Educational Research (pp. 486–516). New York, NY: Macmillan.Eggleston, J. (1980). School-based curriculum development in Britain: A collection of case studies. Boston,

MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Erss, M., Mikser, R., Löfström, E., Ugaste, A., Rõuk, V., & Jaani, J. (2014). Teachers’ views of curriculum

policy: The case of Estonia. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62, 393–411.Goodson, I. f. (2000). The crisis of curriculum change. Taboo, fall-Winter, 109–123.Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles, CA: sage.Gundem, B., & sivesind, K. (1997). from politics to practice: Reflections from a research project on

curriculum policy and notes from (outside and inside) a National Curriculum Reform Project. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, AERA, Symposium division L: Educational policy and politics. Chicago, IL.

Haft, H., & Hopmann, s. (Eds.). (1990). Case studies in curriculum administration history. London: falmer.Haridusministeerium. 1996. Eesti põhi- ja keskhariduse riiklik õppekava.Vabariigi Valitsuse määrus no

228 [Estonian national curriculum for basic and secondary education. Regulation of the government]. Riigi Teataja I, 65–69, 1201.

Hopmann, s. (1990a). Retracing curriculum history. In B. B. Gundem, B. U. Engelsen, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Curriculum work and curriculum content. Theory and practice. Contemporary and Historical perspectives (pp. 49–68). Oslo: University of Oslo, Institute for Educational Research.

Hopmann, s. (1990b). Current structures of curriculum making 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 (pp. 158–180). Oslo: University of Oslo, Institute for Educational Research.

Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N. M., & Voogt, J. M. (2013). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46, 33–57.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamims.

Jõemaa, L. (1996, December 13). EÕL on osalusdemokraatia poolt  [Estonian Teachers’ Union is for participatory democracy]. Õpetajate Leht, 50, 4.

854 R. MIKsER ET AL.

Kallen, D. (1996). Curriculum reform in secondary education: Planning, development and implementation. European Journal of Education, 31, 43–55.

Kennedy, K. J. (2010). school-based curriculum development for new times: A comparative analysis. In E. H.-f. Law & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Schools as curriculum agencies. Asian and European perspectives on school-based curriculum development (pp. 3–20). Rotterdam: sense Publishers.

Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 551–567.

Krull, E., & Mikser, R. (2010). Reflection of the cross-curricular ideas in the Estonian curricula of general education: An historical study. Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 14, 34–53.

Läänemets, U. (1997, March 7.) Demokraatia hariduses—Eesti moodi [Democracy in education - in the Estonian manner]. Õpetajate Leht, 10, 6.

Law, E. H.-f., Galton, M., & Wan, s. W. Y. (2007). Developing curriculum leadership in schools: Hong Kong perspectives. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 143–159.

Law, W. H.-f., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2010). Schools as curriculum agencies. Asian and European Perspectives on school-based curriculum development. Rotterdam: sense Publishers.

Leesi, L. (1997, January 10). selline riigieksam ei aita mitte midagi hinnata [That kind of state examination will not help to assess anything]. Õpetajate Leht, 2, 5.

Lundahl, L. (2005). A matter of self-governance and control the reconstruction of swedish Education Policy: 1980–2003. European Education, 37, 10–25.

Lundgren, U. (2013). sweden—from governing with curricula to steering with outcomes. In W. Kuiper & J. Berkvens (Eds.), Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe (pp. 269–285). Enschede: sLO.

Macdonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the post-modern world: Is the school curriculum-reform movement an anachronism? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 139–149.

Mikk, J. (1997, November 22). Kas riigieksameid peab korraldama haridusministeerium? [should state examinations be organised by the Ministry of Education?] Õpetajate Leht, 47, 5.

Mølstad, C. E. (2015). state-based curriculum-making: Approaches to local curriculum work in Norway and finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47, 441–461.

Mølstad, C. E., & Hansén, s.-E. (2013). The curriculum as a governing instrument—A comparative study of finland and Norway. Education Inquiry, 4, 735–753.

Nieveen, N., & Kuiper, W. (2012). Balancing curriculum freedom and regulation in the Netherlands. European Educational Research Journal, 11, 357–368.

OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Author. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en

Pachociński, R. (1997). Educational development in Central and Eastern Europe. European Education, 29, 6–25.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: sage.Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and

extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84–107.Rosenmund, M. (2000). OP-ED approaches to international comparative research on curricula and

curriculum-making processes. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 599–606.sabar, N., Rudduck, J., & Reid, W. (1987). Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum

development. sheffield: University of sheffield, Division of Education.schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry,

13, 239–265.schwartz, M. (2006). for whom do we write the curriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 449–457.skilbeck, M. (1984). School based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row.stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.sundberg, D., & Wahlström, N. (2012). standards-based curricula in a denationalised conception of

education: The case of sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 11, 342–356.szebenyi, P. (1992). Two models of curriculum development in Hungary (1972–1992). Educational

Review, 44, 285–294.United Nations Educational scientific and Cultural Organization. (2011). World data in education.

Retrieved July 29, 2015, from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/services/online-materials/world-data-on-education/seventh-edition-2010-11.html

JOURNAL Of CURRICULUM sTUDIEs 855

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 398–405.

Viirpalu, P., Krull, E., & Mikser, R. (2014). Investigating Estonian teachers’ expectations for the general education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 16, 54–70.

Westbury, I. (1994). Deliberation and the improvement of schooling. In J. T. Dillon (Ed.), Deliberation in education and society (pp. 37–65). Norwood, NJ: Erlbaum.

Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula: Why do states make curricula, and how? In f. M. Connelly, M. f. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: sage.

Wong, J. (2008). How does the new emphasis on managerialism in education redefine teacher professionalism? A case study in Guangdong Province of China. Educational Review, 60, 267–282.

You, J. (2011). A self-study of a national curriculum maker in physical education: Challenges to curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 87–108.

Appendix 1. Experiences related to developing and using curricula

Experiences as curriculum developers

(1) Please describe the way in which you have been involved with curriculum development, both at the state and school levels.

(2) How was your involvement in the curriculum development initiated (e.g. was it your own or somebody else’s initiative)?

(3) Which part of the curriculum development were you engaged in (e.g. the general part or the subject syllabi)?

(4) What was the main task of the work group you belonged to?(5) What was your personal task in the work group?(6) How was the work organized?(7) What were the sources the work group relied on while working?(8) Please describe your experience as a curriculum developer.(9) What is your opinion of the result of the work of your work group?

(10) As a professional, what have you gained from the experience of participating in curriculum development?

(11) What is your opinion of the impact of your personal contribution to curriculum development?

Experiences as curriculum users

(1) Please name the official regulations and practices that have significantly shaped your work.(2) Which of the official regulations and practices has shaped your work the most?(3) Please describe the relationship between the NC and the sC in shaping your work?(4) Please describe your experience as a curriculum user.(5) In which way have the curriculum documents supported your work?(6) What is your opinion as to whether the established curricula support or restrict a teacher’s

autonomy?(7) What have you liked in the NC so far, both in the general part and in the subject syllabi? (This

and the next question were asked only about the NC in order to detect possible differences between the evaluations of the NC and sC developers.)

(8) What have you disliked in the NC so far, both in the general part and in the subject syllabi?(9) Please summarize in your own words, what ‘curriculum’ means to you.