Curriculum Change at the System Level: A Four-Year Mathematics Project.

Prevailing views on the process of school change emerge largely from the analysis of failures (e.g., Fullan and Pomfret 1975; Smith and Keith 1971; Gross, Giacquinta, and Bernstein 1971; Goodlad and Klein 1970; House 1974). Different change approaches fail for various reasons, most of which, we suggest, are included in the following categories: 1. Inappropriate match between the existing characteristics of a system and the innovation (e.g., Connelly [1972] discusses studies which reveal discrepancies between the philosophy of a program and the philosophy of instruction held by teachers who were expected to implement it). 2. Inadequate attention to securing client support for the innovation and for the practices required for its effective implementation (e.g., Fullan 1972). 3. Inadequate provision for clients acquiring the skills needed for effective implementation (e.g., Fullan 1972). 4. Inadequate provision in change strategies for monitoring their effects, and for modifying strategies and tactics accordingly. 5. Lack of sound evidence demonstrating the innovation's relative advantage. Regan and Leithwood (1974) have noted other features accounting for failure, including inappropriate focus on the product of the change, illogical diffusion models, and oversimplified change strategies. Different as they are, all these suggested reasons have one thing in common: all suggest that narrowness in scope is an important element in school-change failure. This paper is concerned with curriculum development, which, like all types of school change, may be viewed either broadly or narrowly. Narrowly viewed, curriculum refers to a planned set of written materials used in guiding the course of student experience, including student-teacher interaction. Such a conception suggests that the purpose of development