Journal of Curriculum Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tcus20

Enacting powerful knowledge: overcoming the

chasm of curriculum and teaching through teacher
professionalism

Jina Ro

To cite this article: Jina Ro (16 Feb 2024): Enacting powerful knowledge: overcoming the chasm
of curriculum and teaching through teacher professionalism, Journal of Curriculum Studies,
DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2024.2318726

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2318726

Published online: 16 Feb 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 191

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcus20
JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2318726

Enacting powerful knowledge: overcoming the chasm of

curriculum and teaching through teacher professionalism
Jina Ro
Department of Education, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea (the Republic of), Jongno-gu

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this article, I examine how teachers can enact ‘powerful knowledge’ (PK) Received 17 March 2023
—a curriculum principle proposed by Michael Young—by linking it with Accepted 7 February 2024
the scholarship of teacher professionalism (TP). Despite the significance of KEYWORDS
teachers’ role in curriculum enactment, effort to understand this topic has Powerful knowledge;
been insufficient. I first indicate that separating the curriculum from curriculum; curriculum
teaching, as proposed by Young, is not applicable in schools, and it enactment; teacher
could rather confine TP limited to how to teach. Instead, by utilizing the professionalism
concepts of ‘transformation’ and ‘recontextualisation’, I support that cur­
riculum making and teaching is an interconnected process that calls for
extensive teacher intervention based on profound professionalism. By
integrating key ideas from the literature on TP, I argue three requirements
should be met for the meaningful enactment of PK by teachers: first,
a national curriculum grounded in the principles of PK and
transformation/recontextualisation; second, alteration of the demanded
professionalism assigned by external authorities; and finally, comprehen­
sive and autonomous teacher professional learning for enacting good
judgement regarding what, why and how to teach.

In many countries, education is tied to the country’s economic needs. In turn, policymakers favour an
instrumental approach to education based on the belief that schools will produce the nation’s future
workforce (Ball, 2017; Spring, 2010). This trend is also propelled by influential international organiza­
tions, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank,
which contribute to forming and disseminating a global education policy discourse that the purpose
of education is to produce a capable workforce for economic competitiveness (Ball, 2017; Lingard
et al., 2015). Consequently, a competence-based approach to curricula that favours constructivist
and learner-centred pedagogy is popular in many countries (Deng, 2021; Voogt & Roblin, 2012).
Nevertheless, severe criticisms and concerns have been raised regarding this trend. One
criticism is that the current emphasis on students’ interest in learning reduces education to
mere technical work by making the question of ‘how to teach’ the central concern of curriculum
and teaching (Biesta, 2005; Rata, 2017; Wheelahan, 2007). According to Biesta (2005), this
tendency relegates education’s purpose and content of schooling secondary to how-to questions
(Biesta, 2005). In this circumstance, students may be able to access and absorb some content
presented in an easy-to-understand format (Biesta, 2005). However, they are unlikely to gain
a deeper understanding of the material, which is necessary to transcend their current knowledge
and situation (Wheelahan, 2007). Students may be denied access to a deeper, broader knowledge

CONTACT Jina Ro jina.ro@g.skku.edu Department of Education,Sungkyunkwan University, Korea (the Republic of),
Jongno-gu
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. RO

base due to a curriculum that focuses on merely enhancing employability by combining dis­
jointed content and skills as competencies (Wheelahan, 2007). In this regard, the current trend of
undermining knowledge-based curricula could exacerbate the existing knowledge gap caused by
schooling, thereby aggravating social inequity and stratification (Rata, 2012; Wheelahan, 2007;
Young, 2009).
The concept of powerful knowledge (PK), which is a specialised knowledge produced from
scholarly disciplines and contains strong potential to empower students was initially proposed by
Young (2013, p. 108) as an alternative to a recent technical approach that has consistently
diminished disciplinary knowledge in schooling (Young, 2009; Young & Muller, 2013). He believes
that access to this knowledge is a right of every student; therefore, if schools fail to teach this,
they abandon the primary responsibility of education to promote equity and social justice. Many
advocates agree with Young’s assertion that access to such a knowledge-based curriculum is
a fundamental human right (e.g. Deng, 2015; Lambert & Biddulph, 2015; Morgan, 2015; Rata,
2012).
Since then, discussion on PK, including critiques, has examined its potential as a curriculum theory
and determined PK in and across various disciplines (e.g. Beck, 2013; Carlgren, 2020; Lambert et al.,
2015; McEneaney, 2015; Nordgren, 2017), which represent the central concerns of curriculum
studies. When proposing this concept, Young (2014b) encourages teachers to be ‘curriculum
specialists’ (p. 47). However, there is insufficient understanding of what this means and the require­
ments for the curriculum enactment of teachers to cultivate student power. These are crucial
questions that are also significantly related to the topic of teacher professionalism (TP) given that
curriculum enactment lies at the core of teachers’ work, which is shaped and influenced by their
knowledge, beliefs and various contextual factors (e.g. school environment and policies; Gerrard &
Farrell, 2014). Although there have been some attempts to explain teachers’ enactment of PK (e.g.
Barrett & Hordern, 2021; Hudson et al., 2023; Lambert et al., 2015; McPhail & Rata, 2016; Rata et al.,
2019; Young, 2014b), this topic was not examined thoroughly by considering and linking it with the
current scholarship of TP despite the significance of teachers’ role and capacity in realizing PK. It is,
therefore, still unclear how teachers can enact the curriculum in a manner that guides students’
acquisition of the power of knowledge.
In this article, I explore the issue of the enactment of PK by relating it to the concept of TP. My
research question focuses on which ideas of TP can be usefully considered to understand the
enactment of PK by teachers and the requirements for facilitating TP for PK, as this question remains
largely ambiguous. To explore this question, I first examine the concept of PK and Young’s under­
standing of the relationship between curriculum and teaching as well as the role of teachers.
Subsequently, I introduce and utilize the concepts of ‘transformation’ (Deng, 2021; Gericke et al.,
2018) and ‘recontextualisation’ (Hordern, 2021) to demonstrate that curriculum and teaching are
inseparable, and that TP is essential to cultivate students’ power, which is the ultimate goal of
teaching PK (Deng, 2021). Next, I examine the ideas of TP relevant to understand the enactment of PK
by teachers, highlighting the significance of teachers’ exercise of professional judgement as the
essence of professionalism and key to curriculum enactment (Biesta, 2015; Deng, 2021, 2022; Evetts,
2011). Based on this investigation, I propose that for the meaningful enactment of PK by teachers,
considering the interrelated and inseparable relationship between curriculum and teaching, the
potential influence of the institutional contexts of teachers on their practice as well as profession­
alism and the significance of teacher professional judgement is crucial.

PK, curriculum and teaching

In this section, I first examine the origin and assumptions of PK discussed by various scholars in the
field of sociology of education. I then delve into this concept, focusing on Young’s theorization of the
concept as a curriculum principle. Finally, I discuss his viewpoint about the role of teachers and the
issues found from his perspective regarding teachers’ enactment of PK.
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 3

The origin and assumptions of PK

PK originated from the field of the sociology of education among scholars who are interested in
investigating the approach to curriculum and knowledge (Young & Muller, 2013). The scholars
consider that the fundamental reason of educational inequity lies in students’ unequal access to
the ‘best knowledge’ (Moore, 2013, p. 335). Drawing on Bernstein’s conception, scholars argue there
is a distinction between esoteric knowledge (i.e. theoretical and abstract knowledge situated in
a specific discipline such as history and mathematics) and mundane knowledge (i.e. context-specific
and common-sense knowledge concerning everyday life; Wheelahan, 2007). Esoteric knowledge is
potentially more powerful because it has a transcendental capacity that allows students to think the
‘unthinkable’ and ‘yet-to-be-thought’ (Wheelahan, 2007, p. 639). In contrast, mundane knowledge is
limited to drive substantial change in students’ thinking beyond the context where it is used.
Wheelahan (2007) refers to the esoteric knowledge situated in the disciplines as PK and asserts
that students need access to this knowledge as it is how they can transcend their current thinking
and lives as opposed to mundane knowledge.
Situated in the social realism tradition, an important premise of PK is that all knowledge is socially
produced and, thus, is fallible; yet there exists objective reality that is independent from individual
experiences (Moore, 2013; Wheelahan, 2007). Although disciplinary knowledge is imperfect in this
sense, it helps understand the objective reality because the knowledge is produced in scholarly
communities of disciplines through systematic process such as experiment and peer review as
determined and approved by the community members (Beck, 2013; Muller, 2023). The knowledge
is always open to critique and so it is constantly revisable (Beck, 2013; Moore, 2013; Muller, 2023).
Because knowledge is independent of specific context, undergoes a rigorous production process
and is constantly revised, it is deemed to be relatively objective (Moore, 2013; Muller, 2023). In this
sense, the conception of knowledge in social realism is also distinguished from the traditional notion
of knowledge as fixed and unquestionable wisdom. Social realism views knowledge as transformable
because of its fallible nature (Moore, 2013); therefore, in this conception, the knowledge is reliable
‘for now’ (Muller, 2023, p. 27).

PK as a curriculum principle
Young and Muller (2013) propose PK as a principle for constructing a knowledge-based curriculum as
opposed to the recent curricular trend that prioritizes generic skills and competencies over disci­
plinary knowledge (Biesta, 2005; Wheelahan, 2007). They argue that PK is a specialized knowledge,
not only in the way it is produced but also in the way it is transmitted (Young & Muller, 2013). PK
cannot be taught at home or other local communities due to its theoretical nature. Therefore, it
should be included in the curriculum of educational institutions (e.g. schools and colleges) and
transmitted to students (Young, 2009).
PK is also differentiated from mundane and common-sense knowledge that students can obtain
from their everyday experience without the need to be engaged with subject-based curriculum
(Young, 2009; Young & Muller, 2013). PK contains power that can make important changes in
students’ thinking and lives. If students learn the PK successfully, they are empowered to ‘make
new connections, gain new insights, generate new ideas’ (Muller & Young, 2019, p. 210). The power
of knowledge should be available for everyone to acquire as ‘non-zero-sum property’ and a ‘non-
rivalrous good’ (Muller & Young, 2019, p. 197). In this sense, teaching PK should be ‘at the heart of
true schooling’ (Muller & Young, 2019, p. 210). In essence, specialized disciplinary knowledge that has
potential to alter students’ current thinking and situations has more significance to be included in
the curriculum compared to one that has less power. In this respect, Young and Muller (2013)
suggest PK as a curriculum principle.
To organize and construct PK into the curricular content, Muller and Young (2019) emphasize the
significance of the recontextualisation process in curriculum making by borrowing Bernstein’s term.
4 J. RO

Although subjects have a pedagogical purpose of enabling students to acquire knowledge and its
transformative capacities, disciplines are oriented towards truth-seeking and knowledge creation
(Muller & Young, 2019). Therefore, it is essential that the subject content is recontextualised from its
parent discipline. In this process, the core concepts from each discipline that has strong potential to
empower students should be included as subject content (Muller & Young, 2019). In addition, it is
crucial to provide ‘signposts’ for each subject that informs the subject’s structure to teachers
regarding ‘what is to be learned, when and what follows what’ (Muller & Young, 2019, p. 205).
Otherwise, the subject content would merely present a list of disparate facts that does not help
teachers understand ‘what the learning is directed towards’, and this may result in losing the
generative capacity of the content when it is transmitted through the lessons (Muller & Young,
2019, p. 210).

PK and the relationship between curriculum and teaching

While proposing PK as a guiding principle for curriculum making, Young (2014a, 2014b) explicitly
distinguishes curriculum from teaching, which has been criticized by those who agree with his call
for a knowledge-based curriculum (e.g. Deng, 2015, 2021, 2022; Gericke et al., 2018). Young (2014a,
p. 18) defines teaching as ‘the theory and practice involved in taking students beyond their
experience and assisting them in acquiring new knowledge’. Due to the nature and complexity of
teaching, he believes it is a distinct field, a ‘specialist activity and specialisation’ (Young, 2014b, p. 48)
that encompasses teachers’ knowledge, practice and experience to connect the unique experiences
of students to PK through lessons. Unlike teachers, curriculum designers or theorists do not have
such an expertise in transmitting PK. Instead, they focus primarily on the policy-level curriculum (e.g.
national curriculum), developing ideas for what students should learn and how, as well as providing
teachers with adequate guidelines and resources to teach the knowledge (Young, 2014a).
A confusion arises in that while Young (2014b) separates the curriculum from teaching and the
role of curriculum designers from that of teachers, he simultaneously asserts that teachers must
interpret and translate the national curriculum and develop their own subject curriculum for
teaching. In particular, he emphasizes the ‘distinction’ [emphasis added] between ‘the [emphasis in
original] National Curriculum as a set of guidelines’ and ‘how schools interpret these guidelines in
developing their [emphasis in original] curriculum’ (Young, 2014b, p. 47). Because the school
curriculum is intended to be realized through teaching, teachers determine what knowledge is
significant for their students based on the national curriculum, considering how to appropriately
transform and transmit the knowledge responsive to the students (Young, 2014b). This implies that
teachers must assume the role of curriculum designers for the school curriculum by conducting in-
depth inquiry on the national curriculum and considering students’ needs and experiences. Given
the significance of teachers’ dual role in curriculum making and teaching, it is impossible to separate
the two in schools as he perceives. Instead, it is more appropriate to view them as closely interrelated
at the school level, as will be discussed in the following section.
Regarding Young’s perception of the distinction between curriculum and teaching, Deng (2022)
and scholars situated in the German and Nordic Didaktik traditions (Gericke et al., 2018) are also
concerned that this distinction may reinforce a transmissive view of teaching that results in the
limited cultivation of student power. Deng (2022) particularly indicates that Young’s primary focus
on knowledge question (i.e. what students should know) rather than the purpose of schooling
oriented to the students’ future (i.e. what students should become) could cause a misinterpretation
as if the purpose of schooling is transmission of disciplinary knowledge. If conveying disciplinary
knowledge becomes the purpose, teachers would be preoccupied with delivering the curriculum
rather than actively engaging with curriculum making and inquiry to develop students’ power
(Deng, 2022).
Furthermore, separating curriculum from teaching can restrict teachers’ ability to contribute to
curriculum making and change beyond their school contexts, such as for regional or national
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 5

curricula. Teachers who constantly inquire and enact the school curriculum would develop profound
professionalism in this area from their accumulated knowledge and practice of curriculum enact­
ment. Such expertise may initially be limited to their school contexts, yet it can be shared, expanded
to and influence on wider group of teachers through a platform such as professional learning
communities, which has the potential to bring about large-scale change beyond individual teachers’
classrooms (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Sachs, 2001). Considering the
strong recognition on teachers’ activism and transformative role for leading bottom-up educational
change currently (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Mockler, 2005, 2013), Young’s conception of teacher
capacities as limited to their schools and subject teaching may be too restrictive.

From curriculum making to teaching PK

In this section, I discuss the concepts of transformation (Deng, 2021; Gericke et al., 2018) and
recontextualisation (Hordern, 2021) as they pertain to the issues of Young’s original proposal of PK
identified in the preceding section.

The concept of transformation by Gericke et al

Situated in the German and Nordic Didaktik traditions, Gericke et al. (2018) define transformation as
‘an integrative process’ (p. 432) from curriculum making to teaching. They indicate that while Young
views subject content as corresponding to disciplinary knowledge, the content should be derived
from an in-depth deliberation on the purpose of education (i.e. ‘why to teach’, p. 429). The content
can only be appropriately selected if the purpose indicating the meaning and significance of
knowledge is clarified. Then, teachers link these purpose and content with appropriate teaching
strategies, taking into account students’ backgrounds and the context of teaching (Gericke et al.,
2018). In this sense, school subject and its content are not merely a ‘simple reduction of the
discipline’; instead, the content is included in the curriculum through a series of transformation
process ‘to fit the educational purpose of teaching’ (Gericke et al., 2018, p. 429). Thus, the question of
educational purpose (i.e. why to teach) is equally important as the questions of what and how to
teach.
Grounded in the emphasis on the significance of the educational purpose to determine the
content and its teaching, Gericke et al. (2018) argue that the transformation process occurs on three
levels—societal, institutional and classroom levels—involving multiple actors such as curriculum
designers, teachers and students. The first, the societal level, involves determining the significance of
particular knowledge in an educational system considering the contemporary social changes and
demands on schooling and the educational environment (e.g. digitalized or non-digitalized class­
rooms). Unlike Young, they argue that the selection of knowledge need not be limited to disciplinary
knowledge alone and that it is also preferable to include cross-disciplinary topics. This is because the
current social changes and issues that must be addressed in schooling (e.g. climate change and
digitalization) require interdisciplinary perspectives and skills. At the institutional level, the knowl­
edge is transformed into content of an institutional curriculum, considering the institution’s settings,
objectives and purposes. Lastly, at the classroom level, teachers interpret the institutional curriculum
to define PK, reconstruct the knowledge to make it more accessible to students and teach it using
the most adequate methods and activities. In addition to the question of how to teach, the questions
of ‘what, why, for whom and when’ (Gericke et al., p. 436) are essential in this process so that teachers
can determine and enact the PK in a way that realizes its power responsive to the students.
Perceiving the classroom level as the most significant of the three, Gericke et al. assert that PK
should not only remain the primary curriculum principle, but that curriculum and teaching are
inseparable and teachers’ deep understanding and active participation in the transformation process
are essential to activating the power of knowledge in their own classroom contexts (Gericke et al.,
2018).
6 J. RO

Unlocking the power of content through transformation by Deng

Deng (2015) welcomes Young’s call for a knowledge-based curriculum, but he concerns that
students’ access to PK does not directly lead to their development of power. He indicates that
Young’s primary emphasis on students’ access to PK makes knowledge ‘an end in itself’ (Deng, 2015,
p. 775) for curriculum making, teaching and learning. Instead, PK is an ‘important resource [emphasis
in original]’ that must be transformed into an institutional curriculum (e.g. national curriculum) and
classroom teaching geared towards developing students’ power (Deng, 2015, p. 775). Thus, he
emphasizes that the focus of knowledge-based curriculum should be cultivation of students’
power rather than the content itself (Deng, 2021, 2022). The curriculum should be ‘future-oriented’
gearing towards ‘the formation of autonomous and responsible individuals who can thrive and
flourish in the present and future world’ (Deng, 2022, p. 15). Construction of subjects should
therefore consider the content’s potential and how it can be realized in classrooms (Deng, 2021,
2022). Teaching is then an ‘encounter’ between content and students to ‘bring about
a transformative impact on the formation of students’ (Deng, 2022, p. 15). In this regard, Deng is
alike to Gericke et al. (2018) by affirming that curriculum making cannot be separated from teaching,
contradicting Young’s (2014b) position.
According to Gericke et al.’s (2018) classification of the transformation process, Deng (2021)
elaborates on the three levels, centred on cultivating students’ power through the knowledge.
Typically, the first societal-level transformation occurs at the policy level, with the construction of
a discourse on what power should be developed through schooling and what knowledge can
develop such power. This process elucidates the educational meaning and significance of knowl­
edge regarding the development of students’ power in a society. The second, institutional level,
involves selecting knowledge with potential power and organizing it to a content of institutional
curriculum, considering the vision identified at the previous level and its realization through class­
room teaching. The institutional level bridges the societal and classroom levels by connecting
students’ encounters with content to their eventual development of power (Deng, 2021). At the
final classroom level, teachers interpret and unlock the potential power of content based on
students’ experiences and create instructional tasks to elicit meaningful encounters with the content.
In this sense, Deng (2022) argues teachers are curriculum makers who transform the institutional
curriculum to enacted curriculum in the classroom, instead of mere deliverers of the institutional
curriculum. Hence, teachers should employ curriculum thinking centred on the questions of ‘what
constitutes the educational potential of content, and how the potential can be unlocked for [my]
students to develop powers’ (Deng, 2021, p. 17). In this way, teachers mediate the institutional and
classroom curriculum and realize PK as a meaningful teaching and learning experience to develop
students’ powers.

Recontextualisation and the significance of educational knowledge by Hordern

Hordern (2021) agrees with Deng (2021) and Gericke et al.’s (2018) critique on PK that it may neglect
teachers’ role in curriculum making for realizing the educational purposes. He revisits Bernstein’s
theory of recontextualisation, which was originally brought up by Young (2013) to explain the
construction of subjects from academic disciplines. He explains it as a ‘key element of the curriculum-
making process undertaken by teachers as they negotiate the relation between subject and content,
guided by recontextualisation principles and educational ideals’ (Hordern, 2021, p. 594). Through
this process, teachers recontextualise disciplinary knowledge and practice into a form appropriate
for their teaching context. To facilitate this process, he asserts that teachers must develop their own
recontextualisation rules, which involve two essential components for theorizing their curriculum
making: understanding the nature and relationship of the discipline and subject; and negotiating
with any government or school constraints that may inhibit their own development of recontextua­
lisation principles (Hordern, 2021).
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 7

The first element addresses how to recontextualise disciplinary knowledge into subject content
while maintaining the discipline’s identity, normative practices and requirements. Although disci­
pline may provide teachers with some rules or guidance regarding the subject, this is insufficient to
curriculum making and enactment. For subject teaching, the discipline must be ‘delocated’ from its
original context and ‘scrutinised, disassembled and then re-assembled in the formation of a subject’
so that it applies to a specific teaching context and provides students with a ‘pathway to the
discipline’ (Hordern, 2021, p. 601). In addition, the public, government, schools and teachers’ own
perspectives on the subject may have a substantial impact on its development. Thus, besides
configuring the disciplinary knowledge, teachers need to ensure that each subject retains ‘its own
consciousness, identity and practice’ that is ‘recontextualised in accordance with its requirements’
(p. 602).
Another important factor that shapes teachers’ recontextualisation rules is what he refers to as
regulative discourse, a term also borrowed from Bernstein (2000). Regulative discourse consists of
government and policy regulations, as well as various expectations and demands from school
contexts. Although teachers could determine the PK considering the subjects’ nature and students,
their autonomy to enact it through a classroom curriculum is constrained by the larger political and
social context of schooling and the structure of school contexts (Hordern, 2021). Such ideological
aspects influence curriculum making and teaching by limiting teacher’s capacity to develop and
apply recontextualisation principles (Hordern, 2021). Therefore, besides having strong subject-
specific capacities, teachers need educational knowledge, which includes ‘sufficient awareness of
debates around political and social context of schooling, educational theory and the social formation
of mind’, to develop and practice their own recontextualisation rules in diverse classroom contexts
(Hordern, 2021, p. 603). Such knowledge would allow them to ‘adequately balance the needs of the
subject, learners and teaching practice’ and ‘collectively shape the regulative discourse of schools
and education systems’ by constructing their own recontextualisation rules (Hordern, 2021, p. 603).

Linking PK, transformation and recontextualisation with TP

The concepts of transformation and recontextualisation discussed in this section view curriculum
making and teaching as a whole, interconnected process as distinguished from Young’s original
conception (Deng, 2021; Gericke et al., 2018; Hordern, 2021). Although there is a slight distinction
between the terms, Hudson et al. (2023) suggest viewing transformation as a broad and inclusive
concept to relate to other concepts like recontextualisation. Consistent with this perspective, I will
use the term ‘transformation/recontextualisation’ hereafter to highlight their contributions to recog­
nizing the interconnectedness of curriculum and teaching, as well as the significance of TP in the
process. In this process, the teachers’ role is not limited to the realm of teaching alone. In order to
address the power of knowledge, teachers must actively determine and (re)construct the purpose of
education (i.e. why to teach) and subject content (i.e. what to teach) considering their students
(Deng, 2021; Gericke et al., 2018). These areas, which concern why and what to teach, were formerly
managed by policymakers and curriculum designers; however, in the transformation/recontextuali­
sation process, teachers’ intervention in these political and ideological aspects of schooling is
essential to determining and realizing the power of knowledge through teaching (Deng, 2021;
Hordern, 2021). In this sense, teachers’ curriculum thinking (Deng, 2021) and educational knowledge
(Hordern, 2021) are essential in addition to in-depth subject knowledge and skills, as these qualities
could assist them in navigating the complexities of the disciplinary requirements, policy regulations
and students’ needs that they must address.
In the same vein, several scholars have emphasized the significance of teachers’ powerful
professional knowledge (PPK; Barrett & Hordern, 2021; Furlong & Whitty, 2017; Hudson et al.,
2023). The discussion on PPK also acknowledges the significance of teachers’ in-depth disciplinary
knowledge, educational knowledge regarding the ideological, political and social contexts of school­
ing and knowledge of how to teach (Hordern, 2021; Hudson et al., 2023). However, developing these
8 J. RO

types of knowledge alone is insufficient for teachers to enact PK. As discussed in this section,
curriculum making and teaching is a complex process that must consider who defines the knowl­
edge and for what purpose, how the knowledge is transformed into teachable content and realized
through classroom teaching and the various factors that influence the process. Due to this complex­
ity, developing teacher capacity is crucial but is not the only requirement for realizing PK. To exert an
impact on teachers’ practice, PPK should resonate with the context of teaching and be relevant to
the actual practice of teachers (Barrett & Hordern, 2021; Furlong & Whitty, 2017). In this regard, it
would be beneficial to investigate additional ideas from the literature on TP to understand what is
necessary to support teachers’ realization of PK in varied classroom contexts.

Connecting ideas of TP for enacting PK

In this section, I discuss ideas from the key literature on TP by relating it to the issue of the enactment
of PK and considering the relationship with and the impact of macro context of schooling on
teachers’ practice (Barrett & Hordern, 2021; Gericke et al., 2018; Hordern, 2021).

Changing notion of professionalism towards managerialism

In the literature, professionalism is thought to be a fluid, contested concept whose meaning is
continuously redefined by different groups for different purposes (Evans, 2008; Ro, 2020; Sachs,
2016). Traditionally, professionalism is viewed as a result of years of training and experience and is
typically accompanied by a licence. Through training, professionals develop their professional
identities, forge collegial bonds and mature as members of the profession (Evetts, 2009, 2011). To
fully utilize their specialized knowledge and skills, it is necessary to have faith in their intentions,
professional discretion and judgement while minimizing external oversight of their work. Evetts
(2011) states that the nature of professionalism, which is characterized by trust in professional
autonomy and discretion, is defined as ‘professionalism as an occupational value’ (p. 409) or
occupational professionalism (p. 411), which represents the original meaning and significance of
professionalism.
Nonetheless, a significant shift is discernible in the term as the organizational context in which
professionals operate is increasingly governed by organizational managers (e.g. policy makers).
According to Evetts (2009), these managers create and utilize a particular discourse of professionalism
for ‘occupational change and control’ (p. 22) and use it to regulate the professionals in their
organizations. Evidently, the discourse is constructed and imposed ‘from above’ (Evetts, 2009,
p. 22), and it ‘rationalise[s], reorganise[s], contain[s] and control[s]’ professionals and their work
(Evetts, 2011, p. 410). When professionalism is understood as such a discourse, it is useful for
managers to discipline professionals by promoting and imposing specific conceptions of profession­
alism in organizational contexts to serve their intended change. Therefore, professionalism in this
sense is ‘ideological’ (Evetts, 2011, p. 410). This organisational professionalism (Evetts, 2009, p. 23) is
gaining strong influence in many countries and it is replacing the autonomy and self-regulation that
practitioners in many professions, including the teaching profession, used to enjoy (Ball, 2003; Evetts,
2011; Holloway & Brass, 2018; Ro, 2020).
In the teaching profession, the aforementioned changes in the concept of professionalism and
their effects on teachers’ work are typically explained using the concept of managerial professional­
ism. As a synonym of organizational professionalism, it legitimizes a set of specific teacher knowl­
edge, skills, values and practices, which are then reinforced by a variety of policy mandates to
increase teacher accountability and effectiveness (Ball, 2003; Mockler, 2013; Ro, 2020; Sachs, 2001).
For example, in England and several other countries, the emergence of the performativity regime in
the education system has contributed to the determination of teacher quality based on measurable
criteria and outputs that are externally defined by policymakers (Appel, 2020; Ball, 2003; Frostenson
& Englund, 2020; Hardy & Lewis, 2017). Ball (2003) argues that performativity is not only a policy tool
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 9

for organizational change but also mechanisms for reforming teachers for changing what it means to
be a teacher, and thus, producing ‘new kinds of teacher subjects’ (p. 217). Policymakers of an
educational system have primarily developed, shaped and utilized such a discourse to control
teachers and derive the intended change of their practice and the system (Evetts, 2011).
Therefore, professionalism in this sense is also instrumental given that it is defined and formulated
externally by powerful groups in the society with specific intentions, needs and regulatory authority
over teachers.

Transformative TP for curriculum enactment

When teachers attempt to enact PK, managerial professionalism is a critical source of tension
because in this conception, teachers are primarily expected to execute effective curriculum imple­
mentation, rather than actively interpreting and enacting the curriculum (Gerrard & Farrell, 2014;
Mockler, 2013). In this case, teachers’ professional autonomy is conceived as limited to their decision
making on effective pedagogy but not the content (Gerrard & Farrell, 2014). For teachers to enact the
PK, they require profound professional autonomy and capacity in making good professional judge­
ment (Deng, 2021, 2022). Teachers should determine the purpose of teaching considering the
students, subject requirements and the regulative discourse and decide appropriate form of knowl­
edge, pedagogy and lesson activities (Gericke et al., 2018; Hordern, 2021). The exercise of such
a professional judgement is the core of transformative professionalism advocated by various grass­
roots scholars and practitioners against managerial professionalism (Biesta, 2015; Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012; Mockler, 2005).
Judgements are always made in new situations and play a central role in teaching (Biesta, 2015); thus,
professional learning is critical, such that teachers can make good judgements for curriculum enactment.
In transformative professionalism, teacher development has two major areas, namely, functional devel­
opment (i.e. focuses on improving teacher performance) and attitudinal development (i.e. centring on
transforming teachers’ attitudes and commitment; Evans, 2008). Ideally, an increase in the professional
judgement of teachers would result from the harmonious development of both areas. However,
managerial professionalism tends to focus on functional development alone using various tools that
are claimed to produce visible results (Evans, 2008; Mockler, 2005; Ro, 2020). Although this may result in
some improvement of TP, it would have little effect on attitudinal development (Evans, 2008).
In the conception of transformative TP, teachers take charge of their professional learning by
continually questioning and articulating the purpose of the work in their own contexts. They also
reconstruct subject knowledge and pedagogical skills in relation to the context of teaching and the
broader political and social context that influences teaching, which is crucial for enacting PK
(Hordern, 2021; Mockler, 2005). This aspect indicates the significance of attitudinal development,
because compelling teachers to change ‘against their will’ is impossible (Evans, 2008, p. 33). The
acceptance, willingness and dedication of teachers to change are contingent on their attitudes
instead of external policy mandates. Thus, encouraging the independent thought and action of
teachers is vital for fostering their motivation to alter their attitudes and practices. In this respect,
supporters of transformative TP emphasize the self-regulation of professional learning and profes­
sionalism of teachers instead of relying on external authorities (Evans, 2008; Mockler, 2013; Sachs,
2001, 2016), which echoes Evetts’s (2011) definition of occupational professionalism. When teachers
achieve functional and attitudinal development, they can grow into ‘socially, politically and educa­
tionally aware teachers’ who can enact PK through their high level of professionalism and commit­
ment ‘for the benefit of students and wider society’ (Hordern, 2021, p. 604).

The gap between demanded and enacted professionalism

The concept of professionalism has altered in numerous education systems, from the recognition of
professionals’ discretion and self-regulation to an instrumental discourse aimed at controlling and
10 J. RO

deriving intended changes in their practices (Evetts, 2009, 2011). Nevertheless, it does not mean that
only two types of contrasting TP exist. According to Evans (2008), professionalism is the ‘amalgam’
(p. 26) of the diverse professionalities of individual teachers (i.e. ‘an ideologically-, attitudinally-,
intellectually- and epistemologically-based stance on the part of an individual, in relation to the
practice of the profession to which s/he belongs and which influences her/his professional practice’;
Evans, 2002, pp. 6–7). She indicates that TP ‘must reflect the reality [emphasis in original] of daily
practices’, and in this sense, differentiates ‘demanded’ or ‘prescribed’ professionalism from ‘enacted’
professionalism, which suggests that only enacted professionalism reflects reality. Although policy­
makers promote a certain conception of professionalism as desirable, such demanded and pre­
scribed professionalism does not automatically result in the desired changes due to the varying
levels and types of professionalism enacted in different contexts. In this regard, a disparity exist
between the demanded professionalism imposed from above and the enacted professionalism by
teachers.
Nevertheless, the existing gap between the two types of professionalism does not necessarily
mean that teachers would eagerly accept transformative professionalism. The reason is that the
diverse professionalities of individual teachers would result in varied ways of enacted professional­
ism. To support teachers’ enactment of PK, it is, thus, essential to relate this work with the notion of
professionalism that could truly help teachers realize the power of knowledge. Such professionalism
could then inform teachers how to approach their professional learning and practice for enacting it.
As Furlong and Whitty (2017) point out, merely focusing on the types of teacher knowledge, skills or
competences would not help much teachers’ practice of PK. What is needed is a more comprehen­
sive and dynamic notion of professionalism that could support powerful teacher professional
learning and enactment of PK. The ideas discussed in this section suggest that understanding the
political nature of TP, the significance of the functional and attitudinal development of teachers and
the gap between demanded and enacted professionalism are crucial in considering TP for PK.

Three Requirements for Enacting TP for PK

In this article, I contend that the transformation/recontextualisation process is essential for teachers
to enact PK and, for this reason, extensive TP is required. As proposed by the concepts of transfor­
mation/recontextualisation, I also contend that the role and capacity of teachers relating to PK
should not be limited to the area of how to teach but should encompass the entire process of
curriculum making and teaching. Teachers must use their PPK on curriculum, subject and educa­
tional knowledge, as well as their understanding of students, to make the best decisions at each
stage and occurrence in the process of cultivating students’ power (Hordern, 2021). In this regard,
the ideas of transformative professionalism can be engaged well with the concepts of PK, transfor­
mation/recontextualisation and PPK, given that they share the emphasis on teacher autonomy and
professional judgement as well as the significance of both functional and attitudinal development
for enacting good judgement (Deng, 2022; Evans, 2008; Hordern, 2021; Mockler, 2013).
Nevertheless, as Evans (2008) indicates, transformative professionalism is an ‘idea’ of TP. If it is not
enacted, it never becomes a reality and loses its significance and meaning. Therefore, it is more
important to ask how and in what ways this professionalism can be enacted in different contexts and
how the concept can become a reality that leads to students’ development of power. Instead of
simply concluding transformative professionalism as ‘the’ professionalism for enacting PK, I propose
that for the curriculum enactment of teachers in diverse contexts, three requirements concerning TP
have to be met based on the discussion in this article: first, there needs to be a national curriculum
grounded in the principles of PK and transformation/recontextualisation; second, the demanded
professionalism needs to be altered in accordance to the ideas of PK and transformation/recontex­
tualisation; and finally, teachers’ autonomous and collective professional learning to make good
judgement for realizing PK is required. In this section, I elaborate on each component sequentially,
however, it is essential to recognize that they are interdependent and complement one another.
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 11

The first requirement is a national curriculum based on PK and transformation/recontextualisation

principles. Young (2013) originally stated that the national curriculum provides a common knowl­
edge base for all students (p. 110); consequently, it is preferable to include only the key concepts of
the subjects. In this manner, he intended to grant individual teachers the freedom to adapt the
curriculum to their respective contexts. Later, Muller and Young (2019) recommend including ‘sign­
posts’ (p. 210) in the curriculum that informs the structure and organizing principles of the subjects
to further guide teachers’ practice of PK. However, scholars of transformation/recontextualisation
indicate that merely including PK and its organizing principle in the curriculum is not enough to aid
teachers in approaching and addressing the potency of content for their respective students (Deng,
2021; Gericke et al., 2018). The curriculum should provide additional guidelines and information to
support teachers sufficiently in comprehending the potential of content, as well as diverse
approaches and methods for addressing it through teaching (Deng, 2021). Without providing such
‘generally understood educational principles’ (Hordern, 2021, p. 603), teachers would be confused
about what approaches to take and what to choose among the various ways that exist from different
sources. Without adequate information in the curriculum to support teachers’ transformation/
recontextualisation, teachers’ capacities for enacting good judgement to realize the power of
content are severely limited.
In addition to the national curriculum grounded in the principles of PK and transformation/
recontextualisation, it is essential to alter the current conception of TP, especially the demanded
professionalism that largely reflects a managerial perspective. Otherwise, the powerful curriculum is
unlikely to be fully realized because teachers’ enactment would be constantly interrupted by the
regulations and mandates of the demanded professionalism that are inconsistent with the curricu­
lum. Instead of prescribing an externally formulated professionalism incompatible with the curricu­
lum, a notion of professionalism should be developed responsive to the ideas of PK and
transformation/recontextualisation. This would require collective rethinking and reformulating of
TP with key stakeholders—including teachers—by considering the national curriculum and seeking
teachers’ collaboration and empathy. In this way, policy regulations or tools can be designed in
accordance with the national curriculum grounded in the principles of PK and transformation/
recontextualisation, which could hopefully empower teachers’ autonomous and creative curriculum
enactment rather than forcing their compliance.
Developing the national curriculum and the notion of TP corresponding to PK is essential to
support curriculum enactment, yet they do not directly derive teachers’ change in practices. Thus,
the last requirement, professional learning is vital to elicit teachers’ realization of PK. Despite
a national curriculum and the notion of TP established that is responsive to the PK, there could
still be much variance in teachers’ capacities in actual practices. This is why professional learning that
is consistent with the national curriculum and the notion of TP and that considers the significance of
both attitudinal and functional development (Evans, 2008) is crucial. Ideally, this could be facilitated
through teachers’ collaborative, critical inquiry (Mockler, 2013; Sachs, 2001, 2016), where they could
collectively address and balance policy and school demands, students’ needs and their own deter­
mination of educational meaning and purpose. Apparently, the change in two other elements—the
curriculum and the notion of demanded TP—would promote such professional learning. Similarly,
the enhanced professional learning of teachers would contribute to curricular change and the
enactment of professionalism towards every student’s acquisition of PK. In this manner, the three
elements could work in synergy to support teachers’ realization of PK.

Conclusion
In this article, I aimed to examine and elucidate the enactment of PK by linking it to the
relevant ideas of TP based on the recognition that there has been a lack of attention to this
issue despite the significance of teachers’ roles and capacities in curriculum enactment to
cultivate students’ power. I indicate that Young’s (2014a, 2014b) separation of curriculum and
12 J. RO

teaching is not applicable in schools because it does not consider the interrelatedness of
national curriculum with classroom curriculum and teaching, and the conception may confine
TP as limited to how to teach. The transformation/recontextualisation process addresses these
problems well by linking curriculum and teaching and expanding teachers’ role from curricu­
lum deliverers to curriculum makers through their critical inquiry into the knowledge and
politics of schooling. Drawing on TP scholarship, I establish the argument that in addition to
enhancing individual teachers’ capacities, it is necessary to have a national curriculum
grounded in the principles of PK and transformation/recontextualisation and to alter the
current notion of demanded professionalism that largely reflects a managerial perspective.
Teachers would be supported in realizing PK and make significant changes in students’ lives
when the triad of the national curriculum, the notion of professionalism and autonomous
professional learning are achieved and works in harmony.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by Sungkyunkwan University.

ORCID
Jina Ro http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-483X

References
Appel, M. (2020). Performativity and the demise of the teaching profession: The need for rebalancing in Australia. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1644611
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate. Policy Press.
Barrett, B., & Hordern, J. (2021). Rethinking the foundations: Towards powerful professional knowledge in teacher
education in the USA and England. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.
2021.1887359
Beck, J. (2013). Powerful knowledge, esoteric knowledge, curriculum knowledge. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(2),
177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.767880
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity. Rowman & Littlefield.
Biesta, G. (2005). Against learning. Nordisk Pedagogik, 25(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-5949-2005-01-06
Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism.
European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109
Carlgren, I. (2020). Powerful knowns and powerful knowings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3), 323–336. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1717634
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College
Press.
Deng, Z. (2015). Content, Joseph Schwab and German Didaktik. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 773–786. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1090628
Deng, Z. (2021). PK, transformations and Didaktik/curriculum thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6),
1652–1674. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3748
Deng, Z. (2022). Powerful knowledge, educational potential and knowledge-rich curriculum: Pushing the boundaries.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(5), 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2089538
Evans, L. (2002). Reflective practice in educational research. A&C Black.
Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 56(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00392.x
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 13

Evetts, J. (2009). The management of professionalism: A contemporary paradox. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, &
A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 19–30).
Routledge.
Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406–422. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0011392111402585
Frostenson, M., & Englund, H. (2020). Teachers, performative techniques and professional values: How performativity
becomes humanistic through interplay mechanisms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(6), 695–710. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0305764X.2020.1761943
Furlong, J., & Whitty, G. (2017). Knowledge traditions in the study of education. In J. Furlong & G. Whitty (Eds.),
Knowledge and the study of education: An international exploration (pp. 13–57). Symposium Books Ltd.
Gericke, N., Hudson, B., Olin-Scheller, C., & Stolare, M. (2018). PK, transformations and the need for empirical studies
across school subjects. London Review of Education, 16(3), 428–444. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.3.06
Gerrard, J., & Farrell, L. (2014). Remaking the professional teacher: Authority and curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 46(5), 634–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.854410
Hardy, I., & Lewis, S. (2017). The ‘doublethink’of data: Educational performativity and the field of schooling practices.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(5), 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1150155
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
Holloway, J., & Brass, J. (2018). Making accountable teachers: The terrors and pleasures of performativity. Journal of
Education Policy, 33(3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1372636
Hordern, J. (2021). Recontextualisation and the teaching of subjects. The Curriculum Journal, 32(4), 592–606. https://doi.
org/10.1002/curj.110
Hudson, B., Gericke, N., Olin-Scheller, C., & Stolare, M. (2023). Trajectories of powerful knowledge and epistemic quality:
Analysing the transformations from disciplines across school subjects. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 55(2), 119–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2182164
Lambert, D., & Biddulph, M. (2015). The dialogic space offered by curriculum-making in the process of learning to teach,
and the creation of a progressive knowledge-led curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 210–224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.934197
Lambert, D., Solem, M., & Tani, S. (2015). Achieving human potential through geography education: A capabilities
approach to curriculum making in schools. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(4), 723–735.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1022128
Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Baroutsis, A. (2015). Researching the habitus of global policy actors in education. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 45(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.988686
McEneaney, E. H. (2015). Finding knowledge on the internet: Implications for the knowledge-driven curriculum. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 802–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1089941
McPhail, G., & Rata, E. (2016). Comparing curriculum types: ‘powerful knowledge’ and ‘21st century learning’. New
Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0025-9
Mockler, N. (2005). Trans/Forming teachers: New professional learning and transformative teacher professionalism.
Journal of In-Service Education, 31(4), 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580500200380
Mockler, N. (2013). Teacher professional learning in a neoliberal age: Audit, professionalism and identity. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.8
Moore, R. (2013). Social realism and the problem of the problem of knowledge in the sociology of education. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.714251
Morgan, J. (2015). Michael Young and the politics of the school curriculum. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(1),
5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.983044
Muller, J. (2023). Powerful knowledge, disciplinary knowledge, curriculum knowledge: Educational knowledge in
question. International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education, 32(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10382046.2022.2058349
Muller, J., & Young, M. (2019). Knowledge, power and powerful knowledge re-visited. The Curriculum Journal, 30(2),
196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1570292
Nordgren, K. (2017). PK, intercultural learning and history education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(5), 663–682.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2017.1320430
Rata, E. (2012). The politics of knowledge in education. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 103–124. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01411926.2011.615388
Rata, E. (2017). Knowledge and teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 43(5), 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/
berj.3301
Rata, E., McPhail, G., & Barrett, B. (2019). An engaging pedagogy for an academic curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 30
(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1557535
Ro, J. (2020). Curriculum, standards and professionalisation: The policy discourse on teacher professionalism in
Singapore Teaching and Teacher Education. 91, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103056
Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy,
16(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930116819
14 J. RO

Sachs, J. (2016). Teacher professionalism: Why are we still talking about it? Teachers & Teaching Theory & Practice, 22(4),
413–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1082732
Spring, J. (2010). The politics of American education. Routledge.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences:
Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220272.2012.668938
Wheelahan, L. (2007). How competency‐based training locks the working class out of PK: A modified bernsteinian
analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701505540
Young, M. (2009). What are schools for? In H. Daniels, H. Lauder, & J. Porter (Eds.), Knowledge, values and educational
policy: A critical perspective (pp. 10–18). Routledge.
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 45(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505
Young, M. (2014a). Knowledge, curriculum and the future school. In M. Young, D. Lambert, C. Roberts, & M. Roberts
(Eds.), Knowledge and the future school: Curriculum and social justice (pp. 9–40). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Young, M. (2014b). Why start with the curriculum? In M. Young, D. Lambert, C. Roberts, & M. Roberts (Eds.), Knowledge
and the future school: Curriculum and social justice (pp. 41–64). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1(3), 229–250. https://doi.org/
10.1002/rev3.3017