THE MAL‐ADMINISTRATION OF INNOVATION

Recent reviews of the curriculum development programmes initiated both in Britain and the United States suggest that they have largely failed to achieve their objectives. This failure has been seen by many to be the responsibility of the centre periphery (CP) model on which most of these programmes were based. In this paper it is argued that the criticisms made of the model fail to distinguish between two distinct stages of curriculum development—materials production and materials distribution. It is suggested that it is the latter which has failed, because the CP model, in Britain at least, has not been implemented effectively. Analysis of this weakness indicates that the problem lies mainly in the existing support agencies which tend to function in isolation, insulated one from another. It is argued that a more articulated pattern of curriculum development would be possible in both Britain and Australia if there were greater institutional overlap between these agencies and if curriculum development were rationalised on a national basis. Suggestions are made as to how this might be effected against a background of innovatory experience both in Britain and Australia.