**6. Curriculum as a policy instrument**

The GERM was pushed as policy mandates through the Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) model and it subsequent OBE curricular (OBC), [3]. A curriculum contains courses planned for studies in education systems [2]. However, that view, is narrow, as curriculum designs have inbuilt variables for understanding; before implementation can proceed. For instance: Curriculum aims, theoretical underpinnings of education model, teaching and learning theories, and developers' intentions are few examples that illustrate a curriculum is not a single entity but contains processes that would need unpacking for clarity [2, 11]. As caution, subjective interpretations of policy curricula can happen during classroom implementation [1, 24]. Hence, that may impede continuation of reform processes.

According to literature, curriculum changes arise when there are perceived needs and, subsequently, curriculum reforms are undertaken with aims for improvement [11]. However, implementing a large scale curriculum change is not simple and straight-forward, but is a highly complex phenomenon [2]. For instance, Hall and Irving [23] noted in the New Zealand context that having a curriculum that is mandated to operate based on valid sound research could still have problems, if the policy makers, experts and practitioners are not working together to ensure that the curriculum (or curriculum innovation) not only "operates" but actually "works"; the distinction between "operating" and "working" draws attention to the need to ensure that the goals of the reform curriculum are achieved.

Furthermore, Markee [16] argues that implementing curriculum change is not just mandating policy for practices, but includes pedagogical changes to classroom practices, and; that possibly requires new teaching and testing approaches, involve new materials/resources, and possibly see alterations in teachers' belief systems. Markee's views show that curriculum change is complex and having one curriculum model (OBC) being championed globally can be problematic as the outcome can swing the other way as not expected. Furthermore, sometimes the intended meanings of curriculum developers may not be clearly understood by teachers who also have personalised teaching beliefs [5, 22] and this could impede practice, as Hall and Irving [23] observed in the New Zealand context. In closing, initiators of curriculum change would need to give close attention to teachers as they are vital for implementing in the classrooms any mandated reform agenda.
