proactive to challenges; being creative; being willing to take risks and to diverge; and reflecting critically on potential lines of develop-ment, with the children. Conclusion Curriculum making is the translation of and transition from school cur-riculum directions, requirements and schemes into classroom lessons. It is a loose rather than tight approach providing for evolving lesson planning and activities. It is exploratory and discretionary while having direction, works within a timescale rather than to a timetable, is based on proactive thinking and decision-making, and is rational, justifiable and defendable. Curriculummaking is proactive and enactive, is purposeful, engaging and rigorous, and is flexible and open to justified divergence. It requires thor-ough reflection on and evaluation of its process and its practice, with the children, to enable progress in their learning and in teachers’ teaching. Curriculum making returns agency to primary teachers as professional decision-makers in their own classrooms, while engaging children’s agency in their learning. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, this study has supported the centrality of the principal elements of curriculum making: the vitality of teachers’ subject knowledge, the value and importance of children’s subject-related experience and developing understanding, and the role which teachers’ pedagogic knowledge and choices play. Its limitation is that it expresses this support only from a small-scale investigation of teachers’ perspectives on their experience. Yet this is an aspect of recent study in curriculum making which has been under-pursued. Future studies need to engage more with the practices of curriculum making, both teachers’ and children’s, to explore further, even chal-lenge, findings that have been noted here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, while undertaken with confident teachers, the Young Geographers Project has provided insights which stress the potential of an open and inclusive approach to medium-term planning in the classroom. It has identified a number of aspects which might be investigated further through curriculum making as praxis. In an evolving curriculum con-text in primary schools (Oates, James, Pollard, & Wiliam, 2011) these aspects might be useful to take into account in developing practice within what may at the same time be both a directed and a more open primary curriculum environment. Acknowledgements

DOI link for proactive to challenges; being creative; being willing to take risks and to diverge; and reflecting critically on potential lines of develop-ment, with the children. Conclusion Curriculum making is the translation of and transition from school cur-riculum directions, requirements and schemes into classroom lessons. It is a loose rather than tight approach providing for evolving lesson planning and activities. It is exploratory and discretionary while having direction, works within a timescale rather than to a timetable, is based on proactive thinking and decision-making, and is rational, justifiable and defendable. Curriculummaking is proactive and enactive, is purposeful, engaging and rigorous, and is flexible and open to justified divergence. It requires thor-ough reflection on and evaluation of its process and its practice, with the children, to enable progress in their learning and in teachers’ teaching. Curriculum making returns agency to primary teachers as professional decision-makers in their own classrooms, while engaging children’s agency in their learning. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, this study has supported the centrality of the principal elements of curriculum making: the vitality of teachers’ subject knowledge, the value and importance of children’s subject-related experience and developing understanding, and the role which teachers’ pedagogic knowledge and choices play. Its limitation is that it expresses this support only from a small-scale investigation of teachers’ perspectives on their experience. Yet this is an aspect of recent study in curriculum making which has been under-pursued. Future studies need to engage more with the practices of curriculum making, both teachers’ and children’s, to explore further, even chal-lenge, findings that have been noted here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, while undertaken with confident teachers, the Young Geographers Project has provided insights which stress the potential of an open and inclusive approach to medium-term planning in the classroom. It has identified a number of aspects which might be investigated further through curriculum making as praxis. In an evolving curriculum con-text in primary schools (Oates, James, Pollard, & Wiliam, 2011) these aspects might be useful to take into account in developing practice within what may at the same time be both a directed and a more open primary curriculum environment. Acknowledgements

proactive to challenges; being creative; being willing to take risks and to diverge; and reflecting critically on potential lines of develop-ment, with the children. Conclusion Curriculum making is the translation of and transition from school cur-riculum directions, requirements and schemes into classroom lessons. It is a loose rather than tight approach providing for evolving lesson planning and activities. It is exploratory and discretionary while having direction, works within a timescale rather than to a timetable, is based on proactive thinking and decision-making, and is rational, justifiable and defendable. Curriculummaking is proactive and enactive, is purposeful, engaging and rigorous, and is flexible and open to justified divergence. It requires thor-ough reflection on and evaluation of its process and its practice, with the children, to enable progress in their learning and in teachers’ teaching. Curriculum making returns agency to primary teachers as professional decision-makers in their own classrooms, while engaging children’s agency in their learning. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, this study has supported the centrality of the principal elements of curriculum making: the vitality of teachers’ subject knowledge, the value and importance of children’s subject-related experience and developing understanding, and the role which teachers’ pedagogic knowledge and choices play. Its limitation is that it expresses this support only from a small-scale investigation of teachers’ perspectives on their experience. Yet this is an aspect of recent study in curriculum making which has been under-pursued. Future studies need to engage more with the practices of curriculum making, both teachers’ and children’s, to explore further, even chal-lenge, findings that have been noted here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, while undertaken with confident teachers, the Young Geographers Project has provided insights which stress the potential of an open and inclusive approach to medium-term planning in the classroom. It has identified a number of aspects which might be investigated further through curriculum making as praxis. In an evolving curriculum con-text in primary schools (Oates, James, Pollard, & Wiliam, 2011) these aspects might be useful to take into account in developing practice within what may at the same time be both a directed and a more open primary curriculum environment. Acknowledgements