We have seen how, in the context of national initiatives on the curriculum and examinations, some of the expectations of industry and government have not been realized because of the continuing strength of old humanist traditions, particularly associated with the universities. We have also seen that the public educators, and especially the teaching profession, have been much less successful in sustaining their own definition of the situation at that level. However, it is important not to discount entirely the role of the teaching profession in sustaining definitions of curricular knowledge, even if it is clear that it is now less dominant than during the era of social democratic consensus, or when Eggleston (1975) claimed that ‘teachers’ own consciousness' was probably more significant in that process than curriculum development agencies or school examination boards. Particularly in a devolved system of education like that in England, but even in more centralized systems (Broadfoot 1983), teachers retain considerable power to resist curricular initiatives at the point of implementation. This is especially significant where professional power becomes articulated with that of a powerful interest group outside the school. Thus, one of the reasons why old humanist traditions have retained their strength in England lies in the fact that they are both closely articulated with the wider cultural values of British society (Wiener 1981) and highly influential within the professional culture of the teaching profession. In particular, such values dominate the high status sectors of the 148profession and, as Goodson (1983) points out, the road to status, power and resources for school subjects and their teachers conventionally involves the adoption of academic values at the expense of utilitarian or pedagogic ones. In defending their view of the curriculum, then, the old humanists have had considerable tacit support from within the teaching profession.