We see then the emergence of a definite pattern of prioritising of pupils through curriculum; what emerged I have called elsewhere "the triple alliance between academic subjects, academic examinations and able pupils". Working through patterns of resource allocation this means a process of pervasive 'academic drift' afflicts sub-groups promoting school subjects. Hence subjects as diverse as woodwork and metalwork, physical education, art, technical studies, book-keeping, needlework and domestic science have pursued status improvement by arguing for enhanced academic examinations and qualifications. In a way the evolution of each subject reflects in microcosm a struggle over alternatives over time which is not dissimular to the overall pattern discerned as State schooling is established and defined. Hence Layton sees the initial stage as one where 'the learners are attracted to the subject because of its bearing on matters of concern to them. At this point the teachers are seldom trained as subject specialists but do 'bring the missionary enthusiasms of pioneers to their task'. Significantly at this stage 'the dominant criterion is relevance to the needs and interests of the learners.' However as the subject "progresses" (a subject at any point in time resembling a coalition which veneers a sub-set of warring factions) the role of the universities becomes more and more important. This is not least because subject groups employ a discourse where they argue increasingly for their subject to be viewed as an 'academic discipline' (thereby claiming the financial resources and career opportunities which accrue). The corollary of this claim is the university scholars must be given control over defining the 'discipline' (the aspiration to the rhetoric of 'the discipline' is related to acceptance of this hierarchical pattern of definition so in this sense the discursive formation is critical). Jenkins has noted that:

one detects a certain embarrassment in teachers who not unnaturally feel the difference between forms, disciplines and subjects are in part differences of status".(12)

In effect the differences are over who can define 'disciplines' -essentially this is presented as the characteristic activity of university scholars.

The progressive refinement of an epistemology suited to State schooling then embraces the trilogy of pedagogy, curriculum and examination. Until recently a triple alliance of academic subjects, academic examinations and able students have been able to enjoy a clear hierarchy of status and resources. Thus our understanding of curriculum has to focus mainly on analysing the dominant convention of the school subject and the associated examination by university boards. The linking of resources to 'academic' subjects places a priority on subjects that can be presented as 'academic disciplines' and this places further power in the hands of the universities. Not that the power of the universities over curriculum is unchallenged, the challenges are recurrent. Reid has noted that a major area of conflict is 'between the external constraints arising from university requirements and the internal pressures which have their origins in the school:

Schools are, however, poorly equipped to resist university pressures. To a large extent they allow the legitimacy of the university demands, and have evolved an authority structure which is linked to them.(13)

Such recurrent conflict is of course likely as the school subjects 'progresses' away from Layton's early stage where 'the dominant criterion is relevance to the needs and interests of the learners'. But as we have seen an epistemology has been institutionalized and resourced which places the academic 'discipline' at the top of the curriculum apex. Not surprising the culminating stage in the establishment of an 'academic' subject celebrates the power of scholars to define the 'disciplines' field. In the last stage:

The selection of subject matter is determined in large measure by the judgements and practices of the specialist scholars who lead enquiries in the field. Students are initiated into a tradition, their attitudes approaching passivity and resignation, a prelude to disenchantment.(14)

The final stage of Layton's model summarises (and comments upon) the kind of political 'settlement' with regard to curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation currently in operation. Plainly however there are recurrent conflicts and the 'achievement' of this 'settlement' has been a painstaking and deeply contested process. It is important when assessing the contribution of scholars of education to establish how their work resonates with the contested nature of education generally and curriculum specifically. As always there is a danger of accepting that which is worked for and achieved as a fait accompli, a given. Nothing could be further from the truth.