An important debate in curriculum research is that over the merits of more prescriptive versus more flexible curricula. This paper draws on two case studies–one from Aotearoa New Zealand’s high-autonomy curricular environment and the other from a more centralised environment in New South Wales, Australia–to advance understanding of the affordances and limitations of these two types of contexts for teacher practice. Biesta’s (2021) notion of ‘world-centred education’ is used as an ideal against which to assess teacher curriculum making within each curricular ecosystem. Findings suggest that both flexibility and prescription have distinct benefits and limitations. Flexibility may foster attention to students’ unique contexts, but risk de-emphasising important knowledge, sufficient challenge and breadth of content, while prescription can support consistency but lead to ‘curriculum overload’ and constrain deeper engagement with material. Rather than advocating for one model over another, this paper calls for a nuanced approach to curriculum that recognises the need for a ‘balance point’ between flexibility and standardisation. Seeking this balance point will help sustain teacher professionalism and empower responsive teachers.
