Teachers in a rural district just beyond the fringe of Melbourne were interviewed in relation to their experiences with the implementation of the Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE) learning area of the Victorian Curriculum and Standards Framework policy of 1995. Contrary to the common perception that teachers resist or subvert change, the subjects of this research were found, on the whole, to be willing implementers who gave their best efforts in attempting to put the policy into action, in the way they believed the policy-makers wanted it to work. However, the policy itself was disseminated in such a way that there was no clear ' intended' version that teachers could simply install into practice. Rather, individuals and schools had to make judgments and interpretations about the way the policy was expected to work in relation to assessment and reporting, teaching and learning, comprehensiveness, and transition between primary and secondary levels of schooling. As a result, the policy may not have been implemented in the way the policy-makers intended, in terms of accountability, content, and quality. While initially the technological, political, and cultural perspectives provided useful ways to understand the processes of implementation and change, further perspectives including the rational, organisational, normative, and symbolic gave a sharper picture and highlighted tensions between policy-makers and practitioners (top and bottom), and fidelity and adaptation. The multiple perspective view also illuminated the three way pull of interests between the responsibility of the institution, as against the accountability of the teacher, as against the interests of the child. The research suggests that a curriculum and standards framework can be an effective policy instrument in school settings to which significant powers have been devolved. The implication is that as well as the need for policies to be comprehensive, coherent, and clear before they are disseminated, close attention must be given to professional learning and development. The findings suggest that a government seeking to improve the quality of education would have more success by developing the professional capacities of teachers rather than by attempting to control or coerce teacher behaviour. A new curriculum policy can be seen as an 'opportunity to learn', with practitioners building the knowledge, skills, and understandings needed to implement the policy from within the bounds of the shared expertise of their professional organisations.