是由明确的具有规范力的课程标准来指导教材的编撰,还是继续教材与课程标准的高度重合,或者干脆由教材回溯和追认课程标准的“权威”?面对这些选择,上海的课程改革进退失据,近乎搁浅。于是,意识形态的正确与否,代替了课程生产方式如何更新的问题,成了后续改革中新一轮的假命题,并就此遮蔽了由改革的实践过程揭示出来的历史课程改革的现实困境。 Is the guidance of the compilation of textbooks by explicit norms of curriculum standards, or the continuation of textbooks and curriculum standards of a high degree of coincidence, or simply by the textbook backtracking and ratification of curriculum standards “authority ”? Faced with these options, the Shanghai curriculum The reform has made a mistake and is almost stranded. Therefore, whether the ideology is correct or not replaces how the curriculum production mode is updated becomes a new round of false propositions in the follow-up reform, and thus obscures the real predicament of the reform in the history curriculum as revealed by the practice of reform.