区县课程实施的多主体治理是我国基础教育课程高质量发展的管理变革需要，其实施意愿和能力关系到基础教育课程方案的有效落实和教育优质均衡发展。现实中的区县课程实施面临着多主体协同治理意愿、能力差异显著的困境，亟待把区县课程实施的治理问题理论化，探明区县课程实施的治理属性及其治理成功的过程与影响因素。

以往课程实施研究侧重国家、学校和教师主体，区县作为实施主体的研究相对匮乏。对区县的研究侧重从实施主体的心理认知能力和社会文化资本理论来解释区县课程实施差距，缺乏从区县课程实施治理主体结构、对象、方式和条件的理论解释，难以回应区县课程实施的治理实践困境与变革要求。

基于区县课程实施的治理困境，运用政策管理学中的治理理论和课程实施领域的课程决定理论，本研究侧重回答区县课程实施活动的治理实践本质、特征、目的、功能定位及其善治所需的主体、客体、机制与条件问题。

本研究以历史唯物主义的实践方法论为指导，运用理论思辨与案例实证相结合的研究方法。理论上，本研究综合治理理论和课程决定理论，构建区县课程实施的治理概念与“对象-主体-机制-条件”的治理四维分析框架。在实证方面，本研究有目的地抽取三个课程实施先进区县为研究案例，访谈区县行政、科研、实践工作者和其他参与者，收集区县课程实施政策文件、课程方案等实物资料，实地观察课程实施的相关会议、活动，获得计150万字左右的实证材料，以验证上述的治理概念、分析框架并对本土区县课程实施的成效差异做出了治理观念、过程与条件的解释。本研究的观点和结论如下：

1.区县课程实施并非国家课程方案与学校课程实践之间的中转传达，而是行政、科研、实践等多主体协同的、课程再决定的治理实践。区县课程实施的治理实践具备中观情境性、专业协同性和复杂系统性的特征，其目的在于实现区县课程的有效治理即善治。善治表征为课程实施结果的优质均衡和实施过程的共治共赢。案例实证表明，区县课程实施的成效与其实施观存在关系。课程实施较成功的区县摒弃了课程实施的忠实执行观和资源决定论，确立了行政、科研、实践三驾马车协同治理的、能动的课程实施观。

2.区县课程实施的善治需要将与课程育人实践紧密耦合的条件要素作为治理对象。区县课程实施的治理不是代替学校和教师实施课程，而是将区县空间内育人实践生成的共同条件和背景作为治理对象。这些条件和背景是区县能动治理的结果，其本质特征是与育人实践紧密耦合，关系到教师实施课程的意愿、权力和能力。区县课程实施的治理对象包括课程话语、权力关系和中介材料三种课程育人实践的条件要素。区县对上述要素的治理之所以与国家、学校不同，表现为政策话语与实践话语的交界、正式关系与非正式关系的重叠以及规范性材料与支持性材料的共同作用。证据表明，取得治理成效的区县通过对育人实践条件和背景的治理，为课程向课堂能动地转化创造了条件。

3.区县课程实施的善治需要行政、科研、实践三驾马车的主体协同关系。治理对象的复杂性需要区县行政、科研和实践三类权力主体分别承担课程实施的资本识别和分配、知识生产和传播与实践生成和诠释三种实施职能。区县的治理结构可以区分为行政主导、科研支持、实践落实的管制性治理；科研主导、行政统筹、实践生成的调控型治理；实践主导、科研协同、行政支持的松散型治理；以及主体缺失或不协同的官僚型治理。证据表明，取得实施成效的区县都表现出三类主体对其各自课程实施事务的充分参与以及民主、合作的协同关系，且具备不同的治理类型所需的主体实施能力。

4.区县课程实施的善治需要经过课程的政策实践向育人实践转化的复杂机制。为了治理课程话语、权力关系和中介材料的要素，区县的治理机制包括合法化、制度化和材料化。治理工具是区县实施主体实现上述机制的集体行动的载体，其“硬”治理工具包括发布权威文件、授予正式身份和制定评价标准和工具，“软”治理工具包括允许示范、立项或授予非正式身份和提供培训与指导。案例表明，软治理工具鼓励并支持学校和教师的变革意愿，能够提高区域知识生产和传播的能力，但其需要区县实施主体能力的支持，且成效难以预计；硬治理工具有助于支持和引导与政策一致的课程育人实践，但也抑制了学校和教师的创造力，并且有可能加重实施的负担并造成问责下的成效分化。

5.区县课程实施的治理是治理主体在特定的情境条件下，能动地采用不同形式的治理工具组合，为课程向课堂的转化创造紧密耦合的条件，以实现善治目的的过程。情境条件包括区县的改革定位和地方资本条件。证据表明，对于资本条件优越、赋权充分、治理主体能力强的改革示范区，调控型治理有助于平衡改革意愿和实施者的能动性，能够综合使用两类工具，增进内部实践者变革的意愿与能力，提高区县在改革趋势中的话语权，但有可能导致内部的资源权力分配不均、实施成效分化；松散型治理倾向于软治理工具为主的组合，能够提高了治理网络的自动性并减轻变革负担，支持变革长期有序地扩散，但难以满足国家对示范区县的实践知识生产的要求。对于资本条件薄弱的远郊区县，管制型治理倾向于采用硬治理为主的工具组合，能够保持实施效率及其与改革的一致性，整合内部有限的资源用于实施的关键举措，但需要有力的政策和外部支持，且容易加重区县各级实施者的负担和抵抗情绪。

本研究建议，为了更好的实现国家课程政策的意图通过治理向育人成效的转化，建议课程研究者应深化课程实施不同层级空间的治理问题认识和理论创新，政策制定者应明确区县的课程实施治理权责并支持区县能动性的发展，区县实践者应发挥实施的治理主体性并参与善治的实践性知识生产。

Multi-subject governance of district curriculum implementation is a need for management change in the high-quality development of China's basic education curriculum, and its willingness and ability to implement is related to the effective implementation of the basic education curriculum program and the quality and balanced development of education. In reality, district curriculum implementation faces the dilemma of significant differences in the willingness and ability of multiple subjects to collaborate in governance, and there is an urgent need to theorize the governance of district curriculum implementation, and to explore the governance attributes of district curriculum implementation and the process and influencing factors of successful governance.

In the past, research on curriculum implementation has focused on the state, schools and teachers, and there is a relative lack of research on districts as implementation subjects. The research on districts focuses on the psychological and cognitive ability of the implementation subject and the theory of social and cultural capital to explain the gaps in district curriculum implementation, and lacks theoretical explanations of the structure, objects, modes and conditions of the governance subject of district curriculum implementation, which makes it difficult to respond to the dilemmas of the governance practice of district curriculum implementation and the requirements for change.

Based on the governance dilemma of district curriculum implementation, this study focuses on answering the questions of the nature of governance practice, characteristics, purpose, functional orientation of district curriculum implementation activities, and the subjects, objects, mechanisms and conditions necessary for its good governance by applying the governance theory in policy management and the curriculum making theory in the field of curriculum implementation.

This study is guided by the practical methodology of historical materialism and utilizes the research methodology of combining theoretical discourse with empirical evidence from cases. Theoretically, this study synthesizes governance theory and curriculum making theory to construct the governance concept of district curriculum implementation and the four-dimensional analytical framework of governance of "object-subject-mechanism-conditions". In terms of empirical evidence, this study purposely selects three districts with advanced curriculum implementation as research cases, interviews district administration, scientific research, practitioners and other participants, collects district curriculum implementation policy documents, curriculum programs and other physical materials, and observes meetings and activities related to curriculum implementation in the field, so as to obtain empirical materials amounting to about 1,500,000 words, in order to validate the above concept of governance, the analytical framework, and to make a judgment on the differences in effectiveness of the local districts' curriculum implementation in terms of governance concepts, mechanisms, and conditions. A explanation of governance concepts, processes and conditions is provided to explain the differences in the effectiveness of curriculum implementation in the local districts. The findings and conclusions of this study are as follows:

1. District curriculum implementation is not a transit conveyance between the national curriculum program and school curriculum practice, but a collaborative, curriculum re-making governance practice of administration, scientific research, practice and other subjects. The governance practice of district curriculum implementation is characterized by meso-situational, professional synergistic and complex systemic features, and its purpose is to achieve effective governance of the district curriculum, i.e. good governance. Good governance is characterized by a balanced quality of outcomes and a win-win process. Empirical evidence from the case studies suggests that there is a relationship between the effectiveness of a district's curriculum implementation and its view of implementation. Successful districts have abandoned the faithful implementation of the curriculum and resource determinism, and have established a dynamic view of curriculum implementation in which administration, research, and practice work together.

2. The good governance of the district's curriculum implementation needs to take the condition elements that are closely coupled with the curriculum's nurturing practices as the object of governance. The governance of district curriculum implementation is not to replace the implementation of the curriculum by schools and teachers, but to take the common conditions and backgrounds of the generation of nurturing practices in the district space as the object of governance. These conditions and contexts are the result of the district's dynamic governance, and their essential characteristic is that they are closely coupled with parenting practices and relate to teachers' willingness, power, and ability to implement the curriculum. The objects of governance of district curriculum implementation include three conditional elements of curriculum parenting practices: curriculum discourse, power relations, and mediating materials. What makes the district's governance of these elements different from that of the state and the school is manifested in the intersection of policy discourse and practice discourse, the overlap of formal and informal relationships, and the co-location of normative and supportive materials. Evidence suggests that districts that achieve governance effectiveness create the conditions for the curriculum to be translated dynamically into the classroom through the governance of the conditions and contexts of nurturing practices.

3. The good governance of district curriculum implementation requires a synergistic relationship between the subjects of administration, research and practice. The complexity of the object of governance requires the district administration, scientific research and practice of the three types of power subjects to undertake the implementation of the curriculum implementation of capital identification and distribution, knowledge production and dissemination and practice generation and interpretation of the three implementation functions. The district's governance structure can be differentiated into regulatory governance with administrative dominance, scientific research support, and practice implementation; regulatory governance with scientific research dominance, administrative coordination, and practice generation; loose governance with practice dominance, scientific research synergy, and administrative support; and bureaucratic governance with a lack of or no synergy between the subjects. The evidence suggests that districts that have achieved implementation success have demonstrated the full participation of all three types of actors in their respective curriculum implementation matters, as well as democratic, collaborative, and synergistic relationships, and the ability to implement the actors required for the different types of governance.

4. The good governance of district curriculum implementation needs to go through the complex mechanism of transforming curriculum policy practice into education practice. In order to govern the elements of curriculum discourse, power relations and intermediary materials, the governance mechanism of the district includes legalization, institutionalization and materialization. The "hard" governance tools include issuing authoritative documents, granting formal status and developing evaluation criteria and tools, while the "soft" governance tools include allowing demonstration, establishing projects or granting informal status and providing training and guidance. The case shows that soft governance tools encourage and support the willingness of schools and teachers to change, and can improve the regional capacity of knowledge production and dissemination, but it needs the support of the implementation body of the district and county, and the effectiveness is difficult to predict. Hard governance tools help to support and guide policy-consistent curriculum practices, but they also inhibit the creativity of schools and teachers, and can increase the burden of implementation and create disparities in the quality of education under accountability.

5. Governance of district curriculum implementation is the process by which the governing subjects dynamically employs a combination of different forms of governance tools under specific situational conditions to create tightly coupled conditions for the transformation of the curriculum into the classroom for the purpose of good governance. Contextual conditions include the district's reform orientation and local capital conditions. Evidence suggests that for reform demonstration districts with superior capital conditions, sufficient empowerment, and strong capacity of governance subjects, regulatory governance helps to balance the willingness to reform and implementer's agency, and is able to synthesize the use of both types of tools to enhance the willingness and capacity of internal practitioners to change and increase the district's voice in the reform trend, but is likely to lead to an uneven distribution of resources and power internally, and to divergence in the effectiveness of implementation; loose governance favors a A combination of mainly soft governance tools improves the automaticity of the governance network and reduces the burden of change, supporting the orderly diffusion of change in the long term, but it is difficult to satisfy the national requirements for the production of practical knowledge in the demonstration districts. For remote districts with weak capital conditions, regulatory governance favors a combination of hard governance-based tools that maintains the efficiency of implementation and its alignment with reforms, consolidates limited internal resources for key implementation initiatives, but requires strong policy and external support and tends to increase the burden and resistance of implementers at all levels in the districts.

This study suggests that in order to better realize the transformation of the intent of the national curriculum policy into parenting effectiveness through governance, it is recommended that curriculum researchers should deepen the understanding of governance issues and theoretical innovations at different levels of the curriculum implementation space, that policy makers should clarify the district's authority and responsibility for the governance of the implementation of the curriculum and support the development of district activism, and that district practitioners should play a role in the governance of the implementation of the subjective nature of the implementation and participate in the practical production of knowledge of good governance.