If you ask people where “curriculum” is addressed in these standards, I expect most would point to the “Content Knowledge” standard. This reflects widespread notions of the meaning of “curriculum.”

The “Content Knowledge” standard is based on a “structures of the disciplines” approach.

Key terms are defined within the standards.

The “Content Knowledge” standards (like the other standards) is further defined in terms of “knowledge components” and “performance indicators.”

If there are things outside of the “content knowledge” standard that need to be taken into account as essential elements within the practice of curriculum, is this taken care of by the likelihood that those things can be found somewhere else within the standards?