A paper like Connelly and Roberts' is difficult to respond to. Despite their obviously low external validity, we apparently feel that we can somehow learn from case studies something relevant to our own circumstances. Otherwise, our reaction to the report would be: Who cares what problems they have in a department at OISE or what procedures they adopt to deal with them? But if one prefers not to react with indifference or cynicism, what sort of response can be made to a case study? The temptation is to point out lessons-substantive lessons if an apparently satisfactory solution to a problem is reported, procedural lessons if the problem was not solved. Neither alternative-generalizing from an N of one or second-guessing qualified professionals intimately familiar with a situationis very appealing. Nevertheless, if it is difficult to respond to a case study, it is even harder to respond to half of one. That is all we have at this writing. We do not as yet have a proposed "curriculum for graduate instruction in curriculum," as promised in the title. In Part I, the authors only define the problem and outline a strategy for solving it. Even if their strategy were not currently being subjected to an empirical test that may yield some evidence of its validity, it would still be inappropriate for someone in Albany (or Urbana or Uppsala) to comment on the soundness of action decisions taken by a departmental faculty in Toronto. On what bases could one possibly judge whether or not they should have suspended formal decision making for two years (or three, or none) and whether they should devote their meetings to addressing issues or to designing programs? In our writing, as in our teaching, we professors of curriculum must decline invitations (and resist temptations) to engage in charlatanry.