Finding the sweet spot between curriculum fidelity and teacher agency

Educational research rarely speaks in a single voice. One area where we see this play out is in discussions of implementation of new curricula and instructional programs. Here, two threads of research are squarely at odds with one another. One thread calls for fidelity to designers’ plans. The other calls for the empowerment of teachers to meet individual student needs, regardless of the pace required by curriculum guides.

Arguments for teacher empowerment

Commentators from one perspective, such as Amanda Frasier in the May 2024 Kappan, decry what they call “the world of micro-accountability.” In this world, teachers must follow scripted curriculums that are at odds with the instructional methods they learned in teacher education programs or with strategies that have worked in their school. Advocates of this perspective argue that different school contexts require varying levels of flexibility to meet individual student needs. Robbing teachers of these alternatives has led, over time, to their deskilling and the “mechanization” of the profession (Frasier, 2024).

In this strand of research, schools with strong professional communities (characterized by shared norms and values, a focus on student learning, social trust, and collaborative professional practice) have shown over the years a wide range of positive outcomes for both students and teachers (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). For example, in one study, a significant proportion of the variation of student achievement across schools was attributed to the presence or absence of collective leadership within the school (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). In another, students demonstrated higher mathematics and reading achievement in state assessments when they attended schools with high levels of teacher collaboration (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007).

Arguments for fidelity

Fidelity advocates, on the other hand, claim that “decades of research” have demonstrated that faithfulness is essential to a program’s effectiveness and positive student outcomes (Windram, 2023). They ask educators to “trust the system,” that is, the curriculum designers from a university, publishing house, or local content specialists, who are “experts” in instructional strategies and pacing requirements (Rademacher, 2017).

When viewed in the most positive light, a “boxed” or “teacher-proof” curriculum makes it more likely that lessons will be acceptable, regardless of the teacher’s skills. The understanding is that “good” teachers are able to enhance the lessons on their own, but the packaged lessons are enough for teachers who don’t know how to enhance the lessons.

However, leadership students with whom I teach tell me that this is not how educators understand these lessons. More frequently, they tell me that teachers are supposed to “stick to the script” and “cover x content by Thanksgiving,” regardless of students’ proficiency in the content. If they do not, they risk getting in trouble with their principal.

Finding the sweet spot

In my 30 years as a data coach, I have found that there is a sweet spot between curriculum fidelity and teacher agency. When teachers are trying out an instructional program, they’ll reach a point when they have accumulated some student performance data and need to decide what to do next. If students are weak in some areas, what do they do? Do they continue following the program exactly as outlined? Or do they modify it for their students? To discover the sweet spot between fidelity and agency, teachers should consider all the following evidence.

First, they should consider whether the areas of weakness are essential knowledge or skills in the subject and are required for the next step in the learning continuum. In making this decision, I suggest teams lean into what Doug Reeves and Larry Ainsworth (Ainsworth, 2003) call “power standards” by asking these questions:

• Do weak knowledge or skills have endurance? Are they essential for future success in the subject area?
• Do weak knowledge or skills have leverage? Are they transferrable to other content areas?
• Diverting from Reeves and Ainsworth, are the weak knowledge or skills important enough to likely be on the state accountability test?

Next, they should look at whether the weaknesses appear in multiple data sources. One or two questions missed on the state test or on a teacher-developed assessment is not enough. A quick and focused assessment on the weak topic is often necessary to confirm the diagnosis.

Finally, they should consider whether and how they can teach the missing knowledge or skill using a different instructional strategy. Repeating the same lesson a little slower and louder will not be sufficient. A completely new and hopefully innovative and evidence-based instructional approach is required.

Once they’ve considered these criteria, teachers should be expected, not just permitted, to act on the data without lowering their expectations of students. Teachers may respond in several ways to the data. They could decide that:

• The weak area is so important that they need to stop new instruction immediately and reteach the content to the whole class using a different instructional strategy. This does not mean starting the lesson over from scratch. When reteaching, teachers should build on the content students have learned and focus only on the missing pieces.
• There is a natural connection between the weak area and the new content, so the best response is to infuse instruction in the weak area naturally over time in the next curriculum topic.
• More practice, rather than additional instruction, is needed, and students can complete drills, homework, or mini-lessons to practice as the new content is being introduced.
• Differentiation is required. Some students are proficient and may proceed to more advanced learning, while others are retaught or practice the content.

As teachers try these approaches, they become empowered to act, with evidence and using a decision-making protocol, in the best interest of all students. Leaders who prevent teachers from using data and adjusting in the name of fidelity have committed leadership malpractice.  

References

Ainsworth, L. (2003). Power standards: Identifying the standards that matter most. Lead+Learn Press.

Frasier, A.S. (2024). The harm in assessment-backward practices. Phi Delta Kappan, 105 (8), 66-67.

Goddard, Y.L., Goddard, R.D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109 (4), 877-896.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103 (6), 942-1012.

Leithwood, K. & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (4), 529-561.

Rademacher, T. (2017, November 21). Why the phrase “with fidelity” is an affront to good teaching. Chalkbeat.

Windram, H. (2023, October 27). What is fidelity in education and why should I care? Michigan Education Corps Blog.

---

This article appears in the December 2024 issue of Kappan, Vol. 106, No. 4, p. 54-55.