Why Fidelity Doesn’t Work for All Students
A call for balancing curriculum fidelity with the professional judgment.
In education, “fidelity” is often used when a school or district has purchased a new curriculum and teachers are expected to adopt the program without any deviation.
Proponents, usually district leaders, believe curriculums are designed by instructional experts using state standards and pacing guidelines that improve academic outcomes for students. But the truth is, instructional materials aren’t created equally. Some materials aren’t rooted in best instructional practices and should not be followed with fidelity because they don’t meet the needs of all learners.
When sweeping directives to follow curriculum with fidelity are implemented, teachers lose the ability to supplement learning for students who need intervention the most.
The Problem With One-Size-Fits-All Curriculum
Instead of forcing teachers to teach a curriculum with fidelity, curriculum materials should be the starting point. Teachers should be well trained and expected to follow the curriculum but also given the autonomy and trust to make instructional decisions based on what’s happening in their classrooms - especially when fidelity isn’t working.
What supplemental tools can be utilized for struggling students?
What scaffolds are available?
How much time do you get to review a skill that hasn’t been mastered before moving to the next topic?
In some cases, following curriculum with fidelity means there is no time to address these concerns and the students who lack prerequisite knowledge will fall further behind.
For example, let’s consider the Illustrative Mathematics (IM) K-5 curriculum. It has gained popularity and has been implemented in several large, urban school districts. The curriculum is engaging and offers great resources but the program assumes students can perform math at grade level. It is problem-based so it also assumes students are proficient in reading. IM created “adaption packs” to address “unfinished learning” but pacing guides don’t allow enough time to implement them.
Students are expected to carry the load of each lesson by problem-solving their way to math proficiency. Teachers are expected to minimally guide students as they struggle productively through each task, jumping in to “synthesize” for a few minutes at the end of each activity.
When followed with fidelity, struggling students fall further behind without scaffolds from their teachers. Struggling students also rely heavily on partner work because the work is not inclusive or accessible. Students do not have enough practice problems and as a result, key skills are never mastered. The cycle repeats.
District leaders argue that all students deserve rigorous, grade-level curriculum. The folks at IM don’t believe in “extensive remediation.” Good thing we all agree. Can we also agree that students who are 2-3 years behind in math could benefit from fact fluency, explicit instruction, interventions, and additional practice?
In addition to not allowing time or resources for intervention, the program doesn’t always align with the standards tested on state proficiency exams. If followed with fidelity, students won’t be exposed to all of the content they need to be successful - in some cases, impacting where they choose to go to middle school and high school.
Evidence-Based Instruction Over Curriculum Fidelity
Instead of forcing teachers to follow curriculum with fidelity, district leaders should shift to following evidence-based instruction with fidelity. Even Bill McCallum, the founder of IM, has stated adapting the materials can be “exciting because of the potential to reach a much more diverse group of teachers and students.” Curriculums are tools that will change every few years, but high-quality, evidence-based practices should be mainstays in every math classroom, regardless of what curriculum is in place.
District leaders, school administrators, and teachers must work together to implement instructional frameworks that work best for their unique student population instead of doubling down on ineffective practices and punishing educators who make adaptations.
If directives to follow curriculum with fidelity are rooted in fear that teachers will use low-quality materials found on Pinterest, provide teachers with a robust collection of supplemental materials, and no, not just clicking away at gamified computer programs that don’t teach students.
Teachers want to do well by their students, and following programs with fidelity, when there is no evidence of large-scale effectiveness, won’t move the needle on academic outcomes.
District leaders, trust your teachers and principals. They are highly educated professionals and community leaders who know their students better than the curriculum writers. Collaborate with us to use curriculum as our foundation, but allow us to use teacher discretion when it comes to meeting our students’ needs.
There is a world that exists where students can receive rigorous, grade-level content AND teachers have the autonomy to provide their students with the support and interventions they need without the fear of being reprimanded.