School leaders often express concern when teachers resist implementing a newly adopted curriculum with fidelity. The assumption is understandable: If we selected the program carefully, why wouldn’t teachers follow it? A recent Phi Delta Kappan article, “Educator Resistance to Curricular Control,” suggests we may be asking the wrong question.
Instead of asking why teachers resist fidelity, we may need to ask: “What are teachers trying to protect?”
The Kappan authors researched teacher resistance to curricular control and identified several responses teachers make when required curriculum conflicts with their understanding of students’ needs:
• strategic compliance- teacher complies, but has private concerns often producing frustration
• strategic compromise- teacher blends their own interest, knowledge or materials with the mandated curriculum
• strategic redefinition- teacher resists in their own classroom and presses others to push for change, perhaps in PLC, department, or district committee
• overt resistance- teacher may openly refuse (sometimes overlooked by administration)
• exit from the school or profession- teacher may seek a position more closely aligned with personal beliefs
Teachers resist losing influence over decisions that affect students.
Research shows that most acts of teacher resistance are closely related to the level of program fidelity that is required. As demand for curricular fidelity increases, so do acts of principled resistance.
(Huddleston, Talley, Edgington, Colwell-Kappan)
In my coaching experience, when I hear what appears to be resistance, I’ve learned I need to become more curious rather than more directive. That idea was reinforced on a podcast I recorded Becca Silver, the founder of The Whole Educator and the designer of the Resistance Remedy. She posed that “Resistance isn’t refusal. It’s a signal of unmet needs.” That requires coaches’ questioning and listening to help diagnose the unmet needs.
Silver describes a paradox. “We look for the teachers to be critical thinkers. We want them to think critically about what’s going on in their classrooms. And yet, when a change comes down the pipeline that they didn’t choose, they’re expected to comply with it. Some teachers respond, “Okay—you want me to do this? Not a problem. I’ll do it.” Some teachers grapple with whether they agree or disagree, or if they think they’ll be successful or not. This grappling sometimes appears as resistance.”
The Real Issue May Be How We Define Fidelity
When leaders say, “Implement with fidelity,” teachers often hear, “Follow the script.”
Resistance frequently emerges when fidelity is framed as compliance rather than as protecting the learning design that is focused on improving student outcomes. In earlier work on coaching and program fidelity, I explored how implementation strengthens when teachers understand not just what to do, but why the new design matters for learners. The idea of fidelity to purpose builds directly on that understanding.
Can we communicate fidelity as commitment to the purpose rather than compliance with the program?
I believe that consistency in implementation improves when teachers understand:
• What the program is designed to change?
• Which elements are essential?
• Which decisions can remain professional choices?
• What evidence should appear if the program is working?
The Kappan article points out that perfect procedural fidelity is rarely realistic. Teachers will adapt. So, the important question becomes, ”Are teachers adapting away from the purpose—or toward it?” A shift—from fidelity to procedure toward fidelity to purpose—can change conversations and teachers’ responses.
Resistance can become useful information if coaches and leaders consider what concerns a teacher is having about student learning. Teachers’ concerns often relate to:
• pacing that doesn’t match learners
• developmental readiness
• cultural responsiveness
• engagement levels
• previous successful practices
• instructional relationships they don’t want to weaken
Seen this way, resistance is not obstruction. It’s feedback.
When we introduce a new curriculum program, we should be inviting teachers to join us in shared vulnerability. A request to implement, question, observe, and report out along the way encourages teachers to be members of the district team focused on maximizing students’ success. I believe the word fidelity belongs inside this vulnerability conversation. For the evidence and data from the teachers’ observations, student engagement and learning assessments to build systemic understanding, fidelity of purpose is critical.
These three questions are initially critical to explore with teachers:
- What must remain consistent—and why?
- Where is teacher judgment expected?
- What student evidence will tell us the program is working?
Coaches can increase teacher engagement by exploring these questions:
- What student thinking should we see if this program is working?
- Which elements seem essential for producing that thinking?
- Where do you feel the program aligns strongly with your learners?
- Where are you noticing tensions?
- What evidence should guide adaptation decisions?
The implementation of new curriculum and/or instructional strategies should create an opportunity for increased team building across a school system. Fidelity is important—and unlikely to be built through supervision alone. When curriculum supervisors, instructional coaches, building leaders, and teachers engage as partners—sharing both responsibility and vulnerability—a fidelity to purpose can emerge that strengthens a continuous learning community serving students.
