Let’s Talk About Curriculum (For Real this Time)

In this week’s blog, Doc Holbrook reflects on why curriculum isn’t the enemy — it’s the equalizer. A strong foundation doesn’t limit great teaching; it makes it possible.

Why Teachers Hesitate to Use Curriculum

Last week, I wrote about the “implementation dip” — and how hard real educational change can be. Since then, I’ve been trying to do more listening than talking.

What I keep hearing, sometimes said out loud and sometimes just felt, is this:

“If I use a curriculum, does that mean I’m not a good teacher?”

It’s this quiet fear that somehow needing curriculum means you’re less creative, less capable, or worse — that you’ve stopped being the kind of teacher you set out to be.

When I was in the classroom, I worked in a district that prided itself on being homegrown. We wrote our own units, our own lessons, our own assessments. Every summer, teams of teachers met to write curriculum together. It was part of our identity — and something we were proud of.

The idea of a packaged curriculum was frowned upon. If someone came to an interview and mentioned using one, they probably weren’t getting hired. Curriculum had a bad reputation. For some reason, it was seen as something you needed only if you couldn’t do the work yourself.

But somewhere along the way, we confused curriculum with control.

Why Curriculum Got a Bad Rap

For years, teachers were told that scripted or structured programs were for other schools — not ours. I still remember a consultant once saying those kinds of programs were meant for "other schools” or places with high teacher turnover — but that our teachers didn’t need them.

Think about the underlying message in that statement. It implied that teachers in those schools weren’t as capable — or worse, that their students somehow deserved less. That kind of thinking is not only wrong; it’s harmful. It assumes that expertise and care are tied to zip codes, and it overlooks the truth that all children deserve the most effective, evidence-based instruction available.

So when a structured program comes along, hesitation makes sense. Because behind every hesitation is a teacher who cares deeply about getting it right.

The Doctor Analogy

Imagine a doctor about to perform a procedure. The doctor has gone to medical school, has years of experience, and maybe has done similar procedures before — and some of them have gone well.

But would we ever want that doctor to go in without a roadmap — without using the most current research or proven methods? Of course not. That would feel reckless, even dangerous.

Now imagine that same doctor being handed a carefully researched, evidence-based procedure — one that’s been tested and refined over time — and saying, “No thanks, I know better.”

Does following the research make that doctor less skilled or less professional? Does it limit their judgment? Of course not. It gives them a foundation — a clear, research-based roadmap that ensures the best possible outcome for the patient.

The same is true for us. Using evidence-based curriculum doesn’t make us less creative or less skilled — it makes us responsible practitioners who are aligning our craft to what works best for kids.

What’s Beneath the Hesitation

Some of our hesitation is about autonomy — we want to use our professional judgment, to design what’s best for our students. A boxed program can feel like it limits that freedom.

Some of it is about trust — we’ve all lived through so many initiatives that came and went, each one promising to be the answer. It’s hard to believe this one will be different.

And some of it is about identity — many of us came of age in a time when being a “good teacher” meant creating everything from scratch. That mindset runs deep.

But just like the doctor, our expertise lies not in rejecting the research, but in bringing it to life — in the way we deliver, adapt, and respond to the humans sitting in front of us. Our judgment, experience, and relationships are what make the research work — not what replace it.

And here’s what I’ve learned after years of watching this work in action: a strong curriculum doesn’t take away from good teaching — it makes good teaching possible at scale.

It gives us a shared foundation, a common language, and time back to focus on how we teach instead of constantly reinventing what to teach. When we have that foundation, we can spend our energy where it matters most — connecting with students, responding to their needs, and ensuring every child has access to instruction that opens doors.

Knowledge as Equity: Why Curriculum Matters

In The Knowledge Gap, Natalie Wexler helps explain something we’ve all seen but struggled to name: why so many students can read the words but still struggle to understand what they’ve read.

Her point is simple but profound: reading comprehension isn’t a skill you can master by practicing strategies like “finding the main idea.” Comprehension grows out of knowledge — background knowledge, vocabulary, and context.

Kids who know more about the world can make sense of what they read. Kids who don’t, can’t. It’s not about intelligence; it’s about access.

And that access begins with curriculum.

A coherent, knowledge-rich curriculum gives students access to the very content that comprehension depends on — science, history, art, and the rich vocabulary that lives within them. Wexler argues that this is what creates true equity in education: when every child, regardless of zip code, is systematically given the knowledge that builds understanding of the world.

She also reminds us that teachers haven’t been set up for success here. Most of us were trained to focus on strategies and isolated skills, not deep content knowledge. So when a curriculum finally comes along that organizes knowledge coherently, it can feel foreign — even uncomfortable — at first.

But that discomfort doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It means it’s new. And if we stay the course, this shift — toward structured, knowledge-building curriculum — is one of the most powerful ways we can expand opportunity and ensure that every child has a fair shot at becoming a confident, capable reader.

A Reframe

Curriculum isn’t a crutch — it’s a foundation.

It doesn’t take away from what makes you a great teacher; it gives you the structure and shared language to bring your best ideas to life. It’s not about replacing creativity; it’s about focusing it where it matters most.

Curriculum doesn’t mean you’re not trusted — it means we trust you with something powerful. A well-designed curriculum is a map, not a script. It ensures that every child, in every classroom, has access to the same essential knowledge, while giving teachers the space to bring it alive through their own voice, their relationships, and their craft.

When we all teach from a strong foundation, we’re not teaching less — we’re teaching better, together.

Closing Thoughts

Change is hard. It stirs up fear, questions, and sometimes even grief for the way things used to be. But it also opens the door to something new — a chance to do better for kids.

If we can move past the old story that “real teachers don’t need curriculum,” we can start writing a new one: that real teachers know how to use curriculum to reach every child.

The best teaching doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens when teachers share a common purpose, a common plan, and a belief that all students deserve access to knowledge that will open doors long after they leave our classrooms.

That’s what this work is really about — not programs, not pacing guides, not checklists — but possibility.

And when we do it together — when we lean into learning instead of fear — anything is possible.

When we know better, we teach better.

See you next Sunday!

References

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2020). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Wexler, N. (2019). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system—and how to fix it. Avery.

Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. Houghton Mifflin.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Willingham, D. T. (2017). The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. Jossey-Bass.