Educator resistance to curricular control

“Teachers find ways to subvert requirements when they’re asked to teach in ways that don’t align with their professional judgment. At a Glance Teachers have reacted in a variety of ways to requirements that they follow curriculums that go against their professional beliefs. Strategic compliance occurs when teachers follow the requirements but disagree. Strategic compromise occurs when teachers combine aspects of the required curriculum with their own ideas. Strategic redefinition occurs when teachers attempt to make changes. Overt and outright resistance occurs when teachers openly refuse to follow the requirements. Leaving for another position or leaving teaching occurs when teachers feel they cannot comply with the requirements and haven’t been able to successfully resist. Many teachers today are trying to navigate a world where they’re asked to do things that go against their beliefs about what’s best for their students. This problem isn’t new. In a 2000 Kappan article, Bobby Ann Starnes tells a story from the mid-1970s about a colleague named Rebecca, a kindergarten teacher who was known for her inviting classroom and hands-on learning activities. When her district purchased a new, highly scripted literacy program, Rebecca, with her principal’s support, rejected the program and continued her instruction as normal. At the end of the year, her students got the district’s highest scores on the program’s test. The superintendent, unaware that she had not been using the program, asked Rebecca to offer a staff development showing other teachers how to use the program. Afraid that she might lose her job if the truth came out, she declined the superintendent’s invitation. In the second year of the program, Rebecca’s school got a new principal who forced her to use the program. She complied, her test scores plummeted, and her morale suffered. After a few years of frustration, Rebecca took a yearlong leave from her school. Upon returning, she convinced her administrators that the only way to maintain her previous record of high scores was to let her teach in her own way. Having seen her results for more than 20 years, the principal and superintendent allowed her to quietly veer from mandated programs as needed. Rebecca wanted to do more, so she began serving on district committees to try to impact curricular decisions in her district. Studying teacher resistance We found Rebecca’s story while researching teachers’ principled resistance to curricular control (Huddleston et al., 2025). Principled resistance occurs when teachers reject curricular mandates, not because they are lazy or unopen to change but because such mandates violate their professional principles (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006). Many researchers have argued that principled resistance is necessary when oppressive instructional requirements could be unhelpful and even harmful to students’ learning (Gitlin & Margonis, 1995). In our review of the literature, we searched for examples of principled resistance to curricular control in K-12 schools. We searched a variety of research databases using keyword searches and by reviewing the reference lists of relevant manuscripts. In total, we located 62 sources that met our criteria. Some of these were research studies while others were reflective essays based on research studies. In addition to identifying research that has demonstrated teachers’ principled resistance to curricular control, we classified the type of resistance according to three previously established categories: strategic compliance, strategic redefinition, and strategic compromise (Lacey,1977; Sikes, Measor, & Woods, 1985). We also noted additional resistance strategies that do not fit these preexisting categories. Strategic compliance Strategic compliance involves teachers complying with their institution’s restraints but maintaining private concerns about them (Lacey, 1977). These teachers often comply because they have few other options or lack the power or confidence to resist publicly, although they may resist privately. Strategic compliance results in teachers being frustrated and unhappy in their work. We identified three methods of strategic compliance: compliance with frustration, compliance with complaint, and resisting covertly. Compliance with frustration . Rebecca provides a good example of compliance with frustration. She is somewhat unique in that she progressed through a variety of resistance strategies. However, when her new principal demanded fidelity to her district’s scripted reading program, she responded with strategic compliance. Rebecca did what she was required to do, but she was unhappy about it. That frustration led her to lose her passion for teaching and to take a year’s leave of absence. Compliance with complaint. Other teachers followed curricular mandates but intentionally complained about the restrictions. These complaints usually had little impact by themselves and, in at least one case, resulted in severe consequences. Kelly was a first-grade teacher in New Mexico (Shanton & Valenzuela, 2005) who complained to another teacher and an assistant principal about the scripted reading program Success for All. As a result, he received disciplinary action, and his principal and assistant principal refused to give him a recommendation for a master’s leadership program and internship. Covert resistance. Some teachers actively but quietly resist curricular mandates. Mrs. Morse was a fifth-grade teacher in a district that had implemented a scripted curriculum across content areas (Burke & Adler, 2013). Concerned that the curriculum was not meeting students’ needs, she and a colleague reached out to their principal to receive permission to add an exploration-themed social studies unit using a trade book. The principal agreed but only allowed them two weeks to complete the unit. When Mrs. Morse realized that would not be enough time, she extended the unit and told the students to quickly hide their books if the principal appeared. Strategic compromise Teachers strategically compromise when they combine their own interests, knowledge, and materials in some manner with a mandated curriculum (Sikes, Measor, & Woods, 1985). We identified five different methods of strategic compromise: adjusting pacing, omitting, supplementing; rearranging; and hybridizing. Adjusting pacing, omitting, supplementing. Sue engaged in strategic compromise when she was required to use the scripted reading program Open Court (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006). She adjusted the pacing of the program and freed up instructional time by omitting components she felt were less important. She then supplemented the Open Court curriculum by adding novel studies, student discussion, and literature circles. Rearranging. Other teachers rearranged portions of a mandated curriculum in order to honor their pedagogical convictions. Ruby was a first-year primary grade teacher in Texas who was required to use CSCOPE, a commercially developed online curriculum, for math and science (Bauml, 2015). She was uncomfortable with CSCOPE’s non-thematic structure that made it difficult to teach with an integrated approach. Consequently, Ruby rearranged some of the mathematics topics to help students build on previously learned concepts. Hybridizing. Emily was a third-grade teacher who identified the strengths in her own teaching practices and in her mandated curriculum and blended them together to form her own unique “hybridized” pedagogy (Kersten & Pardo, 2007, p. 149). For example, Emily incorporated the state test format for the district’s reading program into her classroom using both full-length chapter books and passages from the basal reader. She also added a read aloud component to the basal reader so her English learners could focus more on comprehension than decoding and better participate in class discussions. Strategic redefinition Strategic redefinition occurs when teachers not only resist instructional mandates in their own classrooms but attempt to create change on a much larger scale. This often requires that teachers influence those who have more power (e.g., administrators, policy makers, politicians) to bring about change. We identified three methods of strategic redefinition: change from within, going public, and collective action. Change from within. Rebecca worked to promote change from within when she returned from her leave and convinced her principal and superintendent to allow her to use her own teaching methods. Although this act of resistance only affected her classroom, she began serving on districtwide committees to promote change more broadly. Going public. Other teachers moved beyond simply resisting within their own classrooms and sought to bring about change by influencing those outside the school who could promote change. Some teachers posted their critiques (Beatty, 2011) or letters of resignation online (Dunn, Deroo, & VanDerHide, 2017). Others wrote letters to politicians, published editorials in newspapers, or presented critiques at national conferences (Edelsky, 2005). Collective action. Finally, some engaged in collective action. For example, Michelle Gunderson (2018) was a fourth-grade teacher who became frustrated with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and a scripted curriculum she was required to align to the standards. Feeling that this requirement limited her capacity to meet her students’ needs, she drafted a resolution through the Chicago Teachers Union that critiqued the CCSS. The resolution was then submitted to the American Federation of Teachers. Other collective resistance occurred more at a local level. Nate Walker (2012) and his colleagues formed the University Preparatory Academy Federation of Teachers at his school to combat his school’s move to a data-driven model with a heavy emphasis on test preparation and a narrowed curriculum. Overt and outright resistance Although not common, we found some examples in the literature of teachers who openly refused to follow curricular mandates. Rebecca, for example, initially refused to use the scripted reading program at her school. Although the superintendent was not aware of her resistance, she was open about it at her school. Not every teacher could get away with completely refusing curricular mandates, and those who did held a good deal of respect and influence within their schools. Some, like middle school English teacher Mr. Morris (Eisenbach, 2012), were tenured teachers who had taught at their schools for several years. Mr. Morris said: I do what I want to do and what I know I need to do, and they leave me alone. My students learn and score well on standardized assessments while I utilize my own lessons and ideas. That’s the way it should be and that’s the way I hope it remains. (Eisenbach, 2012, p. 156) A good relationship with their principals enabled some teachers to openly ignore mandates. When Sally refused to use a scripted reading program and returned to guided reading groups, the principal allowed it because she respected Sally as a teacher and her track record of success (Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008). Student success, especially in the form of high test scores, gave some teachers the freedom to overtly and outrightly reject curricular mandates. For example, her students’ high standardized test scores enabled Betty Bisplinghoff (2002), a sixth-grade language arts teacher, to refuse to use a schoolwide lesson planning format as well as a number of different packaged programs. Leaving Some teachers chose to leave their current teaching context and seek a position in a context more closely suited to their professional beliefs, and others chose to leave teaching entirely. Many of the teachers who left first tried the strategies mentioned above without success. Only three teachers, such as Sue, who initially attempted strategic compromise, were forced to resign because of their resistance (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006). Curricular mandates, and in particular scripted programs with an expectation of high fidelity, were a leading reason teachers chose to pursue other positions. This was the case for Rob, who was required by a new administrator to use the scripted literacy program Open Court (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006). Lucinda Pease-Alvarez and Katharine Davies Samway (2008) identified two teachers who left their school for another in response to a teacher-centered scripted curriculum with high emphasis on whole group instruction. These teachers had previously practiced a balanced literacy approach with an emphasis on guided reading and small group instruction. The move to a scripted literacy program was so counterintuitive to their beliefs that they left their school. The most drastic resistance to curricular control was exhibited by teachers who chose to leave the field of teaching entirely (Santoro, 2017). Doris Santoro and Lisa Morehouse (2011) describe this as a new “category of teacher attrition that is rooted in the moral and ethical aspects of teaching: principled leavers” (p. 2671). These principled leavers “are being asked to engage in practices that they believe are antithetical to good teaching and harmful to students” (Santoro & Morehouse, 2011, p. 2671). Susan, a veteran teacher of 25 years, chose to leave teaching rather than impose curricular expectations that she deemed “harmful to students” (Santoro, 2017, p. 755). Trishia believed the goal of teaching was to create “lifelong learners and thinkers” (Santoro, 2017, p. 756) but did not believe she could do this and uphold curricular policies from both the school district and the state. Implications for administrators and teachers Some researchers have argued that some level of instructional cohesion can be important for student success (Marzano, 2003). School administrators who subscribe to this notion have found teacher resistance to curricular initiatives to be a source of frustration. However, the research we reviewed shows that most acts of teacher resistance are closely related to the level of program fidelity that is required. As the demand for curricular fidelity increases, so do acts of principled resistance. Marsha Costello and David Costello (2016) offer a promising solution to those who wish to decrease teacher resistance while maintaining some degree of instructional cohesion. They observed that teacher resistance occurs most often when administrators force teachers to “attempt to adhere to the fidelity of program processes” (p. 833). Instead, they encourage administrators to focus on “fidelity to the purpose of a program,” which “would allow for teacher decision-making and autonomy within the context of any given program or practice” (Costello & Costello, 2016, p. 833). Fidelity to the purpose of a program rather than an exact process addresses the need for curricular cohesion within a school while preserving space for teacher discretion, decision making, and necessary modifications. Teachers who find themselves required to follow curricular mandates that violate their beliefs about the instructional practices that are best for their students have multiple options for principled resistance. However, principled resistance can create conflict with administrators. Thus, it is important for teachers to consider the potential risks involved in resistance. Resistance that brings about change is difficult and sometimes risky, and often what little change does result from resistance is often temporary. Why then should we consider it as an option? Carl Lacey (1977) argued that the answer lies in what he called the “sociology of the possible”: Social change often proceeds in an unpredictable and apparently erratic manner. Institutional practices that have remained unchanged for many years and have been the subject of many abortive attempts at strategic redefinition suddenly change and the issues that were fought over on a number of occasions, very soon become irrelevancies (p. 97). When even small numbers of teachers successfully resist through strategic redefinition, it emboldens others to do the same and increases the likelihood that large-scale change may result. As anthropologist Margaret Mead once said: “Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can make a difference. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has” (as cited in Schniedewind & Sapon-Shevin, 2012, p. xxix). References Achinstein, B. & Ogawa, R.T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76 (1), 30-63. Bauml, M. (2015). Beginning primary teachers’ experiences with curriculum guides and pacing calendars for math and science instruction . Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29 (3) , 390-409. Beatty, B. (2011). The dilemma of scripted instruction: Comparing teacher autonomy, fidelity, and resistance in the Froebelian kindergarten, Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All . Teachers College Record, 113 (3), 395-430. Bisplinghoff, B.S. (2002). Teacher planning as responsible resistance. Language Arts, 80 (2), 119-128. Burke, C.J.F., & Adler, M. (2013). Personal consequences of compliance and resistance to mandated reforms for teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 9 , 6-17. Costello, M. & Costello, D. (2016). The struggle for teacher professionalism in a mandated literacy curriculum. McGill Journal of Education, 51 (2), 833-856. Dunn, A.H., Deroo, M., & VanDerHeide, J. (2017). With regret: The genre of teachers’ public resignation letters . Linguistics and Education, 38 , 33-43. Edelsky, C. (2005). Relatively speaking: McCarthyism and teacher-resisters. In L. Poynor & P.M. Wolfe (Eds.), Marketing fear in America’s public schools: The real war on literacy (pp. 11-28). Lawrence Erlbaum. Eisenbach, B.B. (2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum . The Clearing House, 85 (4), 153-156. Gitlin, A. & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense . American Journal of Education, 103 (4), 377-405. Gunderson, M.S. (2018). The Chicago Teachers Union’s rejection of the Common Core: A case history of teacher resistance. In D.A. Santoro & L. Cain (Eds.), Principled resistance: How teachers resolve ethical dilemmas (pp. 19-34). Harvard Education Press. Huddleston, A.P., Talley, S., Edgington, S., Colwell, E., & Dale, A. (2025). Teachers’ principled resistance to curricular control: A theoretical literature review . Review of Educational Research, 95 (6), 1213-1250. Kersten, J. & Pardo, L. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in Reading First classrooms . The Reading Teacher, 61 (2), 146-154. Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers . Methuen. Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Pease-Alvarez, L. & Samway, K.D. (2008). Negotiating a top-down reading program mandate: The experiences of one school. Language Arts, 86 (1), 32-41. Santoro, D.A. (2017). Teachers’ expressions of craft conscience: Upholding the integrity of a profession . Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23 (6), 750-761. Santoro, D.A. & Morehouse, L. (2011). Teaching’s conscientious objectors: Principled leavers of high-poverty schools . Teachers College Record, 113 (12), 2670-2704. Schniedewind, N. & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2012). Educational courage: Resisting the ambush of public education . Beacon Press. Shanton, K.D. & Valenzuela, T.C. (2005). Not in the script: The missing discourses of parents, students, and teachers about Success for All. In L. Poynor & P. M. Wolfe (Eds.), Marketing fear in America’s public schools: The real war on literacy (pp. 111-132). Lawrence Erlbaum. Sikes, P.J., Measor, L., & Woods, P. (1985). Teacher careers: Crises and continuities . Falmer. Starnes, B.A. (2000). On dark times, parallel universes, and deja vu . Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (2), 108-114. This article appears in the Spring 2026 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 5-6. The post Educator resistance to curricular control appeared first on Kappan Online .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of Phi Delta Kappan. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on kappanonline.org.