By Dr. Carrie Hepburn
Curriculum is more than a professional focus for me- it’s a calling. I’ve spent countless hours immersed in the work of Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, whose writing, though admittedly “dry toast” to some, fundamentally shaped how I view learning design. Before my first summer in a curriculum role, my supervisor handed me six books and instructed me to complete them by July 1. That challenge, though daunting, proved to be a turning point. It transformed me from a classroom teacher into a systems thinker — someone who looks for solutions where others see problems.
Many of the persistent challenges in education stem not from a lack of dedication, but from a lack of systems. Too often, schools make reactionary decisions: changing curricula without understanding the problem, implementing new programs without meaningful data, or addressing symptoms rather than causes. The result is predictable — confusion, inconsistency, and a sense of chaos that leaves educators exhausted and students underserved.
Some districts revise their curriculum every few years, while others retain outdated materials for decades. Both approaches miss the mark. What’s needed is not another initiative, but a systematic process — a Curriculum (or Resource Adoption) Cycle — that brings rhythm, clarity, and coherence to curriculum work.
When I began my doctoral studies in Curriculum and Instruction, I discovered language for what I had been observing in practice: systems thinking. A systems approach views education not as isolated departments or tasks, but as interconnected, interdependent parts working toward a common goal. As Peter Senge explains in The Fifth Discipline, “We focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest problems never get solved.“
I’ve seen this firsthand, especially in elementary English Language Arts, where the “hamster wheel” of constant change drains resources, time, and morale. Without a system, even the best intentions lead to burnout. With a system, progress becomes predictable, sustainable, and deeply impactful.
A Curriculum (Resource Adoption) Cycle moves districts from focusing on isolated parts to seeing the entire organization. It provides a structured, replicable process led by curriculum leaders, administrators, teacher leaders, and instructional coaches — all aligned in a shared rhythm of improvement.
Every Curriculum (Resource) Cycle should include:
This structure transforms the frantic into the intentional. It ensures that every decision — from revising assessments to selecting materials — is grounded in evidence and connected to long-term goals.
If your district doesn’t have a curriculum or resource adoption cycle yet, start one now.
First, determine the length of your cycle-ideally 6-8 years. Anything longer risks irrelevance in a rapidly changing world. Then, list every curriculum by grade and assign each to a year, labeling by phase (Phase 1, Phase 2, and so on).
Each phase represents a focused stage of work, with its own data collection and professional learning plan. Over time, this creates a rhythm of review, refinement, and renewal.
This phase sets the foundation. The team analyzes both qualitative and quantitative data, conducts research, and identifies trends. This is where you ask: What’s working? What’s not? What’s missing?
Phase 1 is also the time for a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis and for building a vision grounded in evidence-based practices. The curriculum leader assembles a diverse team of stakeholders, schedules meetings, and provides data and research to inform decision-making. The outcome is clarity: whether the curriculum should be written, revised, or discontinued.
This phase builds capacity by creating champions who understand not only the “what,” but also the “why” behind the work.
Here, the team develops a deep understanding of standards by unpacking them. It’s not glamorous work, but it’s transformative. This process ensures alignment and clarity across classrooms, but it is too often skipped.
From this analysis, learning progressions and proficiency scales emerge, defining mastery and guiding assessment design. Curriculum leaders must provide a consistent process for unpacking standards and collecting qualitative data through PLCs, surveys, and reflective discussions.
Phase 2 is challenging because it requires perseverance and collaboration. However, when educators truly understand standards, instruction becomes focused, assessment becomes meaningful, and student learning accelerates.
This is where most districts start-and where many go wrong. Writing a curriculum or purchasing resources before understanding the system leads to frustration and waste.
In Phase 3, decisions about lessons, materials, and resources are determined by the research and data from Phases 1 and 2. The curriculum leader curates and presents evidence-based options for review. Teams may choose to develop lessons, adopt existing materials, or create hybrid models based on district beliefs and needs.
Professional learning during this phase focuses on learning design for curriculum writing, resource evaluation, and instructional alignment.
Phase 4 brings the curriculum to life. Teachers implement lessons, assessments, and instructional materials designed during earlier phases. The curriculum leader ensures communication and support by providing newsletters, FAQs, scope and sequence documents, and assessment calendars.
The fastest way to get off track is through silence. Communication keeps trust alive.
Data collection becomes more focused on quantitative student outcomes, while instructional leaders gather qualitative evidence from classrooms and PLCs. Professional learning centers on Tier 1 instruction and collaborative problem-solving.
These phases often span two years. Using data from implementation, leaders refine curriculum materials, identify gaps, and recommend supplemental resources. Differentiation tools and accommodations are added to ensure all students can access Tier 1 learning.
Professional learning shifts to responsive teaching, including small-group instruction, targeted interventions, and extension opportunities. Data analysis remains ongoing, deepening the organization’s understanding of effectiveness and equality.
The final phases focus on evaluation and renewal. Leaders analyze quantitative data (from assessments) and qualitative data (from surveys, observations, and PLC conversations). Trends are documented, new research is reviewed, and findings are shared with stakeholders.
The analysis sets the stage for the next cycle, ensuring that decisions are made proactively rather than reactively. Professional learning during this phase centers on high-leverage instructional strategies and evidence-based teaching practices.
Each phase builds intentionally on the one before it. The result is a system that replaces the guesswork with evidence and the chaos with clarity. Every stakeholder understands what to expect, when to expect it, and why it matters.
This is how organizations move from chaos to purpose.
When systems like this are in place, teachers experience a sense of calm and confidence. Students experience coherence and continuity. Leaders experience clarity and control.
At Compass PD, we help districts build these systems every day — customized, research-driven, and sustainable, because curriculum isn’t paperwork, it’s a promise.
Big Company Decisions Are Only An Empty Box Away – Chris McGoff | Business Leader | Author | Change Agent | Speaker. https://chrismcgoff.com/big-business-decisions-are-only-an-empty-box-away/
Jensen, K. K. (1994). A case study of organizational change. https://core.ac.uk/download/214368879.pdf
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday Publishers.