Maintain fidelity to the program. I’m hearing that phrase more in our district these days. We are considering purchasing a reading program, one that teachers will need to implement with fidelity. What does fidelity to the program mean? Why are we thinking about this action? What are the implications of it for teachers? Learners?

What I think it means
Districts often say they purchase programs (reading, math…) to make sure that all the teachers are on the same page (so students are guaranteed a common experience in the classroom), to improve the overall performance of teachers, and to make sure that all teachers have access to the teaching materials (books, manipulatives, etc.) that they will need to teach. The teacher’s job, then, is to teach the program “with fidelity”, which means that parts of the program should not be skipped or changed. Changing or altering the program can invalidate the reasons for purchasing a program in the first place.

Why we are thinking of a program
My school district is no different than a lot of districts who are drawn to a purchased literacy program. The decision to buy is not made yet. It comes after a partially successful struggle to create our own curriculum based on what we know is good for readers and writers. We’re a small district, without a curriculum director and no paid literacy committee. We’ve tried to rely on volunteer work by teachers and administrators to get the job done. Teachers have struggled with knowing what to teach and how their decisions fit into a larger picture of the K-5 reading curriculum. We haven’t had the staff to get a coherent curriculum in place. So…perhaps a reading program makes sense?

Why my heart sinks a bit
The reason is fidelity. I’m worried that I’ll be locked into a set of texts, a set of lessons, a set of assessments that will slowly kill me. I believe my creativity will be focused on how I can tweak and stretch the program (while maintaining fidelity), rather than what I think the kids will need. Some of our best learning in 3P has come when we have pursued our interests to the nth degree. I’m worried I’ll lose that.

I’m also worried that our district will lose an opportunity to help teachers grow in our knowledge of how to teach reading and writing. It sure is easier to have everything you need at your fingertips, and a program offers that huge benefit. But does relying on a packaged program mean that by focusing our attention on fidelity teachers will learn too narrowly? Where is the incentive to explore and create? Where is the incentive to learn, especially if that learning causes one to want to teach the program with less fidelity? Finally, a lot of resources will be put into buying the program itself, which will mean there won’t be any resources to foster the kinds of discussions and learning that will help teachers grow in our knowledge of reading. Will we learn only how to teach the lesson, and not the larger reasons about why we are teaching that lesson in particular? Does fidelity cause us to lose our ability to make meaningful decisions about groups of learners, or even individuals?

I don’t have any great answers to all these questions. I do wish we would think hard about how we devote resources. No program will educate children, but teachers will. Could we commit to raising the knowledge of teachers because we recognize that teachers are the ones who really matter?  A decision to really invest in teachers, though, would require committed, sustained effort toward clearly defined goals with a good, reflective decision-making process in place that allows adjustments to be made along the way. What would a commitment like this even look like? We would also need to see increasing teacher knowledge as an ongoing activity, not just a one-time event, so teachers new to the district in the future had a way to learn, and so longer term teachers could continue to grow. What kind of resources and vision would it take to make this happen? Do we have what it takes? Again, I’m not sure, but I’d like to have that conversation.