The Tension of Teaching Gifted Learners Within Required Curriculum
By Tara Toft, Ed.D., Curriculum Studies Network
How do we provide appropriate differentiation, depth, complexity, and acceleration for advanced learners when we are expected to teach an adopted curriculum with fidelity?
There it is. The F-word.
If you have ever wanted to bring back a favorite unit because the new materials your district provided seemed insufficient, you may already be nodding.
When I was hired for my first teaching job in 1998, I promptly asked the Human Resources Director for access to the curriculum I would be teaching so I could start preparing for my first-grade cherubs. She looked surprised, then handed me an empty, district-created two-pocket folder with some broad expectations printed on the inside pockets. Nothing grade-specific. No actual standards to be taught. No teacher editions. Not even contact information (you know, landline phone numbers) for the teachers I’d be working beside.
I left feeling confused and anxious. My university classes always insisted that good teachers understand their curriculum materials before planning beautiful lessons, and in just a month’s time I’d be walking into my first classroom feeling ill-prepared to teach tiny humans how to read!
Within my first few contract days, the district rolled out a plan to use the Four-Blocks Literacy Model (Cunningham et al., 1998) as our curriculum. Yes, you read that correctly. A literacy framework was standing in for the detailed curriculum I had hoped to receive.
Other teachers kept telling me how lucky I was because I didn’t have to “relearn how to teach.” I told them THEY were the lucky ones because they had years of experience and bags of tricks to rely on if a lesson flopped. I guess the grass is always greener in someone else’s classroom.
Nearly three decades later, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Why do we buck at new curriculum and revert to our bag of tricks at the first sign of struggle? I certainly understand the pull of that bag of tricks. I started my career wishing I had one. That bag represents years of effort and celebrating student successes. Putting it aside can feel like surrendering part of our competence.
Yet we ask students to persist through productive struggle. We prepare them for frustration and resist the urge to swoop in with the answer. Why, then, are we throwing in the towel so quickly when we struggle with changing how and what we use to teach our students what they need to know, understand, and be able to do? I know, I know... but stick with me on this.
Before deciding what to add, perhaps we need to sit with a less comfortable question: How do we KNOW the current research-based materials have a hole we need to fill if we have not first taught them with fidelity?
In a randomized study of a summer reading intervention, Quinn and Kim (2017) found that students benefited more from structured adaptations when their teachers had prior experience delivering the fidelity-focused version. For teachers new to the intervention, a fidelity-focused approach better supported teacher learning and instructional change. This study does not establish a waiting period for every curriculum. It does, however, suggest that knowing how to teach and knowing a particular program are different kinds of expertise.
Imagine a continuum (See Figure 1) between “Follow the script without thinking” and “Professional judgment permits me to add whatever I prefer.” The useful ground between them is not halfway compliance. Clawson’s (2019) Fidelity-Fit Framework describes preserving a program’s essential components while making thoughtful adaptations to fit local needs. Learning the program includes exploring the differentiation it already offers before deciding what is missing.
Figure 1: Curriculum Fidelity and Professional Judgment . Conceptual illustration informed by Clawson (2019). The middle region combines fidelity with evidence-informed adaptation; it is not a measured midpoint.
Of course, a “research-based” label or board adoption does not make every lesson effective for every learner. Research supporting an instructional practice is not automatically evidence for an entire commercial program. We should examine what was actually studied, with whom, and with what results. But we should examine our own claims just as carefully. “My students loved it” and “They learned more because of it” are different claims.
Teachers do not need to replicate a research team’s sample size before responding to an unmet need. But what evidence gives us confidence that our teacher-gut has identified a weakness the research missed? Teacher-gut can alert us to something worth investigating; it should begin the inquiry, not settle it.
For gifted learners, this cannot mean waiting through already-mastered content while adults learn a program. Reis and Renzulli’s (n.d.) curriculum compacting process begins by identifying learning goals, documenting mastery, and replacing unnecessary work with appropriate challenge. That is evidence-informed differentiation. A student’s readiness to move beyond a lesson is not, by itself, proof that the lesson is defective.
Before reaching into the bag of tricks:
-
Identify the learning need using preassessment, work samples, and ongoing checks.
-
Examine whether the program addresses that need and whether its essential components have been implemented.
-
Document the proposed change, its rationale, and what evidence would show improvement.
-
Check whether the change actually helps.
The same scrutiny belongs to both the adopted materials and our additions. A clear set of district-adopted decision rules is needed for teachers to accomplish this process.
My years as a teacher and school leader are now nearly equal, and I have also seen leaders fan this flame. We introduce new materials in a day or two at the start of the school year, then throw up our hands when teachers revert to old ways: “But we trained them!”
A sign-in sheet cannot tell us whether they are ready. What support have we provided since that opening workshop?
Remember when we said teachers should examine their claims that the curriculum they were handed contains gaps? Checking standards coverage requires understanding your state's learning standards and examining how the purchased curriculum addresses them. What teacher, or even teacher team, has time to do that alone? If a crosswalk is missing, district leaders need to organize its creation and provide time for teachers to examine it.
Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) reviewed 35 rigorous studies and identified recurring features of effective professional development, including active learning, collaboration, coaching, feedback, and sustained duration.
For those selecting, developing, and introducing curriculum:
-
Provide verified alignment to state standards.
-
Establish decision rules for adaptations with teachers.
-
Explain essential components and available differentiation.
-
Protect time for practice, collaboration, coaching, and feedback.
Teachers need time to rehearse lessons, examine student work together, and revisit questions that surface during implementation.
I still understand why those experienced teachers treasured their bags of tricks. The question is whether we open ours because the students need something different, or because we need something familiar.
We ask students to support their claims with evidence and stay with learning when it becomes uncomfortable. Teachers deserve that same expectation, supported by the time, guidance, and feedback that help them meet it.
Tell us which required curriculum you are using with advanced learners so we can work on solutions... together! https://forms.gle/XrdXGVhDiXNW4jns9
References
Clawson, C. (2019). Walking the tightrope part I: Fidelity and fit when scaling: Program adaptation lessons from the i3/EIR program. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/03/WalkingtheTightrope_FidelityFit_Part1Scaling_508.pdf
Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P., & Defee, M. (1998). Nonability-grouped, multilevel instruction: Eight years later. The Reading Teacher, 51(8), 652–664. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20201983
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report
Quinn, D. M., & Kim, J. S. (2017). Scaffolding fidelity and adaptation in educational program implementation: Experimental evidence from a literacy intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1187–1220. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217717692
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (n.d.). Curriculum compacting: A systematic procedure for modifying the curriculum for above average ability students. University of Connecticut. https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/curriculum_compacting/
