By, Kiran Purohit, EdD, New Visions for Public Schools, Vice President of Curriculum and Instruction and Jennifer Wilson, EdD, Illustrative Mathematics, Senior Director, Implementation Enablement
New Visions for Public Schools, an IM Certified® partner, has worked alongside Illustrative Mathematics’ Implementation Enablement team for over six years to support curriculum implementation across New York City. This includes work with NYC Public Schools’ NYC Solves initiative, where New Visions is the largest provider of professional learning. This post draws on that experience.
If you ask a room full of educators whether curriculum should be implemented with fidelity or integrity, you’ll need to clear your afternoon. It’s a question we’ve explored often in our work supporting large-scale curriculum implementation.
Those in the integrity camp—focused on adapting instruction to meet the needs of their students while honoring the intent of the curriculum—cringe when they hear the word fidelity. How are we honoring teacher expertise and student identities if teachers are expected to follow materials exactly as written?
Those in the fidelity camp—focused on close adherence to the curriculum—are equally concerned when they hear the word integrity. How can we ensure all students experience the full richness of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) if teachers pick and choose what to implement? Isn’t integrity just an excuse to miss the point of a shared curriculum?
Both perspectives raise important concerns, and both can fall short on their own. Rather than choosing between fidelity and integrity, strong implementation depends on how these two ideas interact over time.
Is it possible that the answer to a successful, impactful implementation of HQIM lies somewhere in the middle—or even somewhere in our kitchen?
What Can Baking Teach Us About Curriculum Implementation?
Imagine you’re planning to bake chocolate chip cookies for a party. You know some guests cannot have nuts or wheat flour, but the recipe calls for both. What would you do?
Many bakers would start by making the recipe as written, then test subsequent batches with various substitutions—more chocolate chips to replace the nuts, or a different flour to replace the wheat. Knowing what the original, recommended version looks like is helpful in figuring out which modifications maintain quality, which enhance it, and which result in a big mess.
This methodical approach to modifying a cookie recipe offers a useful way to think about curriculum implementation.
Two Ways to Think About Curriculum Implementation
Implementation with Fidelity
Following a recipe exactly as written. Implementation fidelity means adhering to all components of a curriculum. It may involve following the pace, timing, lesson structure, and suggested teacher questions. Fidelity can be a way to learn the ins and outs of a given curriculum and develop a deep understanding of its content, structure, and story.
At the same time, fidelity can create stress if its purpose isn’t made clear. When positioned as a way to “teacher-proof” the curriculum, it can diminish teacher agency, leaving educators feeling undervalued.
And fidelity alone is not sufficient because faithfulness to a curriculum is not the only component that drives learning. Student learning is strengthened when teachers are responsive to students.
Implementation with Integrity
Adapting a well-understood recipe to meet the needs of those you are serving. Implementation with integrity is powerful, but there isn’t integrity until you have a deep knowledge of the thing you’re doing.
For cookies, that means understanding the structure of the recipe and how the ingredients interact with one another in order to meet the dietary needs of your guests. For curriculum, it means understanding the lesson design and components and using them in ways that honor the intent of the curriculum authors, the standards, and the students in the classroom.
Integrity allows teachers to respond to student needs and differences within a class without sacrificing access to grade-level content.
What Does This Look Like in Practice?
Across schools, we see different approaches to balancing fidelity and integrity. Each approach reflects a set of beliefs about teaching, learning, and what it means to use a curriculum well.
As you read the scenarios below from schools we have worked alongside, consider: Where do you see choice, autonomy, and buy-in? Which of these contributes to a shared instructional vision and its durability? How would you respond to each of these situations as a teacher or instructional leader?
Blueprint Academy
Leaders applied uniform rules for their teachers to implement with fidelity, focusing on ensuring each teacher was on the same lesson every day and adhering to timing guidance for the activities. Teachers used collaborative planning time to share their frustration—they couldn’t finish lessons and felt discouraged.
Launchpad Academy
Leaders provided professional learning, then encouraged teachers to “use the curriculum how you see fit.” During classroom walkthroughs they realized some teachers were still using the previous curriculum, others used pieces of the curriculum, and only a few followed the lessons as designed. During planning time, teachers shared manipulatives, worksheets, and activity ideas, but because their implementation didn’t have enough in common, collaboration was difficult.
Picasso School
Leadership required fidelity to the lesson design structure (invitation → deep study → consolidate and apply), including the cool-down at the end of the lesson. Teachers used collaborative planning time to examine student work from the cool-downs in order to learn from student thinking.
Summit Academy
In year one, leaders focused on pacing so that all teachers experienced implementing the full curriculum and would have a shared experience of the overall structure. In year two, teachers read Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics, Grades K–12 together and now use their collaborative planning time to make informed instructional choices.
Catalyst Academy
The curriculum adoption team involved many groups—district and school leaders, teachers, parents, and students—coming together around a vision for math teaching and learning. After selecting a curriculum, each teacher chose one unit to implement as written during a pilot year. Teachers used their collaborative planning time to visit the pilot classrooms and study the units together.
Meeting in the Middle
Finding the balance between fidelity and integrity requires both clarity and judgment. As Dr. Corey Drake shared in a 2024 interview on Rounding Up: Principles for Responsive Curriculum Use:
“Fidelity has often been taken up as meaning ‘following curriculum materials, page by page, word for word, task for task.’ . . . Implementation with integrity . . . [is] doing it in a way that’s responsive to the students who are sitting in front of you. And that’s really kind of the art and science of curriculum use.”
This raises an important question for instructional leaders: What do you hope for in the implementation of HQIM? What are your non-negotiables?
The instructional leaders we’ve worked with share a common vision: teachers who understand the curriculum broadly, have agency in their classrooms, and make their practice visible enough to reflect and collaborate with colleagues.
They want teachers to follow the same set of recipes—even knowing that every batch (or classroom) won’t be exactly the same—because shared recipes make shared learning possible.
Instructional leaders who succeed with shared HQIM recognize that durable, sustainable instruction in their schools requires consistency, clarity, and a school-wide operating system. They recognize that simple rules and checklists are not sufficient, and that non-negotiables around lesson design and classroom community are driven by an instructional vision.
For example, even when class periods are cut short or don’t align with the suggested timing of the lesson, the problem-based lesson structure—invitation, deep study, consolidation, and application—stays intact. Leaders also prioritize the development of positive, inclusive classroom communities, and they provide time for teachers to share practices around doing so.
Conclusion
No matter where teachers are in their journey with IM® Math, implementation is always evolving. Fidelity and integrity both play a role—grounded in a deep understanding of the curriculum and responsiveness to students.
Each year brings new students and new decisions about how to use the materials well. That’s not a flaw in the recipe; it’s where teacher expertise lives.
Next Steps
This isn’t a debate—it’s a conversation worth having with your team.
Examine your own relationship with fidelity and integrity. Where are you holding too tightly to the recipe? Where might you be drifting too far from it?
Strong implementation lives in that balance. We’d love to hear how you’re navigating this work. Share your story with us at [email protected] or post and tag us on social media—we’d love to highlight your story.
Looking to strengthen curriculum implementation in your school or district?
As an IM Certified partner, New Visions for Public Schools works alongside educators and leaders to support thoughtful, sustainable implementation of IM Math. From professional learning to system-level planning, their team brings deep experience supporting large-scale initiatives like NYC Solves.
Learn more about partnering with New Visions: knowim.org/partners
Connect with the IM team to explore support options: knowim.org/pl
References
Drake, C. (2024, September 19). Season 3, Episode 02: Principles for responsive curriculum use [Audio podcast episode]. In Rounding Up. Libsyn. https://sites.libsyn.com/397145/season-3-episode-02-principles-for-responsive-curriculum-use-guest-dr-corey-drake
Kiran Purohit, EdD
New Visions for Public Schools, Vice President of Curriculum and Instruction
Kiran Purohit has worked at New Visions for Public Schools since 2012 in several roles, including coaching science teachers, coordinating math curriculum and professional learning for New Visions’ network of 71 New York City schools, and developing full-course curriculum in science and social studies. Currently, Kiran is the Vice President of Curriculum and Instruction at New Visions, leading a department that both develops full-course science and social studies curricula and supports schools with the adoption and implementation of curricula in mathematics and literacy. A former NYC middle school math and science teacher, Kiran holds a doctorate in Curriculum and Teaching from Teachers College, Columbia University.
Jennifer Wilson, EdD
Illustrative Mathematics, Senior Director, Implementation Enablement
Jennifer Wilson enjoys learning alongside the Illustrative Mathematics community as the Senior Director, Implementation Enablement. She is a National Board Certified Teacher, and she taught and learned mathematics with students and teachers in Mississippi for 25 years. She is a recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (2011) and has blogged at Easing the Hurry Syndrome and The Slow Math Movement. Jennifer thinks a lot about how we might slow down and savor learning math through curiosity, collaboration, and connections.
