Hi Carmen,
It’s no secret that fidelity is a hot-button word in the field, bound to evoke emotion. By definition, it simply means to do what is intended. Basically, when researchers evaluate treatment fidelity, they examine the integrity of the intervention by asking questions like: Are the students receiving the right amount of instructional time? Are the teachers including the essential instructional ingredients? In the right order? They’re trying to ensure the intervention is delivered consistently. If an intervention isn’t delivered the same way, under the same conditions with the same types of students as when it was researched, the results may not be replicated either in future research or when schools adopt and implement the program. Suddenly, an evidence-based program may not get us the results we expect. It’s sort of like baking. Are you using the right amount of the correct ingredients? If you’re not, your baked goods won’t turn out like the picture or description in the recipe. So, when we implement a program, we want to make sure we are including these key aspects of the intervention.
This isn’t exactly how the term fidelity is used in the schools I’ve worked with, though. In schools, the term seems to get inaccurately simplified to mean “just follow the script.” Often, when someone comes to me with a question similar to yours, what they’re expressing is concern about how they are being asked to use a program. A common scenario is that there is a top-down mandate to use a newly adopted program that removes some level of instructional autonomy. At its most extreme, there is an expectation that each grade level teacher should teach the same lesson, as scripted, from the same program at the same time each day. The concern from educators is that they won’t be able to differentiate, do what they believe is best, and provide students with what they need to learn most effectively. The concern is warranted. I would categorize programs as existing on a spectrum of effectiveness, and some programs are outright ineffective. No publisher is selling a program and saying it’s “a pretty good program!” We know publishers have a tendency to overpromise what their programs can deliver. Because we care about our students’ success, we want to make responsible professional decisions and avoid being duped into believing in a “magic bullet.” I think this may be what you’re getting at.
I’m also assuming you’re referring to a core program used for universal instruction, not an intervention program. This adds complexity to the question because very few core programs have (1) been rigorously studied and (2) demonstrated evidence of effectiveness. There usually aren’t fidelity protocols from research, like I described above, that teams can refer to. So, generally speaking, I don’t advocate for rigidly using a core program by reading the script in lock-step. I also am not an advocate for everyone doing their own thing, either. I think there’s a middle ground because there are some solid reasons to select a core program, define what fidelity of implementation means, and expect this fidelity in order to maintain consistency. A program's scope and sequence helps ensure every student builds skills systematically and helps establish consistency in what is learned when. This is particularly beneficial when interventionists support students from multiple classrooms within a grade. Using a program with fidelity can help teams evaluate its effectiveness on their specific student population. This student data can inform professional development and necessary program adaptations, but to do this systematically, everyone needs to start on the same page.
The first thing I would suggest your team does is look at and evaluate how well your program is aligned with the evidence we have for how children learn to read. Publication date alone is not a reliable indicator of program quality or effectiveness; a more thorough evaluation is required. Sometimes this evaluation surfaces that it is ineffective–there is too much to try to modify and fix, and your team may decide to buy a different core program. Other times, the evaluation will help your team determine what parts of the program everyone agrees to use “with fidelity” and what parts you won’t. For example, maybe your program has an extensive list of vocabulary words to teach before reading the text. Your team knows there is evidence to support directly teaching vocabulary, but the way it’s done in the program isn’t aligned with best practice. Maybe the program has a laundry list of words and definitions the teacher is supposed to read to the class. So, instead, your team agrees that vocabulary instruction will still occur before reading, but teachers will adapt that instruction by selecting only a few vocabulary words (and they may not be the words from the lesson plan) and then use an agreed-upon routine to teach them (and again, maybe that’s different from the one written in the program). In this way, all the professionals in the building are aligned–there is fidelity–but the fidelity is not exclusively to the program. When teams clarify what fidelity looks like and where flexibility is appropriate, they’re better positioned to make decisions that support both teacher expertise and student outcomes.
Of course, this is not a quick or easy solution to the dilemma you face. It requires a high-quality program to build from, skilled leadership, and knowledgeable educators. Still, I hope this gives you something useful to bring back to your team as you work through this together.