( See above for an example of a Jamboard. See“ Structures and Processes Used in the Working Groups” on page 69 for additional structures, purposes, and examples from our data of how these played out in practice.)
Theme 2: Deep, Sustained Iteration Ensures All Voices Are Heard
Across our data, we traced moments when the working groups engaged in iterative processes of developing ideas for the curriculum. Iteration was important because it slowed down the decision-making process, ensuring that all voices in the working groups were heard. Iteration occurred both within the Educator Working Group and Critical Friends Working Group as well as across groups and over time. The process of developing a curriculum element began with a brainstorming session, in which all group members weighed in on the topic or puzzle. A subset of group members then processed the brainstorm and generated a draft document to capture the ideas. In the subsequent session, the whole group weighed in again, this time offering feedback, raising concerns, or affirming that the curriculum document felt on target. The document was then revised again and, if needed, brought back to the whole group once more.
For example, when deciding on a topic name for a curriculum unit focused on identity, the first draft for the title was“ All About Me.” During a meeting with the Critical Friends Working Group, one member remarked,“ The words all about me make me feel we are prioritizing the individual. Is that really what we want? What if we called it‘ All About Us’ instead to focus more on community?”( Critical Friends Working Group meeting, October 2022). This idea was then brought back to the Educator Working Group, who concurred, and the change was made. Repeatedly revisiting the same idea was especially important given that staffing and coverage issues, common in early childhood programs at the time, frequently meant that a group member had to miss a session.
Group members repeatedly commented on the power of this iterative process to elevate their individual contributions toward the development of the documents. One member described the Critical Friends Working Group as“ the most comfortable of uncomfortable spaces,” referring to the repeated revisiting and revising of complex curricular puzzles that took place. Another educator explained,“ When someone brings up a conundrum or something that doesn’ t sit right, I appreciate that this is not a judgmental space. We’ ve really listened to each other’ s points of view, reflected, and come back to share. We are really a community with each other.”
Theme 3: Shared Ownership of the Written Curriculum Empowers Educators
A final theme highlights the result of the finished curriculum: Members of both working groups expressed feeling a sense of shared ownership over the products they had created. As we reviewed the data, we found many instances of educators’ ideas translating into tangible elements of the finished curriculum. These included books that accompany particular units of exploration and specific ideas for ensuring a trauma-informed lens across the curriculum. Educators noticed this and felt affirmed when seeing their ideas come alive on the page.
During one session, a member of the Educator Working Group proposed a new iteration of a curriculum component template. When given the
68 Young Children
Summer 2026