consistent with past research indicating that when teachers feel ownership over their curriculum, they are more likely to engage with it and implement it meaningfully in their classrooms( Hattie 2011). The shift from passive to active engagement in curriculum-related activities illustrates how shared ownership can lead to more innovative and proactive teaching practices.
Implications for Practice
The results of this inquiry have important implications for curriculum development in marginalized and under-resourced educational contexts. These include:
› The value of participatory, equitable design processes in fostering both engagement and ownership. By involving educators directly in the design of the curriculum, this process helped to disrupt traditional top-down models of curriculum development, which are often driven by external, for-profit entities.
› The potential for small, community-driven projects to impact broader educational ecosystems. The sense of empowerment and shared ownership that emerged suggests that participatory curriculum design can serve as a catalyst for professional growth and transformation in educational communities. Future research could explore the long-term impacts of this curriculum on both educators and children, particularly in terms of how this sense of ownership influences teaching practices and student outcomes.
› Broad applicability of the principles of participatory, iterative, and equitable design. Educators and policymakers in other settings could adopt similar processes to engage local communities in curriculum development, thereby creating more responsive and culturally relevant educational materials. Such efforts may contribute to a larger shift toward educator-driven curriculum design and, ultimately, more equitable educational systems.
Limitations and Next Steps
As with any practitioner inquiry, the scope of this research is small and limited to a particular context. It inherently includes the bias of studying our own practice. Nonetheless, we share our results with humility and in hopes that our process and inquiry may inform and inspire other communities that are marginalized to engage in their own curriculum development efforts. Over time, this could help to shift the dynamics of curriculum development to a more local process that is driven more by educators than for-profit corporations.
One impact from this process has been a growing feeling of empowerment for many of the participating educators. They have demonstrated a gradual increase in joyful and playful experiences with children in their own classrooms and among teaching teams. For example, one classroom shifted from offering only free play with limited materials to engaging enthusiastically with the intentional learning experiences in the curriculum. In preparation for making nature collages, one educator proactively collected flowers, sticks, and leaves on her walk to work. During the experience, another educator ran outside to pick more flowers to add to the collection. Afterward, the teachers sent their coach an email with images of the experience and wrote,“ We’ ve been trying, and the other teachers have been excited about the activity too.”
We believe that the shared ownership that the working group members experienced in the curriculum design process is now extending beyond our group to other educators within our network. We look forward to expanding our practitioner inquiry to exploring the implementation and impacts of the curriculum over time.
Summer 2026 Young Children 71