View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Factors Influencing Teachers' Sustained Implementation of a Kindergarten Curriculum within the United States: A Qualitative Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Factors Influencing Teachers' Sustained Implementation of a Kindergarten Curriculum within the United States: A Qualitative Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Ryan E. Fink (ORCID 0000-0002-0019-9510), Katarina Suwak (ORCID 0009-0008-8848-4463), Gwendolyn M. Lawson (ORCID 0000-0003-4363-3169), Abigail Gray (ORCID 0000-0003-0437-9153), A. Brooks Bowden (ORCID 0000-0001-6079-5456)
Source: Curriculum Journal. 2025 36(1):66-81.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A160109
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Early Childhood Education, Kindergarten, Elementary Education, Preschool Teachers, Teacher Attitudes, Curriculum Evaluation, Preschool Education
Geographic Terms: Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
DOI: 10.1002/curj.257
ISSN: 0958-5176
1469-3704
Abstract: Teachers play a critical role in deciding what curricula are used in their classrooms. We examine the factors that teachers describe as influencing their sustainment or discontinuation of a literacy curriculum, "Zoology One," following their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the curriculum's efficacy. This study was conducted in a large urban district in the United States and the curriculum was implemented in kindergarten classrooms with children who are typically 5 and 6 years old. One year after their participation in the RCT, teachers who had been randomised to implement "Zoology One" during the efficacy study (N = 19) participated in interviews about their ongoing use of the curriculum. We analysed the interview data using a staged coding approach to understand the factors that teachers described influencing their sustainment or discontinuation of the curriculum. We used a multilevel framework to organise results across three levels: individual-level, school-level and macro-level. Results indicate that teacher perceptions of the curriculum, including those related to its effectiveness and age-appropriateness, contributed to sustained use. At the same time, some teachers' perceptions that the curriculum approaches were not sufficient for their students led them to discontinue some curriculum components. The implementation climate at their school, as well as the widespread adoption of a particular phonics programme within the school district, also influenced teachers' sustainment or discontinuation. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of teachers' perceptions of a curriculum as well as the critical role that the school and district context play in curricular sustainment.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1457699
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFBZdvvPb9HzQFY7EqQF3vmAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN4gd48vvsyCAwyVwAIBEICBm0xw87ZGN5mAORJ_RwpGIinPKs19OkiSji1sfo0wq00mXkmJvhWsAiM1DDTQy1OXQKlqA3T4wK8xfMJWOtl-0Chey_0Dtr01Ee3kAQHLJMjh7w_KLhL-koeOJdMMGp27L9eCenoLgvgDN2qbz355uX4WzMYEP7H9GwUHCK9tkVnothfA9wyBd7dIrxaUCUZ1Rw03xULhZlyy9wgW
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184199772;5az01mar.25;2025Apr04.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184199772-1">Factors influencing teachers' sustained implementation of a kindergarten curriculum within the United States: A qualitative analysis </title> <p>Teachers play a critical role in deciding what curricula are used in their classrooms. We examine the factors that teachers describe as influencing their sustainment or discontinuation of a literacy curriculum, Zoology One, following their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the curriculum's efficacy. This study was conducted in a large urban district in the United States and the curriculum was implemented in kindergarten classrooms with children who are typically 5 and 6 years old. One year after their participation in the RCT, teachers who had been randomised to implement Zoology One during the efficacy study (N = 19) participated in interviews about their ongoing use of the curriculum. We analysed the interview data using a staged coding approach to understand the factors that teachers described influencing their sustainment or discontinuation of the curriculum. We used a multilevel framework to organise results across three levels: individual‐level, school‐level and macro‐level. Results indicate that teacher perceptions of the curriculum, including those related to its effectiveness and age‐appropriateness, contributed to sustained use. At the same time, some teachers' perceptions that the curriculum approaches were not sufficient for their students led them to discontinue some curriculum components. The implementation climate at their school, as well as the widespread adoption of a particular phonics programme within the school district, also influenced teachers' sustainment or discontinuation. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of teachers' perceptions of a curriculum as well as the critical role that the school and district context play in curricular sustainment.</p> <p>Keywords: curriculum sustainment; multilevel implementation framework; qualitative interviews</p> <p>The curricula that teachers implement play an important role in student learning (Stein et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]). In efforts to ensure that all students are receiving high‐quality instruction, school districts frequently mandate the use of particular curricula (Sparks & Malkus, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>]) and support implementation through training, coaching or other resources. Within the United States, it is typical for curricula adoption to take place at the school or district level with the expectation that teachers will implement the adopted curriculum. In this context, teachers also have other resources at their disposal, including materials from prior curricula, online resources and materials they and/or their colleagues have developed, and often have at least some autonomy regarding curricular implementation in their classroom. Teachers therefore play an important role in deciding what curricula they actually use and how these curricula are implemented. There is increasing recognition that it is important to identify factors that influence <emph>sustained</emph> use of curricula in schools (Arnold et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]; DeRousie & Bierman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]; Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]), as sustained implementation is a key factor influencing student outcomes over time (Spoth et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]). By understanding the factors that influence teachers' sustainment of curricula, districts and schools can adopt and support curricula in ways that will more likely lead to sustained implementation.</p> <p>This current study examines the factors that teachers reported as influencing whether they continue using a kindergarten (i.e., for children who are typically aged 5–6 years) literacy curriculum one year following their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which they were randomly assigned to use the curriculum (Gray et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]). The study took place in a single school district in the United States, where separate curricular materials are often used for different subject areas, including literacy and math. In this context, literacy includes phonemic awareness, fluency and comprehension. Curriculum use in a district such as this is often guided by decisions at the school level or district level where a commitment is made to a particular curriculum containing materials and resources, but teachers typically have some autonomy over how those materials are used and whether supplemental materials are needed.</p> <p>Teachers who were assigned to use the curriculum during the RCT were expected to use the curriculum and received a full set of materials as well as professional development and ongoing coaching from the curriculum's publisher to support implementation fidelity during the trial. After the RCT, teachers retained access to the curricular materials but were no longer required to use them. For the current study, we conducted semi‐structured qualitative interviews with teachers in the treatment condition one year following their participation in the RCT to investigate their sustainment or discontinuation of the curriculum after the implementation supports from the RCT were removed.</p> <p>We use a multi‐stage qualitative approach to investigate factors that teachers report contributing to their sustained use or discontinuation of the curriculum (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]). We organise our findings into individual, school and macro levels (Domitrovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]). This study adds to the literature on sustainment by exploring the sustainment of a kindergarten literacy curriculum once implementation supports were reduced. More specifically, we addressed the following research question: 'What factors (across the individual, school and macro‐ levels) do teachers describe influencing their use or non‐use of the curriculum after the end of the efficacy trial?'</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-2">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-3">Sustainment</hd> <p>Sustainment can be conceptualised as the continued use of a programme after the initial resources and supports for implementation are removed (Blasinsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>]; Swindle et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref11">21</reflink>]), although there is no agreed‐upon definition for the length of time needed to consider a programme to be 'sustained'. The sustained implementation of effective programmes is important so that effective programmes reach broad populations of students and resources dedicated to adoption of new programmes are not wasted (Herlitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]). The construct of sustainment has been studied most extensively in medical and healthcare settings, although it is getting increasing attention in educational settings as well.</p> <p>A 2012 review of the existing sustainment literature (Wiltsey Stirman et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>]) reviewed 125 studies, mostly in medical and healthcare settings. The authors organised the influences on sustainability into three broad categories: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>) context (including both inner and outer context to the implementation setting); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>) the innovation itself (including adaptability and effectiveness); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>) capacity to sustain (including requisite funding and resources). Similarly, Shelton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]) reviewed conceptual frameworks of factors influencing sustainability in public health and healthcare and noted that multilevel frameworks in this area often include [<emph>italics</emph> added] 'the categories of <emph>intervention characteristics</emph>, <emph>organizational setting factors</emph>, and the <emph>broader context</emph>/community environment' (p. 59). Within the context of education, a 2020 systematic review focused on public health intervention in schools (Herlitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]) reviewed 24 studies, seven of which were conducted outside of the United States. This review identified four themes related to sustainability: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>) schools' capacity to sustain health interventions; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>) staff motivation and commitment; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>) intervention adaptation and integration and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>) the wider policy context for health promotion. Taken together, these reviews highlight the importance of considering multilevel influences on sustainment.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-4">Multilevel framework</hd> <p>To organise the existing literature and the findings from the current study, we use a multilevel framework that was initially developed to understand the factors influencing implementation quality of school‐based prevention programmes (Domitrovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]). The framework articulates that implementation quality can be understood by considering factors at the individual, school and macro levels. The individual level of the multilevel framework represents factors related to the individuals who deliver an intervention (hereafter, 'implementers'), such as their characteristics, self‐efficacy and beliefs about the intervention. The school level represents characteristics of the school that may influence implementation, such as the extent to which a new intervention is aligned with existing priorities and policies within the school, how resources are allocated within the school, the role and support of school administration, and school climate. The macro level represents the broader social context, such as federal, state or district‐level policies and practices. The literature reviewed in this section focuses on interventions designed to be implemented in school settings, by a range of school personnel (e.g., teachers, mental health practitioners and school aides or support staff) to improve student outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-5">Individual‐level factors</hd> <p>Prior studies have found that implementers' perceptions about an intervention, such as the amount of flexibility it affords, its impact on students and their comfort implementing it, influence sustainment. Implementers' perceptions about the time burden and flexibility afforded by an intervention have been identified as important individual‐level factors of implementation. One study found that teachers in their study cited programme flexibility as a facilitator of their sustained implementation of a supplemental elementary school math programme (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]). However, teachers in a different study reported that the amount of time required to implement a different mathematics curriculum was a barrier to sustained use (Fishman et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]). Specifically, teachers reported that the material took too long to cover in the allotted time and therefore interfered with their ability to prepare students for state tests and complete other activities.</p> <p>The extent to which implementers perceive an intervention to be effective has also been identified as a factor influencing sustainment. Whether the intent of the programme was to increase students' academic abilities (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]; Clements et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]; DeRousie & Bierman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]), or have an influence on families (Shapiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]), when individuals who were implementing the programmes perceived that the intervention was having its intended positive impacts, it contributed to their desire to sustain implementation. In fact, in their study of a preschool curriculum, DeRousie and Bierman ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]) reported that 100% of the teachers in their study cited perceived effectiveness as a factor contributing to their continued use of the curriculum. Similarly, Baker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]) also found that a technological feature of the math programme that allowed teachers to see that the intervention was working for their students led teachers to continue implementing it.</p> <p>Individual‐level factors related to implementers' comfort and self‐efficacy using an intervention have also been identified as important barriers and facilitators to sustainment (Arnold et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>]; Shapiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]). For example, in a study of the sustained use of an evidence‐based parenting intervention, providers reported that their confidence and comfort level in using the programme were facilitators of their sustained use (Shapiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]). DeRousie and Bierman ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]) found that the alignment of a preschool curriculum with teachers' existing teaching style was a reason for sustainment.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-6">School‐level factors</hd> <p>At the school level, implementation climate (i.e., the school's level of support and receptivity to a particular initiative; Damschroder et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]) has been identified as important for sustained implementation. In a study about a physical education programme, teachers reported that they felt supported by administrators at the school to implement the programme and this encouraged them to continue to do so (Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]). Likewise, support from colleagues and teacher teams around the implementation of a preschool curriculum was cited as a facilitator in teachers' sustained use of the curriculum (DeRousie & Bierman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]). Finally, Lyon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]) found that implementation climates characterised by low burnout and high personal accomplishment were conducive to sustained implementation of an after‐school programme in low‐SES urban communities. Relatedly, the amount and quality of professional development and support provided at the school level have been identified as important for sustainment in studies of a supplemental math programme (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]), an early childhood math curriculum (Clements et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]), a parenting‐focused intervention (Shapiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]) and a programme focused on supporting students in weight‐loss efforts (Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]), and an after‐school programme (Lyon et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The availability of resources within a school, including time, technology, space and finances, has also been identified as a factor influencing the sustained implementation of interventions. Fishman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]) found that a lack of time for teachers to prepare for lessons and limitations around the availability of technology and computers were barriers to sustained implementation for teachers in their study of a mathematics curriculum. Likewise, the implementation of a weight loss programme in schools was influenced by a lack of adequate time and finances to support implementation (Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref46">10</reflink>]). Lastly, Arnold et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]) found that the lack of appropriate space to implement a mental health intervention in schools was a barrier to sustained use of the intervention. Insufficient availability of staff and staff turnover were also identified as obstacles to sustained use of interventions (Arnold et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]; Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>]; Lyon et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-7">Macro‐level factors</hd> <p>In the existing literature, two macro‐level factors have been identified as barriers to sustainment: inadequate funding provided to support implementation (Arnold et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]) and a lack of alignment between an intervention and broader initiatives or standards (Arnold et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]; Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]; Fishman et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]; Lyon et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>]). Arnold et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>]) reported that financial support for implementation from the school district was not provided for a mental health intervention and schools were left to fund the initiative on their own. Staff identified this lack of funding from the district as a barrier to sustainment of the programme. Other studies identified a lack of alignment between the intervention and broader initiatives or policies, such as district and state mandates (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]) and state accountability assessments (Fishman et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref58">9</reflink>]), as barriers to sustainment.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-8">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-9">Procedures for larger RCT</hd> <p>The larger RCT examined the efficacy of an integrated kindergarten literacy and science curriculum, <emph>Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs</emph> (<emph>Zoology One</emph> and later renamed <emph>ARC Core)</emph> and took place in 21 schools within the School District of Philadelphia over the course of two school years (Gray et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]). The first cohort of schools participated in the study during the 2016–2017 school year and included 12 schools and 40 classrooms. The second cohort of schools participated in the study during the 2017–2018 academic year and included nine schools and 31 classrooms. Seventy‐one teachers of kindergarten students (typically ages 5–6) participated in the RCT over the two years: 37 in the treatment condition and 34 in the control condition. Teachers within participating schools were automatically randomly assigned to either use Zoology or to continue business as usual instruction. All research activities, including surveys and interviews, were voluntary.</p> <p>While the efficacy study was being conducted in their schools, teachers in the treatment condition were expected to implement the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum in its entirety and were provided with the full set of curriculum materials required to implement the programme. The materials included a curriculum guide, an expansive book collection, student incentives, home reading materials, science materials, a reading assessment framework, and access to an online data management and information system (SchoolPace) to track students' growth. Teachers implementing <emph>Zoology One</emph> were also provided with additional resources, including a full‐day startup training the week before the first day of kindergarten and ten on‐site individualised coaching sessions occurring approximately monthly throughout the school year. They also had ongoing access to coaches via phone and email for the school year in which they were enrolled in the RCT. The monthly coaching sessions were provided by two coaches from the curriculum's publisher (American Reading Company) and consisted of training and supporting teachers in implementing the curriculum, including using SchoolPace to record student progress and reading volume, instructing parents to support home reading, sharing ideas and strategies, and modelling lessons.</p> <p>Following the year in which they participated in the RCT, teachers were permitted to retain all the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum materials (with the exception of access to the online data system[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]) but were no longer required to implement the curriculum, and no longer received training or coaching regarding the curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-10">Procedures</hd> <p>Recruitment for the current study occurred in the spring following teachers' participation in the RCT. First, all treatment teachers (<emph>N</emph> = 37) were sent a survey asking if they were still teaching kindergarten and the extent to which they were still using the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum. Twenty‐eight teachers responded to the survey and confirmed they were still teaching kindergarten. Teachers were asked in the survey if they were continuing to use the curriculum in its entirety, in combination with other materials, or not at all. Twenty‐seven of the 28 survey respondents who reported that they were still teaching kindergarten also reported that they were still using the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum in some capacity. Teachers were then asked to estimate the percentage of their literacy block in which they were using <emph>Zoology One</emph> materials. Based on these survey responses, we used purposive sampling to recruit a sample of 19 teachers to participate in an interview, with the goal of sampling across the full range of sustained and discontinued <emph>Zoology One</emph> implementation.</p> <p>Teachers were invited to participate in the interview via email, and the voluntary nature of participation was explained. Teachers were offered a financial incentive of $25 for participation. Interviews were scheduled at each teacher's convenience and were conducted either in‐person or over the phone. Teachers were asked to provide written informed consent and were given an opportunity to ask the researcher any questions about their participation. All procedures were approved by the university's institutional review board and the school districts' research review committee.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-11">Participants</hd> <p>Among the sample of 19 teachers who participated in interviews, all 19 reported on the survey that they were using Zoology One in some capacity. Six teachers reported they were using only Zoology One in their classrooms, while the remaining 13 said they were using Zoology One materials 'in combination with other literacy curricula'. Eighteen of these teachers identified as female and one as male; 16 identified as Caucasian, two African American and one Latina. The sample of teachers was generally quite experienced, although many teachers had less experience teaching Kindergarten specifically. The majority of teachers in the sample (58%) reported having 15 or more years of teaching experience, and 21% reported having 15 or more years of experience teaching Kindergarten specifically. Five percent of teachers had only one year of experience teaching Kindergarten, and an additional 5% had between two and five years of experience teaching Kindergarten. Two of the teachers also reported that they had been trained as reading specialists, an indication that they had received extensive training around teaching reading.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-12">Semi‐structured interviews</hd> <p>Interviews were conducted by members of the research team and were guided by a semi‐structured protocol designed by the research team to understand teachers' sustained use of <emph>Zoology One</emph>. Interview questions asked about the extent to which teachers continued using the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum, who made decisions about what curriculum was being used, and teachers' reasons for sustaining or discontinuing the use of various components of the curriculum. Interviews lasted approximately 25 min with substantial variation: the shortest interview lasted just 10 min and the longest interview lasted almost 36 min. Reasons for this variation in length included the amount of time a teacher had available for the interview as well as how much they had to share regarding their sustained use—or lack thereof—of the curriculum. Because the interviews were specifically designed to understand teachers' sustainment or discontinuation of Zoology One, we found that the interview length was sufficient for gathering rich information about this topic. Additionally, the research team members conducting interviews had already built rapport with each of the interview participants through interviews and classroom visits conducted the previous year, which enabled us to gather rich information efficiently.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-13">Data analysis</hd> <p>The interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed using a third‐party service. Transcripts were uploaded to an online qualitative software platform, Dedoose, for coding and analysis. Coding for this study focused on understanding <emph>why</emph> teachers were still using or not using various components of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum one year after the end of implementation supports, using a staged coding approach (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]). The first stage involved applying a broad <emph>why</emph> code to any explanation or rationale provided by an interview participant regarding their continued use or non‐use of any <emph>Zoology One</emph> approach, material, or resource. Three members of the research team defined this initial <emph>why</emph> code by collectively considering five different interview transcripts. The research team then conducted double‐coding reliability exercises on additional transcripts until 80% agreement was reached as to how the <emph>why</emph> code should be applied (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>]). These exercises included each researcher coding the same set of transcripts and then meeting as a group to review coded excerpts. Discrepancies in how the code was applied were discussed and reconciled, and clarifications were added to the code definition as needed. Following these exercises, all interviews were then coded in Dedoose to complete Stage 1. Two of the research team members then read through the coded excerpts to develop Stage 2 subcodes for the <emph>why</emph> excerpts. These codes were developed inductively through each researcher's own reading of the excerpts and then coming together to compare potential inductive codes and to consider examples from the transcripts.</p> <p>Stage 2 coding was then completed by applying these iteratively developed subcodes to the excerpts coded using the <emph>why</emph> code in Stage 1. The Stage 1 excerpts were then arranged in a data display matrix (Miles & Huberman, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]) organised by the Stage 2 subcodes. The research team collaborated on this process and conferred regularly to verify how excerpts were being coded and if refinements to the Stage 2 codes were needed. A memo was then drafted by a member of the research team to summarise the themes and results within each of the subcodes. The memos were vetted and discussed by other members of the research team (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>]) and then refined to produce a set of themes that were organised according to Domitrovich et al.'s (Domitrovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref65">8</reflink>]) multilevel implementation framework.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-14">RESULTS</hd> <p>Teachers cited factors at the individual level that contributed to their sustained use, as well as their decisions to discontinue use, of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum. We organised these factors into two themes (each of which was divided into two subthemes) related to individual‐level factors contributing to teachers' sustained use of the curriculum, and one theme (with three subthemes) related to individual‐level factors contributing to teachers' discontinuation. Following the presentation and discussion of these individual level factors, we share two themes related to school‐level factors and one macro‐level factor from our data. Table 1 displays these themes, subthemes and representative quotes.</p> <p>1 TABLE Summary of major themes and subthemes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Themes</th><th align="left">Subthemes</th><th align="left">Representative quote</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Individual‐level factors contributing to curriculum sustainment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived benefits for students</td><td align="left">Perceived effectiveness of the curriculum</td><td align="left">I have these charts all over the room and the kids whenever we're discussing stories, they're always referring back to that and they're reading off the charts and they're using the vocabulary and I just think the children are learning a lot. (Teacher A1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Increased student engagement and motivation</td><td align="left">Really, the biggest thing is the engagement and the interest level. All of the read‐alouds, all of the independent reading books, I think they just ... it's topics that either they were already interested in coming into school, or they've gained a lot of interest in, being around it so much at school. I really just think it's appropriate and it's interesting, and it's like a fun way to learn reading. (Teacher I1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Structure of curriculum</td><td align="left">Perceived benefit of structured approach for students</td><td align="left">It structures in a lot of reading that is appropriate for them and teaches them, from that really early stage of reading, how to do it themselves (Teacher E5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Curriculum perceived as user‐friendly</td><td align="left">It's just the ease of being able to use the materials too because that was less thing that I had to include when I had the list for guided reading materials, everything was right there. Everything was right there for me, for the shared reading. So I think just the ease of being able to just manage all the materials played a big part (Teacher O2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived value of science focus</td><td align="left">I do the science component with the Zoology, because the science and the writing I really enjoy doing that part, the Zoology component. Because we don't have a science unit. So it's like science literacy. (Teacher H4)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived age‐appropriateness</td><td align="left">I think it's just more an appropriate, for our age, especially for kindergarten, a more appropriate curriculum. (Teacher I1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Individual‐level factors contributing to discontinued use of curriculum</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived inadequacy of curriculum</td><td align="left">Perceived lack of explicit, structured phonics component</td><td align="left">I know they have a different kind of theory about how kids learn to read that doesn't necessarily include direct phonics instruction, but I just thought for my kids who really needed help decoding words when they were reading, without that direct instruction ... not that they suffered, but just, it could've been useful. (Teacher I1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perception that curriculum did not adequately address writing</td><td align="left">It [writing] was more up to them, but now it's more, I guess more structured where you have to keep reminding them about the rules of writing. I felt like last year was more—I left it up to them whatever they wanted to write and now it's like I have to be really intense with conferencing and they have us observed and everything so there's other requirements. (Teacher C3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perception that the approach to guided reading was less effective</td><td align="left">Those skills that I teach in guided reading. I had to go back to that piece. I couldn't just do a skills lesson, and the Independent reading conference. You need that guided reading piece. (Teacher R1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School‐level factors contributing to discontinued use of curriculum</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Implementation climate</td><td align="left">Return to previous whole school literacy approach</td><td align="left">We've always used them at my school. It's just that, the principal... that's what we do. We follow this... workshop model. So last year it was different when we had to follow Zoology, but I went back to what we normally did. (Teacher N7)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Administrative leadership</td><td align="left">Lack of administrative support</td><td align="left">I love the materials, and I attempted to use it in the beginning of the year. And I was told not to. (Teacher T1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Macro level factor contributing to decisions to not sustain use of curriculum</td></tr><tr><td align="left">District policy</td><td align="left">Expected use of district‐adopted programme</td><td align="left">The only difference is now we do [district phonics programme]. So, last year we weren't able to do that. This year we have to do that (Teacher A1)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184199772-15">Individual level factors contributing to curriculum sustainment</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-16">Perceived benefits for students</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-17">Perceived effectiveness of the curriculum</hd> <p>Teachers who perceived that the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum was effective for their students' academic growth tended to cite this perceived advantage of the curriculum as a reason for continuing to implement it even after they were no longer required to do so. Teachers cited both informal observation of students' written work and formative assessment data as evidence of this growth. Some teachers pointed to specific aspects or activities embedded in the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum as being particularly effective for their students, such as this teacher's observation of a journal writing activity: 'Big, big strides in many areas. You have to see our journal writing today—just simple journal writing. More than 75% of the kids had beautiful sentence and phonetic spelling, could read back to me what they wanted to say. I see the growth' (Teacher C2). Other teachers talked about the perceived impact of daily, sustained independent reading (i.e., independent reading for 30 min a day with <emph>Zoology One</emph>) on their students: 'Just the way my kids have moved and even this year I see it. I mean, if you're constantly being exposed to books and reading like that, how can you not learn? How can you not pick it up?' (Teacher H1). Additionally, several teachers indicated that data from formative assessments informed their decision to sustain use of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum. For example, one teacher discussed how examining formative assessment data directed her school's decision to implement the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum in the subsequent year: <emph>'</emph>At the end of last year, we looked at the numbers [...] and we [<emph>Zoology One</emph> classrooms] had more kids on reading level at the end of the year, so we decided to go with <emph>Zoology</emph> to teach this year' (Teacher G4). These results highlight how teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of the curriculum, including their perceptions of student growth as well as formative assessment data, were important for their sustainment of <emph>Zoology One</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-18">Increased student engagement and motivation</hd> <p>Teachers discussed how the materials included in the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum, particularly the independent reading books, contributed to engagement and motivation for their students. This perceived increased engagement with the curriculum was often cited as a factor in teachers' sustainment of <emph>Zoology One</emph>. Teachers attributed the high levels of student engagement to the curriculum's focus on animals and the fact that it provided access to books that were appropriate for each student's reading level. For example, one teacher explained their reason for sustaining use as: 'It's that engagement level and sort of their buy‐in and motivation to it and then just sort of the content being—them being exposed to the content in a way that makes it accessible' (Teacher G4). Similarly, when explaining why they continued to implement the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum, another shared: 'My big thing is that the students are so engaged. They really like learning about these topics, and they're really engaged, and their books are levelled so it's not too hard for them' (Teacher I1). Taken together, teachers attributed their continued use of the curriculum in part to their perceptions of the curriculum's ability to engage students.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-19">Structure of curriculum</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-20">Perceived benefit of structured approach for students</hd> <p>Teachers shared that the structure of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> approach was beneficial for their students in that it provided opportunities for students to take ownership over their learning. One teacher shared, 'The kids become so responsible. My kids know what the expectations are' (Teacher H4). Another teacher added, 'The program itself teaches them a lot more independence and how to do things on their own' and continuing, 'The routine makes it effective for students—they know how the day is going to run" (Teacher E5). The opportunities provided in the structure of the curriculum, which allowed for students to build independence (i.e., knowing their reading levels and selecting their own independent reading books), as well as the establishment of a schedule and routines for the literacy block, influenced some teachers' sustained implementation of the curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-21">Curriculum perceived as user friendly</hd> <p>Teachers reported that the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum's structure and supports facilitated adoption and implementation and therefore also played a role in their sustained use. The format and structure of the curriculum's teacher guide, which included lesson plans and additional activities, were cited by some teachers as being particularly valuable. One teacher said, 'The way the teacher's guide is set up is really nice—the way it walks you through each day and each part of the literacy block. It makes it very user‐friendly, and it's flexible and gives like fun and creative ideas that you might not necessarily think of yourself' (Teacher I1). Teachers also discussed the convenience and effectiveness of having a curriculum containing various connected components. The particular usefulness of <emph>Zoology One</emph>'s teacher guide and the way in which its materials were so tightly connected with one another were appealing aspects to teachers and contributed to their continued use of the curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-22">Perceived value of science focus</hd> <p>Teachers perceived the science integration in the curriculum as valuable and meeting an important need. In citing the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum's science component as being a factor in their sustained use, teachers often referred to the vocabulary that students are exposed to, how the activities in the science component allow students to learn independent of the teacher, and the authenticity of the work that students were engaged with during science. One teacher stated, 'I like how Zoology gives you ideas and lessons and the vocabulary to use. I never used that before—all of the vocabulary—just what zoology means and different kinds of animals, vertebrates and reptiles' (Teacher A1). Another teacher talked about seeing the benefit of the science content through its impact on students' writing. They explained, 'The science unit allowed my kids to improve with their writing because they wrote about what they read. And because they had so many books, an ecology unit, zoology unit, entomology unit, they had so many books that was tangible and hands on for them, that they were able to get that experience and then they were able to write about it' (Teacher H4). Other teachers also mentioned that they continued using the science component of <emph>Zoology One</emph> because they did not have other science materials available to them or they would not otherwise be able to find time in their schedules to teach science if it was not already embedded in the literacy curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-23">Perceived age‐appropriateness</hd> <p>Teachers' beliefs about the age‐appropriateness of the materials in <emph>Zoology One</emph> were also a factor that contributed to their sustained use of the curriculum. One teacher stated, 'Zoology was much more appropriate for kindergarten' (Teacher E5) compared to other curricula provided by the school. In particular, many teachers talked about the levelled texts (i.e., books) that are a part of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum. In an interview, one teacher shared the reason she continued using the books was that they were written in a way that challenged students to learn, compared to previously used student texts: 'You know before was always the books started with one word, one picture. These start with repetitive sentence stems and the last word changes, and I think that really helps the kids along.' (Teacher A1). Another teacher talked about the value of having a range of books at each child's reading level, 'It has given me a variety of books to put in children's hands that are at their level' (Teacher R1). Teachers appreciated having books and materials that were age‐appropriate for their students, and this feature of the curriculum contributed to their sustained use of <emph>Zoology One</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-24">Individual level factors contributing to discontinued use of curriculum</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-25">Perceived inadequacy of curriculum</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-26">Perceived lack of explicit, structured phonics component</hd> <p>A barrier to sustained use of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum for some teachers was their perception that the curriculum lacked an explicit, structured phonics component. Some teachers believed that a more explicit approach to teaching phonics would be beneficial for their students. One teacher shared, 'Some kids come into kindergarten knowing all of their letters and sounds and some kids come in knowing nothing. And although we do a lot of things to build those letters and sounds, they need explicit instruction as early as possible' (Teacher E5) Teachers' perceptions of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum's lack of adequate phonics instruction influenced their decision to supplement <emph>Zoology One</emph> with more explicit phonics curricula, though they often continued to sustain a majority of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-27">Perception that curriculum did not adequately address writing</hd> <p>Many teachers also chose to adapt or replace the writing component of <emph>Zoology One</emph> due to their belief that <emph>Zoology One</emph>'s approach to writing did not fully meet students' needs. When discussing their adaptations to the writing component, teachers talked about wanting a more structured approach to writing and wanting to provide additional opportunities for their students to experiment with the different purposes for writing, such as writing narratives or opinion pieces. This teacher said, '<emph>Zoology</emph> lends itself to a lot of informational writing, but it doesn't lend itself to the other genres you're supposed to hit on—like opinion, persuasive, imaginative narrative, personal narrative' (Teacher R1). Another teacher shared that they believed an alternative writing approach would be more effective in helping students meet the kindergarten standard for writing: 'I felt that my students were strong readers, and they could write a lot of non‐fiction [when using <emph>Zoology One</emph>], but they kind of really struggled to write any narrative pieces. I just didn't feel that the writing component fit the kindergarten standard as well as the [previous writing approach]' (Teacher I1). These perspectives from teachers led them to adopt alternative approaches to writing than the approach included in the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-28">Perception that the approach to guided reading was less effective</hd> <p>Additionally, some teachers also chose to adapt their approach to guided reading, often going back to materials or approaches they had used prior to being introduced to <emph>Zoology One</emph>. One teacher described why they made this choice, 'I chose to use those [non‐<emph>Zoology</emph>] resources because they are organized by comprehension strategy—making predictions, cause and effect, compare and contrast—and DRA level. They are easy to grab and plan quickly. (Teacher I1)' Some teachers believed that <emph>Zoology One</emph>'s approach to guided reading was less advantageous for their students than alternative approaches and these teachers described choosing to use a more traditional approach to guided reading than what the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum offered.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-29">School‐level factors contributing to discontinued use of curriculum</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-30">Implementation climate</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-31">Return to previous whole school literacy approach</hd> <p>Teachers discussed the implementation climate as a school‐level factor that impacted their sustained use of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum. One school, from which three teachers were interviewed, had previously been using a whole‐school approach to teaching literacy for several years. Teachers in this school who used the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum during the efficacy evaluation had previously used the whole‐school approach and returned to it following the efficacy evaluation. This decision was made by school leadership, and teachers in this school also expressed a preference for returning to the previously used whole‐school approach, with one teacher sharing, 'I feel like [the previously used approach is] beneficial for the kids. They are able to be reading independently on what they can actually read, and I do think a lot of the mini lessons allow me to cater to their specific needs a little bit more [than <emph>Zoology</emph>]' (Teacher N8). The teacher then added that she believed that the lessons she was now using with her students from a different curriculum, 'work better for the students that I teach'. However, teachers did report continuing to use some of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> materials in a limited capacity, specifically citing their continued use of the student books.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-32">Administrative leadership</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-33">Lack of administrative support</hd> <p>Directives from school leadership regarding what curriculum to use were also a factor for two teachers in the study. These teachers, both in the same school, were told explicitly by the school administration to no longer implement the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum after the efficacy evaluation ended, although both teachers reported continuing to use the <emph>Zoology One</emph> student books. Both of these teachers shared that they would have chosen to continue using the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum if the choice had been left up to them.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-34">Macro‐level factor contributing to discontinued use of curriculum</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-35">District policy</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184199772-36">Expected use of district‐adopted programme</hd> <p>A Macro‐Level factor that influenced teachers' sustained use of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum was the widespread district adoption of a particular, stand‐alone phonics programme. Some teachers shared that the decision to implement this phonics programme was often made by their school or district. One teacher explained, 'This year I was told that I had to use [phonics programme]. That would be the only thing that's a little bit different [from the year of the efficacy evaluation]' (Teacher B2). Other teachers explained that they often chose to supplement <emph>Zoology One</emph> with other curricula due to a perceived lack of explicit phonics instruction embedded in the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum. However, in some cases, external policies regarding phonics instruction affected the extent to which teachers sustained the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-37">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Previous research has identified factors across multiple levels that influence the sustainment of a range of interventions, including those related to student learning and well‐being. The current results specifically contribute to our understanding about the factors that influence teachers' sustained use of a curriculum designed to teach literacy to kindergarten students. Our findings demonstrate that teachers most often described individual‐level factors as influencing their sustainment of the curriculum in the year after their participation in an RCT. Primarily, teachers referenced their perceptions about the curriculum, such as its impact on student learning and how user‐friendly they found it to be. In some cases, school‐ or macro‐level factors, such as administrative leadership and district policies, also played a role in sustainment decisions. Together, these results contribute to the literature on sustainment by identifying factors that influence curriculum sustainment in the context of a kindergarten literacy curriculum within a large urban school district in the United States.</p> <p>Most of the identified individual‐level factors associated with sustained implementation of <emph>Zoology One</emph> were related specifically to teachers' perceptions about the curriculum itself. Notably, the perceived effectiveness of the curriculum—in this case, related to student learning and student engagement—was particularly salient. These results are consistent with conceptual frameworks of sustainment that highlight the role of the intervention itself (Shelton et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>]; Wiltsey Stirman et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref67">22</reflink>]). Prior studies in school settings have found that the extent to which the implementer perceives an intervention to be effective influences decisions regarding sustainment (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]; Clements et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref69">5</reflink>]; DeRousie & Bierman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]). Previous research also identified the fit of an intervention with an existing teaching style or approach (Shapiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref71">16</reflink>]) as being important. The current results confirm these findings in the context of a kindergarten literacy curriculum. We also found that teachers did not sustain some aspects of the <emph>Zoology One</emph> curriculum because they preferred a previous approach that was not a part of <emph>Zoology One</emph>—in this case, an approach to providing guided reading to students. The current finding that teachers sustained some parts of the curriculum but not others is consistent with previous research finding partial sustainment of programmes (DeRousie & Bierman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref72">7</reflink>]). The fact that the majority of factors identified were at the individual level highlights the autonomy this group of teachers, who were generally quite experienced, had in making decisions to sustain or discontinue aspects of the curriculum.</p> <p>However, there were a few factors at the school and macro levels that contributed to teachers' decisions to discontinue the curriculum. Prior literature has found that implementation climates characterised by high levels of administrative support and low turnover support sustainment (Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]; Lyon et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>]); consistent with this, we also found that the level of support at the school level (i.e., implementation climate and leadership) regarding <emph>Zoology One</emph> contributed to sustainment or discontinuation of the curriculum for some teachers. At the macro level, results showed that district‐level expectations (i.e., expectations for the use of a particular structured phonics) influenced some teachers' sustainment of <emph>Zoology One</emph>. This was similar to findings from previous studies, which found that sustainment was influenced by a lack of alignment between an intervention and district and state mandates (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>]) and another finding regarding the lack of alignment of an intervention with state accountability assessments (Fishman et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref76">9</reflink>]). Our results highlight the importance of school‐ and district‐level policy regarding curricular implementation within the United States. As observed here, these policies can interact in complex ways with randomised controlled trials, in which the implementation of a particular curriculum is mandated and supported for a finite period of time.</p> <p>Our findings have direct implications for the development of strategies to support sustained implementation of curricula within this or similar contexts. First, these findings underscore the importance of teachers' perceptions of a curriculum, including its effectiveness and ease of use, during initial implementation. Involving teachers meaningfully in decision‐making regarding curriculum adoption, or even in curriculum development may help teachers have more positive experiences with curricula and therefore lead to greater sustainment. Second, the results also highlight the importance of administrators and district officials creating school‐level implementation climates that support sustainment. Several teachers in this study shared that they stopped using the curriculum following the end of the RCT because they were expected to use a different curriculum instead. Given the importance of sustainment (Herlitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref77">12</reflink>]), these findings highlight the importance of securing commitment for a new curriculum across multiple levels prior to the adoption of the curriculum.</p> <p>The findings from this study should be considered in the context of three main limitations. First, some teachers who participated in the <emph>Zoology One</emph> efficacy study were not interviewed as part of the current study. Teachers who were no longer teaching kindergarten at the time of data collection were excluded, and only a sample of the remaining teachers were invited to participate in an interview, which may limit the generalisability of the results. However, we did speak with teachers who represented a range of levels of sustainment of the curriculum, according to self‐reports. Additionally, this study took place within one school‐district context with one curriculum, and the findings may therefore be unique to either the particular context or curriculum under study. Lastly, teachers may have wanted to tell researchers what they thought we wanted to hear, namely, that they were continuing to use the materials they received for participating in the study. Researchers had, however, developed rapport with many of the participating teachers during the study and reiterated that they were interested in hearing the teachers' honest experiences and perceptions.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-38">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Despite these limitations, this study extends our understanding of factors across the individual, school and macro levels, that teachers describe as contributing to their sustainment or discontinuation of a curriculum following the reduction of implementation support after the end of an RCT. The most prominent factors were related to teachers' perceptions about the curriculum, its structure, and its impacts on students. Implementation climate at the school level, as well as district expectations to use a particular type of programme, were also factors in the extent to which teachers sustained use of the curriculum. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of teachers' perceptions of a curriculum as well as the critical role that the school and district context play in what curricula get used in schools. These results add to the literature on programme sustainment by identifying factors that teachers describe influencing their curricular sustainment or discontinuation within the context of a kindergarten literacy curriculum in a United States school district. It will be important for future research to explore strategies to address school‐level and individual‐level factors to support the sustained implementation of effective curricula.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-39">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A160109 to the University of Pennsylvania. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-40">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-41">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The researchers do not intend to make the data publicly available because they do not have permission to share the data based on the consent that participants were provided.</p> <hd id="AN0184199772-42">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This study was vetted and approved by the University of Pennsylvania's Institutional Review Board and the participating school district's internal review committee. All research participants were provided informed consent outlining their rights.</p> <ref id="AN0184199772-43"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The grant that funded the RCT offered to pay for schools to have access to the online data system for an additional year following their participation in the study. Not all schools took advantage of this offer.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184199772-44"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Arnold, K. T., Pollack Porter, K. M., Frattaroli, S., Durham, R. E., Clary, L. K., & Mendelson, T. (2021). Multilevel barriers and facilitators to sustainability of a universal trauma‐informed school‐based mental health intervention following an efficacy trial: A qualitative study. School Mental Health, 13 (1), 174 – 185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J. A., & Griffiths, R. (2004). The sustained use of research‐based instructional practice: A case study of peer‐assisted learning strategies in mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 25 (1), 5 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blasinsky, M., Goldman, H. H., & Unützer, J. (2006). Project IMPACT: A report on barriers and facilitators to sustainability. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 718 – 729.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in‐depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42 (3), 294 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., & Spitler, M. E. (2015). Sustainability of a scale‐up intervention in early mathematics: A longitudinal evaluation of implementation fidelity. Early Education and Development, 26 (3), 427 – 449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref36" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4 (1), 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> DeRousie, R. M. S., & Bierman, K. L. (2012). Examining the sustainability of an evidence‐based preschool curriculum: The REDI program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27 (1), 55 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J. M., Hoagwood, K., Buckley, J. A., Olin, S., Hunter Romanelli, L., Leaf, P. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Ialongo, N. S. (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence‐based preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 1 (3), 6 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Fishman, B., Penuel, W. R., Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (2011). What happens when the research ends? Factors related to the sustainability of a technology‐infused mathematics curriculum. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30 (4), 329 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friend, S., Flattum, C. F., Simpson, D., Nederhoff, D. M., & Neumark‐Sztainer, D. (2014). The researchers have left the building: What contributes to sustaining school‐based interventions following the conclusion of formal research support? Journal of School Health, 84 (5), 326 – 333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, A. M., Sirinides, P. M., Fink, R. E., & Bowden, A. B. (2022). Integrating literacy and science instruction in kindergarten: Results from the efficacy Study of Zoology One. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 15 (1), 1 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herlitz, L., MacIntyre, H., Osborn, T., & Bonell, C. (2020). The sustainability of public health interventions in schools: A systematic review. Implementation Science, 15 (1), 1 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyon, A. R., Frazier, S. L., Mehta, T., Atkins, M. S., & Weisbach, J. (2011). Easier said than done: Intervention sustainability in an urban after‐school program. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 504 – 517.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, C. J., Prinz, R. J., & Sanders, M. R. (2015). Sustaining use of an evidence‐based parenting intervention: Practitioner perspectives. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1615 – 1624.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shelton, R. C., Cooper, B. R., & Stirman, S. W. (2018). The sustainability of evidence‐based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 55 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, D., & Malkus, N. (2015). Public School Teacher Autonomy in the Classroom across School Years 2003‐04, 2007‐08, and 2011‐12. Stats in Brief. NCES 2015‐089. National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spoth, R., Guyll, M., Redmond, C., Greenberg, M., & Feinberg, M. (2011). Six‐year sustainability of evidence‐based intervention implementation quality by community‐university partnerships: The PROSPER study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48 (3–4), 412 – 425.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1 (1), 319 – 370.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swindle, T., Bellows, L. L., Mitchell, V., Johnson, S. L., Shakya, S., Zhang, D., Selig, J. P., Whiteside‐Mansell, L., & Curran, G. M. (2022). Predictors of sustainment of two distinct nutrition and physical activity programs in early care and education. Frontiers in Health Services, 2, 1010305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiltsey Stirman, S., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7 (1), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ryan E. Fink; Katarina Suwak; Gwendolyn M. Lawson; Abigail Gray and A. Brooks Bowden</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref63"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1457699
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Factors Influencing Teachers' Sustained Implementation of a Kindergarten Curriculum within the United States: A Qualitative Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ryan+E%2E+Fink%22">Ryan E. Fink</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0019-9510">0000-0002-0019-9510</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katarina+Suwak%22">Katarina Suwak</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8848-4463">0009-0008-8848-4463</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gwendolyn+M%2E+Lawson%22">Gwendolyn M. Lawson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4363-3169">0000-0003-4363-3169</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abigail+Gray%22">Abigail Gray</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0437-9153">0000-0003-0437-9153</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22A%2E+Brooks+Bowden%22">A. Brooks Bowden</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6079-5456">0000-0001-6079-5456</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Curriculum+Journal%22"><i>Curriculum Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 36(1):66-81.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305A160109
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Evaluation%22">Curriculum Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pennsylvania+%28Philadelphia%29%22">Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/curj.257
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0958-5176<br />1469-3704
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Teachers play a critical role in deciding what curricula are used in their classrooms. We examine the factors that teachers describe as influencing their sustainment or discontinuation of a literacy curriculum, "Zoology One," following their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the curriculum's efficacy. This study was conducted in a large urban district in the United States and the curriculum was implemented in kindergarten classrooms with children who are typically 5 and 6 years old. One year after their participation in the RCT, teachers who had been randomised to implement "Zoology One" during the efficacy study (N = 19) participated in interviews about their ongoing use of the curriculum. We analysed the interview data using a staged coding approach to understand the factors that teachers described influencing their sustainment or discontinuation of the curriculum. We used a multilevel framework to organise results across three levels: individual-level, school-level and macro-level. Results indicate that teacher perceptions of the curriculum, including those related to its effectiveness and age-appropriateness, contributed to sustained use. At the same time, some teachers' perceptions that the curriculum approaches were not sufficient for their students led them to discontinue some curriculum components. The implementation climate at their school, as well as the widespread adoption of a particular phonics programme within the school district, also influenced teachers' sustainment or discontinuation. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of teachers' perceptions of a curriculum as well as the critical role that the school and district context play in curricular sustainment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1457699
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1457699
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/curj.257
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 66
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Factors Influencing Teachers' Sustained Implementation of a Kindergarten Curriculum within the United States: A Qualitative Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ryan E. Fink
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katarina Suwak
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gwendolyn M. Lawson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abigail Gray
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: A. Brooks Bowden
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0958-5176
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3704
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Curriculum Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1