Why most teaching programs don't really work

Many years ago, I was given the opportunity to teach a new subject outside my trained area. I was handed the faculty programs, and one thing became immediately clear — they didn’t tell me how to teach the subject.

The syllabus content was referenced (copy and pasted). The outcomes were all there. But when I asked myself, “What am I actually doing with these students for the next two terms?” I found no answers.

If you’ve ever sat down with a school program and thought, “This doesn’t help me teach,” — you’re not alone.

Programs are meant to guide us. To clarify what we teach, when we teach it, and how we assess. But too often, they feel like a tick-the-box exercise. Bloated. Disjointed. Filled with jargon, but missing the why.

So what’s going wrong?

• Most programs are written for compliance, not the classroom — designed to pass audits and nothing more

• They’re rushed out to meet deadlines, then left to collect dust

• They miss the fine balance between high-level planning and enough detail to be useful

• They’re not written with new teachers in mind

• They try to do too much — every cross-curriculum priority, every outcome, every activity

• And when a new curriculum drops? It’s back to square one

Meanwhile, teachers are expected to deliver calm, purposeful, differentiated lessons — with programs that don’t actually help them do it.

A good teaching program isn’t just documentation. It’s a living plan that helps you — and anyone you share it with — to:

• Understand what matters in the curriculum

• Sequence learning logically over time

• Connect outcomes to real classroom practice

• Adjust, adapt, and refine as needed

In other words: less content, more clarity.

Here’s what the best programs have in common:

• Coherence over coverage — Rather than cramming everything in, strong programs identify what’s most important and go deep. As Dylan Wiliam says: “Curriculum is not what we teach, it’s what we prioritise.”

• Built-in flexibility — Good programs are a framework, not a script. They give teachers room to respond to their students needs without starting from scratch.

• Evidence-backed strategies — Programs that mention how to teach — modelling, retrieval, formative assessment — are far more useful than a list of activities.

• Alignment with assessment — Teaching and assessment should be two sides of the same coin. If assessment feels bolted on, something’s broken.

• Collaboration at the core — The best programs are built with your colleagues, not for them. Shared understanding leads to stronger practice — and better outcomes.

If you hand your program to another teacher, they should be confident they know how they’re going to teach the subject — not just what they’re covering.

Our aim with Planuva is to help schools and teachers create structured, flexible, usable programs that actually support good teaching.

You can build a scope and sequence, link it directly to syllabus outcomes, and map out lessons that make sense — without starting from scratch every time.

Because programs should support teachers — not slow them down.

Register your interest at https://planuva.com