Adopting a new early-years curriculum framework succeeds when a school treats it as a phased change over a period of years rather than a switch made at the start of a term: exploring whether the framework fits, preparing people and systems, starting with pilot classes, extending gradually while supporting teachers closely, and only then expecting the curriculum to run fully and sustain itself. Schools that announce a new curriculum, hold a training day and expect classrooms to change by the following week usually end up with new vocabulary on old practice.
This article sets out a realistic roadmap for owners, principals and coordinators considering a curriculum change, drawing on implementation research and on common experience in early childhood settings. It covers the stages of implementation, the role of pilot classes, what needs preparing besides training, the obstacles that recur and how to know when the change has taken root.
Why curriculum change is slower than it looks
A curriculum is not a document; it is a set of daily practices shared by a group of adults. Changing it means changing how teachers plan, how they talk with children, how they arrange rooms, how they observe and record, and how they explain their work to families. Each of these involves habits built over years. Even teachers who are enthusiastic about a new approach find old habits returning under the pressure of a busy day.
Systems also hold old practice in place. Timetables, record templates, reporting expectations, purchasing habits, family communications and even the way rooms are cleaned and arranged at the end of the day are often built around the previous curriculum. If these are not changed, they quietly pull teachers back.
Finally, people need time to understand the reasons behind a new approach. Teachers who have only been told what to do will follow instructions as long as someone is checking. Teachers who understand why will adapt the approach sensibly to situations no instruction anticipated. Building that understanding takes conversation, observation and practice over months.
Stages of implementation from research
Implementation science, the study of how programmes and practices are put into use in real settings, offers a helpful frame. A widely cited 2005 synthesis by Dean Fixsen and colleagues at the National Implementation Research Network in the United States described implementation as moving through stages: exploration, installation, initial implementation and full implementation, with attention also to innovation and sustainability. Later work by the same network refined these ideas, but the core insight has remained influential.
The point of thinking in stages is that each requires different work. Exploration is about deciding whether the change fits. Installation is about preparing people, systems and resources before practice changes. Initial implementation is the awkward period when people are trying new practices for the first time and many things go wrong. Full implementation is reached only when the new practice is the normal way of working for most staff, which in many settings takes two to four years.
Schools often skip stages, moving straight from a decision to full roll-out. The result is usually a difficult initial period that discourages teachers and leads leaders to conclude the curriculum does not work, when what failed was the implementation.
A phased roadmap for a preschool
The timings below are indicative and depend on school size, staff experience and how different the new curriculum is from current practice.
| Phase | Main work | Signs it is complete |
|---|---|---|
| Exploration | Study the framework, visit settings that use it, compare with current practice and the national programme, consult teachers | Leaders and a core group of teachers can explain why the change is worth making and what it will require |
| Preparation | Plan professional development, revise timetables and templates, prepare rooms and materials, brief families, choose pilot classes | Systems are ready, pilot teachers are trained and supported, families know what to expect |
| Pilot | Run the curriculum in a few classes with close coaching, document what happens, adjust guidance | Pilot classes are running the approach recognisably and the school has learned what support teachers need |
| Extension | Extend to further classes in waves, with pilot teachers as mentors, continuing coaching and review | Most classes run the approach; problems are about refinement rather than basics |
| Consolidation | Embed in induction, quality review and professional development cycles; review and refine guidance | New staff learn the curriculum as the normal way of working; practice holds when key people leave |
Why pilot classes are worth the patience
Starting with a small number of pilot classes, rather than the whole school at once, has several advantages. It allows the school to discover practical problems, such as gaps in materials, timetable conflicts or confusing templates, before they affect everyone. It concentrates coaching support where it is most needed. And it creates a group of teachers who have lived through the change and can support colleagues later, which is far more persuasive than any external trainer.
Pilot classes should be chosen thoughtfully. Teachers who volunteer and are curious about the approach make good pilots, but it helps to include at least one class that represents the school's typical conditions rather than only its strongest team. In a bilingual school, pilots should include both language groups, so that the approach is tested in the real staffing pattern.
The pilot period also gives families a preview. Open mornings in pilot classes, and documentation of their projects, help other families see what the change will mean before it reaches their child's class.
What needs preparing besides training
Training is necessary but rarely sufficient. Before practice can change, a school usually needs to adjust a range of systems and resources.
- Timetables that allow long periods of play and project work, and shared planning time for co-teachers.
- Planning formats that start from observations and show how national programme goals are met.
- Observation and development record templates that describe children's learning without scores.
- Rooms arranged for open-ended play, with materials children can reach and use independently.
- A purchasing approach that favours open-ended materials over single-use worksheets and decorative displays.
- Family communications that explain the change, including what will be different and why.
- Clear roles for coordinators and mentors, with protected time to support teachers.
Leaders sometimes underestimate how much of the previous curriculum lives in these systems. A school can train every teacher in project work and still find that the weekly planning template, inherited from the old curriculum, makes project work almost impossible to plan.
The principal's own part in the change
Teachers judge the seriousness of a curriculum change less by what leaders announce than by where leaders spend their time. A principal who introduces a new framework and then disappears into enrolment, facilities and paperwork sends a clear message that the change is optional. A principal who sits in on planning meetings, spends a few mornings each month in pilot classes, asks teachers what they noticed about children this week and protects coaching time when the calendar gets crowded sends the opposite message.
The principal does not need to be the most expert practitioner of the new approach. In many schools the curriculum coordinator or an external mentor will know it better. What the principal must do is remove obstacles, make decisions about timetables and resources quickly, absorb pressure from families and owners during the implementation dip, and keep repeating, patiently, why the school chose this path. Leaders who model curiosity about the new approach, including admitting what they are still learning, make it safer for teachers to do the same.
Keeping the national programme visible during the change
In Vietnam, a curriculum change happens inside the framework of the national preschool education programme issued by the Ministry of Education and Training, and a school must be able to show at any point how children's development across the required domains is being supported. During implementation this is easy to lose sight of. Teachers absorbed in learning project work may stop recording how activities connect to national goals, and leaders may discover the gap only when an inspection visit approaches.
The simplest safeguard is to build the link into the new planning format from the start, so that every theme or project plan shows which national programme goals it serves, in the same words the authorities use. A senior Vietnamese colleague who knows the programme well should review pilot plans with this in mind. Done this way, the national programme stops feeling like a second set of paperwork and becomes part of how teachers think about balance across the year.
Obstacles that recur during implementation
The implementation dip. Early in the change, practice often looks worse before it looks better, as teachers struggle with unfamiliar methods. Leaders who expect this and reassure teachers prevent premature retreat.
Surface adoption. Classrooms adopt the visible features, such as natural materials or new display styles, without the underlying practices of observation and responsive teaching. Classroom visits focused on interactions reveal this.
Staff turnover. Teachers trained in the new approach leave and are replaced by staff trained elsewhere. Strong induction and mentoring, planned from the start, limit the damage.
Family pressure. Some families resist the change, especially if they chose the school for its previous approach. Early and honest communication, and visible evidence from pilot classes, helps.
Competing initiatives. Schools that introduce several major changes at once overload teachers. Protecting the curriculum change from unrelated initiatives during the first years increases its chance of success.
Leadership changes. A new principal or owner who did not choose the curriculum may quietly deprioritise it. Recording the reasons for the change, and involving more than one leader from the start, makes the curriculum less dependent on a single person.
Reviewing progress and knowing when the change has taken root
Each phase should end with a review that looks honestly at practice. Useful evidence includes short classroom observations focused on key practices, samples of planning and documentation, teachers' own reflections on what is working and what is not, and families' observations. The question is not whether the curriculum has been implemented perfectly but whether practice is moving in the intended direction and what support is needed next.
A change has taken root when it no longer depends on the people who introduced it. Signs include new teachers learning the approach through ordinary induction, teachers adapting the curriculum thoughtfully to new situations, planning and documentation that clearly reflect the approach without reminders, and leaders spending their time on refinement rather than on persuading people to try. At this point, the curriculum has moved from a project to the school's normal way of working.
Even then, the work is not finished. Sustainability requires that the curriculum is reviewed regularly, that professional development continues, and that the reasons behind the approach are retold to every new member of staff and every new family.
Working with a curriculum partner during implementation
Schools adopting an established framework often work with the organisation behind it. A good partner helps most during exploration and preparation, by explaining the framework honestly and helping the school judge fit, and during the pilot, by supporting coaching and helping interpret what is happening in classrooms. Partners that offer only an initial training package and a set of documents leave schools to manage the hardest phases alone.
Questions worth asking any curriculum partner include how they support schools through the first two years, how they handle adaptation to local conditions and the national programme, whether they can arrange visits to settings that have implemented the framework, and how they help schools build internal capacity rather than permanent dependence.
Schools interested in the Global Nexus framework can find the training programme for kindergarten owners and the Global Star campus franchise route listed alongside the curriculum, and should discuss implementation support directly with them; this site explains the educational approach rather than the terms of any partnership.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
How long does it take to implement a new early-years curriculum?
Implementation research suggests that reaching full implementation, where the new approach is the normal way of working for most staff, often takes two to four years. Schools that expect change within a term are usually disappointed.
What are the stages of curriculum implementation?
A widely used model from implementation science describes exploration, installation or preparation, initial implementation and full implementation, followed by attention to sustainability. Each stage requires different work, and skipping stages tends to cause problems later.
Should a preschool start a new curriculum in every class at once?
Usually not. Starting with a few pilot classes allows the school to solve practical problems, concentrate coaching and develop teachers who can later mentor colleagues. Extension to other classes can then happen in planned waves.
What is the implementation dip?
It is the period early in a change when practice may look worse than before, because teachers are trying unfamiliar methods. Leaders who expect and explain it help teachers persist instead of retreating to old habits.
What besides training needs to change when adopting a curriculum?
Timetables, planning and observation templates, room arrangements, materials purchasing, family communications and leadership roles all need attention. If these systems remain built around the old curriculum, they quietly pull daily practice back towards it, however good the training was.
How can a school tell when a new curriculum has taken root?
When new staff learn it through ordinary induction, teachers adapt it thoughtfully, planning and documentation reflect it without reminders, and practice holds even when the people who introduced it leave.