During professional learning sessions with university educators, a familiar phrase keeps coming up: “We have to deliver the content.” It often surfaces when staff describe teaching a unit designed by someone else, especially when the slides, activities, resources and weekly sequence have already been prepared. For sessional educators and less experienced ongoing academics, it can feel as though they must follow what has been provided, cover everything, and avoid deviating too far from the written plan.
Educators must ensure students engage with the required learning for the unit, including that they are ready for assessments, and acquire the knowledge and skills for future units. However, whenever the term “delivering content” is used, it prompts a larger question: Are teachers being asked to teach, or are they primarily being asked to just present someone else’s curriculum?
Universities have invested significant effort in developing high-quality curricula. This makes sure that learning outcomes are well aligned, assessments are progressively structured across courses, and graduate capabilities are mapped. They also ensure that teaching resources are developed to provide consistent learning experiences. These are fundamental because our students deserve a curriculum that is coherent, intentional, and aligned with the expected outcomes.
However, somewhere within this pursuit of consistency, the role of the educator can become less clear and less obvious. Many academics inherit another colleague’s unit, resources and teaching approach, often with an expectation that everything should be delivered exactly as developed. The slides are prepared, the activities prescribed, the examples selected, and sometimes even the timing of classroom discussions is predetermined. This may make educators feel there is no opportunity to introduce a different activity, respond and react to students’ interests, draw on their own professional expertise, or take the class beyond the physical and conceptual boundaries of the teaching plan.
This is particularly relevant for sessional academics but also affects early-career and experienced staff. They may teach units they didn’t create or temporarily handle a colleague’s established curriculum. The key question is: when does a thoughtfully organised curriculum turn into merely a teaching script? And if every class looks the same, are we really teaching?
Why Consistency Matters
It is understandable why universities are adopting more structured and shared teaching resources. When institutions have large teaching teams, multiple campuses, online delivery, accreditation standards, and rising quality expectations, these can all drive the need to uphold consistency. Unit coordinators have a significant responsibility for ensuring students receive an equitable learning experience, no matter who teaches the class. No student should be disadvantaged just because they attend a different tutorial or are taught by a different educator.
Shared resources can also support educators new to a unit by offering a clear starting point, minimising duplicated effort, and making sure that key concepts are covered. For sessional staff, often hired just before teaching begins and with limited prep time, well-crafted materials provide clear guidance and can build confidence.
Whilst we have discussed valid concerns, we should note that consistency and uniformity are different. Obtaining consistent outcomes doesn’t mean all teachers must teach identically. The goal of curriculum design is to give each student the chance to reach the same learning goals and standards. It doesn’t mean every educator must use exactly the same teaching methods.
When we confuse these two ideas, we risk reducing teaching to the delivery of content rather than recognising it as a professional practice built on judgement, expertise and responsiveness.
The Curriculum Is Bigger Than the Individual Class
A curriculum must clearly specify the learning objectives for students. It should detail how each unit fits into the overall course, demonstrate how knowledge and skills are built upon across units, and show how assessments contribute to students’ progress over time. These components are essential as they preserve the qualification’s integrity and ensure students are adequately prepared for further study and professional work.
A unit should not be viewed in isolation. Modifications in one class must not interfere with the connections between unit learning outcomes, course objectives, assessment, and subsequent learning. Educator autonomy should not involve neglecting the overall curriculum or altering activities without recognising their purpose. The relationships among units, outcomes, and assessment are important and must stay transparent to all instructors involved in the course.
Once these foundations are in place, should every teaching decision still be rigidly fixed? Is it acceptable for an educator to choose a different industry example if it more accurately reflects current practice? Can they substitute a classroom activity with one that better fits the specific group of students? Additionally, can they invite an industry guest, take students outside for real-world exploration, or devote extra time to clarify a particularly difficult concept?
None of these decisions necessarily compromise curriculum quality. In many cases, they enhance it.
Teaching Requires Professional Judgement
I would argue that the most valuable thing an educator brings to the classroom is not the PowerPoint slides or the prescribed activity. It is the ability to read the room, recognise learning opportunities and respond to what is unfolding in front of them. Two classes rarely unfold in exactly the same way because students ask different questions, bring different experiences and engage with different aspects of the content.
Effective teaching addresses individual differences rather than dismissing them for the sake of consistency. An activity suited for one group might need modification for another. Discussions can uncover misunderstandings that demand more time than initially planned. Current events, industry updates, or unexpected student questions can offer valuable chances to enhance understanding.
These are moments that cannot be foreseen when designing a curriculum. Educators need to apply their professional judgement in real time.
Ironically, many universities recruit educators precisely for their disciplinary expertise, industry experience and professional judgement. Yet some curriculum designs unintentionally limit the very qualities those educators were employed to contribute. Experienced professionals can find themselves feeling less like educators and more like presenters of someone else’s material. Sessional staff may feel particularly constrained because they are regularly employed in units with established resources, established expectations and limited opportunities to influence how the learning experience is delivered.
This is not an argument for abandoning curriculum design or for allowing every educator to teach whatever they choose. A university course depends on careful alignment among units, assessments and learning outcomes. Students should not encounter gaps in their learning simply because different educators emphasised different content or omitted activities they did not personally value. The destination matters, but the educational journey does not always need to be identical.
What Should Be Non-Negotiable?
Perhaps the distinction rests between what is non-negotiable and what is adaptable. Learning outcomes, assessment requirements, academic standards, essential disciplinary concepts, and important connections to other units should remain consistent. These elements represent the course’s shared expectations and provide the structure that safeguards curriculum coherence.
The activities used to explore those concepts, the examples that make them meaningful, the questions used to generate discussion, and the ways educators respond to students may offer greater scope for professional judgement. An educator might change the activity while preserving its purpose, use a different case study while still addressing the same concept, or adapt a discussion because the students in that class need a different entry point into the learning.
The key challenge is making this distinction clear. When all parts of a teaching plan are presented uniformly, educators might think that everything must be followed exactly. Although a detailed lesson plan is helpful, it could unintentionally suggest that deviations are not allowed. If there are parts where adaptation is encouraged, those should be explicitly highlighted.
This may include differentiating essential concepts from recommended activities, clarifying which resources are necessary versus optional, or explaining the educational goal of specific tasks. The clearer educators are about the purpose behind each element, the more effectively they can determine if an alternative method will fulfil the same objective.
The Responsibility of Unit Coordinators
Making this distinction visible is particularly important for those who coordinate units and employ sessional staff. It is not enough to provide teaching materials and assume educators will know which elements can be adapted. Unit coordinators need to explain the unit’s purpose, how it contributes to the course, what students need to carry into future learning, and why particular activities or concepts matter.
They should also specify where educators are allowed to modify, expand, or substitute parts of the teaching design. This does not undermine the curriculum but offers a clearer framework for exercising professional judgment.
Unit coordinators should critically evaluate their curriculum by asking which elements are inherently fixed and understanding the reasons behind them. Are certain activities mandated because they are crucial to meeting learning objectives, or simply because they are traditional? Are all resources essential, or has the curriculum gradually accumulated content that educators feel compelled to include? Was the curriculum originally designed to support and guide educators, or merely to direct their actions?
Unit coordinators also need to create opportunities for all educators involved in the unit to contribute. Sessional staff often observe how students respond across multiple classes and may identify issues that are less visible to the person who designed the unit. Their suggestions should not be automatically treated as deviations from the curriculum. They may provide valuable evidence on how the curriculum is working in practice, where students are experiencing difficulty, and which activities or resources may need reconsideration.
These opportunities should extend beyond informal conversations or end-of-teaching surveys. One possibility is to create a dedicated space within the unit’s learning management system where educators can record observations, suggestions and potential concerns as they arise. This feedback could remain attached to the unit across teaching periods, allowing future coordinators and teaching staff to see what previous educators noticed, what changes were suggested and whether particular issues have occurred more than once. Over time, this would create a form of curriculum memory that travels with the unit rather than disappearing when a sessional contract ends or a coordinator changes.
Such a space would need to be used carefully. It should not become a forum for unstructured complaints or a substitute for urgent conversations about immediate concerns. Instead, it could provide a transparent, constructive record of how the unit is experienced in practice. It could also help teaching teams distinguish between an isolated issue in one class and a recurring concern that may require broader curriculum review.
Creating a visible and continuing record of educator feedback would also signal that sessional staff are not simply temporary deliverers of a fixed curriculum. They are contributors to its ongoing evaluation and improvement. It can also serve as evidence during annual course monitoring or comprehensive course reviews.
The Responsibility of Educators
Educators also carry responsibility within this relationship. Professional judgement is not the same as personal preference, and autonomy should not mean changing activities simply because another approach feels more comfortable or familiar. Before adapting a class, an educator should understand what the activity is intended to achieve, how it supports assessment, and how it connects to the broader course.
A change should strengthen the learning experience without weakening the scaffolding that students rely upon. It should preserve the intended outcomes while using a different pathway to help students reach them.
This can be difficult for sessional staff and less experienced ongoing academics who may not have access to the full course context. They may be given a teaching plan without being shown how the unit contributes to course learning outcomes, what students have learned previously, or what they will need in later units. In those circumstances, asking educators to exercise professional judgement while withholding the information needed to make informed decisions is not genuine autonomy. It is uncertainty.
Educators should also feel able to ask questions before making changes. Why is this activity included? What outcome is it supporting? Is there flexibility in how it is delivered? What do students need to take from this class into the next unit? These questions should be seen as part of good teaching rather than resistance to the curriculum. Professional agency depends on understanding the boundaries within which decisions can be made.
Autonomy Requires Support
Creating meaningful educator agency requires more than simply telling staff that they are free to adapt the class. It requires induction, conversation, trust and access to curriculum knowledge. Teaching teams need opportunities to discuss what worked, what did not, where students struggled and how activities might be improved.
Sessional academics should be treated as contributors to the curriculum, not merely as recipients of teaching materials, particularly when they bring valuable disciplinary, professional or classroom expertise. Their involvement should not be limited to being given access to the learning management system and a set of slides.
There may also need to be different levels of support depending on experience. A first-time educator may initially benefit from more structured guidance, while an experienced academic may be ready to exercise greater discretion. The aim should not be to permanently restrict autonomy, but to build the confidence and curriculum understanding needed for educators to make sound professional decisions.
This is where the difference between autonomy and abandonment becomes important. Staff should not be handed a set of materials and told to work it out for themselves. Equally, they should not be given a script and expected to suppress their expertise. Good curriculum leadership sits between those extremes by creating clear boundaries, explaining the purpose of the learning, and leaving room for informed professional judgement.
From Delivering Content to Enabling Learning
The repeated use of the phrase “delivering the content” may reveal something important about how teaching is being understood. Content can be uploaded, presented or distributed, but teaching involves more than transmission. It involves helping students make connections, test ideas, develop skills, encounter difficulty and build confidence.
When educators feel responsible only for getting through the material, the teaching plan can become a checklist. The success of a class is then measured by whether every slide was shown and every activity completed, rather than by what students understood or were able to do as a result.
This does not mean content is unimportant. Students need access to disciplinary knowledge and essential concepts. The question is whether covering content should be treated as the endpoint of teaching, or as one part of a broader learning process.
A Question of Trust
Ultimately, this discussion is about trust. Do we trust educators to exercise professional judgement within a thoughtfully designed curriculum, or do we believe that quality can only be achieved when every classroom follows the same script?
The strongest curricula do not remove professional judgement. They create the conditions in which it can flourish by providing clarity about the destination while recognising that capable educators may take different, but equally effective, paths to help students get there.
Perhaps the challenge for higher education is not to ask how we can make every class look the same. Instead, we should ask how we can ensure every student has the opportunity to achieve the intended outcomes while allowing educators the professional agency to bring learning to life.
After all, consistency of outcomes does not require uniformity of teaching.
Reflection Questions
- When educators at your institution talk about “delivering the content,” what does this reveal about how their role is understood?
- Which aspects of your curriculum genuinely need to remain consistent, and which could be left to educators’ professional judgement?
- If another educator taught your unit tomorrow, would you want them to replicate your classes exactly, or to bring their own expertise while achieving the same learning outcomes?
- How well do sessional and less experienced staff grasp the connection between the unit, its assessments, and the overall course?
- Are your teaching team members seen as contributors to the curriculum or mainly as its deliverers?
- Are you designing curricula to guide educators, or scripts that limit them?
