“This is not what we do in here”: tensions enacting supplementary curriculum

Purpose This case study examines how a high school US history teacher navigated the purposes and values of history education while integrating supplementary curricular materials designed to center multiple perspectives. Although such materials are widely available online, less is known about how they are enacted in classroom practice. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on case study design, data were collected through classroom observations, teacher interviews and student focus groups. Analysis used the constant comparative method, informed by frameworks of teachers as curricular-instructional gatekeepers (Thornton, 1991) and critical pedagogical content knowledge (Blevins et al., 2020). Findings Findings identify three interrelated tensions shaping instructional practice: (1) unfamiliarity with inquiry-based and student-centered pedagogies, (2) institutional constraints related to pacing guides and test-oriented expectations and (3) emerging possibilities for inquiry-based, student-centered instruction. These tensions illustrate how teachers negotiate competing demands when enacting materials aimed at fostering critical engagement with history. Research limitations/implications As a single case study, findings are not generalizable but offer insight into similar classroom contexts with institutional and pedagogical constraints. Practical implications Curriculum developers should provide sustained pedagogical support, and teachers must attend to instructional norms and routines to prioritize inquiry-based approaches to diverse perspectives in history. Originality/value This study contributes to research on history education by showing how the purposes and values of the field are negotiated in practice through supplementary curricular materials. It challenges the assumption that these materials are easily transferable to classroom contexts.