For the past eight months, I’ve had many conversations about centralized curriculum and the “master shell” approach. Whether schools are launching online programs for the first time, refining courses that were quickly built in the LMS during the pandemic, or trying to create a more cohesive student experience, many institutions are starting to recognize the benefits of moving toward a structured, centralized approach.

But while the idea of centralized curriculum is widely appealing, the implementation is where institutions often struggle. Despite good intentions, many centralized curriculum initiatives stall (or fail altogether) because schools underestimate the complexity of the process. What seems like a straightforward effort to create consistency quickly becomes a tangle of unanticipated challenges. Faculty pushback, governance roadblocks, and gaps in instructional design expertise are just a few of the challenges that lead to an exhausting, politically fraught battle that leaves institutions stuck in a cycle of partial implementation and resistance.

In my humble opinion, here are the biggest reasons attempts to centralize curriculum fall apart and how to avoid them.

Reason #1: Academic Leadership That Fails to Set the Vision

A while back, I spoke with a university that had spent over a year trying to centralize its curriculum and had barely made any progress. Every meeting ended in the same place: resistance from faculty, concerns about governance, confusion about timelines, and a general sense of uncertainty about what centralization actually meant for the institution. After a lengthy discussion, I realized no one had clearly articulated why they were doing this or how it would benefit students.

Strong academic leadership isn’t just about approving policies or overseeing committees. It’s about setting a vision that makes sense for the institution and getting people on board with that vision. They set a vision that aligns with the institution’s mission and centers student success. They make it clear that centralization is not about control but about improving academic quality and student outcomes.

Centralizing curriculum is not just a logistical shift—it is a cultural one. Some institutions have deeply ingrained beliefs that curriculum should remain solely in the hands of faculty. Others resist change because, even if their current model isn’t perfect, it’s familiar. Without strong leadership, these preconceptions will stall the initiative before it even begins.

How to Overcome It

An academic leader must define a clear, compelling vision for centralized curriculum that aligns with the institution’s mission. This isn’t about compliance, efficiencies, or bottom lines—it’s about creating better learning experiences for students. Faculty need to see how this change supports their teaching rather than restricts it.

Effective leaders also need to anticipate resistance and proactively address concerns before they become roadblocks. This means engaging faculty in real conversations, making space for their input, and ensuring that governance structures supports progress. Institutions that successfully centralize curriculum have leaders who don’t just announce change. Instead, they guide the process every step of the way.

Reason #2: Treating Faculty Buy-In as an Afterthought

Before EDCARTA, I once worked at a school that had spent months developing a beautiful, centralized curriculum approach. Directors and managers spent months ironing out all of the details and creating nicely designed PowerPoints that outlined the new approach. But when they tried to roll it out, it was completely detailed. Why Because faculty had been left out of the process. They felt blindsided, frustrated, and resistant to the idea of teaching a course they had no role in shaping.

This is one of the most common mistakes institutions make. Faculty are at the heart of teaching and learning, and if they feel like curriculum decisions are being made without them, they will push back. Curriculum centralization can easily be seen as an attempt to take away academic freedom—- even when the goal is to enhance course quality.

How to Overcome It

Engage faculty early and often. Instead of presenting a finalized centralized curriculum, involve faculty in discussions from the start. Ask them what works well in their current courses, where students struggle, and what they think should be consistent across sections.

Another approach that works well is allowing structured flexibility. Standardize core elements, such as the format of learning outcomes, critical requirements, and grading structures, while allowing faculty to personalize the content and approach that fits best with the class. Structured flexibility strikes a balance between consistency and academic freedom and faculty are far more likely to support an initiative when they feel like they have a role in shaping it.

Reason #3: Relying on an Overloaded Instructional Design Team

I’ve lost count of the number of schools that say, “Our instructional design team can handle this,” only to realize months later that their team is drowning. Developing a centralized curriculum isn’t a side project—it’s a full-scale initiative that requires dedicated time and expertise. Expecting an already busy instructional design team to take this on without adjusting their workload is a recipe for burnout, missed deadlines, and courses that don’t meet quality standards.

Beyond workload, experience matters. A team of instructional designers who are great at basic LMS builds or provide office hour support to faculty may not have the skill set needed to lead a full-scale curriculum centralization effort. This is a specialized process that involves deep collaboration with faculty, careful attention to instructional best practices, and a thoughtful approach to how the relationships are managed. Schools that assign this work to the wrong team, or fail to provide enough support, often find themselves stuck with courses that don’t meet institutional goals or faculty expectations. More than anything, they potentially just wasted a lot of resources.

How to Overcome It

Schools that succeed in centralizing curriculum often dedicate an exclusive team of deeply skilled instructional designers to the project. This isn’t a job for generalists or new instructional designers. It requires experienced instructional designers who know how to navigate difficult conversations with faculty.

If a school doesn’t have the capacity to build a dedicated internal team, bringing in temporary external support can help bridge the gap. The key is ensuring that whoever is supporting this effort has the time, expertise, and authority to get the project across the finish line in a meaningful way.

Reason #4: No Clear Process or Defined Expectations

I’ve talked with institutions that have spent many months talking about centralizing curriculum, only to realize they never actually defined what that meant for their institution. Some faculty assumed it meant they were losing all control over their courses, while others believed it just meant instructional designers would now handle all LMS builds. For many, centralizing curriculum means adopting a master course shell approach, but that definition isn’t always explicitly stated. Without a shared understanding of what centralized curriculum is, it’s nearly impossible to implement it successfully.

One of the most overlooked failures in curriculum centralization is the assumption that everyone is on the same page about what is happening, what is changing, and how the work will get done. Institutions that say, “We are moving to a centralized curriculum” without defining the scope and structure of that change set themselves up for confusion, frustration, and stalled progress.

How to Overcome It

A centralized curriculum model cannot be implemented without a clearly defined process that accounts for decision-making and execution at multiple levels. Schools need a structured framework that outlines how curriculum will be managed, who is responsible for what, and what steps must be followed when a program moves to a centralized approach.

At the institutional level, leadership must establish a shared definition of centralized curriculum that aligns with the institution’s mission and operational structure. Does this mean all faculty must teach from standardized course shells? Will instructional designers be responsible for all course builds and edits? Are course shells going to be locked and standardized across all sections? Without clarity at this level, different departments will interpret the shift in different ways, which leads to inconsistency and confusion.

At the program level, departments need a structured roadmap for transitioning to a centralized curriculum. This includes outlining how faculty input will be gathered, who will oversee curriculum decisions, and how existing courses will be rebuilt to fit the new structure. If program chairs don’t know what this transition means for them, they are far more likely to actually do it.

At the course level, there must be a clear course development process that ensures consistency while allowing for collaboration. Institutions that succeed in this effort define each step of the process. This includes things such as; kickoff meetings, development timelines, stakeholder input checkpoints, and a structured QA process.

Without these structures in place, centralization can quickly become a chaotic and frustrating process. Schools that take the time to clearly define expectations and establish a structured process from the beginning set themselves up for long-term success. Institutions that fail to do so often find themselves stuck in cycles of confusion, inconsistent implementation, and disengagement.

Reason #5: Failing to Design for a Master Shell Approach

A common mistake institutions make when centralizing curriculum is assuming they can simply take an existing course, place it into a master shell, and call it done. While this might seem like the most efficient approach, it often leads to significant gaps that impact both faculty and students.

Most traditionally developed courses are designed with a single instructor in mind. This faculty member has built and modified the course over time— tweaking assignments here and there, adding context to lectures, and making small adjustments each semester. A challenge arises when that same course is placed into a master shell and handed off to instructors who did not design it and may have no insight into why certain decisions were made. This leaves faculty in a difficult position when students ask clarifying questions or struggle with course expectations. Without a deep understanding of the course design choices, faculty may either feel unprepared to answer or make their own adjustments, which can quickly erode the consistency that a master shell approach is meant to provide.

Beyond faculty challenges, courses that were designed for a single instructor often contain hidden dependencies—- contextual knowledge that lives only in that faculty member’s brain. Perhaps an assignment was designed to build off a specific class discussion, but the rationale was never documented. Maybe a grading rubric was clear to the instructor who created it but is vague or confusing to someone else. If a course was built assuming one person would always be there to make real-time adjustments, it will not hold up when it is scaled across multiple sections with different instructors.

How to Overcome It

To successfully centralize curriculum using a master shell approach, courses must be intentionally redesigned with longevity, clarity, and a variance of instructors in mind. This means treating course design as a process that ensures the course can operate independently of the original creator.

A well-designed master shell course should include:

Clearly written expectations for assignments, including detailed prompts, grading criteria, and student-facing explanations of purpose and learning objectives.
Comprehensive rubrics that remove ambiguity and help instructors provide consistent feedback.
Evergreen resources that do not require frequent updating or rely on time-sensitive materials that may become irrelevant in future semesters.
Streamlined course content that removes outdated or "legacy" items, ensuring that everything included in the course serves a clear purpose.

Most importantly, institutions must recognize that moving to a master shell approach is not simply about organizing content. It’s about designing courses for long-term usability. Schools that attempt to lift and shift existing courses without considering how they will function across multiple sections, instructors, and terms will find themselves constantly revising and patching gaps. But, those who take the time to design courses with scalability and clarity in mind will build a curriculum that is not only consistent but also sustainable.

Concluding Thoughts

I recognize this was a bit longer of a post, but centralizing curriculum is a complex process that I care about deeply. While the challenges I’ve outlined here are some of the most common, they are certainly not the only ones. Things like resource limitations and failing to consider accessibility guidelines also have roles to play here. But ultimately, a successful transition to a centralized curriculum requires more than just good intentions. It takes strategic planning, strong leadership, clear processes, faculty engagement, and an understanding that this is not a quick fix but a long-term commitment. Institutions that approach this shift with transparency, collaboration, and a willingness to invest in both people and processes will find that centralization leads to stronger, more effective learning experiences for students and a more sustainable academic model for the future.

While every institution will face its own unique hurdles, those that take the time to anticipate challenges and proactively develop solutions will be far better positioned to build a centralized curriculum that works.

A note from the author: I’m always open to having this conversation and, in fact, I love it. If your institution is exploring centralized curriculum or running into roadblocks, I’d be happy to connect and discuss what’s working, what’s not, and how to navigate the process successfully.

Resources to help you grow