When do we Start Editing the Curriculum?

When are we going to start editing down the curriculum of athletic training programs?

Are we asking the right question about athletic training education?

Currently, most conversations focus on:

“How do we fit more into entry-level programs?”

But maybe the better question is:

“How do we ensure what’s already there is mastered?”

Under the structure of CAATE, programs are required to:

• Map curriculum

• Assess outcomes

• Demonstrate competency

• Maintain accreditation standards

All of which are necessary.

But here’s the tension:

These systems are designed to ensure compliance and inclusion… Not necessarily depth, repetition, or true clinical mastery.

So over time, what happens?

➡️ New skills get added

➡️ Expectations expand

➡️ Curriculum grows

➡️ Skill mastery gets compressed

But there’s no equally strong mechanism asking:

What should be reduced, refined, or removed?

That leaves programs trying to do more within the same constraints—and students getting broader exposure, but not always deeper confidence.

And that’s where the profession starts to feel it:

• Inconsistent readiness at entry level

• More onboarding burden on employers

• Quiet second-guessing from seasoned clinicians

This isn’t about lowering standards.

It’s about clarifying them.

Because athletic training isn’t judged on how much we teach…It’s judged on how well we perform when it matters.

If we want to keep advancing as a profession, we have to be willing to ask:

Are we building programs around everything an athletic trainer could do… or around what they must do exceptionally well from day one?