This article reports on a study that investigated how teachers from the same urban elementary school serving a low- to medium-income student population interpreted, negotiated, and resisted a district-wide mandate requiring them to implement the Open Court Reading program. Interviews and informal observations revealed that there were profound changes in the classroom practices, professional dispositions, and working conditions of these teachers as a consequence of the mandate and the program. Although teachers' acts of resistance tended to be very subtle, nevertheless they had consequences, including the following: (1) teachers were able to reassert their professional agency and autonomy, (2) teachers tended to no longer work collaboratively, and (3) some teachers removed themselves from a highly contentious professional environment caused by the Open Court program and mandate (e.g. by retiring, transferring to a school with older learners, and leaving the profession). Overall, our findings lead us to ponder the value of curricular change that is imposed through policies and mandates and to contrast it with change that is rooted in teachers' self-reflection, initiative, and collaborative inquiry.