This paper advocates a more active role for administrators in curriculum supervision, claiming that two of the most neglected areas in supervision are the content and the amount of time allocated to that content and its objectives. An essential task of curriculum supervision should therefore be to make sure that content and corresponding time allotments are similar within grade levels and subject areas. A method is described for making curriculum supervision practical and accountable while building collegiality through a staff development process. Instead of a comprehensive "master curriculum," this method requires a brief "working curriculum" with five components: (1) a timeline for plotting only the content with its time allotment; (2) objectives tied to the timeline and representing what teachers test for in that unit; (3) assessment through a common test, with items linked to mastery of the objectives--not the content; (4) program evaluation; and (5) a coherent process for program and instructional improvement. This process for improvement involves assessing each of the above components. The main disadvantage of this method is loss of autonomy for teachers in determining course content and time allotment. But the advantages are that all staff (administrators, teachers, counselors), along with students and parents, know the content and objectives for a course; that teachers begin talking to each other and working together, resulting in instructional improvement and collegiality; and that systematic improvement can occur because a district can point directly to the area of breakdown. Included is an example of such a working curriculum. (TE)