I think the enactment of a well-constructed knowledge-based curriculum should always include lots of conversations (teacher-pupil, pupil-pupil, and teacher-teacher), that is a central part of effective enactment.

I do not think there is a clear dividing line between knowledge and understanding but that improved understanding comes by developing well sequenced and connected knowledge. Therefore understanding is most likely to be achieved through the enactment of a well designed knowledge-based curriculum.

Since @didau.bsky.social has got back into doing more public writing in recent months his Substack has been a rich seam of good stuff, often sticking a pin in the balloon of ill-informed dogma that still surrounds much of education orthodoxy.

‘In major assessments for maths, science and reading from 2011 to 2019, greater in-school computer use for learning correlates with lower scores. In contrast, students in classes with rare or no computer use at all typically score highest’

If teachers are to move sectors in this way this will require significant investment in retraining. It is neither fair on teachers moving outwith their existing specialism or the pupils they will teach if they are not given sufficient and appropriate support to make the transition.

But you don't have to worry about pesky kids these days.

Was just having a conversation this morning where the issue of the disconnect between national and local government came up. It allows everyone to pass the buck and for no-one to take the necessary leadership or control over addressing problems such as teacher workload, recruitment, and retention.

It is so important that the Curriculum Improvement Cycle now gives us a clearly specified knowledge-based curriculum to minimise these issues, and for many other reasons, including addressing attainment gaps and equity. 2/2