Often it feels as if being knolwedge-rich means focusing on the memory parts of Chapter 5 and not the rest - open access here. 2/2 nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/2478...

& ultimately the answer to that question comes from English teachers/the English community, and not those outside. I suppose the challenge is, have these types of conversation around knowledge in eg English, become more commonplace/dynamic as talk around KR entered the mainstream (I have no idea…)

…to this thread has come from history teachers. Did, for instance, the ‘turn to knowledge’ (for want of a better phrase) from both g’ment & Ofsted change other subjects/the thinking in these subjects more than in history? @mrmountstevens.bsky.social would be keen for your thoughts, too!

How far do you think history is different to other subjects in the sense that a vibrant educational community have been having these conversations for some time (well beyond Gove/Gibb)? I don’t know enough about other subjects to really comment, but ultimately lots of the debate/response…

History feels streets ahead on this. Strong subject community with rich tradition of debate and discussion. Not sure how far these questions are asked in other subject areas. Possibly inflames some of the issues we’ve discussed already.

Poorly managed centralised implementation strategies seem to sit at the heart of the issues we currently see. I’ve got some horror stories from my old trust that speak to serious issues with ill-thought, top-down approaches. As you’ve said, I imagine you have to spend a lot of time unpicking these!

But I’m also conscious that this type of argument can feel a lot like pontificating, which might also be part of the problem some haven’t been convinced/brought on side.

Ultimately I think the type of curriculum work required to enact, for instance, a Future 3 type curriculum is really complicated and difficult. Often schools don’t have the expertise/time (more the latter!).

Which creates a bit of a viscous circle of pointing to this and saying, ‘look, this approach is flawed,’ and then more resistance/push back

My sense is that via either a poor articulation of what is actually meant by KR or PK (in a v complicated space!), or poor implementation from school leaders/trusts who just wanted knowledge ‘done’ to please Ofsted, the output in lots of schools has actually become pretty weak

I think there’s something here about a poor implementation of knowledge rich curricula (often heavily mandated from trusts without much input from HoDs/teachers in schools) causing many to grow frustrated

Is, then, the criticism often a criticism of a caricature/misrepresentation of knowledge rich curricula? In which case has the concept just been poorly explained?

Yeah I think I broadly agree. Too much feels ideological but it would be good to hear coherent arguments against it from those that clearly adopt this position (some of whom now influencing policy!).

Science - futureacademies.face-ed.co.uk/Vacancies/De...
History - futureacademies.face-ed.co.uk/Vacancies/De...
Languages - futureacademies.face-ed.co.uk/Vacancies/De...

We genuinely believe this is one of the most exciting school turnarounds in the country. And in some ways it no longer is a turnaround. This is now a great school with ambitious to become one of the best in the country.