# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the last few years, there has been a fascinating debate developing around the concept of a 'knowledge-rich curriculum'. Sometimes this is referred to as knowledge-led or knowledge-based. The debate has been informed by discussions from cognitive science, such as the role of knowledge in underpinning reading and understanding (Willingham, 2010). It has also been informed by a values-led philosophy based on empowerment through teaching 'powerful knowledge' (Young and Muller, 2013). Along with plenty of others, my initial reaction was to reject the idea that a curriculum could be 'knowledge-rich'; I saw it as a kind of hubristic rebranding of regular good practice. As a science teacher, I've always felt that my curriculum was packed with knowledge and, without question, I've seen numerous cohorts sit lots of GCSE exams, year after year, each requiring significant knowledge. However, I'm increasingly convinced that a knowledge-rich curriculum is actually an important concept that we ought to embrace.

From my experience working with a range of schools in varying circumstances over the last few years, I would say that not only is this approach often different to the default practice, but it also offers a secure route to the higher standards that we're continually seeking. Even if it's not new, at the very least it represents a shift in emphasis with multiple benefits.

What is a knowledge-rich curriculum in principle?

Based on my reading of the debate, I would suggest that there are four components:

Knowledge provides a driving, underpinning philosophy

The grammar of each subject is given high status. Here, 'grammar' relates to the concepts explored by Martin Robinson in Trivium 21c (Robinson, 2013) - the knowledge content and traditions within subject disciplines. In a knowledge-rich curriculum, the specifics of what we want students to learn matter and subject traditions are respected. Skills and understanding are seen as forms of knowledge and it is understood that there are no real generic skills that can be taught outside of specific knowledge domains. Acquiring powerful knowledge is seen as an end itself; there is a belief that we are all empowered through knowing things and that this cannot be left to chance. There is also a sense that the creative, 'rounded and grounded' citizens we all want to develop - with a host of strong character traits - will emerge through being immersed in a knowledge-rich curriculum.

The knowledge content is specified in detail

Units of work are supported by statements that detail the knowledge to be learned - something that can be written down. We do not merely want to 'do the Romans'; we want children to gain some specified knowledge of the Romans as well as a broad overview. We want children to know specific things about plants and about the Amazon Rainforest, WWII, Romeo and Juliet and climate change. We want children to have more than a general sense of a topic through vaguely remembered knowledge encounters;in addition to a range of memorable, enriching experiences from which important tacit knowledge is gained,we want them to amass a body of specific declarative and procedural knowledge - not ad hoc but planned. This runs through every phase of school; units of work are not defined by headings but by details: e.g. beyond the 'environmental impact of fossil fuels', the specific impacts are detailed.

Knowledge is taught to be remembered, not merely encountered

A good knowledge-rich curriculum embraces ideas from cognitive science about memory, forgetting and the power of retrieval practice. Our curriculum is not simply a set of encounters from which children form ad hoc memories; it is designed to be remembered in detail - to be stored in our students' long-term memories so that they can later build on it, forming ever wider and deeper schemas. This requires approaches to curriculum planning and delivery that build in spaced retrieval practice, formative low-stakes testing and plenty of repeated practice for automaticity and fluency.

Knowledge is sequenced and mapped deliberately and coherently

Beyond the knowledge specified for each unit, a knowledge-rich curriculum is planned vertically and horizontally, giving thought to the optimum knowledge sequence for building secure schemas - a kinetic model for materials; a timeline for historical events; a sense of the canon in literature; a sense of place; a framework for understanding cultural diversity and human development and evolution. Attention is also given to known misconceptions, and there is an understanding of the instructional tools needed to move students from novice to expert in various subject domains.

Importantly, these four elements lead to a curriculum far more expansive than a reductive set of knowledge statements. A knowledge-rich curriculum is packed with experiences and is driven by a strong set of values about what matters; it has soul, moral purpose, humanity.

What is a knowledge-rich curriculum in practice?

The best way to attack this is through some examples:

Exhibit A: The Romans

Imagine Year 8s looking back to when they 'did the Romans' in Year 4. What would we want them to remember? They might recall their museum trip, something about togas and what Roman soldiers looked like. They might have a general sense that Romans had an empire a long time ago. In a knowledge-rich curriculum they would remember all of this but would also be expected to know who Julius Caesar was, the terms empire, emperor, centurion, amphitheatre, aqueduct; dates placing the Romans in time in relation to Jesus and 1066 and be able to identify key Roman sites in the UK and Europe. This would be part of a long-term plan ensuring students return to Roman history beyond Year 4 such that their knowledge would be built on, not left behind.

Exhibit B: Parliament Hill Science

At this Camden school, the science department has developed a superb set of study guides in booklet form. More detailed than a knowledge organiser but stripped down from what might be in a text-book, the booklets contain embedded quizzes used to test them on their knowledge. They are seen in advance so that students can learn the form in which knowledge is sometimes expressed. It guides their learning. Students are asked to learn the material after being taught it and then take the quizzes without any study aids. Their theory is that, if students can't get the simple factual recall questions right, they have no chance of then getting the 'application to new contexts' questions right. This embedded quizzing builds lower attaining students' confidence, knowledge and study skills and has paid dividends.

Exhibit C: Trial by Ordeal

Teaching the GCSE History theme study on Crime and Punishment, you might show the relevant BBC Bitesize video. It's a colourful story full of examples, facts, concepts and gory details, feeding wonderful engaging discussions. But, days and weeks later, what would students remember? For certain, the weakest students will have the worst notes and, in all likelihood, the lowest level of recall. It's not enough. In a knowledge-rich approach, we don't leave this to chance. Alongside the discussion, we make the note-making absolutely explicit. These are the key facts about trial by ordeal that everyone must know. You control it; you are precise about it.

Exhibit D: Sequenced knowledge of Motors.

If I teach motors I want to make sure that the knowledge builds securely. Early on at KS3, through demonstrations and practical tasks, I want students to build their tacit experiential knowledge of the key phenomena: magnetic attraction and repulsion, the idea of 'field strength'; forces; current - each with direction and magnitude; the idea that phenomena interact. We would focus on changes of direction and the simple but magnificent awe and wonder that motors work at all in our universe. Later, as part of a spiral curriculum, avoiding cognitive overload and building on prior knowledge, I need students to understand and use the formula F = BIL and Fleming's left hand rule. I need them to learn the equation by heart and practise using it and manipulating it. I build the sequence carefully, deliberately with a focus on practice, recall and schema-building.

Is this new? To many teachers and in many schools, I think it is - especially once the cognitive science combines with the idea of subject grammar. It's way beyond reductive ideas about rote learning and regurgitating facts for no purpose. It's about ensuring that all students always have a secure knowledge platform, allowing them to reach the next level. In truth, it doesn't really matter whether we did this before... some of us will have, some won't, and that will depend on context, subject, phase and which decade we started teaching in. The point is that we should all be doing it now. It's actually rather exciting!

Blogs for further reference

Last accessed 2018:

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is a 'knowledge-rich' curriculum? | impact.chartered.college

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the last few years, there has been a fascinating debate developing around the concept of a 'knowledge-rich curriculum'. Sometimes this is referred to as knowledge-led or knowledge-based. The debate has been informed by discussions from cognitive science, such as the role of knowledge in underpinn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On one side of the curriculum debate are those, including the government, who believe that the curriculum should be based primarily on knowledge. Do you agree? You will need to log in to vote and comment.

The champions of a knowledge-based curriculum argue that acquiring knowledge helps students to remember new information, solve problems and improve their reasoning skills. Children who grow up in disadvantaged circumstances come to school with less knowledge so a knowledge-rich curriculum can help to compensate for what their peers from more advantaged backgrounds have.

On the other side of the argument is the skills-based curriculum. Its proponents argue the demands of today's society require "inquisitive, experimental, reflective and sociable" learners. As Professor Guy Claxton says, students who are more confident of their own learning ability learn faster and learn better. "They concentrate more, think harder and find learning more enjoyable. They do better in their tests and external examinations."

A third way comes from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which says that successful adults today need to be able to make connections between very different bits of information to create new knowledge. Therefore there are four dimensions needed in a 21st century curriculum: knowledge, skills, character and a "meta-layer" that is about learning how to learn).

What are your views? Register or login and let us know what you think. Here are a couple of questions you might like to consider:

What should be the balance between knowledge, skills and character building?

Are different approaches needed for different phases of education?

Phase I: The purpose of education

Total replies: 22 Last comment: 19 Oct 16

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On one side of the curriculum debate are those, including the government, who believe that the curriculum should be based primarily on knowledge. Do you agree? You will need to log in to vote and comment. The champions of a knowledge-based curriculum argue that acquiring knowledge helps students to remember new information, solve problems and improve their reasoning skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Technical and Vocational Initiative (TVEI) represented a dramatic departure from the education policy conducted by successive governments in Britain since the Second World War. It tried to address the deficiency in the school curriculum namely the absence of any meaningful vocational content. This particularly was a major concern with the high level of youth unemployment in the 1880s which has heightened the debate about the growing irrelevance school education for many young people who felt the curriculum did not prepare them for work. Employers too had over many years argued that the school curriculum should be more about employability and preparing young people for work. The debate included the need to introduce vocational subjects into the curriculum. The initiative aimed to influence and encourage schools to adopt a more vocationally orientated curriculum through a system of financial and other incentives operated through 'categorical funding' (i.e. a funding regime conducted under well-defined guidelines).

Interesting to note that the extra funding was not sought by the government from the two main spending departments namely the DES and DoE and this was at a time when the education and training budgets were experiencing massive cuts! (No doubt the government resorted to their usual creative accounting methods conjuring money from unspecified sources!) The target age range for the initiative was 14 to 18 year olds and so embraced the then emerging national curriculum and GCE 'A' levels. The TVEI was very much a broad based curriculum-led development in contrast to the development of GNVQs which was assessment-led.

The guide lines issued in the spring of 1983 provide an insight into how the government wanted the initiative to development namely:

TVEI Policy:
Sponsors: HM Government
Agency: Manpower Services Commission (MSC)
Managers/designers: Local Education Authorities (LEAs)
Users: Teachers/students
Purpose: To explore and test methods of organising, delivering, managing and resourcing replicable programmes of technical/vocational education.
Stated aims:

To widen and enrich the curriculum.

To prepare students for the world of work.

To help students lead a fuller life.

To enable students to contribute to the life of the community

To enable students to adapt to a changing occupational environment

To help students to 'learn how to learn'.

Agency operational principles:

LEAs should be direct line managers, designers and responsible parties of schemes, following centrally devised general criteria with specific design features developed locally.

Funding of all extra costs incurred in educating the cohort within a scheme will be met by the agency under strict financial account procedures.

Participants and all the involved parties should be consulted during the development of project proposals.

The agency will accept a variety of approaches in order to meet the purposes and aims above.

Features of the 'designated 'programme: agency guidelines: Target population:

A scheme should include 1,000 students during its life time.

Two cohorts of students should complete the course in the 14-18 age range.

Participation by students in the scheme should be voluntary.

Students should be attracted from the full ability range.

Both sexes should be represented.

Mixed sex classes should be the norm.

Some provision for students with special educational needs should be provided.

Curricular features:

Curricular designs should be for four years in the 14-18 age range.

Designs should state specific objectives, including attitudinal objectives.

Designs should link to subsequent training or vocational opportunities.

Designs should include a 'work experience' component.

Designs should be responsive to local and national shifts in 'employment opportunities'.

Designs should consist of both general and technical/vocational education (i.e. the provision of

Courses which lead to students' acquisition of generic or specific skills with a view to employment).

Assessment:

Courses should lead to nationally recognised qualifications.

Negotiation of assessment of Performance should take place continuously and on completion, with records of achievement or 'profiles' which should express student achievements not readily deducible from formal qualifications.

Management and Staffing:

Each LEA scheme should appoint a coordinator.

Each participating institution should appoint a coordinator.

Local management should be by a 'support arrangement', i.e. committee of interested persons.

(Interesting to note the use of the non-mandatory word should!)

At this stage many questions remained unanswered e.g. the precise role of the Local Education Authorities (LEAs), its relationship with the DES, its relationship to the then emerging national curriculum and how schools who did not wish to participate would be dealt with. Many commentators have since argued that the initiative was non-consultative, non-participative and presidential. In many ways it was deliberately provocatively confrontational in by passing so many key groups including the Department of Education and Science (DES). The initiative was seen by many to be driven by ideology and increased the already existing significant tensions between Ministries and their Ministers and the whole landscape at this time was dominated by the tensions between the role and power struggles between the MSC and the DES which were at times articulating contradictory messages about the purpose of education and training. Add to this personality clashes between senior politicians and their advisers and we had an initiative that was sadly doomed.

The then Secretary of State of Education stated the TVEI was just a case of narrow vocationalism and was highly critical of the initiative and its supporters. The initiative most certainly exposed the deep divisions that existed at the time between differing political and indeed ideological beliefs in regard to education and training particularly introducing technical and vocational elements into the school curriculum. These fundamental divisions have plagued British education and training policies for over a century as explained in the history of technical education on this website. A later initiative GNVQ also experienced criticism and ultimately was wound up mainly because of political dogma. Even today debates rage about introducing vocational subjects into the school curriculum e.g. the so-called vocational diplomas.

Personal aside:
I worked on the TVEI in Cornwall and actively supported the LEA and the support committees representing the FE college element within the consortium. It was a very rewarding experience and the initiative developed strong partnerships between the college and the consortium schools and the LEA. Extra courses and resources both in the schools and the college added value to the learning experience of the students and teachers. Specialised accommodation and facilities were created in the participating institutions in such subjects as biotechnology, office/business studies and computer suites and facilities. Staff from participating institutions attended joint in-service sessions that helped to improve their knowledge of teaching technical and vocational subjects. Meetings with other consortia from around the country highlighted good practice and a real commitment to the aims and objectives of the initiative. The initiative promised much both for the county and across the country but because of its politicisation especially at the launch and the uncertainties about long term funding it ultimately failed and represented yet another false dawn dogged by short- termism, inadequate resources and political divisions. In many ways much of the success and examples of good practice remain localised but I would argue that these elements still merit further analysis and evaluation.

Final comments:
TVEI was at its peak between 1983 and 1987 when it most certainly drove the 14-18/19 agenda but from around 1988 its influence waned as the DES reasserted itself and the National Curriculum gained increased momentum. The initiative was increasingly marginalised and eventually ended in 1997. TVEI was ultimately the biggest curriculum development programme ever in British -estimated around £900 million! It most certainly had both strengths and weaknesses which were never really evaluated. Throughout its existence the majority of LEAs were fundamentally against it and the continuing concerns about the role of the MSC and DoE all contributed to its ultimate demise. Also the emerging National Curriculum helped to kill off the initiative. I believe that the lessons learnt from the TVEI development could provide a rich harvest for future projects in 14 to 19 education and training and merit further exploitation.

Reference:
Dale. R. 'The TVEI.' Esland. G. (Ed) 'Education, Training and Employment.' Volume 2.The Educational Response. ISBN 0-201-54430-X. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company/OU. 1991.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) 1983- 1997.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Technical and Vocational Initiative (TVEI) represented a dramatic departure from the education policy conducted by successive governments in Britain since the Second World War. It tried to address the deficiency in the school curriculum namely the absence of any meaningful vocational content.

# data[].attributes.headline
Digital curriculum for vocational learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Digital curriculum for vocational learners

# data[].attributes.body
d

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Building Learning Power appeals to anyone who wants to know how to get better results and contribute to the development of real-life learners - both at once. It is for teachers, teacher trainers, parents and anyone involved in formal and informal education. It particularly appeals to those who want more than sound-bites and quick fixes; who seek a satisfying approach that leads to cumulative growth in students' real-life self-confidence and ingenuity.

1. Why do we need to build learning power?

2. What's different about Building Learning Power?

3. Three core beliefs that underpin our focus

Not just for a life of tests, but for the tests of life."

The tests of life

The core purpose of education is to prepare young people for life after school; to get them ready, as Art Costa, an American educator with similar views, says, 'not just for a life of tests, but for the tests of life'. This means helping them build up the mental, emotional, and social resources to enjoy challenge and cope well with uncertainty and complexity. If you strip away political dogma, the evidence is overwhelming that this aim is not currently being achieved for very many students. Of course, this has to be done in a way that also develops literacy and numeracy, and gets young people the best test results possible. That is the challenge that BLP schools and teachers are willing to take up.

4. What effect will building students' learning behaviours have?

The Supple Learning Mind formed of high value learning behaviours

A rich framework for learning

The Supple Learning Mind framework embraces each of the domains of learning and these are shown in its four parts:

The Emotional domain of learning (sometimes described as Resilience)

The Cognitive domain of learning (sometimes described as Resourcefulness)

The Social domain of learning (sometimes described as Reciprocity)

The Strategic domain of learning (sometimes described as Reflectiveness)

This learning framework shows that learning isn't just about having a good memory; it includes how we feel, how we think, how we learn with others and how we manage the process of learning. It shows that learning is a complex process. Furthermore it provides a language that helps teachers to think about how they cultivate each of the learning behaviours and helps students to gain a better personalised understanding of how they learn content.

Each domain clusters together the high value learning behaviours that best make that domain work well. For example the social domain is made up of the learning behaviours of interdependence, collaboration, listening and empathy and imitation.

5. How does it work in classrooms?

The Teachers' Palette captures the nature of a transforming culture

Making learning power work involves shifting the culture of the classroom. A common language for learning is adopted; staff gradually shift responsibility for learning to students and model learning by sharing their own difficulties, frustrations and triumphs; students come to understand themselves as growing learners and consciously improve their learning habits; teachers assume the role of learning-power coach, offering students interesting, real and challenging activities to enable them to create their own knowledge and stretch their learning habits. Underpinning this is the obvious reality that students will only change their behaviours once their teachers have changed theirs'.

The culture of the classroom is determined by how teachers are, the relationships that exist between the teacher and the learners, the ways in which the teacher talks and what the teacher talks about, the extent to which teaching is designed to ensure both content acquisition and the development of learning behaviours, and the often subliminal messages about what the teacher really thinks is important.

These 4 aspects of culture - Relating, Talking, Constructing and Celebrating - form the basis of The Teachers' Palette, the second of two key models in Building Learning Power.

6. How does it work across the whole school?

7. What else might you need to know?

SEE FAQs below.

How does this stand up to Ofsted scrutiny. Will they like it?

Overwhelmingly, we find that inspectors love BLP when they see it. From the reports we have gathered from inspections of BLP schools, their reaction is to congratulate schools where they find pupils are self-aware about their learning, happy to take on responsibility for their own learning, good at collaborating, and so on. Most of our Learning Powered schools improve upon their Ofsted ratings after adopting BLP. We are now pleased to see that the benefits of BLP maintain their impact under the new assessment system, with several Learning Powered schools rated as 'outstanding' or 'good' in recent months. But the benefits of BLP are not limited to those at the top of the Ofsted spectrum: many schools in challenging circumstances have moved from 'requires improvement' when BLP has been part of their coherent plan to enhance learning and achievement.

Of the four key areas against which schools are assessed by Ofsted, Building Learning Power directly addresses three - quality of teaching, pupil behaviour, and quality of leadership and management - and naturally impacts on the fourth - pupil achievement.

How long will it take? What if we haven't got time to implement BLP?

Yes, BLP takes time to embed in a school, and effort by individual teachers before it becomes second nature. It isn't a quick fix or a glossy veneer, but the gradual, long-haul nature of BLP means you can take it slowly and by degrees. The guiding principles translate into a smorgasbord of small suggestions and possibilities, each one of which is not too demanding, and which build cumulatively into a significant shift in atmosphere and focus. The size and immediacy of this shift depends upon one key element: strategic leadership from the top of the organisation underpinned with a clear plan of action, with success criteria and regular check points to monitor progress.

Will test results drop back for a while when we are adopting the approach?

If you see the first years of education as the 'learning foundation years' and adapt your curriculum and pedagogy accordingly then you will have prepared students to learn in ways that will both gain them excellent examination results and equip them with the habits of mind for future success. Stop thinking 'dare I try this with my year 6 students (if you teach in a primary school)' ?, or 'dare I try this with my year 11 students (secondary) ? - rather think how much easier it will be to be helping to prepare confident, thoughtful, resilient, independent, self-motivated learners for examination success.

Isn't BLP just 'good teaching' wrapped up in fancy words? It looks like what good teachers have always done.

Well, that depends on your definition of 'good teaching', and the outcomes by which you judge it. There is plenty of evidence that some schools and teachers consistently get good exam results, but they do it by spoon-feeding, and their students do not develop high levels of emotional resilience, cognitive resourcefulness, sociability, and self-awareness along the way. A good many of these students become anxious and lost during subsequent phases of their learning, particularly so their first year at university. You could call that 'good teaching', but we don't. Many schools adopt an in-between position - 'We make our students think and stretch their minds', they say, and they do. But it is a rare school that, without the benefit of BLP has thought through exactly what learning habits they are trying to develop, and how, systematically they are going about it.

Do some curriculum areas lend themselves more to BLP?

In our experience, these approaches lie at the heart of good learning and teaching in every curriculum area. The impact could be seen recently - during recent monitoring visits - in areas as diverse as Literacy, Numeracy, P.E., and Project Work in the primary sector, and in Mathematics, P.E., Modern Foreign Languages, Child Care, Science, Art and English in the secondary sector.

What are the pitfalls? Where have schools gone wrong?

The adoption of these approaches needs to be whole-school and led by school leaders. All school stakeholders - from pupils to governors, leadership to support staff, and most importantly teachers - need to be brought on board for the full impact of Building Learning Power to be felt. The embedding of these approaches falls short when it is sidelined by staff who see it as 'another initiative that will go away'. Head teachers need to give it high profile approval, and give leadership to influential and tenacious staff who can champion these ways forward. A single immersion at a staff development day is never enough - a strategic plan for long-term development, rooted in the school as a whole learning its way forward together, is the only way of ensuring impact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building Learning Power appeals to anyone who wants to know how to get better results and contribute to the development of real-life learners - both at once. It is for teachers, teacher trainers, parents and anyone involved in formal and informal education.

# data[].attributes.body
PODCAST: the case against education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - Thought Cages, The Case Against Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should we have less, not more, education? Rory Sutherland challenges received ideas.