After years of leading schools and later holding accountability across a group of them, I have come to believe that one of a principal’s most important responsibilities is to bring the school to a clear and shared understanding of what every child will know and be able to do. This does not require us to reduce education to a checklist or pretend that everything worth learning can be neatly measured. It asks us to identify the foundations on which children’s wider education depends and make a collective commitment not to leave them to chance.

Accountability systems can reveal patterns, expose inequity and sharpen priorities, but their value lies in leading us back to individual children. Meaningful change happens when somebody notices what has not yet been secured and makes sure something useful happens next.

Being clear about the foundations
Agreeing the essential foundations deserves careful thought because this is not an invitation to write down everything we happen to value. We are identifying the knowledge, vocabulary, facts and processes that children will repeatedly need if they are to read, write, calculate, reason and participate confidently in the wider curriculum. The list should be sufficiently focused to guide teaching and practice, while remaining ambitious enough to protect every child’s entitlement.

A principal should be able to explain what the school has agreed children will know and be able to do, when this learning should be secure, what security looks like and how it will be maintained. That clarity should then run through the school at an appropriate level of detail, so governors understand the entitlement being protected, teachers know the learning that requires particular attention, parents know what their children are working towards and children understand what they are practising and why.

This is where collective responsibility becomes important. Leading small schools showed me the value of knowing children across year groups and phases, particularly when staff wore several hats and responsibility was naturally shared. A child did not become somebody else’s concern when the new school year arrived. Larger organisations need to work deliberately to preserve that closeness, so gaps do not disappear between classrooms, teams or spreadsheets. No individual teacher is expected to solve every problem alone, but responsibility for deciding and delivering the next response remains with the school.

Turning information into action
Once the foundations have been agreed, the work becomes a continuing cycle of teaching, noticing, responding, practising and revisiting. A correct answer during today’s lesson is encouraging, although it does not tell us whether the learning will remain available next week. Children need clear teaching, carefully chosen practice and repeated opportunities to retrieve important knowledge after time has passed.

As knowledge becomes secure, children need enough fluency to use it without exhausting their attention. A child labouring through basic number facts has less working-memory capacity available for a multi-step problem, just as a reader concentrating heavily on decoding or basic vocabulary has less available for inference and interpretation. Planned revisiting then helps important knowledge remain accessible, instead of allowing secure learning to fade.

Assessment is useful when it helps us decide what to do next. A response may point towards further explanation, adapted practice, a carefully chosen group or a conversation between colleagues who know the child. Sometimes more practice is exactly what is needed; at other times, the child needs the underlying idea to be taught again. The purpose of identifying a gap is to close it, which means moving from information to action without burdening teachers with systems that document the problem more thoroughly than they help to solve it.

Protecting the attention of adults
The adults responsible for this work also have finite attention, and a school cannot name dozens of priorities and then wonder why implementation is shaky. When everything appears equally important, staff must keep deciding what deserves their attention today, leaving the essential work vulnerable to drift and giving the newest idea more influence than it may deserve.

Good leadership makes the central expectations easy to understand and manageable to enact. This involves explaining the thinking, providing useful models, allowing time to practise and checking implementation closely enough to offer help. Shared planning, routines and pedagogical guidance can all support this, provided they are built around a curriculum entitlement that everybody understands. Continually communicating that entitlement helps everyone remain focused on the learning the school has agreed every child should secure.

Keeping the richness
Protecting the foundations should give every child greater access to a rich education filled with literature, art, scientific discovery, history, music, sport, creativity and experiences that enlarge their understanding of the world. Children can participate more fully in that richness when they read fluently, draw on a growing vocabulary, recall the knowledge a problem requires and express their ideas with increasing control.

There will always be more we want to offer, including the gloriously unnecessary experiences that children remember long after they leave us. Schools should keep the richness, the surprise and, occasionally, the fluffy thing with a cherry on top. Beneath it all, however, should sit an entitlement that is widely understood and carefully protected: these are the foundations we will teach every child, we will find out whether they have learnt them and, when they have not, we will work together to decide what needs to happen next.

Amongst the new ideas and the many worthwhile demands on a school, this is the work I would hold on to. Principals need to know what matters, make it clear to others and protect enough collective attention to see it through. Schools can continue to learn, adapt and enrich what they offer, while remaining persistent about the foundations that allow every child to participate fully. Much of excellent school leadership involves doing important everyday work with enough care, clarity and consistency to make it dependable for every child.

References

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J. and Willingham, D. T. (2013). ‘Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology’. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

• Education Endowment Foundation (2024). A School’s Guide to Implementation. London: Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/implementation

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). ‘Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know’. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39.

• Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. and Paas, F. (2019). ‘Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later’. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

One useful answer comes from the work of John Dunlosky, Katherine Rawson, Elizabeth Marsh, Mitchell Nathan and Daniel Willingham, who reviewed ten commonly used learning techniques and considered their usefulness across different learners, materials and contexts. Two received the highest rating: practice testing and distributed practice. In the language we are more likely to use in schools, children benefit from retrieving what they have learned and from returning to it again over time. Neither is particularly new or complicated, and both will be familiar to primary teachers.

In a primary classroom, this can look very ordinary. Children might be asked to recall number facts they have learned previously, return to vocabulary during a reading lesson or complete arithmetic practice that includes content taught earlier in the year. These are familiar parts of teaching, but the research helps us to understand why they matter. Learning something successfully during a lesson is important, but we also want children to be able to remember and use that knowledge once the immediate support of the lesson has gone.

Remembering what has been taught

One of the challenges in judging learning is that children can appear to know something while the information is still readily available to them. Rereading a definition, looking again at a multiplication fact or following a worked example provides support that will not necessarily be there when the knowledge is needed later. Asking children to retrieve something from memory gives us a better indication of what they can recall independently, while the act of retrieval itself helps to strengthen that knowledge. Research into the testing effect has found that retrieving previously studied material can produce substantially better retention after a delay than simply studying the material again.

There is no particular classroom format required to make this happen. A short quiz might be useful, as might oral questioning, mini-whiteboards, flashcards or independent practice, with teachers choosing the approach that best fits the subject and what they want children to recall. The important feature is that children have regular opportunities to bring previously taught knowledge back to mind without always having the answer immediately available to them.

The review by Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan and Willingham is particularly interesting because several activities commonly associated with studying received much lower ratings. Rereading, highlighting and summarising were all judged to have relatively low utility. These activities may have a purpose in particular contexts, but the evidence does not support relying on them as effective ways of securing learning in memory. The useful point for primary schools is that children can spend a considerable amount of time working with material without necessarily making it easier to recall later. For pupils who are still developing their understanding of how to practise and learn effectively, that distinction is worth making explicit.

Coming back to things

The value of distributed practice will be familiar to anyone who has taught in a primary classroom because we see how easily learning that appeared secure can fade when children have not encountered it for some time. A class that was confident with fractions at the end of a unit may find the same content much harder several months later, and the same pattern can be seen across the curriculum as knowledge becomes less accessible without opportunities to use it. This is a normal part of learning, but it means that initial success cannot be our only measure of whether something has been learned securely.

Good teaching therefore needs to create opportunities for important knowledge to return. This does not necessarily require additional lessons or complicated systems, because previous learning can be incorporated into what children are already doing so that they continue to retrieve and use it after the original teaching has finished. Research into spacing has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of distributing encounters with material over time when the aim is longer-term retention. The precise approach will vary across subjects, but the underlying principle is straightforward: knowledge that we want children to retain needs to be revisited over time.

This has implications for curriculum planning because primary curriculum maps tend to be very clear about when something will first be taught, while what happens to that learning afterwards can receive less attention. If knowledge is important enough to teach, particularly where later learning depends upon it, we should also be thinking about when children will return to it and how we will know whether it has remained secure. Planning for learning over time requires us to expect some forgetting and to make deliberate opportunities for children to strengthen what they have previously learned.

Teaching children how to practise

There is also something important here about the way we teach children to practise, particularly in primary school when many of their habits as learners are still developing. We routinely ask children to practise, learn spellings or prepare for a test, but those instructions assume that children know what useful practice looks like. If some of the approaches that feel productive are less effective at securing knowledge over time, there is good reason to help children understand how they can practise more successfully.

Primary school gives us an opportunity to establish this understanding early, so that children become accustomed to trying to remember before looking at the answer and returning to important material after some time has passed. They can also begin to understand why something that was easy last week might feel harder today, and why having to think carefully to retrieve an answer can be a useful part of learning. Over time, this can help children develop a better understanding of what to do when they want something to stick.

Doing the basics well

The growing interest in retrieval practice and spacing has been valuable, but there is always a risk that a useful principle becomes too closely associated with a particular classroom routine. Retrieval practice can come to mean a five-question starter, for example, when the more useful question is whether children are regularly being asked to remember and use what they have previously learned. Looking beyond the format allows us to concentrate on the quality and purpose of the practice rather than whether a particular routine is visible in every classroom.

For primary school leaders, this raises a wider question about consistency. Children do not need every classroom to operate in exactly the same way, but their opportunities to practise and retain important knowledge should not depend entirely on the habits of the individual teacher they happen to have. A well-planned curriculum can help teachers see what children should already know, identify the knowledge that needs continued attention and make sensible connections between previous and current learning. Assessment can then help us understand what has remained secure and where children need further teaching or practice.

There will always be new ideas to consider, and the continuing discussion about how children learn should help us improve what happens in classrooms. At the same time, improvement can come from looking carefully at the everyday experience of children and asking whether the things we already know support learning are happening often enough and well enough. With so many ideas competing for the attention of schools, there is value in keeping sight of the fairly ordinary work of teaching important things well, giving children enough practice, returning to previous learning and noticing when something has not yet become secure. None of this is especially new, but doing the basics consistently well across a primary school remains a considerable achievement.

References

• Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095–1102.

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.

• Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39.

The behaviour findings attracted attention because they put a figure against an experience that many teachers will recognise, although the figure itself needs to be treated with some care. The Centre for Independent Studies surveyed 377 teachers and reported that almost a third of lesson time was being lost to disruption, while an ABC report on the findings also noted concerns about the effect on teacher wellbeing. A survey of this size cannot describe every Australian classroom, and I am sure many schools maintain calm and productive learning environments. Even so, it has prompted useful discussion about the cumulative effect of calling out, slow transitions, repeated reminders and other low-level interruptions. A few minutes can appear insignificant within one lesson, yet become substantial when repeated across a day, a term and a child’s education.

When the PISA results followed on 8th September, they placed those concerns within a much broader picture. Australian students continue to perform above the OECD average in reading, mathematics and science, which deserves recognition. The results also point to persistent concerns about attainment, equity, attendance and the conditions in which learning takes place. 41% of Australian students reported noise and disorder in their mathematics lessons, while 39% said that their own use of digital devices distracted them. These figures cannot tell us precisely why outcomes have changed, although they add weight to the case for sustained attention to the learning environment alongside curriculum and teaching.

Commentary around PISA has understandably looked overseas, with England attracting interest after reaching the top ten in all three subjects. I followed that discussion with particular interest because, until moving to Australia, I worked as a school and system leader in England and experienced its reforms from within schools. Cross-country comparisons require care, but they can still help us notice the conditions that allow improvement to take hold.

From my perspective, I view alignment as one of England’s strengths. Over time, curriculum, assessment, early reading, initial teacher education, professional development, research and accountability began to draw upon a more consistent understanding of effective teaching. England continues to face significant difficulties, including disadvantage, attendance, additional needs, staff workload and uneven implementation, and maintaining this coherence requires continued attention. Even so, teachers increasingly encountered familiar principles as they moved from initial training into schools and through their professional development. Shared language and expectations made it easier for improvements in one area to support work elsewhere.

The NSW screen-time announcement offers an understandable early response to the concerns now being discussed because it turns a broad unease about technology into something concrete. From 2028, classroom screen use will be capped at fifteen minutes a day in Kindergarten to Year 2 and forty-five minutes in Years 5 and 6, with proportional limits in secondary school. Screen-based homework will be discouraged before Year 5, and schools will be expected to retain substantial opportunities for learning through handwriting, books and paper. I can see the appeal of a clear limit. It can interrupt established habits, reassure families and prompt schools to consider whether a device is genuinely improving the learning in front of the child.

The longer-term value of the policy will depend on the professional thinking that accompanies it. The Education Endowment Foundation does not prescribe a universal number of minutes because its guidance focuses on the purpose of technology within teaching. It considers whether technology improves explanation and modelling, strengthens practice, supports useful feedback or makes assessment more effective. This is a helpful way to think about classroom use because changing the medium does not automatically improve the task. A worksheet can be just as unproductive as an activity on a tablet, while well-chosen technology can offer access, practice or feedback that would otherwise be difficult to provide. Time limits can reset habits, but teachers will still need the knowledge and support to decide what should take their place.

Seen in this wider context, behaviour, PISA and screen use all lead us towards the quality of the educational experience pupils receive each day. Calm classrooms create more opportunities to teach, while a coherent curriculum and effective pedagogy help teachers use that time well. Technology forms one part of those decisions, as do teacher preparation, professional learning and the support available to schools. Lasting improvement depends on how successfully these elements reinforce one another.

There is already thoughtful work under way across Australia that could contribute to this coherence. The Strong Beginnings reforms have established core content for initial teacher education covering how students learn, effective pedagogical practices, classroom management and responsive teaching. AERO has developed a model of learning and teaching and is working with schools to translate research into practical classroom approaches. States and territories are strengthening curriculum, teaching resources, behaviour support and professional learning in different ways. This sustained work may attract less immediate attention than a new limit, yet it has the potential to shape what teachers experience throughout their careers.

I am still getting to know the Australian education system, so I offer these thoughts with humility. What I have seen so far includes considerable expertise in schools, universities, systems and research organisations, alongside a willingness to examine difficult issues openly. My recent experience in England has left me particularly interested in the connections between these different parts of the system, because stronger alignment helped good work travel further and last longer.

As these developments continue, I am curious to learn more about:

• how the core content in initial teacher education is taught, practised and assessed across universities, and how closely it connects with the practice graduates encounter in schools;

• whether curriculum, assessment, behaviour and teaching guidance increasingly reinforce a shared understanding of effective classroom practice while preserving professional judgement and responsiveness to local context;

• how professional learning is followed by modelling, rehearsal, feedback, coaching and continued refinement;

• whether schools receive the time, expertise, resources and funding needed to implement several developing reforms well;

• how effective practice is identified and shared across schools without being reduced to disconnected strategies; and

• how a strong universal offer is combined with early and precise support for pupils who need more, maintaining high expectations while recognising the additional help some children require.

These reflections are shaped by experience in one education system and a growing understanding of another. Australia already has strong educators, serious research capability and promising work in development. The current urgency offers an opportunity to connect that work more deliberately and give schools a clear, well-supported direction over time.

The significance of these ten days will become clearer through what happens next. If teacher preparation, curriculum, professional learning, research, funding and accountability continue to move into closer alignment, schools will be better placed to turn current concern into sustained improvement. I am hopeful that the urgency of this moment will help bring that work together and give it the sustained attention it deserves.

References

• Australian Government Department of Education (2023), Strong Beginnings: Report of the Teacher Education Expert Panel.

• Australian Education Research Organisation, Engaged Classrooms.

• Centre for Independent Studies (2026), Classrooms in Crisis: Australian Teachers’ Perspectives on Student Behaviour.

• Department for Education (2026), PISA 2025: National Report for England.

• Education Endowment Foundation (2019), Using Digital Technology to Improve Learning.

• Minns Labor Government (2026), ‘Screentime Limits in All Public Schools to Lift Our Game in the Classroom’, media release, 13 September.

• OECD (2026), PISA 2025 Results, Volume I: Learning and Equity in Education.

What interested me was the recognition that time spent away from formal classroom instruction can still help to create the conditions in which formal instruction succeeds. We know that a carefully sequenced curriculum, strong subject knowledge, explicit teaching, assessment and deliberate practice are central to improving academic outcomes. Children, however, do not encounter these things in isolation. They need to attend school, regulate their behaviour, sustain attention, experience success and develop sufficient connection with the adults and institution around them to invest effort in what they are being taught.

This leaves us with an important leadership question: if schools want stronger academic outcomes, what conditions must they create around academic instruction?

Protect pupils’ attention through clear and consistent behaviour systems

In every school I have led that required rapid improvement because pupil outcomes were too low, behaviour was one of the first things I attended to. This was not because behaviour sat above teaching and curriculum in importance. It was because teachers could not teach the curriculum successfully while attention was repeatedly disrupted, expectations varied between classrooms and too much professional energy was being spent negotiating routines that should have been secure.

A reliable behaviour system protects pupils’ right to learn. When routines are predictable, transitions are efficient and expectations are consistently upheld, teachers have more time to explain, model, check understanding and respond to misconceptions. Pupils can think without continual interruption. For children who already find concentration, language or self-regulation difficult, the difference made by a calm and orderly classroom can be considerable.

The first practical step is to define clearly what pupils and adults should be doing at the important points in the day. This includes entering a classroom, preparing to learn, gaining attention, moving between activities, asking for help and responding when something goes wrong. These routines should be few enough to remember, precise enough to teach and consistent enough to become familiar. Pupils should not have to work out a completely different set of expectations every time they change classrooms.

Consistency does not come from publishing a new behaviour policy or issuing staff with a common list of sanctions. Pupils experience the system through hundreds of small interactions: how adults greet a class, respond to low-level disruption, acknowledge effort and follow up an incident. Leaders need to train staff, model expected practice and spend time in classrooms examining whether the agreed approach is visible. Coaching and feedback are just as important here as they are in improving teaching.

A strong system also recognises that universal provision will not be sufficient for every pupil. Where difficulties persist, leaders should draw on information from teachers, families and specialists to understand what is contributing to them. Targeted support can then be added without removing the expectations every child needs. Warm relationships and clear boundaries work together because pupils need adults who know them well and adults whose responses they can trust.

Make every minute of academic instruction count

When outcomes are weak, an understandable response is to increase the time allocated to English and mathematics. Sometimes this is exactly the right thing to do, particularly when the existing curriculum does not give pupils enough time to secure foundational knowledge. Before extending lessons or narrowing the timetable, however, leaders should examine how well the time already available is being used.

An audit of instructional time should go beyond counting the minutes shown on a timetable. Leaders need to consider how promptly lessons begin, how much time is lost to transitions and disruption, whether explanations are clear and whether pupils spend enough time thinking about and practising the content being taught. Additional time has limited value if it reproduces the same weaknesses already present in ordinary lessons.

Research into extending the school day reaches a similar conclusion. Additional time can have a positive effect, particularly when it is used for focused teaching or well-designed intervention, but simply keeping pupils in lessons for longer does not guarantee stronger learning. The content must be carefully selected, teaching must be strong and pupils must have sufficient opportunity to practise and receive feedback.

Intervention should therefore begin with a clear diagnosis of what pupils do not yet know or cannot yet do. It should connect closely with the curriculum pupils encounter in class and be delivered by adults who understand both the content and the intended teaching approach. Leaders should review whether pupils are improving and discontinue or adapt provision that is not producing the expected benefit.

There is also a point at which further narrowing may remove some of the experiences that help pupils attend, participate and identify with school. The decision should not be framed as a choice between academic rigour and an enjoyable timetable. Leaders should protect the time required for pupils to learn essential academic content while asking whether each part of the wider timetable has a clear educational purpose and is taught well.

Teach pupils how to participate successfully in learning

Successful participation in a lesson requires behaviours that can easily be mistaken for fixed features of a child’s character. Listening to an explanation, beginning work promptly, persisting when an answer is not immediate, responding to feedback and asking for help appropriately all contribute to academic success. We cannot assume that every child arrives already knowing how to do these things.

Schools should identify the learning behaviours they expect and teach them explicitly. A teacher might model how to prepare the resources needed for a task, show pupils what useful listening looks like or demonstrate what to do when they become stuck. Pupils then need opportunities to practise these behaviours, accompanied by clear feedback and consistent reinforcement.

Teaching pupils to participate successfully is more than securing compliance. The aim is to build the habits through which children become increasingly able to direct and sustain their own learning. A pupil who can recognise confusion, return to an example, attempt another strategy or ask a precise question is developing the independence needed for more demanding academic work.

Leaders can support this by establishing a shared language for learning behaviours across the school. Staff development should connect classroom routines with attention, memory and successful practice, helping teachers understand why each routine exists. Classroom visits can then examine whether pupils know how to participate, rather than simply recording whether the room appears calm.

This is particularly important for pupils who have experienced repeated difficulty or failure. Avoidance, disruption and apparent lack of motivation can develop when a child no longer expects to succeed. Carefully sequenced teaching, appropriate support and frequent experiences of genuine progress can begin to change that expectation. Pupils are more likely to invest effort when they can see that effort is leading somewhere.

Diagnose and remove barriers to attendance

The strongest curriculum has limited value to a pupil who is frequently absent. Research continues to show a close relationship between attendance and attainment, including after prior attainment and pupil characteristics are taken into account. Absence and lower attainment can share underlying causes, but the consequence remains the same: pupils cannot benefit consistently from a carefully sequenced curriculum when they repeatedly miss parts of it.

In my experience, attendance improved most effectively when we moved beyond the headline percentage and became curious about the story beneath it. We looked for patterns, identified the pupils whose attendance was beginning to deteriorate and asked what was making it harder for each child to be in school. Sometimes a family needed a clearer understanding of the cumulative effect of occasional absence. At other times, the barrier sat within the pupil’s experience of school: a difficult transition, an unmet need, a damaged relationship or the feeling that every day brought another experience of failure.

Schools need accurate and timely information so that they can respond before absence becomes entrenched. Leaders should examine attendance by pupil, group, day and, where appropriate, lesson. A pattern clustered around Mondays may require a different response from absence connected with a particular subject, transition or social difficulty. Speaking with the pupil and family is essential because the numerical pattern can indicate where to look, but it cannot explain the cause on its own.

Good attendance practice combines high expectations with intelligent problem-solving. Families need to understand that attendance is essential and that absence will be noticed and followed up. Schools also need the professional capacity to distinguish between unwillingness, practical difficulty and a child who is struggling to access the environment being offered. The same letter or escalation process will not resolve every cause.

Some of the most effective work is deceptively ordinary. A trusted adult checks in with a pupil each morning. A leader speaks directly with a family before a pattern becomes established. Additional needs are identified and addressed. A club, team or position of responsibility gives a child something specific to return for. Targeted actions should have a named person responsible for them, a timescale and a way of judging whether they are working. This does not replace a clear attendance policy, but it makes the policy part of a responsive system rather than a sequence of administrative actions.

Build belonging through pupils’ everyday experience of school

Belonging is sometimes discussed in language that feels detached from academic standards. Its most useful meaning in schools is much more practical. A pupil who feels known, respected and secure may be more willing to attend, contribute an uncertain answer, accept correction and persist when the work becomes difficult. Relationships support academic learning when they increase a pupil’s capacity and willingness to participate in it.

Research generally finds associations between school belonging and academic, behavioural and psychological outcomes, although much of the evidence is correlational. A pupil may achieve more readily because they feel connected to school, while academic success may also strengthen their sense that they belong there. Leaders should consequently avoid treating belonging as a stand-alone initiative. It is built through the cumulative experience of school.

The practical work begins with ensuring that every pupil is known well by at least one adult. Schools can use pastoral structures, check-ins and pupil discussions to identify children who feel overlooked or disconnected. Staff should know which pupils are experiencing repeated failure, conflict or isolation and agree how relationships and provision will be strengthened.

Academic success is an important part of belonging. Pupils are unlikely to feel fully included in school life if lessons repeatedly confirm that the curriculum is accessible to everyone except them. Clear explanations, appropriate scaffolding and carefully sequenced practice allow more pupils to participate successfully without reducing expectations. Fair and predictable behaviour systems also contribute because children need to know that the school will treat them consistently.

Clubs, teams, performances and positions of responsibility can offer further ways to participate and contribute. Leaders should monitor who takes part rather than measuring provision only by the number of activities available. If the same confident pupils occupy every role, perform in every production and represent every team, the wider programme may be reinforcing existing patterns of participation. Practical, financial and social barriers should be identified so that more children can find a meaningful place within school life.

Protect purposeful breadth around the academic core

Research into physical activity and arts participation reports modest positive average effects on academic attainment. These findings are encouraging, but the studies vary considerably in quality and design. They do not support simple claims that playing sport improves mathematics, learning an instrument raises reading scores or spending time outdoors directly accelerates academic progress. Any effect is likely to depend on the nature of the provision, the pupils involved and the mechanism through which the experience influences learning.

Sport, art, music, drama and outdoor learning do not need implausible academic claims to justify their place in a good education. Each contains knowledge and disciplines worth teaching. Physical education can develop movement, coordination, teamwork and the foundations of an active life. Music requires attention, practice and responsiveness to others. Visual art introduces pupils to materials, techniques and cultural traditions. Outdoor learning can develop knowledge of the natural world while giving pupils direct experiences that later enrich reading, writing and classroom discussion.

After a winter spent largely indoors during the COVID restrictions, I introduced Forest School at a school serving a community with high levels of deprivation. Our children needed to reconnect with one another, with their teachers and with the experience of being at school. Many also needed help to regulate their behaviour before they could attend successfully to more formal learning. The time outdoors proved transformational in those respects. It allowed children to move, explore, talk and rebuild relationships, and the greater readiness for learning that followed meant the time was well spent.

Pupil surveys showed how much the children enjoyed the provision, but their responses also helped us understand why it was valuable. One boy, who brought a particularly adventurous spirit to both the woodland and the classroom, told us that Forest School helped him concentrate during mathematics. He also felt that it had strengthened his relationship with his teacher because her willingness to vary the timetable and respond to the children’s interests showed him that she cared about them. His explanation does not prove that Forest School improved his mathematics, but it offers a credible account of how trust, regulation and engagement can affect a child’s capacity to attend to academic learning.

The same pupil spoke enthusiastically about what he had learnt from observing a family of foxes. That knowledge matters in its own right, but it also demonstrates how apparently informal experiences contribute to the background knowledge children bring to the classroom. A child who has watched foxes, noticed their behaviour and developed the language to describe them has more to draw upon when reading a story, interpreting a non-fiction text or writing a description. Experiences do not remove the need to teach vocabulary and knowledge explicitly, but they can give that teaching something substantial to connect with.

At another school, I introduced specialist art teaching because I wanted pupils to receive a more ambitious and knowledgeable art education than we had previously been able to provide. I would not claim that this caused our academic outcomes to improve because we did not have evidence that could support such a conclusion. Pupil voice did, however, show greater enjoyment and motivation, while feedback from parents indicated that the provision had strengthened their children’s experience of school. The teaching also produced worthwhile outcomes within art itself: pupils developed knowledge, worked with greater technical skill and took pride in what they created.

Leaders should apply the same discipline to wider provision that they bring to academic improvement. Every substantial programme should have a clear purpose, suitable expertise, sufficient time and an agreed way of examining its quality. If a breakfast sports club is intended to support the attendance of a defined group, leaders should monitor whether attendance improves. If a music programme is intended to build musical knowledge and sustained participation, those are the outcomes that should be evaluated. If outdoor learning is intended to deepen curriculum knowledge or support pupils’ regulation, leaders should examine whether those effects become visible.

This approach protects schools from removing valuable provision because it has not produced an academic outcome it was never designed to deliver. It also prevents enjoyable but weakly implemented activities from continuing indefinitely on the assumption that they must be doing some good. Not every educational benefit has to be converted into a literacy or mathematics gain before we are permitted to value it, but every programme should still be purposeful, accessible and well implemented.

Bring the conditions together

The strongest schools I have known do not treat academic instruction and the wider conditions for learning as competing priorities. They establish an ambitious, carefully sequenced curriculum and ensure that teachers have the knowledge and methods required to teach it well. Around that core, they protect pupils’ attention, teach successful participation, respond intelligently to absence, build dependable relationships and create purposeful opportunities for pupils to move, perform, create, compete and contribute.

This coherence is especially important for pupils experiencing disadvantage. Families with greater financial and cultural resources can often replace opportunities that disappear from school. Other pupils cannot. Narrowing the timetable may preserve more minutes for English and mathematics while removing experiences through which children gain cultural knowledge, physical competence, friendship, recognition and connection with their school.

Precision about causation remains essential. Strong behaviour systems protect attention; they do not teach fractions. Attendance gives pupils access to the curriculum; it does not guarantee that the curriculum will be taught well. Art, sport and outdoor learning may strengthen enjoyment, participation, knowledge and belonging; they are not substitutes for excellent academic instruction. Each part of school life makes a different contribution, and the leadership work lies in making those contributions coherent.

The Sydney Bush School study is small, and it does not provide a blueprint for academic improvement. It does, however, remind us to look beyond the simple calculation of how many minutes pupils spend in academic lessons. Schools seeking stronger outcomes should protect attention, make effective use of instructional time, teach pupils how to participate, remove barriers to attendance, build belonging through everyday practice and preserve wider opportunities with a clear educational purpose. Together, these conditions make it more likely that excellent teaching will reach every pupil.

References

• ABC News (2026), How playing in a park helped these primary school students thrive.

• Department for Education (2025), The link between attendance and attainment.

• Education Endowment Foundation (2019), Improving Behaviour in Schools.

• Education Endowment Foundation (2024), Supporting School Attendance.

• Education Endowment Foundation, Arts Participation.

• Education Endowment Foundation, Extending School Time.

• Education Endowment Foundation, Physical Activity.

• Štremfel, U. et al. (2024), Addressing the Sense of School Belonging Among All Students? A Systematic Literature Review.

When we apply this idea to education, the hygge of learning can be understood as the warmth and protection we create around the intellectual effort that learning requires. Students have to concentrate, hold information in mind, retrieve things they have begun to forget and remain with ideas that do not yet make sense. Our responsibility is to ensure that this challenge takes place within classrooms where students feel known, supported and able to keep thinking.

The science of learning can initially seem some distance from this warm and human picture of education because its language is often technical and clinical. Terms such as cognitive load, working memory, retrieval practice and explicit instruction describe important aspects of learning, yet they can make students sound like information-processing systems and teaching resemble a set of procedures. When these ideas are discussed without reference to the relationships, subjects and students that give classroom life its richness, their relevance to everyday teaching can be difficult to see.

Many experienced teachers were taught little about memory and cognition during their initial training, which gives us good reason to understand their caution. They are now encountering unfamiliar ideas amid considerable noise, strong opposing opinions and confident claims from people who may spend little time in classrooms. Some commentators suggest that the science of learning produces rigid teaching, reduces student independence, diminishes creativity or overlooks the importance of relationships, while others present it as if it provides a definitive answer to every educational question.

A more useful introduction to the science of learning begins with a clear explanation of what it can help us understand. Research into attention, memory and the development of fluency gives teachers greater insight into why students become overwhelmed, why knowledge is forgotten and why something understood during a lesson may remain unavailable several days later. It also helps us think more carefully about the amount of new information we introduce, the examples we choose, the support we provide and the practice students need before they can work independently.

This understanding can strengthen many of the features of education that teachers already know and love. Rich conversation, creativity, curiosity, beautiful books, scientific discovery, mathematical reasoning, humour and strong relationships all remain part of the classroom. Students gain fuller access to these experiences when they have enough knowledge to understand what they encounter and enough fluency to direct their attention towards ideas rather than struggling with every foundational step.

The classroom practices informed by the science of learning can contribute directly to the hygge surrounding intellectual challenge. A clear explanation protects students from avoidable confusion, a worked example gives them a secure place to begin, and guided practice allows them to attempt something difficult while support remains available. Checking for understanding ensures that uncertainty is noticed, while revisiting previous learning gives students repeated opportunities to experience knowledge becoming more secure.

The warmth within these practices comes from the teacher’s knowledge of their students and their response to what unfolds during the lesson. A teacher notices hesitation, adapts an explanation, gives somebody longer to think and treats an incorrect answer as useful information about what needs to happen next. Over time, these experiences help students understand that difficulty is an expected part of learning and that they will receive the teaching, time and practice needed to make progress.

Through my work in system leadership, I have seen how strongly the way an idea is introduced influences whether teachers feel able to engage with it. Leaders can help teachers connect the principles of learning science to familiar classroom experiences, examine what they might offer and raise genuine questions about their application. Respecting existing expertise, explaining the reasoning carefully and creating opportunities for professional discussion provide a stronger foundation for meaningful change.

Teachers also need permission to try manageable changes and consider what happens as a result. They might adapt the way they model a task, introduce a short retrieval routine, change the sequence of examples or check understanding more systematically before moving on. Looking together at the effect on students allows teachers to retain what helps, refine what remains uncertain and change their minds when classroom evidence gives them reason to do so.

Educational improvement becomes harder when every new idea is treated as a camp that people must either join or reject. Professional judgement develops through reading, discussion, experience and a willingness to reconsider what we think we know. Leaders can support this development by creating a culture in which uncertainty is acceptable, experimentation is purposeful and changing one’s mind is understood as part of learning.

The hygge of learning brings the intellectual and human dimensions of education into the same picture. The science helps us understand what learning asks of students and how teaching can make that challenge more manageable, while hygge draws our attention to the experience we create around the effort. Together, they offer classrooms that are ambitious, protective, carefully taught and full of the warmth, curiosity and connection that make learning a deeply human experience.

References

• Education Endowment Foundation (2024) A School’s Guide to Implementation. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: Education Endowment Foundation.

• Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E. (2006) ‘Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching’, Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp. 75–86. Available at: Taylor & Francis.

• Roediger, H.L. and Karpicke, J.D. (2006) ‘Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention’, Psychological Science, 17(3), pp. 249–255. Available at: PubMed.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012) ‘Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know’, American Educator, 36(1), pp. 12–19 and 39. Available at: American Federation of Teachers.

• Sweller, J., Ayres, P. and Kalyuga, S. (2011) Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer. Available at: Springer.

• Wiking, M. (2016) The Little Book of Hygge: The Danish Way to Live Well. London: Penguin Life. Available at: Penguin.

• Willingham, D.T. (2021) Why Don’t Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Available at: Wiley.

Share

For school leaders, inclusion is usually discussed with children at the forefront of our minds. We think about who is participating, who is succeeding, who feels they belong and what might prevent some children from accessing the same opportunities as others. We consider reasonable adjustments, additional support, curriculum access, relationships and the conditions individual children may need in order to flourish. Yet some of the most revealing evidence about a school’s approach to inclusion can be found before we ever enter a classroom. It is in the workplace we have created for the adults.

The organisational experience of adults is easy to overlook, yet it provides the backdrop to the decisions they make for children every day. Staff experience how information is shared, how opportunities are distributed, how individual circumstances are accommodated, how performance is managed and how much flexibility exists when life does not fit neatly around work. They also experience the less formal parts of organisational life: who is known, who is trusted, who gets asked, who gets encouraged and whose circumstances are understood.

Looking at the workplace gives school leaders another way into inclusion. Alongside examining what happens for children, we can ask whether the adults around them experience the same principles in practice. There are five areas in particular that are worth examining:

1. Start with the adults

The everyday experience of coming to work can tell us far more about inclusion than a policy alone. A school may have an excellent flexible-working policy, but the more revealing moment comes when someone’s child is ill and they need to leave unexpectedly. How easy is it to say so, and can the organisation respond with flexibility and common sense without that person feeling their commitment has somehow been called into question?

Access to information provides another very ordinary example. A Friday briefing might work perfectly well for most staff, while somebody who does not work on Fridays repeatedly arrives on Monday without information their colleagues already have. The solution does not need to be sophisticated: an email, a shared document or a whiteboard in the staffroom might be enough. The important thing is noticing that a routine designed around the majority has made participation harder for somebody else.

Small things like these tell us a great deal about an organisation. Who has to work harder to access the same information? Who regularly has to ask for something everybody else receives automatically? Whose circumstances fit comfortably within the way the school operates, and whose require constant negotiation?

2. Keep expectations high while adapting the conditions

Most good workplaces already accept that people sometimes need different conditions in order to do excellent work. A member of staff may need a reasonable adjustment because of disability, flexibility around caring responsibilities, information presented in a more accessible way or additional support while learning something unfamiliar. We can accommodate those things without making a judgement about that person’s intelligence, ambition or professional potential.

The same principle applies to children. Adaptation should give a child better access to learning without quietly changing our view of what they might ultimately be capable of. Some children will need more scaffolding, different resources, additional explanation, more practice or changes to their environment. Others will need substantially different provision. The support required at a particular point in time should not become a ceiling on what we think might be possible later.

Adults who experience this in their own workplace know that fairness does not always mean treating everybody identically. They also know what it feels like when somebody responds to what they need now without making assumptions about what they might be capable of next.

3. Protect access to opportunity

Some of the biggest differences in people’s working lives begin with opportunities that do not make it to an advert. A project comes up and somebody immediately springs to mind. A senior leader recommends someone they have worked with before. An interesting piece of work goes to the person who has done something similar. Someone mentions that they would like to progress and starts receiving experiences that will eventually make them a stronger candidate for promotion.

Much of this feels perfectly reasonable while it is happening. The problem comes when opportunity repeatedly travels through the same relationships. Over time, who is known, trusted, recommended, encouraged or invited into the room shapes who gets access to opportunity. People who receive those opportunities become more experienced and more visible, making them more likely to come to mind the next time something comes along.

Leaders can interrupt some of this quite easily. Advertise roles rather than just allocating them. Run a proper recruitment process rather than relying on who somebody knows. Offer development opportunities widely enough for people to put themselves forward, including those we had not imagined would be interested. There will always be times when approaching someone directly makes sense, but it is worth noticing whose names repeatedly come to mind and whose rarely do.

There is a version of this for children too. A child who needs additional teaching may have to miss something else to receive it, and sometimes that decision will be entirely sensible. It is the cumulative effect that deserves attention. If a child who is behind in literacy or mathematics repeatedly misses science, art, music, sport or humanities to catch up, support intended to help them can gradually leave them with a narrower education than their peers. We should know what children are gaining from additional provision, but we should also know what they are giving up to receive it.

4. See the person before the label

Categories and data can reveal differences that might otherwise be easy to miss. They can show us, for example, whether attendance, attainment, participation or access to opportunity looks different for particular groups, and help us understand where additional support may be needed. The difficulty is that information gathered to help us understand somebody can also influence what we come to expect from them, particularly when a diagnosis, previous outcome or personal circumstance starts to stand in for everything else we know about that person.

We would be wary of doing this to adults. Someone may work part time, need a reasonable adjustment, have significant caring responsibilities or go through a period when their performance is not where it needs to be. Those things may be relevant to decisions we make, but we would not want them to become that person’s professional identity or to determine indefinitely which opportunities they are offered. Fair processes help here too. Decisions about performance, development and progression should draw on good evidence and, where appropriate, more than one perspective, so that an established view of somebody does not become impossible to shift.

The same care is needed with children. A diagnosis can help us understand the support a child may need without telling us everything about them. Prior attainment tells us something about what they know now, not what they will ultimately be capable of learning. Behaviour gives us information that may need to be understood and acted upon, without becoming the way a child is known. The more information we gather about children, the more important it is to use it to understand them better rather than to narrow what we imagine might be possible for them.

5. Pay attention to belonging

Belonging can be difficult to pin down, but much of it is built through very ordinary experiences of being part of an organisation. Adults notice whether they receive the information everybody else receives, whether their contribution is taken seriously and whether anyone thinks of them when an opportunity comes up. They notice whether flexibility is genuinely available or depends on which manager they happen to have, whether they can disagree without damaging a relationship and whether working part time gradually moves them towards the edge of organisational life.

Children notice their own versions of these things throughout the school day. They know who is trusted with responsibility, whose answers adults seek, who gets chosen, whose success is noticed and who spends significant amounts of time somewhere other than the classroom. They know whether adults seem pleased to see them, whether they are expected to contribute and whether getting something wrong changes the way people respond to them.

Each individual moment may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. A missed briefing, an invitation that never comes, an assumption about somebody’s availability or a child repeatedly leaving the classroom for intervention can all seem insignificant on their own. Look across them, though, and patterns begin to emerge about who is consistently at the centre of organisational life and who spends more time at its edges.

Creating alignment

There are obvious limits to any comparison between the experience of employees and children, and schools have responsibilities towards pupils that are different from those they hold towards their workforce. The value lies in whether there is alignment in the principles underneath both. A strong belief in adaptation for children should be reflected in the way we respond to the different needs of adults, just as concern about children’s access to opportunity should make us attentive to how opportunity travels through the workforce. Asking teachers to look beyond labels also requires us to consider the reputations and assumptions that can attach themselves to staff. And if belonging is important for children, we should be interested in whether the adults around them feel valued, included and fully part of the organisation.

There is something powerful about experiencing these things rather than only being trained to provide them. A teacher whose manager responds sensibly when something unexpected happens at home knows what flexibility without lowered expectations feels like. A member of staff who is encouraged to put themselves forward for something they had assumed was beyond them knows the difference an invitation can make. A part-time colleague who does not have to chase information from meetings held on their day off knows the difference between technically having access and actually having it.

The culture adults experience does not stay neatly in the staffroom. It travels into classrooms, conversations with families and the many small decisions people make about children. An inclusive workplace cannot guarantee inclusive teaching, but it gives adults repeated experience of what thoughtful adaptation, fair access to opportunity, high expectations and belonging look like in practice.

We ask adults to build classrooms in which children are known well, supported when they need it, given access to opportunity and never written off because of a label or a difficult period. The organisation around those classrooms should give them some idea of what that feels like.

Share

References

• Acas (2025). Reasonable adjustments at work. Acas. Reasonable adjustments at work

• Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2021). Race inclusion reports: Ensuring equality of career progression opportunities. CIPD. Ensuring equality of career progression opportunities

• Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2022). Inclusion at work 2022. CIPD. This is particularly relevant to your argument about examining people-management systems, leadership and access to opportunity through an inclusion lens. Inclusion at work 2022

• Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2020). Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools. EEF. Particularly useful for your sections on maintaining high expectations, adapting provision and supporting pupils with SEND to participate and succeed. Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools

Over recent months I have found myself reflecting on two educational conversations. Here in Australia, much of what I have been reading has focused on implementation, the science of learning and strengthening curriculum and teaching. At the same time, many of the educational voices I continue to follow in England have been writing about belonging, relationships and the broader purpose of education. Although these conversations have different emphases, I have found myself thinking that they are much more closely connected than they sometimes appear. Strong schools do not separate purpose from practice because each depends upon the other.

My experience of leading schools has continually reinforced this belief. I have seen the difference that a deeper understanding of how children learn can make to children’s outcomes. Carefully sequenced curricula, explicit teaching, retrieval practice and deliberate practice help pupils remember more, develop greater confidence and achieve more over time. Understanding learning has transformed educational practice because it helps teachers make better decisions about what they teach, when they teach it and how they help learning endure.

Leading a multi-academy trust made up predominantly of Church of England schools reinforced something equally important. Every Church school is shaped by a theologically rooted Christian vision that explains who it exists to serve and the contribution it hopes to make to its community. Through the Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools (SIAMS), schools are expected to demonstrate how that vision influences leadership, curriculum, relationships and everyday decision-making. Purpose is not simply articulated; it is expected to be lived.

Working within that context also meant regularly preparing for both Ofsted and SIAMS inspections, often within relatively short periods of one another. I think those two inspection frameworks complemented each other well. Ofsted focused our attention on the quality of education and the extent to which children were learning successfully. SIAMS challenged us to demonstrate how the school’s vision shaped every aspect of school life and enabled every child and adult to flourish. We did not have the option of concentrating on one while neglecting the other, and I believe our schools were stronger because of it.

The schools that achieved the greatest and most sustainable improvements knew why they existed and worked relentlessly to ensure that curriculum, teaching, assessment, relationships and leadership reflected that purpose. Understanding how children learn explained how to improve learning. Educational purpose explained why that learning mattered. The science of learning was not the purpose of our work; it was one of the most powerful ways of realising it.

Without a clear educational purpose, implementation can become an exercise in consistency, compliance and technical precision. Without a deep understanding of how children learn, even the strongest vision struggles to improve children’s outcomes. The schools that make the greatest difference recognise that both deserve the same degree of intellectual rigour, leadership attention and continual refinement.

How strong schools hold purpose and practice together

From my experience, successful schools share a small number of characteristics that consistently hold educational purpose and evidence-informed practice together. In particular, they:

• Are clear about why they exist. They define the knowledge, understanding, character and judgement they want every young person to develop, and that purpose informs strategic decisions throughout the organisation.

• Build a curriculum that reflects that purpose. They carefully select, sequence and revisit the knowledge that matters most so that learning develops coherently over time.

• Teach in ways that make learning last. They draw upon the best available evidence about learning so that important knowledge is understood, remembered and applied with confidence.

• Develop teachers as expert professionals. They invest in curriculum expertise, professional judgement and collaborative improvement because excellent teaching is continually developed.

• Create cultures where belonging enables learning. High expectations, strong relationships and a shared sense of purpose help every child feel known, valued and able to succeed.

• Use assessment to strengthen learning. Assessment identifies misconceptions, informs teaching and evaluates whether the curriculum is achieving its intended purpose.

• Design systems that make excellence reliable. Leadership, professional learning, curriculum, assessment and organisational routines work together so that every child consistently experiences high-quality education.

School leaders will always have immediate priorities demanding their attention. That is simply the reality of leadership. Even so, I think it is worth returning regularly to two ideas that sit beneath every improvement decision. Why does this school exist? How do children learn most successfully?

The first provides direction. The second helps us realise it. When schools remain disciplined in both, they are far more likely to improve outcomes that endure, strengthen belonging and make a lasting contribution to the communities they serve.

Share

Get in touch - lois@reliable-excellence.com

References

• Church of England Education Office. (2023). The Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools (SIAMS): Evaluation Schedule. Church House Publishing.

• Education Endowment Foundation. (2021). Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: A review of the evidence. Education Endowment Foundation.

• Ofsted. (2023). School inspection handbook. Ofsted.

• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

Understanding how learning becomes secure requires us to look beyond individual lessons and consider what happens over time. Knowledge does not become durable simply because it has been explained clearly once or practised successfully during a single lesson. Children build secure understanding by returning to important ideas, thinking about them again in different contexts, refining their understanding through feedback and connecting new learning with what they already know. Every successful opportunity to revisit learning strengthens the likelihood that knowledge will remain available when pupils need it months or even years later. When schools begin to think about learning in this way, the focus shifts from delivering content efficiently towards designing experiences that allow important knowledge to become established over time.

Although deliberate practice has become a familiar phrase within education, it is often used to describe a collection of classroom strategies rather than the broader principle from which it originated. Retrieval quizzes, repeated exercises, fluency activities and rehearsal are all valuable approaches, yet none captures the complete picture on its own. Deliberate practice is better understood as the intentional design of repeated opportunities for pupils to think carefully about important knowledge, receive meaningful feedback and strengthen their understanding across an extended period of time. This way of thinking places the emphasis on how learning develops rather than on any single teaching technique.

The original concept of deliberate practice emerged through the work of psychologist Anders Ericsson, whose research explored how expertise developed across disciplines including music, sport, medicine and chess (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993). His research demonstrated that expert performance was associated with purposeful practice directed towards specific aspects of performance, accompanied by feedback and sustained over long periods. Although schools are not often preparing concert pianists or elite athletes, the underlying principle transfers well into education. Children do not become confident readers, writers, mathematicians or scientists because they encounter important knowledge once. Their understanding grows stronger when schools provide repeated opportunities to revisit, refine and extend that learning over time.

Viewing deliberate practice through this lens changes the way we interpret classroom activity. A retrieval quiz may provide an excellent opportunity to strengthen learning, but so might a carefully structured discussion, a guided writing lesson, a mathematical explanation, a science investigation or a piece of independent practice. The activity itself is not what determines whether deliberate practice is taking place. What deserves attention is whether pupils are returning to significant knowledge, thinking carefully about it, receiving feedback and using that feedback to improve their understanding. The same principle can be found across every phase of education and every curriculum subject because it is concerned with how learning develops rather than with the particular method chosen by the teacher.

Seeing deliberate practice as a principle rather than a classroom technique also changes where responsibility sits within a school. Individual teachers play an essential role in creating high-quality learning experiences, but no teacher can secure long-term learning through isolated lessons alone. Whether pupils revisit important vocabulary, mathematical procedures, historical concepts or scientific ideas depends upon decisions that reach far beyond one classroom. Curriculum planning determines what knowledge is revisited. Assessment systems identify what needs further attention. Professional development shapes teachers’ understanding of how learning develops. Leadership decisions influence how much curriculum time is protected for revisiting essential knowledge. When these elements work together, pupils encounter coherent opportunities to strengthen learning throughout their time in school rather than relying upon the preferences or habits of individual teachers.

This wider perspective also has implications for education systems as a whole. Curriculum frameworks often describe what pupils should learn, while assessment arrangements measure what they can demonstrate at particular points in time. Neither automatically guarantees that sufficient opportunities exist for important learning to become secure. Schools frequently feel pressure to move rapidly through extensive curriculum content, even when pupils would benefit from spending longer revisiting foundational knowledge. Education systems that genuinely value deep understanding create space for schools to strengthen learning over time rather than rewarding coverage alone. Ambitious curricula are realised through what pupils continue to remember and apply long after teaching has taken place.

Schools seeking to design learning that endures are likely to make deliberate decisions across several aspects of their work rather than introducing another classroom initiative. These decisions often include:

• Identifying the knowledge, vocabulary, concepts and procedures that provide the strongest foundations for future learning and ensuring they receive sustained attention across multiple year groups.

• Designing curriculum sequences that deliberately revisit significant learning across weeks, terms and years instead of treating topics as completed once teaching has finished.

• Using assessment to identify which aspects of learning require further strengthening rather than simply recording whether pupils answered correctly on one occasion.

• Providing regular opportunities for pupils to improve their work following feedback so that advice leads directly to another attempt.

• Developing teachers’ understanding of memory, learning and curriculum progression through sustained professional development rather than isolated training events.

• Protecting curriculum time for thoughtful review and practice instead of allowing retrieval opportunities to disappear whenever the timetable becomes pressured.

• Monitoring whether deliberate practice is implemented consistently across subjects and year groups so that every pupil benefits from the same high expectations.

Weekly spelling tests provide a familiar illustration of why this broader approach is valuable. Many pupils successfully learn a list of words, perform well in a Friday test and appear to have mastered the required spelling pattern. Several weeks later, those same words often begin to reappear incorrectly in independent writing. The assessment captured performance at one point in time, but it did not necessarily strengthen long-term learning. A school designed around deliberate practice treats the spelling test as one point within a much longer sequence. Previously taught spelling patterns return through reading, writing, retrieval, editing and purposeful application over many weeks so that pupils continue strengthening their understanding well beyond the original lesson.

Several complementary areas of cognitive science help explain why this approach has such a positive influence on learning. Research into retrieval practice demonstrates that actively recalling previously learned information strengthens long-term retention more effectively than simply reviewing notes (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Studies of spaced practice show that revisiting learning over extended periods produces stronger retention than completing all practice together (Cepeda et al., 2006). Cognitive load theory explains that secure knowledge places fewer demands on working memory, allowing pupils to devote greater attention to more complex thinking (Sweller, 1988). Although these fields developed independently, they all point towards the same conclusion: pupils learn more successfully when important knowledge is revisited thoughtfully over time.

Discussions about school improvement understandably devote significant attention to improving the quality of teaching because excellent teaching remains indispensable. At the same time, schools that wish pupils to retain, connect and apply their learning must also consider how that learning is strengthened after it has first been introduced. Deliberate practice offers a useful way of thinking about curriculum, assessment, professional development and leadership because it directs attention towards the experiences pupils have across months and years rather than within isolated lessons. Designing learning that lasts is ultimately an organisational responsibility. When schools intentionally create repeated opportunities for pupils to revisit important knowledge, refine their understanding and build lasting confidence, they give far more children the opportunity to experience lasting success in education.

Share

References

• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

• Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

• Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39.

• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Throughout my career in education, I have seen how much thought and care leaders put into improving outcomes for children. Schools are constantly exploring approaches that might strengthen teaching and learning. The difficulty is that even strong ideas require more than simply introducing them; they need to be understood within the context of the school, connected to a clear purpose and supported by the conditions that allow them to succeed.

We have seen this with many approaches in education. Systematic phonics, for example, has strong evidence behind it, but the introduction of a programme alone does not improve reading outcomes. The impact comes from teachers understanding the approach, receiving appropriate support, using assessment effectively and adapting their practice in response to pupils. Similarly, playbooks can help schools clarify effective practice, but a document itself does not change classroom teaching. Improvement comes through the professional conversations, modelling, coaching and feedback that help people understand and embed that practice.

Artificial intelligence is likely to follow the same pattern. Its potential is significant, but the value it creates will depend on the decisions schools make around its use. Technology can support schools in many ways, from reducing unnecessary administrative workload to helping teachers and leaders use their time more effectively. However, the technology itself is not what creates improvement. The important work is deciding where it can genuinely add value and where human expertise remains essential.

This is why AI should be approached in the same way as any other school improvement strategy. The strongest schools understand their priorities, identify areas for improvement and consider whether a proposed approach will help them move closer to their goals. They are willing to explore new ideas, but they also evaluate carefully whether those ideas are improving outcomes for children.

A sensible response for school leaders

For leaders considering how to respond to AI, the starting point is not to ignore it or rush towards it. It is to apply the same disciplined thinking that supports effective school improvement: understand your context, identify the problem(s) you are trying to solve and evaluate whether a change is making a meaningful difference.

1. Know your school before introducing new solutions

Before exploring possible uses of AI, leaders need a clear understanding of their current reality. What is working well? Where are the greatest opportunities for improvement? What are teachers and pupils already doing? Where are people spending time on tasks that could be improved?

This allows schools to move beyond simply asking, “What can AI do?” and towards a more useful question:

“What problems are we trying to solve, and where might AI help us?”

A school that understands its priorities is much more likely to identify meaningful uses of AI than a school that begins with the technology itself.

2. Strengthen professional judgement across the organisation

As information becomes easier to generate, professional judgement becomes even more important. Teachers and leaders need to evaluate whether information is accurate, appropriate and useful, and whether a particular tool or approach will genuinely improve learning.

Sustainable improvement depends on people understanding the purpose behind decisions and making thoughtful choices aligned with the school’s aims. There are times when leaders need to provide greater direction, particularly when practice is inconsistent or outcomes are not where they need to be. However, long-term success depends on developing the expertise of the people within the organisation.

This is why professional learning, instructional coaching and meaningful feedback remain central. The aim is not simply to implement approaches consistently; it is to build the understanding needed to improve practice over time.

3. Continue building pupils’ capacity to think and judge

One of the understandable concerns around AI is whether schools need to introduce new curriculum content to prepare children for a future shaped by technology. However, predicting exactly what knowledge and skills pupils will need in the future is difficult. A more useful starting point is to return to what we already know about learning.

We know that children need secure knowledge in order to think critically, evaluate information and make sound judgements. These capabilities are becoming increasingly important in an AI-enabled world, where pupils will encounter vast amounts of information and will need to decide what is accurate, useful and trustworthy.

This reinforces an important principle about learning: knowledge and skills are deeply connected. Children cannot evaluate ideas they do not understand or make informed judgements without knowledge to draw upon. Knowledge provides the foundation that allows critical thinking, reasoning and problem solving to develop.

Many of these opportunities already exist within a strong curriculum. For example, when pupils evaluate the reliability of a historical source, test a scientific explanation, justify a mathematical method or analyse the effectiveness of a persuasive text, they are developing the judgement they will need to navigate a world where information can increasingly be generated by technology.

The implication for schools is not necessarily that we need to add more content. Instead, we should be increasingly intentional about the opportunities already within our curriculum to build the knowledge that enables thoughtful judgement. By continuing to develop pupils’ understanding of the world, we place them in a stronger position to evaluate information, use technology wisely and respond confidently to future changes.

4. Experiment carefully and evaluate impact

Schools cannot wait for every question about AI to be answered before engaging with it, but neither should they adopt tools without careful consideration.

The most effective organisations create opportunities to explore, test and learn. They begin with a clear purpose, gather feedback from those involved and evaluate whether a change is producing the intended benefits. Small-scale experimentation can help schools understand where AI is genuinely useful while also identifying potential risks.

Ultimately, the question is whether a particular use of AI helps schools provide better learning experiences for children.

Artificial intelligence may change aspects of education, but it does not change the fundamental work of schools. The schools that use it well will be those that continue to focus on what has always mattered: understanding their purpose, developing expertise, evaluating evidence and improving practice.

In moments of rapid change, it becomes even more important to return to the question that guides every decision we make in education:

How do we ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day?

Share

Get in touch - lois@reliable-excellence.com

References

• Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths About Education. Routledge.

• Education Endowment Foundation. (2024). Implementation guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/implementation

• Hattie, J. (2023). Visible Learning: The Sequel. Routledge.

• Schwartz, R., Ferguson, R., D’Souza, S., & Wilkins, A. (2024). Centennials: The 12 Habits of Great, Enduring Organisations. Wiley.

For many school leaders, that vision is an attractive one. The more difficult question is how to build it. Joyful rigour is built over time, particularly in schools where teaching, culture or systems require strengthening. Developing expertise takes time, yet children only experience each year at school once. They should not have to wait for the school we are trying to build before experiencing the school they deserve.

The starting point is recognising that joyful rigour is not created by focusing on one priority at the expense of the other. It can be tempting, particularly when standards need to rise, to concentrate every ounce of energy on strengthening instruction with the intention of returning to the joyful parts of school later. Equally, it can be tempting to protect enjoyable experiences while avoiding the disciplined work required to improve teaching. Neither approach leads to joyful rigour. Leadership begins by demonstrating that both matter equally from the very beginning.

Fortunately, we know far more about how to build rigorous teaching than we once did. Research into cognitive science has strengthened professional understanding of curriculum design, explicit instruction, retrieval practice, cognitive load and assessment. It has also deepened our understanding of how adults develop expertise. Learning something new places demands on working memory, while new habits require deliberate practice, timely feedback and repeated opportunities to become automatic. Knowing what excellent teaching looks like is only the starting point. Instructional coaching, carefully designed professional development and disciplined implementation provide teachers with opportunities to practise, refine and embed those habits until they become increasingly fluent.

Teaching is a complex profession, and learning to teach exceptionally well requires both time and practice. When teachers are developing new instructional habits, much of their attention is naturally devoted to recalling explanations, modelling accurately, checking understanding and making deliberate instructional decisions. This is not a weakness. It is simply how learning works. Effective coaching accelerates that journey, but it cannot remove it entirely. As expertise develops, instructional habits become increasingly automatic, releasing greater capacity to notice children’s thinking, respond instinctively to misconceptions and allow warmth, humour and personality to become more visible within the lesson. Rigorous teaching does not become joyful because expectations have been lowered. It becomes joyful because expertise creates the freedom to combine ambitious learning with genuine human connection.

Children, however, should not have to wait for that process to unfold before they experience joy at school. This is why protecting joy deserves the same deliberate attention as strengthening teaching. Even schools facing the greatest challenges usually contain examples of the culture they want to create. They may already have a much-loved learning celebration, a successful production, a community fundraiser, an enrichment visit, sporting success, artwork displayed with pride or trusted adults who help children feel known and valued every day. Leaders should notice those moments, curate the strongest examples, protect them and give them a platform. Where they do not yet exist, schools should intentionally establish a small number of meaningful traditions that can be sustained well. The goal is not to fill the calendar with events. It is to ensure children continue to experience belonging, enjoyment and connection while instructional expertise develops.

At first, this can feel like two separate priorities. Schools are deliberately strengthening teaching while deliberately protecting the experiences that make childhood memorable. That is not a compromise. It reflects the reality that children deserve both from the moment they arrive.

Over time, those two strands begin to merge. As teachers become increasingly fluent in the habits of rigorous instruction, they naturally begin to weave joy more consistently into everyday learning. They have greater capacity to notice the moments worth celebrating, respond with humour, adapt to children’s thinking and create lessons that are intellectually demanding as well as deeply engaging. Joy gradually becomes less dependent on special events because it is increasingly present within the daily experience of the classroom. Productions, concerts and enrichment opportunities still matter, but they are complemented by classrooms where children experience the satisfaction of thinking hard, succeeding and feeling connected to the adults who teach them.

This is how joyful rigour is built. It is not achieved by postponing joy until standards improve, and it is not achieved by sacrificing academic ambition in the name of children’s happiness. It develops when leaders invest in both with equal conviction: creating the conditions for teachers to master the craft of teaching while protecting the experiences that make children love coming to school. Over time, those two strands become increasingly intertwined until joyful rigour is no longer an aspiration but the lived experience of the school.

Creating joyful rigour means recognising that excellence develops over time, while childhood does not. Leadership is about ensuring children experience belonging, enjoyment and ambitious learning today, while patiently helping teachers develop the expertise that allows those qualities to become increasingly intertwined across every classroom. If our ambition is to ensure every child experiences high-quality learning, every day, joyful rigour is not something we introduce once everything else is in place. It is the standard we should work towards from the very beginning.

Share

References

• Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2018). Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. Jossey-Bass.

• Lemov, D. (2021). Teach Like a Champion 3.0. Jossey-Bass.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39.

• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: Definitions, Theory, Practices, and Future Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.

How do we ensure every child experiences high-quality learning, every day? It is a question that sits behind curriculum design, assessment, behaviour, professional learning and school improvement. Every decision made by leaders and teachers ultimately succeeds or fails through its influence on learning. As our understanding of learning has developed, so too has our understanding of what effective teaching looks like. One of the clearest examples is the growing emphasis on adaptive teaching. Increasingly, it has become the language of evidence-informed practice because it reflects what we know about how children learn and how teachers can help more pupils succeed within an ambitious curriculum.

Every classroom presents teachers with pupils who arrive with different experiences, different levels of prior knowledge and different misconceptions. Some grasp new ideas quickly, while others require further explanation, additional practice or carefully chosen support before learning becomes secure. These differences are entirely normal. They are not problems to eliminate but characteristics of every class that teachers must understand if learning is to flourish.

Responding to those differences has always been part of good teaching. What has changed is our understanding of how that responsiveness should look in practice. As research into learning has expanded, greater attention has been given to the decisions teachers make while teaching rather than simply the activities pupils complete. Adaptive teaching reflects this change in professional thinking. The focus has shifted from planning different activities to making responsive instructional decisions that help more pupils succeed within the same ambitious curriculum.

A shared destination

Every lesson begins with a decision about what pupils should learn. Before resources are produced, examples selected or explanations prepared, teachers identify the knowledge, understanding or skill that pupils should secure. That intended outcome provides direction for every decision that follows. Adaptive teaching does not alter the destination. It influences how teachers help pupils reach it.

This principle represents an important shift in professional thinking. For many years, differentiation was often interpreted as creating different activities for different groups of pupils. In some classrooms this evolved into simplified tasks for those who were struggling and more demanding work for those who appeared ready to move ahead. Although these approaches were usually motivated by a desire to support learners, they sometimes reduced access to the very knowledge that pupils most needed to acquire.

Adaptive teaching begins from a different assumption. Every pupil is entitled to an ambitious curriculum because powerful knowledge should not depend upon how quickly a child learns. The learning goal remains shared across the class. Variation lies in the teaching, the support and the opportunities pupils receive to secure that learning.

Strong teaching creates the conditions for adaptation

Discussion about adaptive teaching can sometimes create the impression that responsiveness begins when teachers notice pupils struggling. In reality, adaptation begins much earlier than that. Its quality depends almost entirely upon the quality of the instruction that comes before it.

Clear explanations, carefully chosen examples, expert modelling and guided practice provide pupils with the knowledge they need to begin thinking successfully about new ideas. They also provide teachers with the first opportunity to observe how learning is developing. Without secure initial instruction, there is very little useful evidence upon which adaptation can be based.

This reflects what cognitive science tells us about learning. New knowledge is constructed by connecting new information to existing knowledge held in long-term memory. That process is strengthened through retrieval, practice and feedback. Effective teaching makes these connections easier to establish by reducing unnecessary cognitive load and directing pupils’ attention towards the ideas that are most important. Adaptive teaching builds upon these foundations; it does not replace them.

Learning leaves clues

One of the most distinctive features of expert teaching is the ability to notice learning while it is happening. Every classroom interaction offers clues about pupils’ thinking. A hesitant response, an unexpected misconception, a confident explanation or an error in a worked example all reveal something about what pupils currently understand.

This evidence is gathered continuously. It is collected through questioning, observation, discussion and pupils’ written work. Unlike formal assessment, which often looks back at what has been learned, responsive assessment allows teachers to shape learning while it is still taking place. Small misunderstandings can be addressed before they become embedded, while secure understanding can be extended before pupils lose momentum.

Perhaps one of the most underestimated aspects of adaptive teaching is the professional expertise required to interpret these clues accurately. Knowing that a pupil has answered incorrectly is relatively straightforward. Understanding why they answered incorrectly, and deciding what should happen next, demands secure subject knowledge, pedagogical expertise and a deep understanding of how learning develops.

Small decisions, significant consequences

Much of adaptive teaching consists of decisions that appear almost invisible to anyone watching a lesson. A teacher may choose to model another example, rephrase an explanation, return briefly to prior learning or provide additional guided practice before pupils continue independently. At other times, support may be gradually withdrawn because pupils have demonstrated that they are ready to take greater responsibility for their learning.

None of these decisions alters the intended outcome. Instead, they increase the likelihood that more pupils will reach it. Scaffolds such as sentence stems, visual representations and worked examples are introduced when they help pupils think more successfully and removed when they are no longer required. Their purpose is temporary. They support learning without reducing ambition.

These adjustments may appear modest in isolation, yet together they shape the quality of learning that pupils experience every day. They illustrate why adaptive teaching is far more dependent upon professional judgement than additional resources. The expertise lies in recognising which adaptation is required, when it is required and when it is no longer needed.

Professional judgement remains central

The growing availability of high-quality curriculum materials has transformed classroom practice in many schools. Teachers now have access to carefully sequenced curriculum, high-quality resources and evidence-informed guidance that would have been difficult to imagine only a decade ago. These developments strengthen teaching considerably, but they do not diminish the importance of professional expertise. They change where that expertise is invested.

Every curriculum eventually meets a real classroom. Pupils respond differently, misconceptions emerge unexpectedly and understanding develops at different rates. Adaptive teaching is the professional judgement that bridges the gap between a well-designed curriculum and the pupils sitting in front of the teacher. It ensures that a degree of flexibility sits alongside curriculum fidelity and that responsiveness does not become reduced ambition.

High-quality learning for every child, every day

Adaptive teaching has become a defining feature of evidence-informed practice because it reflects a more sophisticated understanding of learning. It recognises that ambitious expectations, explicit instruction, responsive assessment and professional judgement work together to create the conditions in which more pupils experience success.

Perhaps this explains why adaptive teaching has gained such prominence in recent years. It offers a way of responding to the natural diversity found in every classroom without compromising the ambition of the curriculum. The destination remains shared, while the teaching responds thoughtfully to the evidence of learning that emerges along the way.

Ultimately, adaptive teaching is not simply another approach to classroom practice. It is the practical application of a simple principle: every child deserves access to high-quality teaching that responds to their learning while maintaining ambitious expectations. Adaptive teaching is one of the clearest expressions of our commitment to ensuring every child experiences high-quality learning, every day.

Share

Subscribe now

References

• Education Endowment Foundation. (2021). Teacher Feedback to Improve Learning: Guidance Report.

• Education Endowment Foundation. (2021). Teaching and Learning Toolkit.

• Education Endowment Foundation. (2025). Metacognition and Self-Regulation: Guidance Report.

• Leswell, M. (2025). The Shift to Adaptive Teaching: A Research-Informed Guide. Impact, Chartered College of Teaching.

The availability of high-quality curriculum materials does not, however, reduce the importance of professional expertise. It changes where that expertise is invested. When less time is spent creating resources, more time can be devoted to understanding the curriculum, implementing it thoughtfully and ensuring that every pupil benefits from it. Great curriculum materials provide the foundation for improving learning, but they achieve their greatest impact when accompanied by thoughtful professional judgement.

Every curriculum meets a real school
Every published curriculum is written for an imagined classroom. Curriculum designers make informed assumptions about teaching time, pupils’ prior knowledge and the sequence of learning they are likely to experience, but they cannot know the reality of every school. They cannot anticipate assemblies, performances, educational visits, timetable constraints or the variations in knowledge that pupils bring with them.

The first responsibility of teachers and leaders is to bridge the gap between the curriculum as designed and the curriculum as experienced. This is not an invitation to rewrite carefully considered curriculum according to personal preference. Instead, it requires schools to understand the curriculum well enough to implement it successfully within their own context while preserving its ambition and coherence.

Coherence is worth protecting
The strength of knowledge-rich curricula is the deliberate sequencing of knowledge over time. Individual lessons make sense because they contribute to a much larger journey of learning, with each unit preparing pupils for what comes next. That coherence is easily weakened if curriculum decisions are made lesson by lesson or year by year without considering their wider consequences.

School leaders and teachers inevitably make decisions about curriculum throughout the year. Time is finite, and published curricula often contain more material than schools can realistically teach once the demands of school life are taken into account. Deciding what must be protected, where there is flexibility and how each year prepares pupils for the next requires careful professional judgement. These decisions are strongest when they are made collectively, with a shared understanding of the curriculum’s overall design rather than from the perspective of individual classrooms. Protecting curriculum coherence means safeguarding the long-term learning journey rather than simply delivering the next lesson.

Great teaching still depends on curriculum knowledge
High-quality resources remove much of the work involved in producing slides, worksheets and lesson activities, but they do not reduce the need for teachers to know the curriculum deeply. If anything, they make that knowledge even more important.

Teachers need to understand why knowledge has been sequenced in a particular way, anticipate misconceptions before they arise and recognise how each lesson connects to previous and future learning. Teachers should not encounter the next slide for the first time alongside their pupils. Secure curriculum knowledge allows teachers to explain ideas with greater precision, adapt explanations when pupils struggle and make better decisions throughout the lesson. High-quality curriculum materials reduce preparation, but they increase the importance of curriculum understanding.

Ambition requires intelligent implementation
Every classroom contains pupils whose starting points, confidence and prior knowledge differ. Published curricula cannot anticipate every variation, yet ambitious curriculum should remain the entitlement of every child. The professional task is not to reduce ambition when pupils find learning difficult, but to consider how they can be supported to succeed within it.

This may involve carefully planned scaffolding, additional practice, timely feedback or targeted opportunities to revisit essential knowledge before new learning is introduced. Such decisions depend on teachers understanding both the curriculum and the pupils sitting in front of them. The curriculum remains constant, while teaching becomes increasingly responsive to how pupils reach it. Thoughtful implementation enables more pupils to succeed without weakening the ambition of what they are expected to learn.

Where professional expertise now matters most
The growth of high-quality curriculum materials represents genuine progress for the profession. Teachers should spend less time searching for resources and producing worksheets because those tasks are no longer where their expertise has the greatest value. The profession benefits when that time is redirected towards understanding curriculum, strengthening teaching and improving pupils’ learning.

As more schools adopt high-quality, knowledge-rich curricula, successful implementation will depend less on the resources themselves and more on the professional thinking that surrounds them. Curriculum design and professional expertise are not competing priorities. They are complementary. A great curriculum provides the architecture for learning, while thoughtful professional judgement ensures that architecture becomes a lived experience for every child, every day.

Share

Subscribe now

References

• Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven myths about education. Routledge.

• Counsell, C. (2018). Taking curriculum seriously. Collection of essays and conference papers.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39.

• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.

• Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? Jossey-Bass.

As Paul Bambrick-Santoyo argues, the purpose of leadership is not simply to manage organisations but to improve outcomes for students. That requires leaders who are continually developing their own knowledge and judgement, rather than simply complying with external expectations.

In busy schools, compliance can become an understandable substitute for professional learning. Leaders are balancing safeguarding, behaviour, staffing, budgets, parental concerns and countless operational demands. Faced with this reality, education systems often respond by producing frameworks, templates, checklists and implementation guidance. These resources have an important role. Just as effective teaching provides scaffolding when pupils are learning something new, leaders also benefit from clear guidance when developing unfamiliar knowledge. Scaffolding helps us to begin learning, but it should not become the final destination.

Our ambition should not be to produce leaders who can faithfully follow a checklist. It should be to develop professional judgement: leaders who understand the evidence, can interpret their context and make thoughtful decisions about what their schools need. Frameworks may support learning, but they cannot replace the thinking that leadership demands.

Every school begins from a different starting point. One may be strengthening behaviour systems, another refining curriculum, or rebuilding after a period of instability. School improvement is always contextual. However, the principles that underpin successful learning remain consistent. One of the most valuable things an education system can do is reinforce those principles through a shared direction of travel, creating coherence while still allowing schools the professional autonomy to apply evidence intelligently within their own contexts.

England’s National Professional Qualifications (NPQs) are one attempt to achieve this. The NPQ suite provides nationally recognised leadership development programmes for teachers and leaders at different stages of their careers, from aspiring middle leaders through to executive leadership. Over the course of my career, I have completed the NPQ Middle Leadership, NPQ Senior Leadership, NPQ Headship and NPQ Executive Leadership and facilitated elements of the programmes myself.

Like any large-scale national initiative, NPQs have attracted criticism. Some have questioned aspects of the curriculum, others the consistency of delivery or their relevance across very different school contexts. Those debates are both inevitable and healthy. Developing leadership across an entire education system is a significant undertaking and no programme will ever meet every leader’s needs perfectly. That should not prevent us from recognising the value that sustained national leadership development can bring.

The greatest value of the NPQs is their commitment to sustained professional learning. Rather than treating leadership development as a one-off event, the programmes continually bring leaders back to the evidence underpinning effective leadership, teaching, implementation and school improvement. Ideas are revisited at different stages of a career, allowing understanding to deepen as experience grows and creating opportunities to refine thinking over time.

That sustained engagement also develops professional habits. Reading educational research becomes part of leadership practice rather than something reserved for quieter periods. Assignments require ideas to be justified with evidence, implementation to be thought through carefully and professional judgement to be articulated clearly. Those habits often remain long after each qualification has finished because they become part of how leaders approach their work.

Equally valuable is the professional dialogue that develops throughout the programmes. Some of the richest learning comes through discussions with facilitators and fellow leaders who understand the realities of leading schools. Those conversations challenge assumptions, test ideas against practice and create a shared professional language that frequently continues well beyond the programmes themselves.

One example stands out from my time as CEO. Across the Trust, schools were supporting children with a wide range of additional needs and were at very different stages in developing inclusive practice. We already had examples of strong practice within individual schools, but engaging with the NPQEL prompted me to interrogate that practice more rigorously through an evidence-informed and implementation science lens. It wasn’t about replacing what we were doing; it was about strengthening my professional judgement. The programme encouraged me to think more carefully about why an approach should work, what evidence supported it, what conditions needed to be in place for success, where implementation might falter and how consistency could be achieved across schools with very different contexts. That strengthened both the strategy itself and our confidence that it could be implemented effectively and sustainably across the Trust.

On reflection, what stands out most is that this learning continued throughout every stage of my career, including periods spent leading schools facing significant challenge where time and budgets for professional development were often extremely limited. Even when the immediate demands of leadership threatened to consume every available hour, there remained an expectation that learning would continue.

That expectation reflects what we know about learning itself. Whether we are developing pupils or developing leaders, learning is rarely transformed by isolated events. It develops through repeated retrieval, deliberate practice, reflection, feedback and opportunities to revisit important ideas over time. Sustained professional development applies those same principles to leadership. By continually reinforcing the evidence, creating shared language and encouraging ongoing professional dialogue, national leadership programmes help leaders deepen their understanding rather than simply accumulate information.

Individual schools cannot create that coherence on their own. National leadership development has the potential to establish shared language, strengthen understanding of evidence-informed practice, support thoughtful implementation and encourage leaders to continue learning throughout their careers. It cannot, and should not, produce identical schools. Instead, it provides a common foundation from which leaders can exercise informed professional judgement within their own contexts while contributing to a shared direction of travel across the wider education system.

No national programme will ever transform every leader or solve every challenge facing schools. Leadership remains deeply contextual, and professional judgement can never be reduced to a framework. However, systems that invest in sustained leadership development are far more likely to create coherence than those that rely on isolated courses or occasional conferences.

Ultimately, the purpose is not to produce leaders who know the right answers. It is to develop leaders who continue asking better questions, refining their practice and learning throughout their careers. If our collective ambition is to ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day, then sustained leadership development must be recognised as an essential part of creating the conditions in which that ambition can become reality.

Subscribe now

Share

References

• Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2018). Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. Jossey-Bass.

• Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E. (2014). What Makes Great Teaching? Review of the Underpinning Research. Sutton Trust.

• Didau, D. (2026). Better Schools, Better Teachers? The Learning Spy.

• Education Endowment Foundation. (2019). Putting Evidence to Work: A School’s Guide to Implementation.

• Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500.

How do we ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day?

In Australia, schools are increasingly being asked to become evidence-informed. National and state bodies are producing guidance on effective teaching, curriculum, assessment and implementation, while policy conversations place greater emphasis on using research and data to improve outcomes for students.

This is a positive development. Evidence can help leaders and teachers move beyond preference, habit and ideology. It can provide a stronger foundation for decisions about curriculum, assessment, teaching, behaviour and professional learning, and help schools focus more clearly on the practices most likely to improve learning.

However, access to evidence does not automatically lead to better experiences for students. A school may know a great deal about cognitive load, retrieval practice, explicit instruction, formative assessment or implementation science, yet still struggle to translate that knowledge into consistent classroom practice. Teachers may attend high-quality professional learning, agree with the principles being presented and return to classrooms where little changes.

If every child is to experience high-quality learning every day, schools need more than access to research or a collection of evidence-based strategies. They need leaders who can create the organisational conditions in which teachers are able to understand, apply and refine evidence-informed practice over time.

Evidence does not improve schools by itself. Improvement happens when leaders create the conditions in which evidence can shape everyday practice.

The leadership work of translation

The starting point for evidence-informed improvement is not the search for a new strategy. It is a worthwhile problem.

Schools are often drawn towards broad ambitions such as raising standards, improving engagement or strengthening teaching. These ambitions are understandable, but they are rarely precise enough to guide improvement. Leaders need to understand where students are struggling, what they are not yet understanding, which groups are being underserved and what patterns are visible in assessment, attendance, behaviour, curriculum access or classroom practice.

A school may decide that it wants to improve literacy, for example. That can quickly lead to a long list of possible interventions. A more useful starting point might be the recognition that students are struggling to write extended analytical responses, that their vocabulary is limited in particular subjects, or that the curriculum does not provide sufficient opportunities to practise writing in a structured way. The more clearly a school understands the problem, the more carefully it can consider what evidence is relevant and what response is likely to be worthwhile.

Research does not remove professional judgement; it gives that judgement a stronger foundation. Evidence can indicate what is likely to be effective, for whom and under what conditions, but it cannot prescribe exactly what a particular school should do with its own students, staff, curriculum and constraints. Leaders need to interpret the evidence in the light of the problem they are trying to solve, the knowledge and confidence of their staff, and the practical conditions required for change to succeed.

This is also where schools need to avoid turning evidence into compliance. Teachers may be asked to use retrieval practice, cold call, worked examples, mini-whiteboards or explicit instruction because these approaches are associated with evidence-informed practice. Each can be valuable, but none is valuable simply because it is visible. Their value lies in the learning purpose they serve.

When teachers are expected to reproduce techniques without understanding the principles behind them, schools can achieve surface consistency without improving professional judgement. Staff may use the language of evidence-informed practice while remaining unsure about why a strategy is useful, when it should be used or how it should be adapted for different content and learners.

Professional learning needs to build understanding as well as establish shared practice. Teachers should have opportunities to explore why reducing cognitive load matters, when modelling is most useful, what makes practice effective, how feedback can support learning and why checking for understanding should shape subsequent teaching. The aim is to develop teachers who understand learning well enough to make thoughtful instructional decisions within a coherent school approach.

Creating the conditions for practice to change

Schools are busy organisations. Leaders are responsible for attendance, behaviour, safeguarding, curriculum, assessment, wellbeing, staffing, parental communication and financial stewardship, alongside the daily work of supporting students and staff. In this environment, improvement can become fragmented when every worthwhile idea is treated as equally urgent.

Leaders need to decide what deserves focused attention now, what can wait and what should stop. This is not a matter of lowering ambition. It is a recognition that improvement requires time, attention and repetition. When schools attempt to implement too many changes at once, staff become overwhelmed and leaders lose the ability to see which changes are making a difference.

A small number of coherent priorities allows a school to work with greater depth. It enables professional learning, coaching, curriculum development, assessment and quality assurance to reinforce the same shared focus. Teachers are more likely to see how different elements of school life connect, rather than experiencing each new initiative as an additional demand.

If a school is seeking to improve students’ writing, for example, leaders may decide that students need more explicit modelling, more structured opportunities to practise and more consistent feedback on sentence construction and paragraph development. That decision should then shape the work of the organisation. Teachers need time to examine examples, adapt curriculum materials and rehearse new approaches. Middle leaders need to know what to discuss with teams. Coaching needs to focus on the agreed priority. Assessment needs to provide useful information about whether students’ writing is improving. Quality assurance needs to help leaders understand whether the intended changes are reaching classrooms.

A single training session cannot carry this work. Improvement becomes more reliable when the routines and systems around teachers make the desired practice clearer, more manageable and more likely to endure. The task of leadership is to ensure that the school’s structures support the practice it says it values.

Inquiry, evaluation and adaptation

Evidence-informed improvement should not be a rigid process in which schools simply adopt a programme and wait for results. It should also not become an entirely local exercise in which teachers experiment without drawing on what is already known. Evidence-informed inquiry offers a more useful approach.

In an evidence-informed inquiry, leaders and teachers begin with a clearly defined problem, engage with relevant research, select a promising response and study what happens when it is applied in their own context. The question is not ‘What would we like to try?’ but ‘Given what we know from research, and what we know about our students, what is the most promising change we can make and how will we know whether it is working?’

This approach encourages teachers to think carefully about the relationship between evidence, practice and learning. It also helps leaders see implementation as a process of learning, refinement and adaptation rather than a simple exercise in delivery. Schools do not need to wait until every detail is perfect before beginning, but they do need to create regular opportunities to review what is happening and respond thoughtfully to what they find.

Monitoring impact is part of this work. It should not mean collecting endless data or mistaking activity for improvement. Leaders need to establish whether the intended change is reaching classrooms, whether teachers understand and are using the practice well, whether students are experiencing something different and whether their learning is improving as a result.

No single source of evidence provides a complete answer. Student work, assessment information, classroom visits, teacher feedback, student voice, curriculum review and professional discussion can each provide part of the picture. Taken together, they help leaders understand whether implementation is becoming embedded or whether it remains superficial. They also make it possible to adapt with purpose. If teachers understand an approach but struggle to use it within an existing curriculum, the issue may be with resources or planning rather than commitment. If practice appears consistent but students are not making stronger progress, leaders may need to revisit their understanding of the problem or the evidence informing their response.

What leadership development should provide

Australia is developing a stronger policy environment around evidence-informed practice. National and state organisations are producing useful evidence summaries, guidance and resources, while schools are increasingly expected to use research and data to inform improvement work. The missing link is often the leadership bridge between evidence and enactment: the practical capability required to turn evidence into coherent priorities, shared understanding, consistent practice and sustained improvement.

Principals, deputies and middle leaders need development that helps them lead this work in their own settings. Such a programme would help leaders identify a worthwhile learning problem, interpret evidence without becoming compliance-driven and turn that evidence into a small number of coherent school priorities. It would support them to build teacher understanding rather than technique compliance, and to use coaching, routines, curriculum, assessment and quality assurance to embed change.

It would also give leaders a structured way to run an evidence-informed inquiry, evaluate impact and adapt their approach in response to what they find. Most importantly, it would be grounded in the real work of school improvement rather than treating evidence as an abstract body of knowledge to be learned separately from practice.

Leadership development should leave schools with more than a certificate. Leaders should complete a programme with a school improvement artefact that has been developed, tested and refined in their own context: a professional learning sequence, a coaching model, an assessment review, a curriculum implementation plan, an inquiry report or a quality assurance framework. The value lies not only in what leaders learn during the programme, but in what their schools are better able to do afterwards.

Evidence-informed policy will only improve outcomes for students when it is translated into evidence-informed practice. That depends on leaders who can use evidence wisely, make deliberate choices about implementation, build professional understanding and monitor whether changes are improving learning. The work is not simply to know more about research. It is to create schools in which better practice becomes part of the way the organisation works.

Share

Subscribe now

Get in touch - lois@reliable-excellence.com

References

• Australian Education Research Organisation. (2024). Implementation in schools: A deliberate and structured approach.
  https://www.edresearch.edu.au/resource-collections/implementation-schools-deliberate-and-structured-approach

• Australian Education Research Organisation. (2024). Evidence-based teaching practices: A commissioned report.
  https://www.edresearch.edu.au/research/research-reports/evidence-based-teaching-practices-commissioned-report

• Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional Standard for Principals.
  https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standard-for-principals.pdf

• Education Endowment Foundation. (2024). Putting evidence to work: A school’s guide to implementation.
  https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/implementation

• Sharples, J. (2013). From research to practice: The role of implementation in education. Education Endowment Foundation.

• Wiliam, D. (2016). Leadership for teacher learning: Creating a culture where all teachers improve so that all students succeed. Learning Sciences International.

For many years, I thought I had a reasonably good answer. I had trained as a teacher, progressed into leadership and spent much of my time observing lessons, coaching colleagues and thinking about how schools improve. Around that time, I began encountering writing and research that challenged some of the assumptions I had absorbed during my own training and early career. It introduced me to a body of knowledge about memory, cognitive load and learning that I had barely encountered before.

I remember talking to a close friend about it. We had trained together and, by that point, both held roles that involved observing lessons, coaching teachers and providing feedback on teaching and learning every day. We admitted something to one another that felt deeply uncomfortable. We had both been teaching for around five years before we had seriously engaged with research around memory, cognitive load and learning. The conversation makes me smile now, although at the time we were mortified. Here we were, helping other teachers improve their practice, yet neither of us had spent much time thinking about how learning actually happens.

Our experience was far from unusual. Teacher training looked different. We learned about planning, assessment, behaviour management and curriculum design. We explored approaches that sought to engage children through inquiry, discovery and authentic experiences. Mantle of the Expert, project-based learning and inquiry-led approaches were exciting and intellectually stimulating. They encouraged creativity, collaboration and deep engagement with ideas. Many of us embraced them because we cared deeply about children’s learning and wanted school to be meaningful and inspiring. What was often missing was a clear understanding of how memory works and the implications this has for teaching. The science of learning was not absent because teachers were uninterested in evidence. In many cases, it simply was not part of the professional conversation in the way it is today.

My friend and I reached a straightforward conclusion - we urgently needed to learn more.

Over the years since, I have had versions of that same conversation with teachers, middle leaders, principals, trust leaders and system leaders. Many have described the moment they first encountered the science of learning as both exciting and unsettling. It offered a compelling explanation of how learning happens, while also challenging assumptions they had held for years and raising difficult questions about practice.

What has become increasingly clear to me is that this experience is not unique to the science of learning. Throughout my career I have found myself leading work in areas where I was still developing my own understanding. I experienced it when moving from teaching Year 6 to leading the implementation of systematic synthetic phonics; when preparing schools for new Ofsted and SIAMS inspection frameworks and my favourite example came much later during the national conversation in England about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC). Suddenly, school leaders across the country found themselves staring at photographs, ceiling panels and building plans, attempting to determine whether their buildings contained a material that very few had heard of only months earlier. My point is that leadership rarely requires us to know everything in advance. More often, it requires us to learn quickly, seek expertise and help others make sense of change.

As my understanding of the science of learning developed, I began to think differently about knowledge. The relationship between curriculum, memory and learning became clearer, and ideas I had previously considered separately started to fit together more coherently. I became increasingly focused on what children were learning, how that learning was secured over time and how schools could support that process. This also led me to consider the wider purpose of knowledge. If knowledge is central to education, it should do more than enable children to perform well in assessments. It should help them make sense of the world, participate fully within it and develop the understanding, confidence and agency to lead rich and meaningful lives.

Around the same time that I was exploring the science of learning, I was introduced to Martin Robinson’s Trivium 21c. Initially, I struggled with it. A year or so later, after the birth of my first daughter, I picked it up again and found myself drawn to a section called The Good Life. Robinson reflects on what he wants for his daughter. He wants her to know things and be able to do things. He wants her to question, explore and make sense of the world. He wants her to communicate what she has learned, discovered and created. Ultimately, he wants her to live a good life. It felt like a powerful articulation of what many of us hope education might help young people achieve.

The Trivium has its roots in classical education and centres on three interconnected ideas: knowledge, logic and rhetoric. Knowledge provides the foundation. Logic enables young people to think with and about that knowledge. Rhetoric enables them to communicate, persuade, create and contribute. What appealed to me was the clarity it brought to the purpose of education. Schools are places where young people develop the knowledge, understanding and capability required to participate fully in the world around them.

The science of learning and the Trivium helped me answer different questions. The science of learning helps us understand how children acquire, retain and retrieve knowledge. It explains why curriculum, memory, practice and feedback matter. The Trivium asks what that knowledge is ultimately for. It reminds us that education should equip young people to think critically, engage thoughtfully with ideas and contribute meaningfully to society.

This distinction helped me reconcile what can sometimes appear to be competing educational narratives. A knowledge-rich curriculum, retrieval practice, explicit teaching and carefully sequenced learning are not a narrower vision for children. They are ways of helping more children acquire the knowledge that enables them to reason, communicate and participate fully. Performance, sport, debate, creativity, leadership, enrichment and service are not separate from that work. They are opportunities for children to apply, refine and communicate what they know.

I saw this most clearly when I took over a school with a relatively affluent intake that was achieving less well than schools serving communities with greater levels of disadvantage. The school had many strengths. Children were happy, families were supportive and staff cared deeply about the school. However, its approach to teaching and learning had not kept pace with developments in research about how children learn, and outcomes did not reflect either the potential of the children or the ambition of the community.

Our starting point was not to discard what was already in place. We began with an honest conversation about teaching and learning. Staff considered where they saw themselves on a broad pedagogical spectrum, from more inquiry-led and student-directed approaches to more teacher-directed approaches. We discussed the expectations against which the school would be held accountable, including national assessment and inspection, but we also discussed a larger question:

What education did we want to provide for our children?

The Good Life gave us a useful way of holding that conversation. We wanted children to acquire secure knowledge, but we also wanted them to reason, question, communicate, create and contribute. The science of learning did not sit apart from that vision. It helped us strengthen the foundations on which it depended.

The work developed through professional learning, coaching, peer observation and regular conversations about classroom practice. Some teachers had already taught themselves a great deal about the science of learning, and they opened their classrooms to colleagues. Teachers observed whole-class reading taught through direct instruction, alongside practical strategies such as checking for understanding, retrieval practice and deliberate practice. These approaches became visible through observation, coaching and discussion, allowing colleagues to see them in use and adapt them thoughtfully within their own classrooms.

We began using knowledge-rich curriculum materials, initially drawing on high-quality existing resources and then refining them as our understanding and confidence grew. We implemented systematic synthetic phonics at pace because we judged it too important to delay. We developed a shared set of teaching principles, informed by Rosenshine’s work, which staff could draw upon when planning and teaching. These were not intended as a checklist to be applied mechanically in every lesson. Instead, they gave teachers a practical toolbox for making informed decisions about explanation, modelling, questioning, checking for understanding, practice and review. We also reviewed intervention so that it was more sharply focused on the knowledge pupils needed to secure, and used flexible groupings where they were useful while retaining high expectations for every child. The aim was to develop greater consistency in the conditions that enable children to learn well, while retaining professional judgement about how those conditions were created.

Within a year, 95% of our Year 1 pupils passed the phonics screening check, representing a substantial improvement on the school’s previous outcomes and placing results significantly above the national average. Pupil outcomes at the end of Year 6 in reading, writing and mathematics were also significantly above average. This academic progress was accompanied by a strong and positive staff culture. Staff wellbeing survey results were high, and an Ofsted inspector commented on the happiness and positivity of the team. We also broadened pupils’ opportunities beyond the core curriculum. Participation in visual art increased, with work showcasing a clear progression of knowledge. This provided a foundation for expanding our service and charitable work, including courageous advocacy rooted in the school’s Christian vision. Alongside this, the school continued to achieve success in sport, winning a number of awards and trophies.

Strengthening teaching through the science of learning had not required the school to become narrower or less distinctive. It enabled us to pursue our vision with greater clarity. Children were learning more securely while continuing to experience a rich education that included performance, sport, creativity, service, contribution and more.

Although the school served a relatively affluent community, around 12 per cent of pupils were disadvantaged. This made the work particularly important. Talent is distributed widely, but opportunity is not. Every child deserves access to powerful knowledge, teaching that enables them to learn it successfully, and opportunities to use that knowledge in meaningful ways. For children who may have fewer opportunities to acquire this knowledge beyond school, the quality and reliability of classroom teaching matters even more. The science of learning can help schools make that entitlement more dependable.

When I look back now, I do not think the school was failing before this work began. Children were safe and happy, staff were committed, and there was much to value. The work was about becoming more deliberate: understanding learning more deeply, strengthening practice and ensuring that the daily experience of children matched the school’s ambitions for them.

The question that continues to drive my thinking is the same one that sits at the heart of Reliable Excellence: how do we ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day? The science of learning has become an important part of my answer because it helps schools strengthen the core purpose that sits beneath every wider aspiration: enabling children to learn securely, use what they know and lead fulfilling, meaningful lives.

Share

Subscribe now

Get in touch - lois@reliable-excellence.com

References

• Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2020). Desirable Difficulties in Theory and Practice.

• Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths About Education. Routledge.

• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

• Robinson, M. (2013). Trivium 21c: Preparing Young People for the Future with Lessons from the Past. Crown House Publishing.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). “Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know.” American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.

• Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why Don’t Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. Jossey-Bass.

How do we ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day?

Answering that question requires us to think carefully about how learning happens. If we want more children to learn successfully, we need teaching approaches that align with what we know about memory, attention, practice and understanding. Recently, explicit instruction has been promoted in Australia as an important driver of improving outcomes for children. There are good reasons for this. Explicit instruction aligns closely with a substantial body of evidence about how learning happens and can be highly effective, particularly when students are learning new knowledge and skills.

However, discussions about the science of learning can sometimes become discussions about explicit instruction. While the two are connected, they are not the same thing. The science of learning provides an understanding of how learning occurs. Explicit instruction is one response to that understanding. Confusing the two risks narrowing professional conversations and overlooking the importance of professional judgement in translating evidence into effective classroom practice.

The science of learning is not a teaching method. It is an understanding of how learning occurs. It draws upon research from cognitive psychology and related disciplines to help us understand memory, attention, cognitive load, retrieval, practice and feedback. These insights help explain why some approaches are more likely to support learning than others.

Importantly, the science of learning does not prescribe a single way of teaching. Rather, it provides principles that can guide professional decision-making.

Understanding that working memory is limited helps teachers appreciate the importance of clear explanations, carefully sequenced learning and avoiding unnecessary distractions. Understanding the role of retrieval encourages teachers to revisit previously taught content and strengthen long-term memory. Understanding the importance of practice helps teachers provide opportunities for students to develop fluency and competence.

Explicit instruction is one response to these findings. It is often an excellent response. However, it is not the only response.

A student encountering a concept for the first time may benefit from highly explicit modelling, worked examples and guided practice. Later in the learning process, the same student may benefit from independent practice, discussion, problem-solving or extended application. The science of learning supports both decisions because the purpose of teaching has changed. The teacher is responding to what is known about learning and to the needs of the learner.

This is where professional judgement becomes essential.

Professional judgement sits at the heart of effective teaching. It is not a rejection of evidence and it is not complete freedom to teach however one chooses. It is the ability to understand evidence, interpret it thoughtfully and apply it within a specific context. It involves understanding the principles that underpin learning and making informed decisions about how best to support students at a particular moment in time.

This distinction matters greatly for leaders.

When improvement efforts focus solely on a particular programme, strategy or teaching approach, implementation can become compliance-driven. Teachers may learn to reproduce techniques without fully understanding the principles that make those techniques effective. Over time, this can lead to superficial adoption rather than genuine improvement.

When teachers understand the evidence that underpins their practice, they are better equipped to adapt, refine and respond to the needs of their students while remaining faithful to the principles that support learning. Sustainable improvement depends not only on what teachers do, but on what they understand.

This challenge becomes even more significant at system level. Large education systems have an important role in identifying approaches that are likely to improve outcomes for children. However, identifying an approach is only the beginning. Sustainable improvement requires investment in leadership development, professional learning, coaching and implementation support. Teachers and leaders need opportunities to understand the evidence, explore its implications and develop the expertise required to apply it effectively within their own contexts.

Without this infrastructure, there is a risk that educational reform becomes reduced to compliance. Schools may adopt the language of a reform without fully understanding the principles that sit behind it. Some schools will build deep expertise and strong implementation, while others will interpret the same expectations very differently. Variation becomes inevitable.

The most successful systems do more than promote effective practices. They build the capability of teachers and leaders to make informed professional decisions. They create a shared understanding of learning while recognising that effective implementation requires knowledge, expertise and judgement. The goal is not to create identical classrooms. The goal is to ensure that decisions across those classrooms are consistently informed by a secure understanding of how learning happens.

Announcing a preferred approach is relatively straightforward. Developing the professional knowledge required to implement that approach effectively across hundreds or thousands of schools is considerably more demanding. Sustainable improvement depends not only on identifying effective practices but also on building the capability of teachers and leaders to understand, apply and refine those practices over time.

Children only experience one education. They cannot wait for the next initiative, the next debate or the next shift in policy direction. They need classrooms where teaching is informed by the best available evidence and delivered by professionals who understand how learning happens.

The goal should not be to win pedagogical arguments. The goal should be to help students learn.

The science of learning provides a valuable foundation for achieving that aim. It helps us understand how learning happens and offers principles that can guide professional decision-making. Explicit instruction is often an important part of that picture, particularly when students are acquiring new knowledge and skills. However, it is most powerful when understood as one tool within a broader evidence-informed approach to teaching.

Schools are at their strongest when teachers understand both what they are doing and why they are doing it. Lasting improvement comes not from adherence to a single method but from developing the professional expertise required to make sound decisions in service of student learning.

The science of learning should provide the foundation, while professional judgement determines how those principles are translated into effective classroom practice. Together, they offer a more reliable path to improving outcomes for every child than any single pedagogical approach alone.

Share

Subscribe now

References

Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2020). Desirable Difficulties in Theory and Practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 475–479.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–39.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why Don’t Students Like School? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

How do we ensure every child experiences high-quality learning, every day?

One way to explore that question is to examine examples of educational improvement at scale. If a system succeeds in improving outcomes for large numbers of children, particularly those facing disadvantage, it can provide valuable insights into the conditions that make improvement possible.

England’s experience during the first two decades of this century provides an interesting example. During this period, outcomes improved substantially, particularly in London. Improvement was evident in both primary and secondary education. By the early 2010s, pupils in London primary schools were outperforming the national average in English and mathematics. Similar patterns emerged in secondary schools. Schools serving disadvantaged communities achieved outcomes that had previously seemed unlikely, and disadvantaged pupils in London began to outperform disadvantaged pupils elsewhere in England by a considerable margin. Research published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that disadvantaged pupils in Inner London were around 19 percentage points more likely to achieve five good GCSEs, including English and mathematics, than disadvantaged pupils elsewhere in England.

Explaining this improvement has generated considerable debate. Researchers have pointed to demographic changes, immigration patterns, changing communities and wider economic factors. Others have focused on policy reforms, accountability systems and school improvement programmes. The scale of the improvement suggests that no single explanation is likely to be sufficient.

One of the most striking features of this period was a growing determination to improve outcomes for all pupils, particularly those facing disadvantage. Educational outcomes became more visible and schools were increasingly expected to demonstrate impact. High expectations for disadvantaged pupils became a more prominent feature of professional and policy discussions. While accountability alone cannot improve outcomes, it helped create a shared focus across the system.

At the same time, schools became less isolated. Improvement increasingly became something that happened between schools as well as within them. Programmes such as London Challenge sought to connect schools to expertise and create networks through which effective practice could spread. Stronger schools worked alongside those facing greater challenges and experienced leaders were deployed to support schools requiring improvement. Expertise became more accessible and school improvement became a collective endeavour rather than an individual struggle.

Alongside this, significant investment was made in developing people. Leadership was increasingly viewed as a discipline that could be deliberately developed rather than simply acquired through experience. The National College for School Leadership expanded leadership development opportunities and the National Professional Qualifications became an increasingly important part of the leadership landscape. Organisations such as Future Leaders and Teaching Leaders emerged to identify and develop talented teachers and leaders capable of driving improvement in challenging contexts. Together, these initiatives helped build a pipeline of leadership talent across the system.

The profession also became more deliberate about attracting and developing talent. Teach First emerged as one of the most visible examples of this shift. By recruiting high-achieving graduates and placing them in schools serving disadvantaged communities, the programme sought to strengthen the workforce in areas where recruitment had historically been difficult. Many participants went on to become school leaders, contributing to the wider leadership capacity of the system.

Organisational capacity was also developing. Early academy trusts such as Ark and Harris demonstrated how expertise could be shared across groups of schools. Leadership development, curriculum resources, professional learning and school improvement capacity could be coordinated across multiple institutions. Effective approaches no longer needed to remain within individual schools. They could be refined, adapted and spread more widely. As trusts expanded, they created new mechanisms through which improvement could be sustained and scaled.

The infrastructure surrounding schools also evolved. Organisations focused on social mobility, educational research and school improvement became increasingly influential. The Sutton Trust played an important role in highlighting educational disadvantage and advocating for greater opportunity. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) was established with a £125 million endowment from the government to identify effective approaches for improving outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged pupils. Through large-scale trials, evidence reviews and practical guidance reports, the EEF became one of the most significant contributors to the evidence infrastructure supporting schools.

Research also became increasingly visible within professional conversations. Findings from cognitive science, curriculum research and implementation studies became more accessible to teachers and leaders. Professional development increasingly drew upon research evidence and organisations emerged to help schools translate evidence into classroom practice. Schools gained access to a growing body of knowledge about learning, teaching and implementation.

Viewed individually, each of these developments appears significant. Viewed collectively, they suggest the emergence of something larger. Schools operated within an ecosystem that generated knowledge, developed leadership, supported implementation, spread expertise and maintained a focus on pupil outcomes. Researchers produced evidence. Organisations translated evidence into practical approaches. Professional development providers built capability. School improvement programmes connected schools to expertise. Trusts created mechanisms through which effective practice could travel beyond individual institutions.

The improvement seen in London and across parts of England cannot be attributed to any single organisation or policy. Educational change is rarely that simple. The period is perhaps most notable for the number of organisations, programmes and institutions that were working towards similar goals. Their approaches differed and their priorities were not always identical, yet together they contributed to an environment in which improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils became a sustained and system-wide endeavour.

The significance of this period is reflected not only in the improvements that occurred at the time, but also in the persistence of the so-called London effect. More than a decade later, London remains one of the highest-performing regions in England for disadvantaged pupils. Recent data shows that disadvantaged pupils in Inner London are substantially more likely to achieve strong GCSE outcomes in English and mathematics than disadvantaged pupils nationally. While the reasons remain contested, the pattern suggests that something more enduring than a single programme or policy may have taken place.

Looking back at this period highlights an important feature of educational improvement. High-quality learning depends upon what happens in classrooms, but the conditions that support that work are often created beyond the school gates. Leadership development, research, professional learning, school improvement support, networks and organisational capacity all influence what schools are able to achieve. If every child is to experience high-quality learning every day, attention must be paid not only to what happens within schools, but also to the ecosystem that surrounds them.

Share

Subscribe now

Get in touch - lois@reliable-excellence.com

References

Blanden, J., Greaves, E., Gregg, P., Macmillan, L., & Sibieta, L. (2015). Understanding the Improved Performance of Disadvantaged Pupils in London. Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Hutchings, M., Greenwood, C., Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Minty, S., Rose, A., & Glass, K. (2012). Evaluation of the City Challenge Programme. Department for Education.

Kidson, M., & Norris, E. (2014). Implementing the London Challenge. Institute for Government.

Sibieta, L. (2025). Annual Report 2025. Education Policy Institute.

How do we ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day?

When people talk about successful schools, they often talk about successful leaders. Stories of improvement frequently focus on individuals whose vision, determination and energy transformed an organisation. Leadership undoubtedly matters. Strong leaders establish direction, create momentum and influence the culture of the organisations they serve. However, what happens when the exceptional leader leaves?

This question matters because children only experience one education. They cannot wait for the right teacher, the right leader or the right initiative to arrive. If high-quality learning depends entirely upon exceptional individuals, then pupils’ experiences will inevitably vary. Sustainable improvement requires something more dependable. It requires leaders who create the conditions in which effective practice becomes commonplace.

Schools and education organisations are complex environments. Hundreds of decisions are made every day by teachers, support staff, middle leaders and senior leaders. No individual, regardless of their talent or experience, can directly influence every interaction that shapes a child’s experience. Lasting improvement therefore depends less on what leaders do personally and more on the conditions they create for others to succeed.

Creating those conditions begins with clarity of purpose. Schools perform many important functions and operate within increasingly complex environments. Attendance, safeguarding, wellbeing, staffing, budgets and accountability all demand attention. Effective leaders understand the importance of each of these responsibilities while maintaining a clear understanding of why the organisation exists. The central purpose of a school is learning. When decisions, priorities and resources are consistently connected back to that purpose, greater coherence begins to emerge.

Clarity of purpose provides direction, but direction alone does not improve outcomes. Improvement depends upon the expertise of the people working throughout the organisation. The quality of learning experienced by pupils is heavily influenced by the knowledge, skill and judgement of the adults who teach and support them. Leaders who create sustainable improvement therefore invest heavily in developing others. Professional learning becomes an ongoing process rather than a series of isolated events. Coaching, feedback, collaboration and deliberate practice help individuals refine their expertise over time, increasing the organisation’s overall capacity to improve outcomes for children.

As expertise develops, leaders face another challenge. Many schools contain examples of exceptional practice, yet excellence confined to individual classrooms does not guarantee that every child will benefit from it. Effective leaders therefore focus on helping strong practice become shared practice. Curriculum design, assessment approaches, professional learning and quality assurance processes work together to support consistency. Rather than relying upon a handful of exceptional individuals, organisations become increasingly capable of delivering high-quality experiences for all pupils.

Maintaining this focus requires both ambition and discipline. Every child deserves access to challenging learning, an ambitious curriculum and excellent teaching regardless of their background or circumstances. High expectations communicate what is possible, but expectations alone are insufficient. Teachers need support to develop their practice. Pupils need carefully designed instruction and appropriate scaffolding. Improvement becomes more likely when challenge and support exist alongside one another.

Modern leadership also requires strong professional judgement. Leaders have access to more information, research, resources and advice than at any point in history. Social media accelerates the spread of new ideas, while artificial intelligence can generate recommendations, plans and resources within seconds. Access to information is no longer the primary challenge. The challenge is deciding which ideas are worth pursuing, which align with organisational priorities and which are most likely to improve outcomes for children. Effective leaders remain curious and informed, but they also exercise discipline. They evaluate evidence carefully, consider how change will be implemented and focus attention on the approaches most likely to make a meaningful difference. Artificial intelligence may enhance access to information and increase organisational capacity, but it cannot replace professional judgement. Questions of purpose, values, relationships and culture remain fundamentally human responsibilities, requiring leaders to determine not only what can be done, but what should be done.

Viewed in this way, leadership becomes less about personal performance and more about organisational capability. Strong leaders recognise that their role is not simply to drive improvement themselves. Their role is to create the conditions in which improvement can occur throughout the organisation and continue over time. They build clarity, develop expertise, strengthen systems and create cultures in which people can succeed.

Children only experience one education. They cannot wait for the right teacher, the right leader or the right initiative to arrive. Creating the conditions for consistently high-quality learning requires leadership that develops people, builds capability and maintains an unwavering focus on learning. The most successful leaders understand that their greatest contribution is not simply improving an organisation themselves, but creating the conditions in which improvement can continue long after they have gone.

Share

Subscribe now

References

• Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2018). Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. Jossey-Bass.

• Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better. Harvard Education Press.

• Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a Culture of Change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

• Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student-Centered Leadership. Jossey-Bass.

• Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (Revised ed.). Doubleday.

Reliable Excellence explores an important question:

How do we ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day?

Research has significantly improved our understanding of teaching and learning. Schools now have access to a substantial body of evidence about curriculum design, explicit instruction, assessment, feedback and practice. Across many education systems there is far greater agreement about effective teaching than there was twenty years ago, yet improvements in classroom practice often happen more slowly than expected.

Part of the explanation lies in the difference between understanding an idea and embedding it across an organisation. A school may recognise the value of a knowledge-rich curriculum or understand the principles of effective instruction, but turning that understanding into consistent practice across dozens of classrooms requires sustained effort over time. The work extends well beyond selecting an approach. Staff need opportunities to develop expertise, leaders need to provide support and feedback, curriculum materials often need refining and professional learning needs to reinforce the intended direction. Each element depends upon leadership attention and organisational capacity.

This is a reality that can sometimes be overlooked in discussions about school improvement. Research tells us a great deal about what is likely to improve outcomes for children, but schools operate within environments where improvement competes with many other demands. Leaders are balancing staffing pressures, attendance concerns, wellbeing, behaviour, parental expectations, budgets and compliance requirements alongside their ambition to improve teaching and learning. Every improvement priority draws upon the same finite resources of time, expertise and attention.

The schools that make sustained progress are rarely those attempting to implement the greatest number of initiatives. More often, they have developed clarity about what matters most and have created the conditions for that work to become embedded over time. Leaders understand the current reality of the organisation, listen carefully to staff, identify barriers and focus their efforts on a manageable number of priorities. Improvement gathers momentum because people have sufficient time to develop confidence and competence before attention shifts elsewhere.

Staff turnover adds a further layer of complexity. Schools are constantly welcoming new colleagues whilst supporting others into different roles or organisations. This means improvement cannot rely upon individual enthusiasts carrying a particular approach. Effective practice needs to become part of the organisation itself. New staff should encounter established routines, clear expectations and shared ways of working that help them contribute quickly and effectively. Over time, the organisation becomes increasingly capable of sustaining its direction despite inevitable changes in staffing.

For this reason, leadership is closely connected to implementation. School improvement depends upon a leader’s ability to translate ideas into systems, routines and habits that influence daily practice. This involves understanding how change happens, where resistance is likely to emerge and what support people need in order to develop new ways of working. Successful implementation is usually characterised by consistency, persistence and a willingness to remain focused long enough for new practices to become established.

Many schools already know a great deal about effective teaching and learning. The question is how that knowledge becomes part of everyday practice. Creating the organisational capacity to make good ideas stick may be one of the most significant responsibilities of school leadership. When effective approaches become embedded within the organisation itself, they become more reliable, more sustainable and more likely to be experienced by every child, every day.

Share

Subscribe now

References

• Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2018). Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. Jossey-Bass.

• Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida.

• Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a Culture of Change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

• Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

How do we ensure that every child experiences high-quality learning, every day?

A commitment to every child inevitably raises questions about expectations. If schools exist to help children learn, then every pupil should encounter ambitious learning experiences that extend their knowledge, develop their understanding and increase what they are able to do. Yet while most schools would readily agree with this principle, translating it into the daily experiences of every child is considerably more demanding.

High expectations are often discussed as a characteristic of individual teachers. Many people can recall a teacher who believed in them, challenged them and refused to accept less than their best. Such teachers can have a profound impact on pupils’ lives. However, if high expectations depend primarily upon individual commitment, then pupils’ experiences will inevitably vary from classroom to classroom. School leaders must therefore consider how high expectations can be embedded across the organisation.

Expectations become visible through the opportunities pupils are given and the standards they are routinely asked to meet. If schools believe every child can succeed, then every child must be given access to challenging content, expert instruction and the support needed to succeed with demanding work. High expectations are reflected in the decisions schools make about curriculum, teaching, assessment and the wider learning environment. The ways in which schools can communicate high expectations are almost limitless. What matters is that organisational decisions consistently reinforce the belief that every child can succeed. Examples might include:

• A knowledge-rich curriculum that reflects a belief that every child is entitled to access powerful knowledge. It begins from the premise that all children can learn more than they currently know and the role of the school is to make that learning accessible.

• Frequent use of explicit instruction that makes complex learning achievable. By carefully modelling new ideas, checking understanding and guiding practice, teachers reduce unnecessary barriers that might otherwise prevent pupils from succeeding.

• Effective scaffolding which sets ambitious goals while temporarily providing the structures pupils need to be successful. As knowledge and confidence grow, those supports can gradually be removed. The destination remains unchanged even when the route varies.

• Flexible groupings that respond to pupils’ current needs by providing additional support or challenge without placing limits on future learning.

• Regular opportunities for feedback and deliberate practice that helps pupils refine their understanding and improve the quality of their work. High expectations are communicated when pupils are expected to revisit, improve and strengthen their learning rather than simply complete tasks and move on.

All these types of decisions increase the likelihood of ambitious learning for every child and promote equity. Schools serve pupils with different starting points, experiences and needs. Genuine equity requires those realities to be understood and addressed. Yet understanding barriers should lead to greater support, not lower expectations. The goal is not to make learning easier, but to make success attainable.

Creating an environment of high expectations requires leaders to ensure that curriculum, teaching, assessment, professional learning and school routines consistently reinforce ambitious learning. When high expectations depend on individuals, pupils’ experiences inevitably vary. However when they are embedded within everyday practice, more pupils encounter the challenge, support and opportunities needed for successful learning.

References

• Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2018). Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools.

• Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.

Share

Subscribe now

Get in touch - lois@reliable-excellence.com