Oak Curriculum Principles

---
name: oak-curriculum-principles
description: >-
  Apply Oak National Academy's six curriculum principles — knowledge and
  vocabulary rich, sequenced and coherent, evidence-informed, flexible, diverse,
  and accessible — when designing, writing, or reviewing any curriculum, unit,
  lesson, scheme of work, or educational resource. Use when planning a
  curriculum sequence, scheme of work or medium-term plan, sequencing topics,
  choosing the knowledge and vocabulary to teach, building lessons, assessments
  or a knowledge organiser, auditing or quality-assuring existing materials, or
  writing a curriculum rationale or intent statement. Also covers
  subject-specific guiding principles for 15 subjects. Works for
  Oak-aligned or fully independent curriculum work. Pair with
  oak-curriculum-principles-mcp-enabled to ground the
  principles in Oak's live curriculum data.
license: Curriculum principles © Oak National Academy. See references/sources.md.
metadata:
  author: Oak National Academy
  version: '1.2.0'
---

# Oak National Academy: Curriculum Principles

This skill encodes Oak National Academy's approach to designing great curricula so that an agent can **create** new curriculum, units, lessons and resources that embody it — and **review** existing material against it with a clear, fair eye.

The principles work in two layers:

- **Six overarching principles** that describe great curriculum in every subject: _knowledge and vocabulary rich, sequenced and coherent, evidence-informed, flexible, diverse, accessible._
- **Subject guiding principles** that capture what those six mean inside a specific discipline (see `references/subject-principles.md`).

These principles are educational, not proprietary. Use them for Oak work or for any curriculum built in their spirit. They are _guiding_ principles, not a rubric to game — apply them with judgement.

## The stance behind the principles

Everything below rests on a few commitments. Hold these first; the six principles are how they show up in practice. Where this stance comes from — Oak's published principles and the evidence Oak cites — is documented in `references/sources.md`.

- **Ambitious for every pupil.** The default is that _all_ pupils study the same rich content. You adapt the route, not the destination. "A low floor and a high ceiling," not separate tracks that quietly lower expectations.
- **Models to adapt, not scripts to follow.** A curriculum is a high-quality starting point, never a finished product. The people closest to the pupils — teachers and schools — know their context best and must be able to adapt safely. Oak's own line: _"It is the teacher, not the resource, that does the teaching."_
- **Knowledge is the engine of learning.** We build new knowledge on prior knowledge. Skills like reasoning and creativity need something to reason and create _with_. Specifying knowledge precisely is an act of generosity, not constraint.
- **Evidence-informed is a moral stance.** Where good evidence exists, use it — for pupils' outcomes, for social justice (closing the disadvantage gap), and for the credibility of the profession. Then make your reasoning visible so others can adapt it.

If a design choice serves these commitments, it is usually right. When two principles seem to pull against each other, return here and ask: _which choice best helps all pupils actually learn powerful knowledge?_

## How to use this skill

Pick the entry point that matches the task. Load the referenced file when you reach that step — don't load everything up front.

- **Creating** a curriculum sequence, unit, lesson, assessment, or resource → read `references/applying-principles.md` for a design workflow and worked examples, then use each of the six principles below as a design constraint.
- **Reviewing / quality-assuring** existing material → read `references/review-rubric.md` for a structured audit and a fair way to give feedback. Use the "Red flags" lines below as a fast first pass.
- **Working inside a subject** → read the relevant entry in `references/subject-principles.md` _alongside_ the six, so the general principle takes the right disciplinary shape.
- **Writing a rationale / intent statement** → use `assets/curriculum-rationale-template.md`.
- **Want the deeper evidence base** (citations, key concepts, the full argument for each principle) → read `references/principles-in-depth.md`.
- **Want a one-page summary** to paste or print → `assets/principles-checklist.md`. The hexagon diagram is at `assets/curriculum-principles-hexagon.png`.

To ground any of this in Oak's _actual_ curriculum — real threads, the prior knowledge units state they assume, misconceptions, exemplar units and lessons — use the companion **`oak-curriculum-principles-mcp-enabled`** skill, which connects to the Oak Curriculum MCP.

## The six principles

Each principle below has the same shape: what it means, why it matters, what it looks like **when creating**, and the **red flags** to catch **when reviewing**.

### 1. Knowledge and vocabulary rich

**What it means.** Specify the substantive knowledge pupils will learn, and the vocabulary that carries it, in deliberate order. Vocabulary is a form of knowledge — treat it as content to be taught, not assumed.

**Why it matters.** We make sense of new ideas by linking them to what we already know; in Daniel Willingham's phrase, _knowledge makes learning easier_. The EEF's literacy guidance recommends teaching new words explicitly, with repeated exposure and chances to use them. Vocabulary gaps compound over time (the "Matthew Effect": the word-rich get richer), so naming and teaching vocabulary is a lever for equity.

**When creating.** Name the specific knowledge and the keywords for each unit and lesson. Define keywords precisely and in pupil-facing language. Plan repeated, spaced exposure to new vocabulary. Make tacit knowledge explicit. Connect each new idea to the prior knowledge it builds on. (A well-formed Oak lesson carries keywords _with definitions_, a few _key learning points_, and a clear learning outcome — a good template for "rich.")

**Red flags when reviewing.** Activities with no clear knowledge payload; "engagement" or busywork standing in for content; vocabulary used but never taught; generic skills ("evaluate", "analyse") detached from the knowledge needed to do them.

### 2. Sequenced and coherent

**What it means.** Order content so each step builds on secure prior knowledge, and connect content into coherent **threads** that run vertically across years.

**Why it matters.** Learning is cumulative. Pupils need square and square-root functions before Pythagoras; they clap rhythm before they read notation; they meet living things and life processes before cells. Coherence also comes from threads — Mary Myatt's _"threads of a journey through the content… laden with meaning."_ Oak's curriculum is built around ~164 such threads (e.g. _Number_ runs Reception → Year 11); they are the educational backbone.

**When creating.** Map the prerequisites for every unit and sequence so dependencies are always met before they're needed. Identify which threads your content belongs to and signpost them. Build in retrieval of earlier thread content so links are made, not just hoped for.

**Red flags when reviewing.** Topics in an arbitrary or merely thematic order; concepts taught before their prerequisites; isolated units with no vertical connection to what came before or after; no explicit prior-knowledge links.

### 3. Evidence-informed

**What it means.** Ground design in the best available evidence and the science of learning — what research tells us about how attention, memory and practice turn teaching into durable learning — and make your professional judgements transparent so others can weigh and adapt them.

**Why it matters.** As Daniel Muijs argues, being evidence-informed is a moral duty (the evidence exists), a matter of social justice (closing the disadvantage gap), and central to the profession's credibility. We "stand on the shoulders of giants" — synthesis bodies like the EEF and IES put usable evidence at our fingertips. Evidence informs judgement; it doesn't replace it. And where the evidence is not available, is poor, or is contradictory, be explicit that you are drawing on best practice and "best bets" — reasoned professional judgement — rather than claiming an evidence base that isn't there.

**When creating.** State the rationale for significant design choices. Apply well-evidenced techniques: retrieval practice, spacing, worked examples for novices, dual coding, and explicit teaching. Apply cognitive load theory to optimise teacher and pupil cognitive load. Anticipate the misconceptions a topic provokes and plan the response (Oak lessons name _misconceptions and common mistakes_ with a recommended teacher response — do the same).

**Red flags when reviewing.** Practices the evidence cautions against (e.g. designing around "learning styles", or unguided discovery for novices); confident claims with no basis; no anticipation of misconceptions; following fashion over evidence.

### 4. Flexible

**What it means.** Build a model that offers **multiple routes through the curriculum** — for example, a choice of studying the Mayans or the Shang as an early civilisation — and that can be adapted safely where a school's context genuinely requires it. A model, not a script; but not an invitation to rearrange it either.

**Why it matters.** A curriculum can never know your pupils or your locality, so adaptation must be safe where it is needed — a coastal unit gains a local case study; a history unit adds local context. Keep it in proportion, though: there are few genuine reasons to adapt a curriculum sequence itself (how few varies by subject), so re-sequencing is the exception, not the norm. Flexibility is more often about designed-in choice — alternative routes through the same coherent curriculum — than about rebuilding the order. Where adaptation is warranted, the designer makes it safe: map explicitly to the national curriculum and signpost threads so adapters can see what must stay connected. The model is _optional, always._

**When creating.** Make content modular and clearly mapped to the national curriculum. Signpost the threads each unit serves. Where the subject allows genuine choice, design it in as alternative routes (unit options) through the same sequence. Offer suggestions, not mandates, and mark what is core versus adaptable. Prefer a single ambitious pathway with a low floor and high ceiling over forked "easier/harder" versions.

**Red flags when reviewing.** Rigid lock-step with no guidance on how to adapt; no mapping to the national curriculum; adaptation likely to break the sequence because dependencies are invisible; an implied "one correct way" to teach it.

### 5. Diverse

**What it means.** Pursue breadth and diversity in content, language, texts, media — _and_ in the people who create the resources. Selecting what to teach is curating the inheritance of human civilisation, deliberately.

**Why it matters.** Choosing what knowledge to teach grants pupils access to society, represents what has shaped the world, challenges misconceptions, and lets children _"find, and be proud of, who they are."_ A strong curriculum offers both **windows** (into other lives and cultures) and **mirrors** (in which pupils see themselves). Diversity extends to the voices that author and deliver the content.

**When creating.** Make selection decisions explicit and defensible. Build in both windows and mirrors. Represent a genuine range of voices and traditions without tokenism, and without lowering ambition — diversity sits alongside the great works, not in place of rigour.

**Red flags when reviewing.** An unexamined default canon; diversity bolted on as a one-off rather than woven through; diversity claimed in the rationale but absent from the actual content; a homogeneous set of source voices; use of gendered language.

### 6. Accessible

**What it means.** Design so that _all_ pupils, especially those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), can access the same ambitious content. High-quality teaching is the foundation of inclusive provision.

**Why it matters.** Around one in six pupils in England has SEND, and the SEND Code of Practice is clear that high-quality teaching is the bedrock of special educational provision. Its hallmarks travel well for everyone: link new content to prior content, chunk it sensibly, give concise explanations with clear visual models, check understanding often, and scaffold practice. Crucially, providing different content by ability (e.g. three worksheets of different difficulty) can widen the disadvantage gap and lower expectations. Keep the destination the same; adapt the route. Some pupils will still need a more tailored or specialist approach.

**When creating.** Apply accessibility by design: chunking, dual coding, worked examples, frequent checks for understanding, and scaffolds built to be _removed_ as pupils gain independence. Follow accessibility guidelines (legible visuals, captioning, sensible cognitive load). Plan for the highest-need pupils without lowering the ceiling for anyone.

> **Two senses of "accessible".** This principle is the _educational_ one — all pupils, especially those with SEND, accessing the same ambitious content. It is distinct from _digital/technical_ accessibility (can everyone, including assistive-technology users, perceive and operate the artefact?), which is measured against **WCAG 2.2 AA** and lives in the **`oak-accessibility`** skill. Any resource you produce needs both: scaffolded for learning _and_ WCAG-conformant.

**Red flags when reviewing.** "Differentiation" that quietly lowers expectations for some pupils; materials that are hard to access (poor contrast, no captions, overloaded slides); scaffolds with no plan to fade them; SEND treated as an afterthought rather than designed in.

## Holding the principles in tension

The six are not a checklist of independent boxes; they sometimes pull against each other, and resolving that tension well is where craft lives.

- **Flexible vs. sequenced & coherent.** Adaptation can shatter a careful sequence. _Resolve it_ by making dependencies visible — signpost threads, and how content maps to the national curriculum, so adapters can change the surface while preserving the structure.
- **Accessible vs. knowledge-rich & ambitious.** The temptation is to cut content to ease access. _Resolve it_ by scaffolding the route to the same destination, then fading the scaffold — low floor, high ceiling — rather than shrinking the destination.
- **Diverse vs. coherent.** Breadth can fragment a curriculum into a tour of disconnected examples. _Resolve it_ by making deliberate selections _within_ a coherent structure, so diversity deepens the thread rather than diluting it.

The tie-breaker is always the same question: **which choice best helps all pupils learn powerful knowledge?** That is what every principle is ultimately for.

## Companion skills, references and assets

- `references/principles-in-depth.md` — the full argument and evidence base for each principle, with citations and key concepts.
- `references/subject-principles.md` — subject-specific guiding principles for 15 subjects.
- `references/review-rubric.md` — a structured audit and feedback guide for reviewing material.
- `references/applying-principles.md` — a step-by-step design workflow with worked examples (create mode).
- `references/sources.md` — attribution and source list.
- `assets/principles-checklist.md` — one-page create + review checklist.
- `assets/curriculum-rationale-template.md` — template for a principles-based rationale/intent statement.
- `assets/curriculum-principles-hexagon.png` — the six-principle diagram.

**Optional companions.** To work against Oak's live curriculum data, use `oak-curriculum-principles-mcp-enabled`.