Xie Xie to the Señora.

A reflection on what it means to have depth beneath the words and a knowledge-rich mind.

A friend recently visited me in Shanghai with her three-year-old daughter. The little girl’s mother is Argentinian, her father Australian. They were passing through, a few days in the city, ice cream, the kind of trip that leaves small impressions on small children.

At some point during their visit, their little 3-year-old girl ran back to her mother, face bright, urgent with news: Mummy, mummy, I said Xie Xie to the Señora when she gave me the ice cream!

English. Mandarin. Spanish. Three years old.

Something about that moment stayed with me. Not because she spoke three languages. But because she knew which knowledge to reach for.

What a knowledge-rich mind actually looks like

A knowledge-rich mind doesn’t just store things. It connects them. The difference between a knowledge-rich mind and an information-rich one is what happens when something new arrives. An information-rich mind has to treat each new thing as separate; it takes up precious space in working memory, it floats without an anchor, it disappears. A knowledge-rich mind already has a structure to receive it. The new thing connects to something already there, and both become more meaningful as a result.

That is what happened in that moment. The little girl didn’t retrieve Xie Xie from a list of Mandarin words. She read the situation, Chinese woman, ice cream, gratitude, and her mind reached for exactly the right piece of knowledge for exactly the right moment. Pattern recognition built from structure.

The chess grandmaster does the same thing. The experienced surgeon. The historian who reads a primary source and immediately understands its significance without being told. They are not smarter in a raw cognitive sense. They have richer, more connected knowledge, and that structure lets them perceive things that others simply cannot see yet.

A knowledge-rich mind also transfers. It can take something learned in one context and apply it in another, because the underlying concept, not just the surface fact, has been secured. A student who truly understands cause and effect in history can apply that thinking in science, in literature, and in their own life. A student who only encountered it as a worksheet activity cannot.

And a knowledge-rich mind has depth beneath the words. When it encounters language, a text, a conversation, an argument, it can decode not just what the words say, but what they mean, what they assume, what they are reaching toward.

What the Knowledge Revival actually says

Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking: The Knowledge Revival (Surma, Hattie, Wiliam, Kirschner et al., 2025) makes a central claim: a knowledge-rich curriculum, one that is content-rich, coherent, and clear, is the foundation for developing both deep knowledge and complex skills.

They define a knowledge-rich curriculum as:

A plan for learning over time that is concept-led and knowledge-led, which encompasses a wide range of specified knowledge, and provides ample depth and opportunities to engage with that knowledge. It sets high expectations for all students and systematically builds their knowledge of words and the world. It aims at a broad and steady foundation for complex thinking skills — but also knowledge building that is further amplified and deepened by those complex skills. A comprehensive knowledge-rich curriculum covers subjects and concepts that go beyond children’s day-to-day experiences and is based on the best disciplinary knowledge available. It ensures that every child has access to a broad and solid knowledge base in school, even if it has not been acquired from outside school.

The cognitive architecture argument is elegant. Working memory, the workspace where active thinking happens, can hold only four to seven unconnected pieces of information at any one time, for roughly twenty seconds before they dissolve. When new information connects to something already held in long-term memory, it stops being disconnected data and becomes meaning. Prior knowledge effectively expands what a learner can do cognitively, not by making the workspace bigger, but by enabling chunking, pattern recognition, and connection. The chess grandmaster recalls a complex board position in a single glance, not because of superior memory, but because deeply structured knowledge has made 32 pieces readable as patterns rather than isolated data points.

This is what knowledge does for every learner, in every subject. It creates the conditions for thinking.

The implication is significant: we cannot think critically in the abstract. We think critically about something. We cannot solve problems in general. We solve problems in a domain. We cannot read for deep comprehension without knowing enough about the subject of a text to decode not just its words, but the meaning those words are reaching toward.

Knowledge, Erickson, and UBD: connected by design

Lyn Erickson’s Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction and Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe’s Understanding by Design further support a knowledge-rich orientation.

Erickson’s three-dimensional model moves from facts → concepts → generalisations and principles. A concept has no meaning without the knowledge it emerges from. Erickson herself is explicit on this: facts are the vehicle through which conceptual understanding becomes possible, not a preliminary to be moved through as quickly as possible. The knowledge-rich curriculum does not slow down concept-based learning. It makes it possible.

The same logic runs through Understanding by Design. McTighe and Wiggins built backward design as a disciplined process for being intentional about conceptually-led and knowledge-led outcomes. The first stage asks: What enduring understandings do we want students to carry? Those understandings are knowledge, deep, transferable, conceptual knowledge that a well-designed curriculum deliberately builds toward. UBD is not backward from activities. It is backward from understanding.

Both frameworks, when implemented as designed, are underpinned by knowledge. The Knowledge Revival simply makes that dependency explicit — and gives curriculum leaders the research base to structure their designs.

The curriculum design implications: coherence, alignment, and the work that changes outcomes

This is where the conversation must move from philosophy to practice. A knowledge-rich curriculum is not a belief system; it is a design challenge. And it is more demanding than it might appear.

The Knowledge Revival identifies three structural requirements for a curriculum that genuinely builds knowledge: content-richness, coherence, and clarity.

Content-richness means making deliberate, principled choices about what students will actually learn, not just what experiences they will have, or what skills they will practise. It means understanding the hierarchical structure of disciplinary knowledge: that some things must come before others, that certain concepts cannot be accessed without the foundational content that gives them traction, and that coverage without depth rarely produces durable understanding. Content-rich curriculum requires leaders and teachers to ask a deceptively simple question: what do we actually want students to know by the end of this unit, this year, this phase of schooling? Not what they will have experienced. What will they carry?

Coherence is where curriculum design most frequently encounters difficulty and where the consequences are most far-reaching. Coherence operates in two directions. Horizontal coherence means that across a year level, subjects connect, reinforce, and build shared knowledge rather than operating in isolation from one another. A student studying forces in science, scale in mathematics, and cause and effect in history is encountering related conceptual terrain and a coherent curriculum makes those connections visible and cumulative rather than incidental.

Vertical coherence means that what is taught in one year deliberately prepares the ground for the next. Knowledge accumulates when it is sequenced with intention. Without vertical coherence, the curriculum cannot compound each year level effectively, starting from a shaky foundation, and the knowledge that should be built is, instead, constantly being rebuilt from scratch.

This is a particular challenge in international school contexts, where student mobility is high, and assumptions about shared prior knowledge are easily misplaced. When curriculum is designed without explicit vertical mapping, when teachers are uncertain what students learned the year before, or cannot articulate precisely what knowledge students need to have secured before they move on the compounding effect that makes knowledge-rich curriculum so powerful simply does not materialise. Coherence work is slow and structural. It requires curriculum teams to hold the whole progression in view, not just the unit in front of them. But it is, the research is clear, one of the highest-leverage investments a curriculum team can make.

Clarity means that learning goals students will understand, not only what activities they will complete. It means genuine alignment between what the curriculum intends, what teachers teach, and what assessments actually measure. Misalignment here is common and consequential: a curriculum may articulate conceptual goals while lesson designs only ever reach the factual level; an assessment may measure recall while the stated goal was understanding; teachers across a year level may interpret the same learning goal in meaningfully different ways. Clarity work is the work of making the implicit explicit of testing, honestly, whether the curriculum as designed and the curriculum as experienced are actually the same thing.

Together, content-richness, coherence, and clarity constitute the structural conditions for knowledge to do what it does best: accumulate, connect, transfer, and become the foundation for the kind of thinking that curriculum leaders, across every framework and philosophy, are ultimately trying to develop.

Where Human Flourishing and the Knowledge Revival meet

The OECD’s Education for Human Flourishing framework (2025) arrives at a conclusion that brings these threads together. Its five competencies for a flourishing life, Adaptive Problem-Solving, Ethical Competence, Understanding the World, Appreciating the World, and Acting in the World, are rigorous and demanding. And they rest explicitly on a foundation the document describes plainly: “They do not replace foundational literacies but build on them.”

Think of it like a root system and a tree. The competency is what you see above ground. The knowledge is what makes it possible to grow there at all. So, what knowledge are we building, and how does it make the competency possible?

Consider the five competencies the OECD identifies:

· Adaptive problem-solving requires enough knowledge of a domain to recognise that a problem exists, to draw on prior experience to generate solutions, and to evaluate which fits the context. Without domain knowledge, you are not problem-solving. You are guessing.

· Ethical competence requires knowledge of history, of human consequences, of cultural context, of competing values. You cannot make a genuinely ethical judgment about something you know nothing about. Ethics without knowledge is just feeling.

· Understanding the world requires disciplinary knowledge, the specific ways that science, history, literature, and mathematics each produce and organise what they know. You cannot understand the world in general. You understand it through the lenses that disciplines provide.

· Appreciating the world requires enough knowledge to perceive what is there. You cannot appreciate a piece of music you have no framework for hearing. Appreciation is not passive. It is an act of informed attention.

· Acting in the world the central competency — requires the confidence that comes from knowing enough to trust your judgment. Agency without knowledge is recklessness. With knowledge, it becomes purpose.

The curriculum design question is therefore always: what knowledge do students need to have secured before this competency becomes genuinely accessible to them? And what does this progression actually look like at each stage of schooling?

Back to the ice cream

A curriculum that is deliberately, coherently, and equitably knowledge-rich is not a narrowing curriculum. It is the most meaningful commitment a school can make to every child who walks through its doors, not only the ones whose families already gave them three languages and a Shanghai afternoon and ice cream handed over by a stranger whose language they somehow already knew.

The work of building that curriculum, making principled content choices, mapping coherent knowledge progressions vertically and horizontally, aligning goals with teaching and assessment, is demanding and structural. It requires curriculum teams to hold a long view, and leadership to create the conditions in which that kind of careful, sustained thinking can happen.

But it is the work that compounds. It is the work that, over time, changes what students carry with them. And for every child who doesn’t yet have the words for the world they are standing in, it is not optional. It is the point.

Further reading: Surma et al. (2025), Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking: The Knowledge Revival — open access at link.springer.com OECD (2025), Education for Human Flourishing: A Conceptual Framework — open access at oecd.org