Intellectual Preparation: A model for rapid departmental improvement

This session positions intellectual preparation as a powerful lever for improving the quality of science teaching and, ultimately, pupil outcomes. I begin by distinguishing traditional lesson planning from a more rigorous, thinking‑focused model of preparation. Whereas novices often focus on activities, experts prioritise the learning itself. They understand the knowledge architecture of a topic, anticipate misconceptions and select models, explanations and questions that will secure long‑term understanding rather than short‑term performance.

The Ark schools approach supports this shift by providing a fully resourced curriculum, aligned assessments and structured CPD, freeing teachers to focus on intellectual work rather than creating materials from scratch. Co‑planning sits at the heart of this model. Rather than a routine meeting, it becomes a weekly, subject‑leader‑led forum where staff build shared understanding of content, pedagogy and pupil need.

In the session, I present a case study which illustrates how co‑planning can transform a department. With a team comprising many early‑career teachers and low subject confidence, I introduced twice‑weekly co‑planning meetings, mapped a year‑long sequence of pedagogical and curriculum foci and cultivated a culture that was joyful, open and professionally curious. Over time, classroom practice became more consistent and pupil outcomes improved dramatically, with Combined Science 4+ rising from 49 to 76 percent and greater progression to post‑16 science.

A central feature of the session is the four‑step intellectual preparation process, which provides teachers with a structured process for purposeful lesson thinking. First, teachers complete the independent task from the pupil materials themselves. This helps identify the precise cognitive work required of pupils, where challenge may lie and which parts of the lesson deserve emphasis. Second, they produce a concise know/show chart that distils the core knowledge pupils need to acquire and the specific behaviours or outputs that will demonstrate that knowledge. This step supports curricular clarity and helps avoid lessons being driven by tasks rather than learning. Third, teachers analyse diagnostic data, such as pre‑unit quiz results, to identify misconceptions, gaps or insecure prior knowledge that must be addressed explicitly in the lesson. This ensures that teaching responds to pupils’ starting points rather than assumptions about what they understand. Finally, teachers make targeted adaptations to the existing resources, such as refining explanations, adding models or selecting disciplinary scaffolds. This allows teachers to align their pedagogical decisions with the learning intention rather than reinventing materials.