Intellectual Preparation, Part 3: Making It Work and Keeping It Purposeful
What needs to be in place for Intellectual Preparation to work well, and how we protect it from becoming another task, template or compliance exercise.
This post follows on from Part 2 - What Intellectual Preparation involves in practice
Subject leaders, departments and Intellectual Preparation
Intellectual Preparation should not be understood as something only individual teachers do alone before teaching a lesson. It has an important department-level dimension. Subject leaders have a key role in creating the conditions for meaningful Intellectual Preparation, particularly where teachers are working from shared curriculum resources, booklets or centrally produced materials.
This matters because subject leaders are often best placed to help the department understand the curriculum thinking behind the lesson. They can help colleagues see where a lesson sits in the wider sequence, why particular content has been included, what prior knowledge matters, which geographical ideas are being developed, and where pupils are most likely to struggle. In this sense, the subject leader is not simply organising curriculum delivery; they are helping colleagues understand the curriculum so that it can be enacted more effectively.
Department-level Intellectual Preparation is particularly important for new staff, early career teachers and non-specialists. A non-specialist may be able to follow the booklet or resource, but they may not yet have the subject knowledge or disciplinary understanding needed to explain a complex concept with confidence. For example, teaching the global atmospheric circulation model for the first time is not simply a matter of reading through the slides or booklet page. It requires an understanding of pressure, temperature, convection, the movement of air, the role of the equator, the formation of cells, and how all of this connects to patterns of climate. Having the opportunity to talk this through with a subject specialist before teaching can make a significant difference.
This is where the expertise within a department matters. More experienced or specialist teachers can support colleagues by talking through difficult concepts, clarifying misconceptions, rehearsing explanations, discussing useful representations, identifying likely pupil difficulties, and considering how best to check understanding. This kind of professional conversation is not an optional extra. It is part of the work that helps ensure pupils experience the curriculum as intended.
Mary Myatt has written about the importance of subject leaders as teacher developers[1], and this idea is important here. Subject leadership is not only about curriculum maps, assessment calendars or administrative coordination. It is also about building an intellectual community within the department: a culture where teachers think together about the subject, the curriculum and the quality of teaching. Department-level Intellectual Preparation can play a significant role in this because it gives teachers a shared space to discuss the substance of the curriculum and how it will be taught.
This is also why protected time matters. If department time is used only for administration, data entry or logistical updates, there is little space for the professional discourse that Intellectual Preparation requires. But when department-level IP is built into directed time, it can shift the purpose of department meetings. Time can be used to discuss curriculum, subject knowledge, explanations, misconceptions, vocabulary, questions, scaffolding and pupil understanding. In other words, department time can become a place where teachers are developed as subject teachers.
For me, this is one of the strongest arguments for naming Intellectual Preparation. It helps protect the intellectual life of the department. It recognises that effective teaching depends not only on individual preparation, but on shared professional thinking. When subject leaders and departments engage seriously in Intellectual Preparation, they help reduce the gap between the curriculum as planned and the curriculum as pupils actually experience it.
What supports effective IP?
For Intellectual Preparation to work, it needs the right conditions: time, trust, directed time, common processes, leadership and professional discourse. Without these, there is a risk that IP becomes either an invisible expectation, a compliance exercise, or simply another name for tweaking resources.
(i) TIME
Intellectual Preparation is part of teachers’ professional responsibility. Teachers are expected to plan and prepare lessons carefully, understand what they are teaching, anticipate pupils’ needs and adapt teaching accordingly. In that sense, IP is not an optional extra or something entirely separate from the normal professional work of teaching.
However, there is an important balance to strike. If schools or trusts are serious about Intellectual Preparation as a way of improving curriculum enactment, then it cannot simply be added as another expectation on top of everything else.
As David Didau argues in The real barriers to engagement: why schools must rethink leadership, not curriculum[2], “teachers can only make meaningful connections if they themselves see the connections,” and “the key here… is that teachers need time and support for the intellectual preparation required to teach a rich curriculum in a way which is engaging.”
This is particularly important where teachers are working from shared, common curriculum resources. If Intellectual Preparation is important enough to talk about, it is important enough to create time for.
For example, while teacher-level IP sits within normal planning and preparation, department-level IP needs protected department time if it is going to build shared curriculum understanding. Where there is a trust-wide centralised curriculum, trust-level IP also needs to be planned into directed time or CPD structures if it is going to be meaningful, rather than merely aspirational.
(ii) TRUST
Trust is also essential. Intellectual Preparation should not become performative. It should not be turned into a prescribed form or template that teachers are expected to complete or it simply becomes about compliance. Then there is a real risk that they will engage with the process at surface level: completing the form, recording the discussion or evidencing the preparation, rather than focusing on the intellectual work itself.
Teachers should be trusted to undertake Intellectual Preparation in the way that is most useful for them, their subject and their class. Where booklets are being used, for example, the most meaningful evidence of Intellectual Preparation may well be the teacher’s annotated booklet: notes about explanations, questions, misconceptions, adaptations, examples, links to prior knowledge or points where understanding needs to be checked.
The purpose of Intellectual Preparation is not to generate evidence for compliance. It is to strengthen the teacher’s thinking before the lesson so that the curriculum is enacted as effectively as possible. In that sense, the evidence of effective Intellectual Preparation is most likely to be seen in the lesson itself: in the clarity of explanations, the precision of questioning, the teacher’s awareness of likely misconceptions, and their ability to adapt in the moment because they understand the curriculum and the pupils in front of them.
(iii) A COMMON LANGUAGE
Professional development also matters. If Intellectual Preparation is going to be effective, teachers need support in understanding what effective IP looks like. Shared prompts and a common language for thinking can be helpful here. These might include questions such as: What prior knowledge matters? What are pupils likely to find most difficult? What misconceptions might arise? What needs explaining with particular precision? Where are the main hinge points in the lesson? How will I know whether pupils have understood?
However, these prompts should support professional thinking, not become a checklist to be completed. The precise nature of Intellectual Preparation will depend on the lesson, the content, the curriculum sequence and the pupils in front of the teacher. Some lessons may require deeper thought about vocabulary, others about misconceptions, modelling, questioning, explanation, writing or scaffolding. A good IP process should discipline thinking, not replace it.
(iv) LEADERSHIP
As David Didau recognises, “Leaders always set the tone. When leaders are obsessed with compliance, with the outward signs of learning rather than learning itself, teachers learn that it’s safer to play the game.” [2] This matters because the way leaders frame Intellectual Preparation will shape how teachers engage with it. If it is framed as compliance, it will become performative. If it is framed as professional thinking in the service of better teaching, it is much more likely to support meaningful curriculum enactment.
This is where shared mental models matter. Staff need to understand not only what they are being asked to do, but why it matters. If the purpose of Intellectual Preparation is unclear, it can easily be reduced to a meeting routine, a planning template or a set of prompts to complete. When the mental model is clear, however, teachers are more likely to see IP as purposeful professional thinking: a way of strengthening the link between the intended curriculum, the enacted curriculum and what pupils ultimately learn.
At subject level, subject leaders also need the time, expertise and authority to lead these conversations well. As discussed earlier, professional discourse within the subject domain is central to effective Intellectual Preparation. The most valuable conversations are not generic discussions about lesson activity, but subject-specific discussions about what pupils need to understand, where the content is difficult, how it might be explained, what misconceptions might arise, and how understanding will be checked.
(iv) PROFESSIONAL DISCOURSE
Professional discourse is also central. The most powerful Intellectual Preparation happens when teachers have the opportunity to engage in meaningful professional conversations about teaching, curriculum and learning. This is another reason why protected time, including time within directed time, matters. If we want teachers to think deeply about the curriculum, they need time to do that thinking together.
These conversations need to be subject-specific. In geography, for example, effective Intellectual Preparation might involve asking: Why does this lesson sit here in the sequence? What core knowledge do pupils need? Where is the geography in this lesson particularly conceptually difficult? How might we best explain this geographical idea, especially if we know pupils often struggle with it? What examples, maps, diagrams or data might help pupils understand? What misconceptions might arise? What questions will reveal whether pupils have really understood?
This kind of professional discourse helps move Intellectual Preparation beyond individual lesson preparation. It builds shared curriculum understanding across a department and helps teachers make better decisions about how to enact the curriculum for the pupils in front of them.
Keeping Intellectual Preparation purposeful
At its best, Intellectual Preparation creates the conditions for teachers to think deeply about the curriculum, their subject and the pupils in front of them. However, as with any professional process, there is always the risk of “lethal mutations”: versions of the idea that appear to preserve the language of Intellectual Preparation, but actually undermine its purpose.
The compliance mutation
Intellectual Preparation should not become a form to complete rather than thinking to undertake. If the process becomes primarily about evidencing that preparation has happened, the focus can shift away from the quality of teacher thinking and towards the production of paperwork.
The workload mutation
Intellectual Preparation should not become another expectation simply added on top of everything else. If schools value IP, they need to consider how time is created for it, particularly for ensuring professional discourse at subject level can occur. Without this, IP risks becoming another invisible workload demand rather than a meaningful part of professional practice.
The resource-tweaking mutation
Intellectual Preparation is not about editing existing resources, changing tasks, improving formatting or adding extra resources. Those things may sometimes be necessary (depending on the situation), but they are not the heart of IP. The purpose is not to make the resource look better; it is to prepare to teach the curriculum more effectively.
The generic pedagogy mutation
Intellectual Preparation should not drift into generic conversations about teaching detached from the subject itself. The question is not simply, “How can I ask good questions?” but, “What questions will reveal whether pupils have understood this particular geographical concept?” The most powerful IP remains rooted in the subject content, the curriculum sequence and the specific difficulties pupils may encounter.
The scaffolding-with-a-ceiling mutation
In trying to make a lesson accessible, there is a risk that teachers over-scaffold and unintentionally lower the level of challenge. Effective Intellectual Preparation should help more pupils access ambitious content, not reduce the ambition of the curriculum. Scaffolding should support pupils towards rigour, not place a ceiling on what they are expected to think, say or write.
The activity-adding mutation
Teachers may decide that an additional image, video, map, diagram, GIS example or short task will help pupils understand a difficult concept. That can be entirely appropriate. However, additions should only be made where they enhance the intended learning. The key question is not “would this be interesting?” but “will this help pupils understand the geography more securely?” If extra activities distract from, rather than deepen, the curriculum purpose, then the lesson may become busier without becoming better.
In conclusion…
So, returning to Bauersfeld’s distinction between the matter meant, the matter taught and the matter learned, Intellectual Preparation is one of the ways we can seek to reduce the gap between the curriculum as intended, the curriculum as enacted, and what pupils ultimately learn.
A curriculum may be carefully designed, but it still has to be interpreted, enacted and adapted by teachers in classrooms. Careful Intellectual Preparation helps teachers understand the curriculum’s design, sequencing and intent, and prepare to bring it to life for the pupils in front of them. Without that preparation, even a carefully designed curriculum can be weakened in enactment. With it, teachers are better placed to teach with fidelity, respond intelligently, and help pupils access and retain the powerful knowledge the curriculum contains.
Ultimately, Intellectual Preparation is not about producing paperwork, polishing resources or adding another layer of planning. It is about better teaching for all pupils. It is one of the processes that helps make high-quality teaching more likely: clearer explanations, better modelling, more precise questioning, more purposeful scaffolding, sharper checks for understanding and more responsive adaptation.
In this sense, Intellectual Preparation is not about doing something additional for some pupils; it is about strengthening the quality of teaching that all pupils receive. That should matter to all of us.
[1] Myatt, M. (2026) KS3 The Ambitious Years. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational.
[2]Didau, D. (2025) ‘The real barriers to engagement: why schools must rethink leadership, not curriculum’, David Didau: The Learning Spy, 4 July. Available at:
(Accessed: 12 June 2026)
[3] Bauersfeld, H. (1979) ‘Research related to the mathematical learning process’, in Steiner, H.G. and Christiansen, B. (eds) New Trends in Mathematics Teaching, Vol. IV. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 199–213.