Why "Concept-Based Curriculum" is backward and confuses people
5/22/20261 min read
For years, we’ve been telling teachers that if they want to build engaging, inquiry-driven units, they need to start with the “Big Ideas.” We’ve handed them complex diagrams, academic vocabulary, and told them to focus on the concepts first.
And for years, teachers have been quietly tearing their hair out.
Why? Because it feels like a mandate to ignore reality. Teachers don’t teach in a vacuum; they teach in systems with mandated standards (like ACARA v.9 or the Common Core). When we tell them to “start with the concept,” we accidentally tell them to fight their curriculum.
It’s exhausting, and it’s backward.
We don’t need to replace the curriculum with concepts; we need to use concepts to activate the curriculum.
Instead of fighting the mandated documents, what if we "made friends" with them? What if we were Curriculum-Informed first, and Concept-Activated second?
After decades of navigating this tension in schools internationally and in Australia, I have come to the realisation that we need a new architecture for planning. This is my answer.
I call it the C.O.D.E. Framework:
C - Curriculum-Informed: We start with the mandated standards. It is the bedrock, not the enemy.
O - Organising Concepts: We extract the disciplinary (subject-specific drivers) and anchor (cross-curricular drivers) concepts hidden within the standards to give them a heartbeat.
D - Driven by Inquiry: Structure the “Flow of Learning” through a rigorous 4-phase arc: Provoke, Investigate, Synthesize, and Transfer.
E - Evaluated by Evidence: Design formative conceptual rubrics to measure and guide genuine transfer.
It bridges the gap between rigid standards and fluid inquiry. It cracks the code.
Let’s stop fighting the curriculum and start activating it.