What flexes, and what holds

A teacher chooses their approach. SEQUENS builds it their way. But some things are not preferences - they are the reason the lesson works. Pick an approach below and watch what changes, and what does not.

These never move, whatever you choose

The six-part spine A hinge that names a misconception Modelling before independence Adaptive, not tiered No ability labels a child can see Honest curriculum sourcing

These are not house style. They are what the evidence is clear about, and they are the product. Your approach shapes the flavour. It does not move the foundations.

Choose your approach

One thing, and then it is your call

You have chosen minimal guidance for the modelling step. SEQUENS will build it. But you should know what the evidence says, once, and then we will not raise it again.

For pupils who are new to an idea, minimal-guidance approaches consistently underperform explicit instruction - and the children they disadvantage most are the ones with the least prior knowledge and the weakest working memory. The finding is unusually consistent.

Discovery works well after a schema exists. It works poorly as the route to building one.

Grounded in: Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006), Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work · Sweller's work on cognitive load · the EEF's guidance on explicit instruction.

Either is fine. You know your class. We will not ask again.

Why the wall is where it is. A product that flexed on everything would have no spine, and a lesson with no spine is just activities in a row. A product that flexed on nothing would be a straitjacket, and no good teacher would tolerate it. The line sits exactly where the evidence is unambiguous. The six steps stay because sequence matters. The hinge stays because a lesson without a checkpoint is a lesson taught blind. Modelling before independence stays because the research on novices is about as settled as anything in education. Everything above that line is yours.