Most teachers will, at some point, write lessons or curriculum materials that they will not teach themselves. Heads of department do this constantly. Schemes of work, shared slide decks, knowledge organisers and assessments are written so that colleagues can pick them up and use them with their own classes.

That shift changes everything. The moment you stop planning just for yourself and start planning for others, you are no longer relying on your own subject knowledge, instincts or explanations. You are trying to support another teacher’s thinking.

When I was writing a textbook, this challenge was impossible to ignore. I had to imagine thousands of classrooms at once and consider teachers with very different levels of subject knowledge and experience.

But this same challenge exists, to a lesser degree, in every school where resources are shared. That is why the lessons from textbook writing apply directly to teachers and subject leaders designing materials for their own departments.

Here’s what the process taught me about creating shared resources.

Reasoning must be explicit

When we plan lessons for our own classes, a great deal of thinking stays in our heads. We know what we mean by a slide, which idea needs emphasis and where we will slow down or adapt an explanation.
But when someone else teaches that lesson, none of that thinking is visible.

This is where many shared resources fall short. The reasoning behind the content is left implicit, so teachers have to infer what matters most, how ideas connect or why a task has been included at all.
When writing for others, it’s much more useful if we can make our reasoning explicit.

Clarity is not the same as simplification

One of the strongest lessons we can take from writing for others is about how hard genuine clarity is. In the classroom, we can respond to confusion immediately. In shared materials, we cannot. Every explanation has to stand on its own.

When writing for others, there is a temptation to oversimplify. Complex ideas get reduced to short definitions or slogans. Concepts are defined but not fully explained.

But the problem is not complexity; it is unexplained complexity. Good curriculum materials do not remove difficult ideas, they make the thinking behind them visible.

This has implications for professional development. Supporting teachers is not primarily about providing more activities. It is about helping them to understand how to explain ideas well, and why those explanations matter.

Shared resources need more than answers

Many shared resources function like answer books. They tell teachers what pupils should produce, but not how to get them there. That can feel efficient, but it places a heavy burden on the teacher to reconstruct the curriculum logic for themselves.

Effective shared materials explain why content appears where it does, what prior knowledge it relies on, and which ideas are foundational rather than illustrative.

Common misconceptions are a good example. Resources that flag these patterns and explain why they arise actively support teaching, rather than leaving each teacher to discover them for themselves.

Design for real classrooms, not ideal ones

Another lesson from writing at scale is how much usability determines whether materials are actually used. Teachers plan at speed. They teach outside their specialism. They cover for colleagues. Departments experience turnover. Resources that require extensive interpretation or reworking just won’t cut it.

So we must recognise the realities of teaching. Clear lesson purposes, explicit links between tasks and learning goals, and guidance on how activities build knowledge over time all support consistency without scripting teachers.

A useful test for any shared resource is simple: could a colleague pick this up at short notice and understand what it is trying to achieve? Would they know what to emphasise and what matters less?

Five takeaways for teachers writing shared resources

When designing lessons, schemes or assessments that others will teach, a few principles make a disproportionate difference.

1. Write the thinking, not just the task

Make explicit what pupils need to understand, not just what they need to do. Brief notes on what matters in an explanation will reduce guesswork and support consistency.

2. Assume the teacher is not you

Shared resources should not rely on unspoken subject knowledge or personal routines. If something needs emphasis, framing or careful explanation, say so.

3. Surface likely misconceptions in advance

Flag up common misunderstandings and explain why they arise. This is particularly valuable for non-specialists or early career teachers.

4. Make curriculum connections visible

Indicate where knowledge has come from and where it is going next. This helps teachers to understand sequencing and avoid lessons feeling like isolated episodes.

5. Design for usability under pressure

Ask whether a colleague could pick the resource up at short notice and understand its purpose. Clear goals and concise guidance will help materials to survive real school life.

Lessons for leaders and CPD

Perhaps the most important lesson is that writing curriculum materials is itself a form of teacher development. When done well, it supports professional judgement.

Effective CPD does not just introduce new schemes or resources. It helps teachers to understand the logic behind them, and makes explanations, sequencing and anticipated misconceptions explicit.

If we want teachers to teach ambitious content well, we need to design shared materials that explain as well as instruct.

In the end, the most important audience for any curriculum resource is not the pupil using it but the teacher who has to make sense of it, adapt it and teach it with confidence.

Mark Enser is the series editor of the Discover Geography textbook series and a former head of department

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android