Thanks for sharing the longitudinal brain-development framework from the Cambridge study. However, I don’t see strong direct practical value for an individual or educator in the life-stage breakdown (~birth–9, ~9–32, ~32–66, ~66–83, ~83+) beyond broad observation.

In contrast, frameworks from learning theorists such as Vygotsky, Piaget, Bloom, Gagné, Maslow, Bruner and Kolb provide more explicit actionable guidance for parents/teachers (e.g., scaffolding learning in the “zone of proximal development”, designing spiral curricula, applying experiential learning cycles).

My perspective guides me to prefer the pragmatic actionable frameworks. That help someone guiding children (or students) set norms, limits and scaffold growth in daily practice.

I do like the conversation that's cropping up here though from this article. A lot of lovely self-reflection.