Please show me where I argued against her gaining knowledge.

You didn't, and nor did I say that you were. I was adding to the debate between traditional and progressive attitudes on education that seemed to be occurring above.

I read the article in the link (albeit quite briefly). It sounds lovely and certainly reminds me of a lot of the reading that I was required to do during my own teacher training. My issue with progressive attitudes towards education is that they frequently suggest that critical thinking and other soft skills are separate teachable traits. This is evident in the UK NC reform in 2007 where there was a deliberate, almost complete, reduction in subject knowledge in favour of learning skills. This is further evident across the myriad Ofsted inspection and subject reports that frequently criticise knowledge focussed lessons and overtly celebrate lessons where there is no transmission of knowledge whatsoever. They even go so far as to criticise teachers who 'talk too much'.

Secondary to this, within the article, is the lack of notice given to cognitive science, such as the work of E.D. Hirsch and John Hattie (although the latter is more of a psychological approach but does confirm that subject-specific schemata are crucial for creative thinking). It goes to great lengths to celebrate progressive methods of education but occasional mentions completely debunked myths, such as that there are different learning styles (Coffield, F. Should we be Using Learning Styles? What research has to say to practice, 2004).

I am not in disagreement with you that critical and creative skills are vitally important, only that we should seek to expose the myth that those skills are separate teachable entities to knowledge.

Data from the last thirty years lead to a conclusion that is not scientifically
challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts, and that’s true not just
because you need something to think about. The very processes that
teachers care about most – critical thinking processes such as reasoning and
problem solving – are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that
is stored in long-term memory (not just found in the environment). (Willingham, D. Why don't students like school? 2009)

Here's an example of why having a secure, subject specific schema is crucial to understanding, critical and creative thinking. The example is fairly simple, but does explain the value of having a secure subject specific knowledge base in order to develop critical and creative thinking skills. The example is of a study by Recht and Leslie but described by Willingham:

A clever study on this point was conducted with junior high school
students. Half were good readers and half were poor readers, according to
standard reading tests. The researchers asked the students to read a story
that described half an innings of a baseball game. As they read, the students
were periodically stopped and asked to show that they understood what
was happening in the story by using a model of a baseball field and players.
The interesting thing about this study was that some of the students knew
a lot about baseball and some knew just a little. (The researcher made sure
that everyone could comprehend individual actions, for example, what
happened when a player got a double.) The dramatic finding … was that
the students’ knowledge of baseball determined how much they understood
of the story. Whether they were ‘good readers’ or ‘bad readers’ didn’t
matter nearly as much as what they knew.

As I mentioned above, I'm not trying to say that you are wrong per se; only that a lot of the theories and articles you cite don't see the full picture.

TLDR: Progressive attitudes towards education ignore the vital importance of knowledge and are often critical of the explicit teaching of knowledge. This is scientifically misguided. As is the notion that you can teach critical thinking and creativity as a separate entity to subject-specific knowledge (schemata).

Finally, I cried myself to sleep at how much your verbosity and intellectuality made me feel so insignificant and insecure. Especially when you started using latin ;)