Term to describe paradox where those with less subject matter expertise can sometimes make better teachers? A teacher of teachers in a field I'm involved in frequently says:

the best teachers are often those who only recently learned the material themselves

The rationale for the statement is that someone who has recently learned the material is more intimately aware of the stumbling blocks someone goes through when learning it, and can therefore be cognisant of those when teaching it to other beginners, thus making them a better teacher.
By contrast, someone who has known the subject matter for many decades may have completely forgotten what it was like when first learning the material, and could be therefore prone to impatience, or underestimating complexity or learning time.
Question
Does this concept have a name? Or is there any study that backs up the idea that more experienced instructors can sometimes be blind to the most basic concepts in their discipline (since they take them for granted), and therefore (paradoxically) make worse teachers than those with less subject matter expertise?
This is called the curse of knowledge. From Wikipedia:

The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when an individual, communicating with other individuals, unknowingly assumes that the others have the background to understand. [...]
For example, in a classroom setting, teachers have difficulty teaching novices because they cannot put themselves in the position of the student. A brilliant professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject.

Writer and organizational psychologist Adam Grant nicely illustrates the concept in this article:

Two decades ago, I arrived at Harvard as an undergraduate excited to soak up the brilliance of professors who had won Nobels and Pulitzers. But by the end of the first month of my freshman year, it was clear that these world-class experts were my worst teachers. My distinguished art history professor raved about Michelangelo’s pietra serena molding but didn’t articulate why it was significant. My renowned astrophysics professor taught us how the universe seemed to be expanding, but never bothered to explain what it was expanding into (still waiting for someone to demystify that one).
It wasn’t that they didn’t care about teaching. It was that they knew too much about their subject, and had mastered it too long ago, to relate to my ignorance about it. Social scientists call it the curse of knowledge. As the psychologist Sian Beilock, now the president of Barnard College, writes, “As you get better and better at what you do, your ability to communicate your understanding or to help others learn that skill often gets worse and worse.”