Writing problems, and solutions, can too often go undetected in schools. Unlike reading, there are relatively few specific writing assessments to detect issues that schools can use, so it is hard to follow clear trends. As a result, when national exams reveals issues – such as the drop in primary pupils’ writing post-pandemic, schools can be left with too little idea about what to do next. 

When it comes to writing, it is important to understand the practices happening in busy schools. A recent practice review on writing by the Education Endowment Foundation, commissioned to explores avenues for new research, has some useful insights to better understand what is happening with writing in schools.  

What were the key insights from the review for me? 

How writing is approached is fundamentally different in primary and secondary school. In most secondary schools, writing instruction and interventions are where writing is located. Few whole school approaches exist. This is in stark contrast to primary school, where school-wide, cross-curricular approaches are common. 

What are the implications of this practice finding? 

Training, assessments, curriculum materials, will all need to be substantively different to support different teachers in different phases. One-size-fits-all approaches are unlikely to work across phases. A ‘disciplinary literacy’ approach will be needed in secondary – which is trickier, more nuanced, and harder to implement than generic writing approaches.

Schools are trying to support struggling writers with ‘build-your-own’ approaches and interventions. Writing lacks good diagnostic assessment as well as interventions to address problems that emerge through such assessment. 

What are the implications of this practice finding? 

School leaders, SENCOs, and teachers are likely to be ploughing collective energies in trying to help struggling writers. This is not likely to prove a workload friendly approach, and we are also unlikely to know if their efforts are working. The EEF will generate new, important research, but the curriculum is mediated by writing in countless ways, so writing will need to be a sustained priority in the school system. 

At key stage 4, writing is tested through national English Language exams. The problem with these assessments is they don’t tell us a great deal about the specific writing issues schools and teachers care about. 

What are the implications of this practice finding?

It confirms what we already know: GCSE specifications drive practice. In secondary school, reading and writing instruction is a pale shadow of the high-stakes exams students sit. Such practice is unlikely to have the focused support on writing features, such as handwriting and spelling limitations, grammar issues, or limited expression. 

In short, when we explore what is happening with writing in English schools, we likely need more of the following: 

  • Better writing assessments (that are adapted for primary and secondary)
  • Better writing curricula (particularly sensitive to subject disciplines in secondary school)
  • Better interventions for struggling writers
  • Better training for teachers to identify problems and to enhance their universal approach to writing in the classroom.
  • Better guidance on how to use, or not use, national assessments as a proxy for diagnosing writing problems and development. 

Related:

  • The Education Endowment Foundation has commissioned a research round on writing in English primary schools that you can find out more about the trails and how to join them here: READ MORE HERE.
  • The Education Policy Institute and Oxford University Press have just released a short paper on what is needed from policy to improve writing. It syncs well with the practice review conducted by the EEF: READ MORE HERE.