Many schools are working hard to improve the teaching of writing. They report that lessons are better structured, and there is a clear pride in the increasingly deliberate use of modelling.
Furthermore, schools are placing a greater emphasis on vocabulary, scaffolding and purpose.
Despite these improvements, a familiar pattern emerges when outcomes are reviewed over time: significant achievement gaps remain. We’re already hearing this in inspection feedback:
- “Gaps do not close quickly enough”
- “Pupils have insecure knowledge in writing over time”
- “Foundational skills are not consistently embedded”
What’s striking is not just that these messages appear, but how consistently they appear across schools. Even where teaching has improved, inspectors are still identifying the same underlying issue: pupils are not securing the knowledge they need to write with accuracy, fluency and confidence over time.
Why don’t the gaps close?
I recently worked with a school where leaders were deeply committed to improving writing outcomes. There was a clear sense of urgency.
Pupils not meeting expectations were quickly identified, intervention groups organised and additional staff were carefully deployed to provide targeted support across the week.
On the surface, these efforts appeared strong. However, upon closer review of pupils’ work, a pattern began to emerge.
Many of the same pupils were repeatedly being withdrawn for intervention. They were completing additional writing tasks and receiving more input than others, yet their writing was not improving in a sustained way.
At the same time, something else was happening. These pupils were missing parts of the wider curriculum they genuinely enjoyed: art, history, science – opportunities where they were confident, articulate and engaged.
One pupil summed it up simply: “I never do PE. I’m always out for writing.”
Repositioning support
When we looked more closely, the issue became clearer. The interventions were well-intentioned, but weren’t always focused on the specific knowledge that needed to be secured.
Pupils were being given more writing, rather than more precise teaching around unsecured concepts.
In some cases, they were practising errors. In others, they were completing tasks successfully with support, but without developing independence.
Leaders recognised this themselves. The question they began to ask was not “How can we provide more intervention?” but “What exactly are these pupils not yet secure in, and how do we address that within the core teaching sequence?”
The shift that followed was not about removing support. It was about repositioning it into the classroom during English lessons.
Crucially, those same pupils were supported to secure the key elements within the main lesson sequence, through sharper modelling, structured rehearsal and deliberate revisiting.
Over time, positive change was observed. Pupils were no longer dependent on additional sessions to access writing.
Instead, they began to write with greater confidence within the classroom. Just as importantly, they were no longer missing the subjects where they felt most successful.
Securing this level of precision across a school is complex and requires time, clarity and alignment. Without these elements, even well-intentioned approaches can struggle to gain traction or may result in an unintended negative impact.
In most cases, the challenge does not sit in the quality of teaching alone. It sits in what that teaching is and isn’t securing.
Writing gaps rarely persist because nothing is being taught. They persist because what is taught is not always secured with enough precision.
In many schools, leaders are monitoring teaching carefully, but not always tracking whether pupils are securing and retaining the specific knowledge that underpins writing. Over time, this creates a subtle but significant problems. Pupils can:
- write sentences, but not consistently control them
- use vocabulary, but not apply it with precision
- complete tasks, but not write independently with confidence
The result is that these small, unresolved gaps remain, and continue to compound as they progress.
When coverage replaces security
In many writing curriculums, there is strong coverage of genres or text types. Units appear well planned, texts are engaging and outcomes seem varied. But coverage is not the same as security.
If too many elements are introduced without being fully embedded, pupils experience writing as a series of tasks rather than a cumulative process of learning.
This is why inspectors often highlight that pupils are completing writing tasks seemingly successfully, but are not consistently demonstrating accuracy in spelling, handwriting or sentence construction over time.
Writing is hierarchical. Each step depends on the one before. If sentence construction is insecure, composition becomes fragile. If transcription is inconsistent, fluency is affected. If vocabulary is not embedded, expression is limited.
Without deliberate attention to what must be secure, progress can appear to happen but is not sustained.
What actually closes gaps?
Closing writing gaps is not about doing more. It’s about being more precise about what matters most and ensuring it is secured for every pupil. In practice, this means shifting from “What have we covered?” to “What has been secured?”
In strong schools, improvement is visible not just in what is taught but in what pupils can consistently remember and apply over time. This requires clarity at three levels:
1. What is non-negotiable?
At each phase, leaders need to define what must be secure. Not everything at once, but the essential building blocks:
- sentence control
- key vocabulary
- transcription accuracy
- foundational text structures
When these are clearly defined, teaching becomes more focused and consistent. Gaps are less likely to emerge in the first place.
2. How is learning built over time?
Writing improves when learning is cumulative. This means:
- breaking units into small, deliberate steps
- using modelled and shared writing to make thinking visible
- building towards independence gradually
The shift is subtle but important. Writing is not a performance at the end of a unit. It’s the result of carefully sequenced learning across it.
3. How do we know what hasn’t been secured?
One of the most common gaps in practice is not teaching, but knowing precisely what pupils have not secured.
Rather than broad judgements about whether pupils are “working at expected”, we find that the schools are increasingly precise:
- Which pupils have not secured sentence control?
- Who is still relying on scaffolds to write?
- Where are errors in spelling and handwriting becoming habitual?
This level of clarity matters. Gaps do not close through general improvement. They close when specific knowledge is identified, revisited and secured.
The role of leadership
This is not something that sits with individual teachers alone. Closing gaps requires alignment across:
- curriculum design
- classroom practice
- assessment
- professional development
Leaders play a crucial role in creating that coherence by:
- defining what matters most
- ensuring shared understanding across staff
- protecting time for reflection and adjustment
Without this alignment, even strong teaching can lead to variable outcomes.
The shift that makes the difference
If there is one shift that underpins gap closure, it is this: prioritise fewer things, but secure them deeply and consistently.
When pupils experience writing as a sequence of carefully built learning, where key knowledge is revisited, practised and applied, they gain confidence.
Independence becomes more secure, fluency develops and gaps begin to close, not because of intervention, but because of precision.
How Leading English can help
At Leading English, we work alongside schools to strengthen the precision of writing curricula and the consistency of implementation. Through structured partnership, we support leaders to:
- define non-negotiable knowledge across phases
- design sequences that build learning cumulatively
- align assessment with what matters most
- develop teacher confidence in modelling and scaffolding
The focus is not on adding more, but on making what is already there work more effectively, especially for the pupils who need it most.
