We used to say to children (when it came to writing) any of the following: what do you want to say? (topic) who would you like to write it for? (audience), what kind of writing? (genre), let's find a way to share it? (brings in editing, presentation, clarification, expansion).
We used to say, 'how can we express that idea? that feeling? that place? that character's motives?' (ie how to move and interest audiences). 'Let's look at this great book. How did the writer (or the ‘text’) move/interest you? You could have a go at writing like that too.
Now, we're supposed to say, 'Here is a topic/subject/title. If you use expanded noun phrases, subordinate clauses, fronted adverbials, embedded relative clauses, you will reach the expected level.'
So we denude writing of its prime purpose to convey/evoke/communicate feelings, ideas, thoughts and meaning. In their place, we say that 'writing is - a set of grammatical and syntactical structures.' This is 'reductive' , dehumanising and ultimately pointless.
This is why so many children come through the system saying that writing is boring or that they don't like writing. Quite right! To discover the point of writing, we need to find out what we want to say, how to say it, and to whom.
Bridget Phillipson will have received documents telling her this, as told by people with decades of experience in the classroom. Will she notice? Will she get rid of the ludicrous 'expected levels based on grammar and syntax'? What do you think?
