Curriculum Daydreams

The new  Ofsted framework in draft form is a thing of beauty indeed. I’m a vocal champion of the 3 year KS3 and dislike systems and resources that serve only to ‘teach to the test’. So, I welcome the guiding statements that ask departments to cast a very critical eye over their KS3 and ensure it is fit for purpose.

I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking (on more than one occasion) that life would be easier if we bought one in – a shiny, complete, resourced, robust ‘thing’ that would tick every box and allow us to get back to the job. The temptation can be overwhelming at times, even when costs are prohibitive and nagging doubts persist – would our Y7 really benefit from doing this?  These daydreams of a better life the department and students are not yet living somehow misses the point. I want that for everyone (not least for myself as a HoD, who bears the weight of all this) but I want to set the parameters for our cohort. I, maybe mistakenly, believe this is part of Ofsted’s ethos – one size does not fit all, and an off-the-peg curriculum may not have your learners in mind. A well-researched, reflective, resourced curriculum that meets the needs of a specific cohort should be an option for every school. But schools must consider how time, money and staffing will support this. Otherwise, we are right back where we started – weak KS3 schemes that plug holes and fill needs that learners do not have.

I began the rewrite of KS3 in 2016, after becoming HoD. The process I went through is written about in more detail here.  Essentially, it involved trawling twitter, blogs and schools websites for curriculum maps. Once I had collected the ones I could see value in  –  cultural capital, depth etc., I presented them to the department and collectively we built what we wanted to teach in the sequence that seemed most logical. It was largely chronological. The main concession being Y7 term 2, ACC because….it was Christmas (although at the time it was like a fingernail squeezing into my palm, I’ve since learned you don’t have to win every battle).

So, this was our first new KS3:Slide1.jpg

It did many of the things I wanted it to do but it became clear it prioritised texts over threshold concepts and knowledge. In other words, students would leave KS3 knowing a great deal about some challenging and culturally important texts (what happened, how language was used, what effects etc.) but wouldn’t necessarily know what literary concepts underpin them, connect them and why this mattered in the grand scheme of things.

So, the curriculum map underwent changes, but the implementation of this is still a work in progress. Now, I’ve tried to think about progression more carefully. Reading has to dominate Y7. Then, armed with an ability read critically and connect some of the grand ideas learned in Y7, the focus can shift more to writing: students need to develop fluency in understanding before fluent writing can follow. This then is the new model:




The differences are quite subtle but absolutely critical, in my opinion. There is still a huge amount of work to be done. But, I honestly think we’re building something for the long term  – a genuinely principled curriculum design. There needs to be fluidity – some texts should be able to drop in and drop out; English literature is a living, breathing entity after all. There always could be more – more diversity, more women, more modern, more classical and this should be reviewed regularly. Non-fiction voices, unseen poetry choices, World book day promotions, competition prompts – there are many ways to ensure your range of voices is balanced. The taught curriculum is only one part of it.

Finally, what follows is my thinking out loud when it comes to the new Ofsted Framework. I hope no-one reads this as ‘doing it for Ofsted‘ – it is purely my own way of systematically looking at things. Besides, I applaud the framework for including many things that we now accept to be of real value.  As I said, we have a long way to go yet. Hours of work are needed to pull together the bits in red (if anyone wants to give time and resources – I’ll happily take it!), but we are looking at it head-on, which is always half the battle.

I hope this is helpful in your own curriculum planning and thought processes.




More on ‘The 10 Whys’: Macbeth

I have to (tentatively) say, working on the ’10 Whys’ with my students has been one of the most significant developments in the quality of their writing since time began. Although they are in that clumsy, liminal space where they need to refine their expression, many have got what we mean by analytical, exploratory, perceptive. Some students are running with this and some are piecing it together. All, though, have an awareness of the depth  required in a higher level answer, and now have a road map of how they get there.

Here’s what I’ve been doing – this time with Macbeth:

  1. I followed exactly the same process with my Y11 as I did with Y10 and J&H. The full post is here. In short, students worked in pairs to answer a series of questions to tease out their ideas of why Shakespeare made the choices he did. We then took those responses and looked at modelled crafted sentences that expressed those ideas. These are below:
  • Shakespeare reveals the lengths people will go to in order to obtain power.
  • Shakespeare depicts the horror of guilt and remorse, embodied in the characters of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.
  • Shakespeare uses the witches to evoke a dark and sinister atmosphere. Shakespeare  uses the witches to appeal to King James’ interest in ‘Deaemonologie’. Shakespeare forces the audience to question whether Macbeth acts of his own free will, or is being guided by a supernatural force.
  • Shakespeare exposes Macbeth’s emptiness and isolation after the murder. He experiences no joy or satisfaction from becoming king.
  • Shakespeare employs the theme of appearance and reality to examine the central paradox of the play – that nothing is what it seems.
  • Shakespeare uses Lady Macbeth to embody uncontrolled ambition. He uses her decisiveness to juxtapose with Macbeth’s conflict.
  • Shakespeare uses the natural world and natural order to emphasises how wrong Macbeth’s actions are.
  • Shakespeare positions Macbeth as a worthy and heroic character in the opening of the play so that his downfall is more tragic.
  • Shakespeare establishes a clear moral order by concluding the play with the deaths of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth
  • Shakespeare utilities the motifs of light and dark to allude to the struggle between good and evil.

2. Once students have recovered from the fact that the third ‘Why’  has three different points, I move on to setting this as a homework task. Students learn the statements through self-quizzing and are then tested in class. This process of memorisation means that the language begins to become owned by the student.

3. We then went back to the ingredients of a paragraph, to re-set what they need to write. I attended Louisa Enstone’s talk ‘Stop PEE-ing’ many years ago at rED Swindon, which was a true lightbulb moment for me. There is no doubt that the more reductive and simple we make the writing process for students, the simpler the writing becomes. This precludes students from ever moving through the higher bands on the mark scheme.  Students do though need a sense of structure, so focusing paragraphs on the following has helped:

  • Point/thesis/idea statement relating to the Q
  • Embedded evidence + methods
  • Close language analysis
  • Link to the whole text and relate back to extract
  •  Why?

This is not acronym-ised. It is learned. Every time we write a paragraph, this list goes up on the board. Every time I walk around the class and check paragraphs, I ask students which bit have they missed. Every time we look at models, we identify elements of this structure. The models below are based on shared/student/teacher writing and respond to Macbeth’s soliloquy in Act 2 Scene 1 ‘Is this a dagger…’ How does Shakespeare portray Macbeth as a strong and villainous character?

4. So, now we have a routine when we write extract based essays is consistently repeated. It goes like this:

  1. Read question, circle key word, brainstorm 3-4 synonyms – triggers to help us focus on on the right language.
  2. Read extract – actively (judiciously!) highlight language associated to the key word and trigger/synonym words.
  3. Plan. Look at language highlighted. Organise language into three clear groups/points. Determine methods, consider links to other parts of the text/context/whys?/alternative interpretation to the question etc.
  4. Write.
  5. Check.

We are still in the early stages, but results are quite exciting. Higher ability students seem more confident to use their own voice and offer alternative interpretations. Weaker and less confident students are extending their writing and exploring ideas more thoroughly. Most importantly, students are starting to express something of value and depth. The examples below are un-scaffolded, un-supported, independent homework responses (before the feedback PPT slides above).




I would argue that the combination of two things has driven this improvement. Firstly, the explicit teaching of the Whys has opened up a deeper level of analysis. I am no longer wishing students will get it by themselves. As teachers, we ‘get it’ by ourselves, but only as a result of years of studying literature. Symbolism and tropes become so obvious, they metaphorically slap us round the face. Novice readers are often ‘blind’ to this. The whys allow students to make links and connections within a text and between texts. Secondly, the use of routine frees up attention to concentrate on other things, such as quality of expression. I have attempted to use the same language and same process every time we write an essay. This, with the modelling, means that the process starts to be internalised and automatic. Continually and explicitly making students aware of the structure builds a metacognitive framework, which can be tested in low stakes, independent writing tasks.

Thanks for reading. Feedback is always welcome.





The 10 ‘whys’ of Jekyll and Hyde

Like many English teachers, I’ve come across the phrase ‘This makes the reader feel…’ many times. This fairly clunky, and often misattributed statement makes a sweeping judgement about readers, and often leads to a very thin point, which misses out analysis completely.

When I posted this in April, it led to some debate about whether we can ever claim to know an author’s intention. Michael Rosen and Phillip Pullman even got involved, through a series of sub tweets. I felt simultaneously proud and ignored. And, whilst it’s very true that we do not know what a writer ‘intended’ to do, we can confidently, with evidence to support, say what they have done (whether it was the intention or not). Of course, this will vary from one reader to the next, but far better to teach students to make confident and assertive statements about what the writer has done (with the implication of it being for them as the reader), than encourage students to make sweeping generalisations about a reader’s feelings.

With the aim to edge students towards a deeper analysis I set about creating my own list of ‘whys’. Every time students offered close word analysis, I kept pushing them to go further and explain ‘why’.  Below is my list of 10 ‘whys’ for Jekyll and Hyde:

Stevenson exposes the hypocrisy of Victorian society
Stevenson argues against repression of mankind
Stevenson reveals conditions of working class London
Stevenson uses fog to create a gothic atmosphere and to symbolise all that is concealed
Stevenson depicts the Victorian sense of urban terror
Stevenson employs light and dark to convey struggle between good and evil
Stevenson reveals the struggle that emerged between religion and science
Stevenson reflects on the role of privilege, indulgence and ego in self destruction
Stevenson highlights public anxieties about science and the ethics of discovery
Stevenson uses motifs of concealment to symbolise repression

At sentence level these ‘whys’ aim to model confident language of analysis, ambitious vocabulary and contextual information.

Simply giving these to students would have missed out what they already knew from the text. So, I gave pairs a series of questions to tease out as much information as they could. These were:

  1. What could the two personalities of Jekyll represent?
  2. Why does the novel end tragically ?
  3. Why does Stevenson include descriptions of the area Hyde lives in? What do they show?
  4. Why is the fog referred to throughout the novel?
  5. Why is the novel set in a city?
  6. What do the lamplights, that seem to flicker through the darkness, suggest?
  7. Why are the references science and religion relevant?
  8. Why is Jekyll wealthy and comfortable? Why is he not living in poverty?
  9. Why is Lanyon the person to witness the transformation and why does it seem significant that he dies?
  10. Why does Stevenson use motifs of windows, locks and doors?

After sharing responses, we looked at the exemplar ‘why’ sentences.  Students have been given these and are learning them. This will give them vocabulary and ideas which they can later build on in their writing, and lose the vague, empty, reader response phrases altogether.


I ♥ Literacy

One of my tasks for the coming year is to revamp our whole school approach to literacy, after falling slightly by the wayside. Initially, I wasn’t overly excited by the idea (even though I think it was me who offered…), feeling it would be like a busmen’s holiday, stomping over familiar ground.  But, the more I engaged with books, posts and tweets on the topic, the more I felt privileged to be trusted with such an important role. Far from being the poor cousin of the English HoD, it’s a role which may share some common ground, but is distinctly different from leading a department .

So where did this love spring from? A colleague told me that if you tell teenagers they love something enough times, they eventually will. Telling myself there is much that can be achieved has gone a long way in changing my attitude. Recent books like Closing The Vocabulary Gap (Alex Quigley, 2018), Thinking Reading (James and Diane Murphy, 2018) and The Writing Revolution (Hockman and Wexler, 2017) have helped to ignite this explosion in optimism. Older texts worth revisiting or discovering for the first time include The Secret of Literacy (David Didau, 2014), The Literacy Leader’s Toolkit (Tyrer and Taylor, 2013), The Literacy Toolkit (Amanda Sara, 2009) and Don’t Call it Literacy (Geoff Barton, 2012).

On Thursday I tweeted a grand plan for KS3 literacy next year. I have one tutor time slot per week. People may have had poor experiences of bolt-on literacy programmes and may feel negatively towards it, and I know skills do not work when taught as generic, transferable ‘things’ (more on that later). However,  it is a golden opportunity have whole year groups focusing on the same thing, at the same time, each week. If there is one thing worth more than money in education, it is time.

We have been given time to raise the importance of something that is so fundamentally important to progress that, without it, darkness falls. My version of literacy (and I think it is vitally important that schools do personalise their version of literacy for their cohort) includes Presentation to build pride in learning, Non-fiction reading, Oracy, Vocabulary, Punctuation, Spelling and Sentences. This is some of my thinking behind plans for September:

  1. I followed @AlwaysLearnWeb’s idea of a termly focus. This way, teachers – in their role as both tutor and subject specialist- have time to reflect on each focus in their departments and discuss how they will contribute to raising that standard. In September, I’d like to have a Literacy Lead from each department to raise a literacy item in departments meetings relating to the work of that or the previous term.
  2. We are covering everything in Year 1. However, I don’t expect us to fix everything in Year 1. I want the grand plan to support all staff, as well as all students. Covering all bases, staff will learn the common shared language of literacy from topic sentences, to nominalisation, to paragraph types. Without this shared language, or shared purpose, we will never move properly forward. It only takes some analysis of KS4 whole school mock data, looking at students achieving low grades (1s and Us) across all subjects that you find yourself at the very sharp end of the wedge; poor literacy has an impact on the whole school, not just the English department, not to mention the devastating, far-reaching impact on young people.
  3. We’re starting with presentation because we want to set expectations high and maintain them. Currently, I’m a senior teacher (though not full SLT). I’ve learned over the past month how important it is to have SLT support for literacy, bringing together the T&L, Progress & Outcomes, and Pastoral strands of the school. I’m going to ask for a whole school book audit, so that by the end of week 2 all students have had some comments about their book work. Using whole class feedback, a single RAG slide on the board can be used to communicate to the class who is meeting expectation and who needs to improve. This will be one of our observable outcomes to judge impact throughout the year. Thanks to @MsSfax for her posts on handwriting for this section.
  4. Resources must be at an absolute minimum. There isn’t time in the day (nor money in the pot) to photocopy, create booklets, buy separate books. Everything must be achieved through PPT and odd bits of lined paper. Tutors are hard pushed as it is and need ready-to-go material. That poses the problem of juggling clean, clear, short PPTs* that are also wholly self-contained. To do this, I used the ‘hide slide’ function to give instructions in yellow boxes to teachers (you may need to re-hide slides if you download the resources). To signal to students that tasks are important,  I’m also going to make more use of the school planner, so students will be asked to record targets or responses. That way they have their own reference record for the year. *I’m already failing on this, so need to keep trimming things down – even lose some sessions to spread others over 2 weeks. Each literacy ‘lesson’  includes a mini quiz, what/why, task. There is deliberately more task material than can be covered.
  5. Earlier, I mentioned the problematic nature of some literacy ‘teaching’ – generic, decontextualised, non-transferable. I think this is where it is important to be really clear on your vision and core purpose. For our school, the purpose this year is to develop that shared language with students & staff, and to raise the profile of literacy once again across the curriculum. Tutors will take the strategies and knowledge back to their departments to use more specifically, in context, making them explicit. Some content will naturally be delivered more effectively than others, some sessions will push tutors out of their comfort zone; nevertheless, the key messages will be out there.
  6. I also wanted to draw on quick wins – lots of quizzes, competitiveness, some humour and provocation to ‘engage’ (although I realise this is another ‘mad woman in the attic’, and best left alone).
  7. Finally, how will I know any of it will have an impact? Some strands are observable (presentation, handwriting, improved student spoken interaction in class) and will be picked up by class teachers, departments, learning walks. Some self-reflection will be captured through online surveys. Mostly though, we are trying to have an impact on the school culture, which is not comfortably measurable. I’ll be looking at things like whether we have more students interested in debating than last year, whether more books are being taken out of the library, whether any staff choose a literacy focus as their PM pledge, whether my own classes feel more confident in offering answers in front of their peers, whether teachers report more students using punctuation or ambitious & sophisticated vocabulary, even if they are now getting it wrong.

Here are the resources for the first term – thank you for reading this post. Please feel free to adapt and use. Any comments welcome!

Human Flourishing

Against an extended KS4 or shortened KS3

In 2013, Michael J Reiss and John White wrote a paper called An Aims-based Curriculum. They advocate that schools should be striving to achieve two simple goals: ‘to lead a life that is personally flourishing’ and ‘to help others do so, too.’ Whilst these statements may seem too broad and akin to motivational-poster-speak, there is a great deal in them that has been echoed through time – education and knowledge as an end unto itself. The document in full is well worth reading and breaks these two aims down into fine detail – addressing moral education, basic needs, human flourishing and rich background understanding.

Recently, there have been a number of Twitter polls asking questions about early entry for GCSE and/or shortened KS3/3yr KS4 with an end goal to improve Y11 results. In one, a staggering majority of respondents said they already did, or they planned to, or they were thinking about it. I can’t help but hear Amanda Spielman’s words ringing in my ears:

“Are we all clear about what is being lost from that missing year and are we happy to lose it?” (, 2017)

There is more excellent, absorbing, life-changing and life-affirming literature in the world than we could possibly begin to cover. As English teachers we know we are only scratching the surface. We are constantly treading a fine line between those texts that are culturally important and open up the world to our students, and those texts, outside of cultural capital, that provide us with classroom moments where jaws drop and the power of words becomes real. Do we really want to lose this to working on Lang P2 Q4? I know that’s an oversimplification, but there is a point to be made. What are we really gaining through early entry or extended KS4?

To me it feels like a race to the bottom. Because one school is doing it, another feels they must in order to compete. But I think everyone loses.

Far from tackling the ‘Wasted Years’ of KS3 (here), and making them purposeful, there is a risk of devaluing them further. The idea of using KS3 to build firm foundations, over 3 years is lost.  This is where we have opportunities to nurture human flourishing – SoW on different voices, on gender, on race – on human experiences across time, as well as developing knowledge of discrete elements of writing, reading and speaking- tone, form, vocabulary, inference and so on. Martin Robinson in his post A Narrowing Curriculum states that ‘a good education doesn’t offer one lens through which to see the world, rather it offers a variety of lenses’ and that ‘reductive pressures’ should be resisted.

As well as losing valuable content, we deny students the right to mature. The writing of Y10 students across a cohort is very different to the writing of Y11. Even in this final few weeks there is evidence of pennies dropping & lightbulb moments. And anxiety, of the healthy & measured kind, is not only natural but also a great tool for bringing things into sharp focus.

Maybe rather than asking whether we should extend KS4 or opt for early entry, the questions we should ask are: What can we do to make our KS3 provision better? How can we ensure they are KS4 ready? What specific knowledge do they need to start Y10? Perhaps, most importantly, if we are aiming for principled curriculum design, how can we enable our students to flourish?



Michael J Reiss and John White (2013):  An Aims-based Curriculum: The significance of human flourishing for schools 

Martin Robinson: martin

The Wasted Years:

HMCI’s commentary: recent primary and secondary curriculum research:



No Bells, No Whistles.

This term I have opted for simple, routine and impactful tasks for Y11. Two weeks in and we are in the ebb and flow of recap, revisit, write. I was thoroughly inspired by Dawn Cox’s post ( here  ) and wanted to make sure students continued to work hard right up to the exam. In past I have certainly been guilty of being fooled by students’ overconfidence, so this year – repetition (do it again, and then again-but better) is key. I don’t think there is any substitute for reading exemplar responses and writing responses in the run up to exams. I know posters are beautiful, and I like a multi-coloured-pen poster as much as the next  person, but our time in class should be spent sweating the hard stuff – the quiet wrestle with remembering and putting thoughts into sentences.

Here is what we are doing (and again, I owe much to Dawn Cox for sharing her approach) :

Lesson 1

  1. Recap previous learning: Language P1 Section A
  2. Revisit content : An Inspector Calls. Focus on how to articulate your central argument/interpretation, ambitious vocabulary etc.
  3. Look at exemplar exam response model: Gerald as an untrustworthy character. Annotate for AOs

Lesson 2

  1. Recap previous learning: Content from AIC
  2. Give exam question: plan together. How does Priestley present the theme of guilt and remorse?
  3. Write response in timed conditions

Lesson 3

  1. Feedback on exam response – guilt and remorse.
  2. Revisit content : Macbeth. Focus on how to articulate your central interpretation, ambitious vocabulary etc.
  3. Look at exemplar exam response model: marriage of Mac & LM (Act 1 sc 7) Annotate for AOs

Lesson 4

  1. Recap on learning: Content from Macbeth
  2. Give exam question: plan together. Change in Macbeth (Act 5 Sc 5 ‘Tomorrow…’)
  3. Write response in timed conditions

and repeat ad infinitum, interleaving more content from language papers and other lit sections.

I worried at first students would find the whole process horrendous but it seems to have had a calming and reassuring effect on students, as well as bringing on board a few who have been battling me using their mind power for the past 18 months.

Here are some of the resources I’ve been using. I hope they are useful. The key with the ‘Final Revisit’ sheets and the model answers is that the emphasis is on reusing vocabulary to express the more complex ideas, as well as how to stay focused on a central, controlling idea in the texts. The vocabulary, we have been embedding throughout Y10 and 11 (more here) and the controlling idea or authorial intention, I have written about here.

Recap, revisit, write.



The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Jo Heathcote and Alexandra Melville, Collins (2018)

An Inspector Calls. Julia Burchill and Lindsay Skinner, Collins (2018)






Should we make a bigger deal of authorial intention?

Structure comments, analysis – make sure you zoom in now, methods, reference to themes. Ooh, and don’t forget context whatever you do.

Good writing comes from deep understanding and exposure to modelled responses, over and over again.  The more I write model answers for my students, especially under timed conditions, the more I realise how nuts some of my past advice has been – either confusing, counterproductive, or completely unattainable.

The challenge for English teachers is two fold, especially in mixed ability contexts. On the one hand, we need to get the broadest range of students over the baseline standard, as is the gift of accountability measures. On the other is the obligation to push students to reach for the stars. Sometimes these two things can feel at odds. Do they really need to know this? Will this confuse the issue? Is this too limiting an approach? If there is one thing teachers are outstanding at, it’s finding sticks to beat themselves with!

The AQA mark scheme for literature responses looks like this:

AQA lit markscheme

If we teach to the top, which I think we must, words like ‘critical’ and ‘exploratory’ require much more than formulaic responses. These essays long for a hint that the student can hold more than one line of argument and still steer their essay in a straight line, with a clear guiding thesis. Can we facilitate both the ‘consistent’ and ‘explained’ essays of level 3 and 4, as well as the higher level approaches, without making the whole house of cards fall?

Part of that juggling act, holding more than one line of argument, is the confidence to allow room for ambiguity, and complexity. Before we can expect students to write confidently about multiple possibilities, they must be encouraged to think about multiple possibilities, and teachers must be clear in how they want to teach multiple possibilities.

I think it is a fairly common human trait to reject ambiguity. Even as adults we do not cope well with unstable ground, and my feeling is that for teenagers this is even less so.  Definitive statements are far easier to deal with. This is also true of complexity. One reason seems so much more satisfying than 5 or 6, each with varying levels of impact. The problem with many of the GCSE Literature texts is that they are chosen precisely because of their ambiguity and complexity – their richness and opportunity for multiple interpretation. We are doing students a disservice and, perhaps restricting grades, if we don’t open up this ambiguity for them. This is perhaps one of the limiting factors of knowledge organisers. Whilst they serve a vitally important purpose (and I am a huge fan), reducing a text to a single A4 sheet leaves little room for knowledge that deals with ambiguity, subtlety, intricacy and interpretation of a GCSE literature text.

However, we can head this off at the pass and give students the knowledge and tools they need. Chris Curtis, here and Sana Master, here reflect on how to cope with ambiguity in texts and express it. Both are excellent posts in addressing this.

Here is what I am going to do when we return:

  1. Remind students explicitly of the complexity and ambiguity in their key texts. Use mindmaps to determine factors that detract from or support the central idea/thesis and ensure students are comfortable with these perspectives.
  2. Model paragraphs, that help students juggle 2 ideas together. Remind students of language scaffolds that help with evaluative statements to give a clear opinion: whereas, ultimately, whilst, primarily, fundamentally, critically,  peripheral, arguably  etc.
  3. Ask students to define authorial intentions, so that they are clear about what the writer was trying to do throughout the text. This can be the driver for strong opinion and unpicking effects analysis. A good way into unpicking authorial intention is to ask students questions about the characters if they existed in alternative realities: What would Macbeth do if there were no witches? What would  he do if his wife said ‘Yeah, you’re probably right. We should leave it’ ? What would Jekyll do if he couldn’t separate himself? What would happen to the couple in Winter Swans if they didn’t see the swans? Would they get back together? These questions can help students tease apart the details from the intention. Authorial intention for AQA texts may look something like this:

Jekyll and Hyde: To expose the hypocrisy of Victorian society

Macbeth: To reveal the nature of man (humankind)

An Inspector Calls: To warn of the immorality of a capitalist society

Winter Swans: To reveal the strength of a relationship even in conflict

Mother Any Distance: To explore how complex relationships become when you reach young adulthood

We can rarely say with absolute certainty what the author’s intention was, which is why there is a tendency in student responses to focus more on what the author does (the language, the imagery, the plot!) rather than starting with what they intended. However, this can lead to poorly constructed essays which read as either ‘what happened when’, or ‘a journey through the extract in a hundred methods’.

Once students have confidently embedded their understanding of the authorial intentions for the text, they can start to shape responses which use this as their driving thesis.

How does Shakespeare present the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth?

The relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth is important but certainly not the main cause of the tragedy in Macbeth. Though this extract suggests Lady Macbeth plays a more dominant role, this is peripheral to the main action of the play. 

To what extent is Sybil Birling responsible for the death of Eva Smith?

Sybil plays a critical role in An Inspector Calls. However, it is more what Sybil represents, along with other characters in the play, that is ultimately responsible for Eva’s death. 

How does Stevenson convey fear and terror in this extract and in the novel as a whole? 

Fear and terror are a key feature of this extract and Jekyll and Hyde. Stevenson used fear to comment on Victorian society and the dual nature of man. 

The benefit of starting with authorial intention is that it gives students a licence to write about two opposing points in their essay. The extract may not match up with the whole play, the statement may not reveal the whole truth. They do not feel their essay is confused because they have stated at the outset ‘it’s not quite that simple’.


Any comments would be most welcome.