Starting your teaching journey? 

The first few years can feel like a rollercoaster- there’s the buzz of your first placement, the thrill of making a difference and then, sometimes, that quiet voice of doubt: Can I really do this? Rest assured, you’re not alone - these feelings are part of the journey. I remember those challenges well from my own Newly Qualified Teacher days, and I’ve seen them echoed in the trainees and ECTs I’ve mentored since.

Without the right guidance and support, doubts can quickly become overwhelming, diminish confidence, and even lead to some teachers leaving the profession. That’s why the new Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF) matters so much.

Launched in September 2025, the ITTECF feels like a big step forward. It’s designed to give continuity, clarity and real support from day one of training and through your first years in the classroom. However, like any reform, it comes with both promise and pressure. Here’s what you need to know.

What is the ITTECF?

The ITTECF merges the ITT Core Content Framework and the Early Career Framework into a single, coherent structure that supports your development from initial teacher training through your two-year induction. It includes entitlements such as mentoring, protected time and access to resources.

Key features:

• Integrated structure: A seamless journey from trainee to qualified teacher
• Inclusive focus: Stronger emphasis on SEND and adaptive teaching strategies
• Tailored mentoring: Support matched to your strengths and development areas

You might be wondering: What does this mean for me? Let’s look at the positives for new teachers.

Better preparation for diverse classrooms

SEND and adaptive teaching are now central, not optional. For too long, early career teachers have had to “figure out” inclusive practice on the job - often without the tools, training or the emotional support they needed. The result? Self-doubt, rising stress and a sense of letting everyone down.

Now, inclusive teaching is embedded at the heart of training. You’ll gain practical strategies to support all learners - without sacrificing your wellbeing or professional identity. With the right guidance, this shift could be a game-changer for recruitment, retention and the long-term health of our profession.

Tailored mentoring

Tailored mentoring under the ITTECF framework provides structured support from trained mentors, focusing on personalised development throughout both ITT and the ECT induction period. It is designed to be responsive, developmental and aligned with individual needs.

Protected time and practical resources

You will have protected time off timetable for planning, preparation and assessment, along with additional time to engage with your training or induction programme. This includes activities that support your development - such as observing great practice, coaching opportunities and marking moderation.

A clearer career pathway

Your development will feel structured and continuous, rather than starting from scratch after qualifying.

While the framework brings plenty of promise, it is important to acknowledge the challenges too

• Delivery matters: A strong framework only works if it’s implemented well. Advocate for your protected time and high-quality mentoring.
• Workload pressures: New expectations can feel overwhelming. Prioritise key areas of your development so your time and energy are focused where they will have the greatest impact.
• Inclusive teaching demands: SEND training is stronger but applying strategies confidently takes time. You’re not expected to be perfect – build your skills, reflect and seek guidance from your mentor.

How can you make the most of the new framework and protect your wellbeing?

• Engage actively: Ask for feedback and reflect regularly
• Use protected time wisely: Engage with the ECTP and CPD to support your progress against the Teachers' Standards
• Embrace SEND training: It’s about equity, confidence and professional identity.
• Speak up: If mentoring feels rushed or inconsistent, raise it early
• Connect with others: Share experiences with your peers – there is strength in solidarity.

The ITTECF isn’t just another framework; it’s a chance to rethink how we support and retain new teachers. Remember, perfection isn’t the goal. Growth, reflection, and resilience are what matter most. You are part of a profession learning to support its newest members better and, with the right guidance, you won’t just stay in teaching - you’ll thrive in it!

This is the first in a series of blogs about The writing framework, published by the Department for Education in July 2025, and its implications for classroom practice. If you have time and the inclination, we do recommend reading the framework in its entirety. However, our aim is to help translate this hefty 150-page document into easy-to-follow advice and guidance for busy classroom teachers, subject and school leaders.   

As can be seen in the Acknowledgements (p.11), they consulted widely, which is commendable. However, this has at times resulted in a mix of messages, as differing views on writing jostle to be heard within the document.   

In this series of blogs, we will explore the real strengths of The writing framework, while also addressing some of its ‘blind spots’ to help ensure that misinterpretation of its guidance does not lead to unintended consequences in the classroom.   

Whilst the document is non-statutory and will be updated after a revised national curriculum is drafted, it is worth noting that the framework’s introduction asserts:  

‘This document’s key objective is to help schools meet the expectations set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework and the National Curriculum. It aligns with Ofsted’s education inspection framework and with The reading framework.’  

The framework is divided into eight sections:  

Section 1: The importance of writing and a conceptual model  

Section 2: The importance of reception  

Section 3: Transcription – handwriting and spelling  

Section 4: Composition  

Section 5: Pupils who need the most support  

Section 6: Writing across the curriculum  

Section 7: Leadership and management of writing  

Section 8: National assessments  

For this blog, we will focus on Section 1: The importance of writing and a conceptual model. Other sections will be explored in later blogs.  

What is writing and why does it matter?  

Section 1 contains some powerful and inspiring messages about writing that encourage us to reflect on the extent to which our current classroom practice enables children to experience what writing can be:  

 ‘Writing is ... key to social experiences as it enables participation in social communication […] writing is a highly creative process, allowing people to create imaginary worlds, entertain others and paint with words.  Writing can also be a form of self-expression: it offers young people an opportunity to reflect upon themselves, their interests and their worlds…’ p. 13  

It describes how writing, as a creative act of self-expression, can contribute to the well-being of the writer and the intended audience. So, the framework begins with asserting the vital importance of children writing for authentic audiences and purposes, and for children to have choice over what they write.  

Section 1 also emphasises how writing develops children’s thinking and learning:  

‘It helps pupils to consider information more deeply than when they are simply reading it; it enhances the learning of subject matter and helps cement that learning in long-term memory.’ p13  

It goes on to note that ‘when writers abdicate composition to artificial intelligence (AI), none of these cognitive advantages applies.’ Writing to think and reflect, then, has a key part to play in learning across the curriculum, which is developed further in Section 6 and we will explore in more depth in a later blog.  

Another strength in this first section is its emphasis on the importance of spoken language in writing development: interactions with adults, exposure to stories and back-and-forth talk. Crucially, it notes the need to teach children how to engage in dialogue to generate ideas for writing, with clear structures and talk routines modelled by teachers.   

Managing cognitive load and the demands on the working memory of young writers is a key theme. The framework asserts the need to slow writing down:   

‘Writing should not be rushed: pupils should concentrate on the quality of their writing rather than producing large amounts of lower-quality text.’ p19  

This encourages us to reflect on how we structure and sequence writing lessons. Are we giving children enough time and support to generate ideas and plan? Are we modelling writing features in manageable steps, or overwhelming them with too many at once? Do we use mini-plenaries, for example, to reinforce success criteria and share good examples? And are we building in time for editing and proofreading?  

Echoing messages from Telling the story: the English education subject report (DfE, 2024) and Strong foundations in the first years of school (DfE, 2024) reports, the framework stresses the importance of securing foundational writing skills before moving on to more complex writing, particularly handwriting and spelling. Poor spelling and handwriting can impact young writers’ self-esteem and act as barriers to writing. As it notes, ‘fluency in transcription frees up working memory to focus on composing writing.’ To remove transcriptional barriers to writing, we need to ensure handwriting and spelling are being taught regularly, and that misconceptions and gaps in learning are addressed, such as securing letter formation before joining. Importantly, though, it also emphasises that grammar and spelling should link to purposeful writing:  

‘Others may be turned off writing, if teaching is focused too heavily on learning lists of spellings and grammatical concepts, out of context and with little understanding of their potential for expressive impact.’ p21  

It stresses that:  

‘just as decoding is not reading, transcription is not writing: it is essential but not sufficient.’ p21  

Here the framework is reminding us that development of transcriptional fluency is important  so children can focus on composition, on the creative act itself. However, as we focus on children’s handwriting, spelling and grammar, are we linking them to the purpose: to communicate effectively to the reader, to have an ‘expressive impact’?  

Motivation is highlighted as a crucial driver of children’s success in writing. The framework explores different kinds of motivation linked to writing, explaining how one form of motivation is derived from feelings of success. This is why slowing down the writing process is so important: it helps ensure a high success rate for all children by teaching in small steps and addressing misconceptions. This might mean revisiting earlier learning, such as securing accurate sentence demarcation, before introducing more complex sentence structures. Conversely, if we rush the writing process, young writers can become overwhelmed and frustrated.   

Another form of motivation is highlighted: giving children choice in what they want to write about and who they want to write for. It asserts:  

‘Too often, pupils ‘learn to write for the circular purpose of learning to write’ and find little personal purpose or value in it.’ p22  

The framework encourages us to think about the writing tasks we give children: what’s in it for them? Do they get to write about what interests them, as the framework suggests? For example, writing about ‘granny’s cooking’ is listed as a legitimate and interesting to topic to write about at school. In addition to the teacher and their classmates as readers, can we find authentic writing tasks where children’s writing has a real purpose and audience, perhaps publishing their work in the school library, or sharing with another class, or even beyond the school gates? Could children share their writing with their family at home or even with the local community, for example? In the context of plummeting attitudes towards writing amongst young people, especially among primary-aged pupils, as shown by the National Literacy Trust’s research, motivation should be at the forefront of our minds.  

Blind spots and unintended consequences  

While the framework presents many strengths in this section, it also introduces a conceptual view of writing that may carry unintended consequences. This perspective could potentially have a detrimental impact on how writing is taught in practice.   

The Simple View of Writing (Berninger et al, 2002) is suggested as a way to think about writing, which boils writing down to: transcription + composition = competent writer: 

The risk with the Simple View of Writing is that it reduces writing to a formula: master transcription, then add composition. This suggests a linear process that doesn’t reflect the complexity of real writing. What exactly is meant by ‘composition’? It involves generating ideas, experimenting with language, and writing with purpose and audience in mind. If we treat transcription as a prerequisite, we may end up prioritising spelling and handwriting over creativity and meaning, like teaching children scales but never letting them play music.  

Interestingly, this model has since been revised to the ‘Not So Simple View of Writing’ (Adapted by EEF from: Berninger et al.,2002), which better acknowledges the role of motivation and the complexity of composition:  

The need to manage the demands we make on working memory in writing lessons is central in this model, affirming the need to teach the writing process in small steps, avoid overloading writing tasks with too many writing features, and develop children’s transcriptional fluency.  However, this model still overlooks the importance of helping children develop their identities as writers. This is likely to be through tasks that encourage self-expression, offer choice, and involve real audiences and purposes from the earliest stages, while also developing transcription skills like handwriting, spelling, and sentence construction. We need to ask ourselves not just what the writing needs, but also what our young writers need.   

The framework could have chosen a conceptual model for writing which attempts to celebrate the complexity and richness of the writing process and help teachers develop a pedagogy which address this, such as The Writing for Pleasure Centre’s ‘The Writing Map’: 

Note how in this model, writing is underpinned by meaningful writing experiences and explicit teaching, supported by motivation and social communication, alongside transcriptional skills. As teachers, we need to embrace the complexity of the writing process and develop a culture of a writing community in our classrooms.  

At HFL, our writing curriculum, ESSENTIALWRITING, places audience and purpose at the heart of writing projects. At the earliest stages of writing in the Early Years, children are invited to apply their transcriptional skills in the context of making books on topics of their choice. As children develop their writing, our English plans weave in grammar progression by noticing what writers use in mentor texts and explicitly modelling how to use them in the context of our own writing to have an impact on the reader.  

Any framework for teaching writing needs to help teachers without oversimplifying what writing really is. The Simple View of Writing may seem helpful at first, but it risks turning writing into a step-by-step formula (first transcription, then composition) when, in reality, writing is much more complex. If we want children to enjoy writing and see themselves as writers, we need to give them real reasons to write, choices in what they write, and opportunities to express themselves.   

ESSENTIALWRITING | HFL Education  

How to help with handwriting | HFL Education   

An introduction to ESSENTIALspelling | HFL Education  

Young, R., & Ferguson, F. (2025). The Writing Map. The Writing for Pleasure Centre The Writing Map & Evidence-Informed Writing Teaching  

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K. K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J. M., and Graham, S. (2002). ‘Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), pp. 291–304  

Join us at our upcoming English Conference Writing Matters: Bridging Research and Policy into Primary Classroom Practice to explore the key themes within the writing framework and hear from its lead author, Dr Tim Mills, alongside other expert speakers including Professor Steve Graham, Professor Teresa Cremin and the wonderful author Bethan Woollvin.

KS2 progress scores will be returning for the current Y6 cohort. But can we predict what targets children need to hit in order to attain positive progress scores?

The short answer to the above question is no, we can’t say for sure what these target attainment scores will be.

The reason for this is that the progress model changes every year, based on what has happened nationally. A positive progress score is achieved when your pupils have attained a higher scaled score than the national average scaled score for children with the same starting point (i.e. KS1 average attainment) – as I explained in this previous blog.  It is always the case that we can’t say for sure what the national pattern of average progress will be in any given year. But it’s even more complicated than normal this year.

We last had KS2 progress scores in summer 2023, so we know what the national rates of progress looked like then. We could, therefore, use these as a guide to what children should be attaining next summer. However, there are very good reasons to hypothesise that the national pattern of progress might look like different in 2026. The children who completed KS2 in 2023 had endured national lockdowns and a sudden switch to online lessons for significant chunks of 2020 and 2021 (i.e. during their Years 3 and 4). This is likely to have negatively affected progress rates across the whole country. For the current Year 6 cohort, their KS2 has not been interrupted in this way - therefore we might expect the national average progress rates to be higher in 2026 than they were in 2023.

On the other hand, for this Y6 cohort, the effect of the pandemic hit them particularly hard in their Reception and Year 1, both extremely important formative years. They might, therefore, have under-achieved (compared to what we might normally expect) when they completed KS1 in 2022 – and might have had major gaps in their learning.  How that has affected their progress across KS2 is impossible to predict – for some children in some schools, they might have caught up on lost learning very effectively. Progress in these cases will be strong. For other children, particularly those experiencing multiple barriers such as socio-economic disadvantage, SEND etc, it could have been a real challenge to catch up on lost learning.

In short, it is impossible to predict what the national average outcomes for each prior attainment group will look like.

A better proxy for what progress might look like this year might be to go back to the 2019 model, before Covid. Unfortunately, this model is not comparable because of differences in the way KS1 was assessed. For children who completed KS2 in 2019 – and hence completed KS1 in 2015 – their KS1 assessment was reported using the old ‘levels’ system. We can’t really draw equivalences between the different ways of assessing KS1. (Believe me, I have made some attempts to statistically align the different models and ended up concluding that it was a futile exercise.)

Our best bet, then, if we want to try to establish some ‘target scaled scores’ that we would hope will yield positive progress measures, is to look across both the 2022 and 2023 models and use these to set a ‘minimum expectation’ – with the understanding that the 2026 model could end up being a point or so higher.

The table below illustrates 3 example children – the first assessed at Working Towards in all 3 subject areas at KS1 (prior attainment score of 6); the second assessed at EXS across the board (score of 8); the third assessed at GDS across the board (score of 10).

Using the above, I might be inclined to set the following ‘minimum targets’ for each prior attainment group shown above:

The above scores might give us a safe indication of where ‘average progress’ will fall, but to be on the safe side we might want to add an extra scaled score point on to the above.

A word about the writing target. Due to the way the model is calculated (which I discussed in this blog) we end up with national average writing scores that are not actually attainable by any individual child. For example, in 2023, the national average writing score for children with a prior attainment of 10 was close to 109.  Given that an outcome of EXS is scored as 103 and GDS is scored as 113, no child can end up with a score of 109.  But, roughly speaking, if around 3/5 of the children in this group achieved GDS and the other 2/5 achieved EXS, we would end up with this average score. From the point of view of target-setting, then, if you happened to have 5 children all with this prior attainment score, then statistically you might expect 3 of them to achieve GDS and the other 2 to achieve EXS. If this does indeed happen, your average progress for this group would be at least average (provided the national average progress rates don’t significantly change).

In the downloadable spreadsheet below, I have produced what we might consider to be realistic minimum targets for every prior attainment score. It will even calculate them for you, if you enter the children’s KS1 assessment data. However – important disclaimer – there is no guarantee that, by attaining these targets, children will achieve positive progress scores, for the reasons explained above. This tool is intended to be used as a guide only. As stated earlier, for a safer bet, aim 1 scaled score higher (or more).

We won’t know the actual 2026 progress model until after the children have taken the tests and the data has all been processed. The good news, though, is that once we do have the model, we might expect it to be a reasonably good basis for predicting the 2027 model, as the experience of these two cohorts of children nationally should have been broadly very similar.

Of course, it all changes again in 2028, when the Y6 children’s progress will be measured from their Reception Baseline Assessment scores. Quite what that national model will look like is anybody’s guess.