This is how the new government Writing Framework ends:

AcknowledgementsThis guidance would not have been possible without the support and input of manypeople. 11We would particularly like to thank our sector panel, who voluntarily offered their time andknowledge, led by Dr. Tim Mills, MBE, Executive Director of Primary, STEP AcademyTrust, with support from Dame Ruth Miskin, Founder of Read Write Inc.; Andrew Percival,Deputy Headteacher, Stanley Road Primary School; Ms. Clare Sealy, OBE, Head ofEducation Improvement, Education Office, States of Guernsey; Joanne Siddall, formerStrategic Lead, Burley Woodhead English Hub; Sonia Thompson, Headteacher/Director,St. Matthew's C.E. Primary Research and Support School; Alex Quigley, Head of Content and Engagement, Education Endowment Foundation; and with input from Ofsted.We would also like to thank the wider group of academics and education professionalswho took the time to talk to us or review the draft: Dr Elaine Allen, OBE, BlackpoolLiteracy Lead; Naomi Ashman, Director of Learning Success, The Bluecoat School,Birmingham; Dr Francesca Bonafede, Research and Evaluation Manager, Writing forPleasure, National Literacy Trust; Dr Ellen Bristow, National Literacy Trust; DaisyChristodoulou, Director of Education, No More Marking; Jane Considine, EducationConsultant, Jane Considine Education; Ian Considine, Education Consultant, JaneConsidine Education; Janey Cooksley, Headteacher of Briar Hill Primary School andRegional Director, David Ross Education Trust; Teresa Cremin, Professor of Education(Literacy), The Open University; Catharine Driver - Secondary School Adviser, SchoolImprovement; Andrew Ettinger, Director of Education, National Literacy Trust; PieCorbett, Talk for Writing; Felicity Ferguson, The Writing For Pleasure Centre; ChrisFountain, English Subject Lead, Oak National Academy; Simon Rose, DCEO, DavidRoss Education Trust; Sarah Green, Trust Director of Literacy at Prospere Learning Trust and independent consultant, The Literacy Coach; Martin Galway, Head of ProfessionalLearning and Partnerships, National Literacy Trust; Amy Gaunt, Director of Learning,Impact and Influence, Voice 21; Steve Graham, Regents and Warner Professor, ArizonaState University; Dr Julian Grenier, Education Endowment Foundation; Jean Gross CBE,Independent Consultant; Judith C. Hochman, Ed. D. Founder, The Writing Revolution;Christine Jackson, Australian Education Research Organisation; Emma Jones, SENCOand SEND Consultant; Debra Myhill, Professor Emerita in Language and LiteracyEducation, University of Exeter; Tim Oates CBE, Fellow, Churchill College Cambridge; DrSally Payne, Professional Adviser, Royal College of Occupational Therapists; LouisaReeves, Director of Policy and Evidence, Speech and Language UK; Madeleine Roberts,Network Lead for Primary English, Ark Schools; Christopher Robertson, IndependentAcademic, Policy Analyst and Adviser to Educational Organisations, Co-ordinator for theSENCo-Forum (national e-community), Visiting Professor (inclusion, special educationalneeds and disability, University of Derby); Joan Sedita, Founder, Keys to Literacy; SarahScott, Head of Literacy, Ambition Institute; Dr Daniel Stavrou, Assistant Director, Councilfor Disabled Children; Julia Strong, on behalf of Talk for Writing; Sue Smits, Director,Morrells Handwriting; Mark Stewart, Director, Left n Write; Nisha Tank, Head of SchoolImprovement, National Literacy Trust; Natalie Wexler, Education Writer and Co-author ofThe Writing Revolution; Shareen Wilkinson, Executive Director of Education, LEO Academy Trust; Liz Williams - Project Manager, School Improvement and Ross Young,Literacy Lab, University of Edinburgh, The Writing For Pleasure Centre. 12Special thanks also go to all the English Hubs and the English Hubs Council, who havecontributed to the development of the document.We are most grateful for the thoughtful suggestions and steers we have received. Therewas a lot of agreement about the main messages and the final document brings togetherthe thinking on those; there was less consensus in some other areas. We have listenedto the advice, taken account of evidence and carefully considered the approach weshould take, but we recognise that not everyone will agree with all our decisions.We have also been sent much useful material. We have read and considered this and, insome cases, have included it in the document. The amount of detail and explanation inthe framework has to be balanced against its length, and we have not been able toinclude every contribution. We appreciate the input to and enthusiasm for the project from reviewers and hope that we may be able to draw again on their expertise when thisis updated.

I have looked through this list but so far I haven't been able to find a single person on the list who I would describe as 'a writer'. I've no doubt that they all write. I suspect - but don't know - that they can all write reports and documents, which is one (and only one) kind of writing. Indeed, the whole document leans heavily on this one kind of writing: standard English continuous prose. 

Both in the history of writing and in the contemporary spread of writing, you'll find that standard English continuous prose is only one small part of writing. As I've pointed out in a previous blog, this report ignores the other two pillars of what traditionally were regarded as part of 'English' - namely plays and poems. In fact, this document not only ignores them, it also doesn't explain why it ignores them. (Yes, if you 'search' 'poetry', 'poems', 'drama' etc you'll find one or two passing mentions. What I mean is that there is no consideration of them as 'writing'.)

I suggest that there are several reasons for this and one of them is on account of the composition of these panels.  These are predominantly people who 'know about' writing (allegedly) but don't actually do creative writing in any kind of published and successful way. They are not practitioners. In other words, they exemplify the Gove model of education: 'knowledge before competence'. 

So let's ask, why might it be important for a brand new document on Writing in primary schools to include the thoughts of writers for children - or indeed writers for anybody? Because we know about writing. We know what it takes to write stories, plays and poems. We know what it's like to look for ideas, to find ideas, to get stuck, to edit, to change what we write. 

But more than that: many writers for children spend many, many hours doing writing workshops with children. These are usually not constrained and contained by the absurd, box-ticking, unnecessary knowledge-first nonsense that the Gove revolution has loaded 'writing' with. We go in with ideas, feelings, thoughts and actual examples of how and why we wrote something that interests the children. We go in with shapes, forms, plots, inventions, and stories of our own creativity. We think in terms of sparks and enthusiasms. Many of us won't 'mark' the children's work and give it grades. Our criteria on how to improve a piece of writing are often completely different from the nonsense that stems from the Gove revolution. Our idea of what makes a good piece of writing may well be very different from the nonsense to do with expanded noun phrases, subordinate clauses, fronted adverbials, embedded relative clauses. We talk about images, tension, motives, patterns, empathy, irony, mood, problems and much more of that sort of thing. 

So of course they didn't ask any of us to provide input into this deadly dull, tedious document! (Just to be clear, if they had asked me, I would have refused. I can explain why at another time.) 

So you have a document that doesn't understand what writing is, doesn't what it is to write successfully. 

Meanwhile, you may have noticed that there is what feels like a new emphasis on handwriting. (I'm agnostic about this.) On the panel, you'll see the name of Ruth Miskin. Quite coincidentally, a few days after the report appeared, Ruth Miskin put on sale a brand new handwriting package. Very handy.