Reflections on six years of the NationalLiteracy Strategy in England: an interviewwith Stephen Anwyll, Director of the NLS2001–2004Kathy Hall

Abstract

This recorded interview with Stephen Anwyll tookplace in Summer 2004, just prior to his departure fromthe post of Director of the National Literacy Strategy totake up a new post. In the interview, Stephenchallenges those critics who characterise the Strategyas reductive and mechanistic, but recognises thepotential for it to be interpreted in this way if notmediated through knowledgeable and confident tea-chers. He reflects on how the Strategy has changed anddeveloped over time, and talks about new develop-ments, including greater emphasis on the enjoyment ofreading, the importance of encouraging speaking andlistening and the recognition of the multiple literaciesthat children encounter and use.This interview is significant in that it places on public

record, for the first time, the detailed views of policymakers at the centre of the NLS concerning thesuccesses and challenges around the implementationand development of the Strategy during the last sixyears. It was recorded before the results of the 2004standard assessment tests were known.The transcript below has not been edited into a

formal written account. It retains the form of spokendiscourse.

Key word: literacy policy, literacy practices, teacherautonomy, definitions of literacy

KH: What do you see as the major achievements ofthe Strategy?

SA: It’s an interesting question. One of them I think isabout the place of English and literacy in the primarycurriculum. As somebody who has always beeninvolved with primary schools and literacy andEnglish teaching, I think one of the frustrations duringthe late eighties and early nineties was that somehowEnglish wasn’t really at the heart of primary curricu-lum. I felt this was fundamentally wrong because it isso central to what primary schools should be about. Ithink that one of the Strategy’s big achievements has,in a sense, been to put literacy back right at the heart ofwhat primary schools are about and at the heart of the

curriculum, driving the rest of the curriculum insteadof [literacy] picking up the bits around the edgeswhichI think was happening before. So I think that’s onething, putting literacy right back at the heart of primarycurriculum.

I think possibly an underestimated impact of theStrategy has been the extent to which the frameworkhas given teachers a common professional languagewith which to talk about the teaching of literacy. This isunderestimated because it’s quite a hidden impact. Itstruck me really forcibly when we did a series ofconferences with headteachers from right across thecountry a couple of years ago. I was in the position ofattending the conferences that other colleagues couldn’tcover so I was doing them all over the country –Cornwall, Hull, Essex, Cumbria and so on. What struckme was that you could use exactly the same terminol-ogy with these heads and coordinators, irrespective ofwhere you were; there was a commonly understoodlanguage with which to describe pedagogy andapproaches, which would have been unthinkable tenyears ago. That notion of teachers talking to each other,not just within the same school but across schools,across LEAs, across the country provides a verypowerful basis for professional development, forcollaborative work, for networking, for sharing plan-ning and resources. I think that’s possibly not a verypublic achievement but I think it’s a very significantone, a very big investment in the teaching force.

I’d have to say also that the Strategy has raisedexpectations for what children can do; I’m absolutelyconvinced of that and proud that it’s had that effect.Again if you think back to teachers’ initial reaction tothe framework – a Year 3 teacher would look at the Year3 objectives and say ‘‘that’s a bit hard for our children,I don’t think they can do this’’. We just don’t hearthat now. It has actually raised expectations for whatchildren can do and it’s raised attainment as aconsequence. People would argue about how muchit’s raised attainment but I don’t think anyone wouldargue that the overall quality and consistency of literacyteaching has improved. The attainment of children has

Literacy November 2004 119

r UKLA 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

risen and that means the life chances of thousands ofchildren have improved since we started in 1998.

The only other thing I’d say is that one of thefrustrations I’ve always had as an adviser and anadvisory teacher was that so many teachers didn’tappreciate that teaching English or literacy involvedconsiderable subject knowledge, didn’t appreciate thatit was an areawhere you needed expertise. Therewas akind of assumption that if you could speak and readand write English, therefore you could teach it. I thinkthe Strategy has exposed that myth. It’s said ‘‘look,there is substantial subject knowledge involved witheffective teaching’’ and this has gone some waytowards improving teachers’ abilities. It certainlyhasn’t accomplished everything, but a huge invest-ment in training and professional development hasbeen made and it has improved the subject knowledgeof many of our teachers.

KH: What is your view of the notion of literacyunderpinning the Strategy. How rich andbalanced a view of literacy permeates the Strategy?

SA: Without doubt the conception of the Strategyinvolved a strong sense of the richness, the variety, therange, the engagement and the enjoyment of literacy.So if you talk to John Stannard, as the principalarchitect behind the framework, he remains as passio-nate about that richness and breadth of curriculum asanybody. Inevitably, how a national framework is theninterpreted by 200,000 teachers will vary, and again Ithink it takes you back to the subject knowledge issue.I’m quite certain that there will be teachers who willfeel that this is a framework that has been imposed onthem and is restricting them.

Actually, I think the best teachers saw the framework asa very helpful way of setting out a skeletal progression.A scheme of work for English in a primary school wasand is a very hard document to produce. It’s not easy tochart progression through children’s literacy develop-ment over a six or seven-year period. So, I think mostteachers felt it was promoting range and variety and ofcourse it’s in the hands of teachers and schools to bringthat richness and that sense of interaction with childrenand their lives. So, in thinking of its design andarchitecture, it was certainly conceived as somethingbroad and rich.Where it’s being interpreted correctly, inmy view, and with confidence it’s leading to greaterbreadth and richness, but I’m not suggesting for aminute that there aren’t issues about its interpretationand that’s the task that we are facing.

KH: But within the design of it do you think thereis priority on the technical features at the expenseof the construction of meaning?

I think there is a balance there, and what we havealways said is that the reason a Literacy Hour always

starts with a shared text is because all of us absolutelybelieve that you start from making meaningful use oflanguage. That’s why you start from text and you workfrom there into the knowledge and use of language, thetechnical side. Currently, it is an issue of balance and it’san issue of interpretation, and I’d be concerned ifteachers were getting too caught up with the technicalside and losing sight of the broad aims ofwhat languageand language development is about. I suppose it’sinevitable that how it’s interpreted at classroom levelwill vary – that’s where clarification needs to be offeredand teachers need to be supported to take that broaderview about what we’re involved with.

KH: And in relation to that, are you concernedabout the marginalisation of enjoyment, bearing inmind, for example, the PIRLS finding thatEngland emerged relatively low in terms ofpositive attitudes to reading, despite overall highachievement?

SA: That is a real concern for us. It’s interesting talkingto other countries where there are similar issues – it’s avery similar position in Holland for example, whereyou’ve got very high attainment but a low level ofchildren reporting high levels of engagement, andenjoyment, or reading for pleasure. I think there are acouple of things there.Without doubt there’s a real issuebecause if we’re increasing the attainment of children atthe expense of their engagement and enjoyment, thenwe are failing to do the whole job and we have to takethat seriously. I think this involves a whole set of issuesthere about children’s interpretations of their reading,their definitions of reading and the whole change inpattern of reading on screen as opposed to reading inconventional books. It’s about defining what is legit-imate reading and I think some children maybe havetoo narrow a definition, so I think there are someinteresting underlying questions there. But I’m not for aminute suggesting that isn’t a real issue and concern forus. One of the consequences of that is that we’ve nowpersuaded the government to put much more fundingthrough the ‘National Literacy Trust’ into a widercampaign of promoting reading for enjoyment.OFSTED have just completed a reading survey andI’m sure this will emerge as an issue there. Again it’smaking sure that we keep the balance right and clearlyone of the major responsibilities of primary schools,particularly for children where there isn’t a readingculture in the home, is to do everything they can toprovide that inspiration for children to read and makeuse of their skills. The whole purpose of developingreasonable attainment is to give children the opportu-nity to enjoy books; the two things should go together.

KH: Are you satisfied that all children benefitequally from the Strategy?

SA: No, I’m never satisfied, and I don’t suppose I everwill be, I don’t think any teacher is. The original

120 An interview with Stephen Anwyll

r UKLA 2004

design of the Strategy was not of absolutely equalresources being provided to all schools or LEAs. Wedeliberately skewed consultant support, resourcesand funding to those areas within LEAs which wereserving the most disadvantaged communities. It isvery satisfying that the biggest improvements havebeen made in those schools serving those disadvan-taged communities over the last six years. But if youlook at the children who have benefited, I’d have tosay, and the PIRLS study illustrated this very clearly,that we still have the problem of a relatively largegroup of low-attaining children and frankly I don’tthink we’ve done enough to reduce the proportion ofchildren in that group. That’s a big area of focus for usat the moment. A lot of the primary Strategy budget isfocused on inclusion issues and on the lowestattaining children. So, it’s a mixed picture, I’mpleased that we’ve had a general impact withimprovement, and I’m sure that the Strategy and theteaching and the learning that’s gone on through ithave benefited all pupils but purely in terms ofoutcomes, I think we still have a big job to do, andprobably the biggest job would be with the lowestattaining group. It’s not just our problem, it’s aproblem in most of the English-speaking countries,but it’s a real issue for us.

KH: It seems to be more of an issue for us, doesn’tit, given the PIRLS and PISA evidence?

SA: Certainly PIRLS would indicate that, particularlywith the English-speaking countries, like Scotland,America, New Zealand, it’s very characteristic thatyou’ve got that big spread of attainment. We’re doingvery well with our highest attainers, better thananybody else in that PIRLS study, but that isn’t thepoint, if we’ve still got that group of children that wecan’t afford to have. The Strategy has to keep doingmore for that group.

KH: Do you think there may be an issue, at leastfor some children, of inadequate bridging betweenout-of-school literacy practices and those valuedby the Strategy and the school?

SA: I’m sure that there’s a great deal in that. From myown personal experience, I know it isn’t just aquestion of what you can do in the classroom, therehas got to be work with parents about support in thecommunity. It’s about children’s understanding andperceptions of literacy, it’s about the literacies theyexperience. I think it would be fair to say that we haverightly concentrated on the classroom because thathas the biggest impact on children’s outcomes. But forthat lowest achieving group there’s a much biggercontext and it is about how the school approaches thecommunities and the families of those children tomaximise the support and complement what goes onin the classroom; I think it’s those children that will

benefit most from the different facets of support indifferent contexts.

KH: You talked earlier about the importance ofteachers’ subject knowledge. What do you make ofthe PISA finding that high national attainment isassociated with a high level of teacher educationand a high degree of teacher autonomy?

SA: It comes as no surprise, that notion of not just awell-qualified workforce of teachers but also aconfident workforce, teachers who feel that theyknow their subject. When you see really good teachersof English in primary schools, they are teachers whoseconfidence is born from a grasp of the subject, from anoverview and ability to look ahead, to encouragechildren to move on in their learning. It comes fromthat confidence, so a well-qualified teaching work-force is essential. I think it’s interesting that the notionof autonomy is important. If I think about the teacherswho have made the best use of the Strategy, in manycases they are the most confident teachers. If you putmaterials in their hands, what they’ll do is look to seehow they can benefit from them; they don’t needsupport because they’re confident in what they’redoing and confident people are always looking forways to improve and they make the best use of thematerials. If you take the kind of materials we’veproduced over the years, I think there is a realdifference in the way that they are used by teacherswith different levels of confidence about literacy. Forexample, our exemplified planning material needs tobe very carefully mediated with less-confident tea-chers so that they don’t use it in a way which restrictstheir teaching. It should build on and support theirpractice. If you put it in the hands of the really goodteachers, they’ll say, ‘‘that’s really good, I can usethat’’, and they’ll then improve and extend theirrepertoire.

So, teacher autonomy is very closely linked toconfidence; I think the two things are interrelated.It’s about good subject knowledge which leads toconfidence as a teacher, which leads to looking forsupport to improve. But it certainly doesn’t come asany surprise that good outcomes are associated withthat combination of confidence and good subjectknowledge.

KH: Do you see any tension in an emphasis onautonomy and the tendency in the Strategy topackage and standardise?

SA: If there is, I think it’s a false tension because theStrategy is designed to address that issue. Again, if Ithink back to when I was inspecting primary Englishseven or eight years ago, in lots of schools you wouldgo into, you would see some very good teaching butyou’d see some very poor teaching; it was common to

Literacy November 2004 121

r UKLA 2004

see highly inconsistent provision across the school.What you’d want at least, is some kind of basicentitlement to good literacy provision for all thechildren, in all the classes in that school, and indifferent schools. So, I think there is that naturalconcern about lifting the bar of that basic entitlementbecause it is an entitlement, it’s not an option. It’s anabsolutely essential entitlement whatever the circum-stances and the range of teaching that you’ve gotaccess to. The Strategy is designed to try and put thatin place – it’s about equity, its not about trying tostandardise or control; it’s about trying to define abasic, good-quality set of provisions, a high reliabilityprovision for children, both in terms of the teachingand, if necessary, further support.

But I’m not in any way wanting to cap or limit thatsense of autonomy and confidence that comes from thebest literacy teaching. So, I think it’s a balance betweenthe concern to make sure that we get at least goodpractice established as widely as possible and makingsure that we don’t in any way limit the best practiceand indeed learn from the best practice. Inevitably, youcan understand why there is a perceived tension,because if people do interpret the framework as animposition, and something that limits what they cando, there will be a tension.

KH: But insofar as teachers are told what to dowith a class in a particular term – there areexpectations about objectives to be acquired say interm one for Year one?

SA: Well, that’s set out in the national framework andwhat we’ve always said is, ‘‘Look this is a framework –it’s not more than that, it’s not a straitjacket, it’s not asomething you can’t interpret’’. But it is saying, inorder to raise expectations, let’s at least say what are abroad set of expectations for children in each yeargroup. Now we’ve always said to teachers clearly youhave to bring to that your knowledge of your children,your knowledge of the rest of the curriculum that youare teaching. I think there is a strong argument fordefining a basic range and variety so children areencountering awide range of texts over time. There is aprogression in their learning through a set of objectivesand there is coherence in their learning so that bothteachers and children are clear about where they aregoing and what they are doing.

You see the best work when teachers are using theframework to then construct their own provisionwhich relates to their children, their own schoolcontext and their own curriculum. Because nobodycan centrally determine a set of experiences forchildren. A school has got to build that for itself. Everyschool is unique, you can’t centralise and standardiseto that extent, but you can, I think, provide a helpfulframework that will lead to much better progression

and continuity particularly if children or teachersmove from one school to another.

KH: What do you think of the argument that theStrategy’s emphasis on highly detailed content andplanning has the unintended consequence ofcurtailing the spontaneity and open-endedness ofteacher-pupil interaction?

SA: Of course that relates back to a lot of the previousdiscussions. Again it is an issue of interpretation. Let megive you an example. I know that a natural outcome ofhaving a national framework is that commercialschemes and products naturally build themselvesaround those frameworks and objectives. What I thinkmany of these schemes did, because they tended to bebuilt around single literacy hours, was to build up anotion that hours were separate episodes, that youdidn’t go beyond what was suggested. That in a sense isthe least helpful way of interpreting the Strategy.Actually what you were meant to do with a set ofobjectives like that is orchestrate them, think long-term,think of sequences of work and build a unit that helpsyou think ahead. What that gets away from is this kindof unthinking pursuit of an objective. Because obviouslythe objectives fit together, a lot of the reading andwritingones interrelate and a lot of the word and sentenceobjectives feed into the text-level objectives. So you needthat sense of grouping, of clustering of objectives overtime, around a sequence of experiences for children thatmove them forward in their literacy learning.

Nobody can really plan to meet the needs of a class ofchildren except the teacher in their own context. I thinkthat many of the commercial schemes have led to avery fragmented interpretation of the framework,which isn’t helpful. LEAs and consultants have donea lot of very goodwork in that area, and I think some ofthe planning exemplification that we’ve providedrecently has helped teachers to think more long-term,more in terms of a sequence of experiences than aseries of episodic lessons. But there’s a lot to do andwherever we’ve got that misinterpretation and thatrather over-literal interpretation of the framework, weneed to challenge it and support those teachers to helpthem develop a broader view.

KH: What do you think is the role of literature inchildren’s literacy education?

SA:Well it’s key. All of us who are involved centrally inthe Strategy are passionate about children’s literaturebecause that’s what makes English teaching so enjoy-able and fulfilling and engaging. Literacy is about arange of things, it’s about ensuring that children havethe functional ability to operate as an adult in society,but all of us understand that absolutely at the heart ofwhat we’re doing is giving children access to literaturewhich is that sense of other people’s perspectives on

122 An interview with Stephen Anwyll

r UKLA 2004

the world, other people’s feelings and imaginations. Sothe whole issue about children’s personal develop-ment is central to what we’re doing. It’s not, it can’t be,divisible from literacy, it’s an absolutely integral part ofliteracy and one of the great sadnesses is when youcome across primary teachers who don’t read or whoaren’t enthused by reading; it’s another area where weneed to domore to encourage teachers – you can’t forcethem to enjoy reading. Sometimes, the process is two-way – children who enjoy reading can actually helpproduce teachers who enjoy and will encouragereading. So literature is central; it’s one of the keypurposes for the whole Strategy. It’s aboutmaking surethat every child has access to what is a key part of theirown development, that access to the world as othersexperience it.

KH: Do you think that it was a disadvantagewithin the Strategy to place so much emphasis onextracts from texts rather than whole texts?

SA: Well, I’m not sure we did place undue emphasison extracts. I do accept that it’s easy to think that, ifyou’ve only got a limited period of time, you can’t bedealing with whole texts, because to some extentthat’s always been the case; teachers generally havenever spent a whole day reading a text with children.What they’ve done is a class novel, they’ve givenchildren an experience of extended work, and there isabsolutely no reasonwhy that should have changed atall. So, I think again there are times in the LiteracyHour when you’re looking at an extract because itillustrates a particular point or it’s a short text or apoem, or a piece of non-fiction, but it’s making surethat at different times, in guided reading for exampleyou’re looking at full texts. There should still be timeswhen the teacher reads to the class – gives them theexperience of a whole text over a period of time – andwe mustn’t forget the experience of children’sindependent reading. Clearly they are encounteringmore texts.

We’ve tried hard to counter the interpretation that theStrategy is just about extracts; some of the planningexemplification illustrates the use of whole texts overtime. I’ve been rather alarmed by hearing people saythat the Strategy has ‘‘banned the class novel’’! Itleaves you thinking, ‘‘Where did that come from?’’.You can’t stop those interpretations but you canchallenge them, and that’s a job we’ve got to do. So,I’m not saying that there isn’t a place for looking atextracts because I think there is. It’s making sure thereis a balance between looking at small pieces of text forparticular reasons, but obviously also getting childrento enjoy and experience whole texts. Again it’s thatbalance between fiction and non-fiction, it’s a balancebetween different approaches, plays, scripts anddifferent kinds of texts. Sometimes extracts are aperfectly valid way of looking at those texts, but at

other times you’ve got to give children the experienceof the whole development of a book.

KH: OFSTED recently noted the downwardpressure of a formal pedagogical approach andits negative effects on Reception classes. To whatextent do you think the Strategy is implicatedin this?

SA: There is clearly an issue there. The full extent of itI’m not sure about because when the department hasdone telephone polls of reception teachers they’ll oftensay, ‘‘Well it’s not a great dilemma for us; yes we’ve gotthe CurriculumGuidance for the Foundation Stage and theearly learning goals, and we’ve got these objectivesthat are there for the Reception year in the strategies,but there isn’t a great tension in bringing all thosetogether’’. I think there are issues; many primaryheadteachers, particularly those whose background islargely in Key Stage 2, may have misinterpretedexpectations and pushed for a more formal earlyintroduction of the Literacy Hour and told teachersand practitioners to ‘‘get this going as quickly aspossible’’. We’ve consistently said that in Receptionyou introduce that more coherent package within theHour over time.

One of the themes that keeps coming up in thisinterview is how the Strategy is interpreted. We’re justbringing out some newmaterial around phonics called‘Playing With Sounds’ and I’d defy anybody readingthat to suggest that we are advocating formal,dogmatic approaches to teaching in foundation andreception, because what’s described there are highlyinteractive, enjoyable activities based around play thatwill promote children’s development in language andliteracy. We must have high-quality early provision forchildren’s language development because that’s whereyou build up the foundation of future progress. I’mwell aware of the fact that in some contexts and in someplaces there has been a view that a more formalapproach is needed. Now don’t let me be misinter-preted because I think there are some extremelyimportant skills that children need to develop in thefoundation stage if they’re to really have the ideal, thebasic foundation from which to develop further. Butit’s the way you provide that experience that mattersand it seems to me that there’s absolutely no reasonwhy that shouldn’t be done highly systematically.Teachers and practitioners in Foundation Stage usuallyplan extremely carefully, but it’s about planning insuch away that what children do doesn’t feel like over-formal nor a result of downward pressure from above.I think it should be informed by the best practice that’sthere at Foundation Stage. So, again, it’s that idea ofteachers’ subject knowledge, having a really clearsense about what it is that the children need to developin terms of their repertoire, their ability to discriminatesounds, their early development in that area, but doing

Literacy November 2004 123

r UKLA 2004

it in a way that is enjoyable, engaging and fun, andreflects the best practice in the phase.

KH: What do you see as the major changes to theStrategy since its introduction in 1998?

SA: It’s been fascinating to see its development.Inevitably in the early stages the strong emphasiswas on establishing the Hour. What that meant waschanging the behaviour of many, many teachers andthat was asking teachers to do things differently, whichis a hugely challenging thing to do. All of us, byinstinct, stick to what we’re familiar with and change isa bit of a risk. So, a lot of the early emphasis was onsupporting those changes to previous practice. In theearly stages, although I don’t believe there was anyparticular emphasis on reading, the immediate impactof the introduction of the Hour and the framework wasfelt most in reading because that’s where the changesto practice weremore apparent. So through the regularshared and guided reading, many children had atransformation of their previous experience. Dailyencounters with texts for children in Years 4, 5 and 6had not been happening before in many classroomsand I think that had a big impact. Inevitably, as timehas gone on, we’ve tried to ensure that writing wasbeing given equal emphasis, because the teaching ofwriting was a challenge for many teachers. What youoften saw was teachers introducing an issue, givingchildren vocabulary, talking through ideas, but thenjust getting them to ‘write about it’. I think in the lasttwo or three years, through some of the materialswe’ve produced, we’ve helped teachers develop amuch clearer sense about how you effectively teach theskills of writing through active demonstration andletting children see the decisions and choices thatwriters make. So I think over time stronger emphasison writing, but that’s probably to equalise the balance,not to change the balance.

In relation to what we’re concentrating on now, it’s lessabout teaching specific aspects of literacy – forexample, focusing on guided reading or on sharedwriting – and more about orchestrating these compo-nents across the primary curriculum. So there’s a lotmore emphasis on speaking and listening and theplace this has not just in terms of how it relates toreading and writing but how it relates to children’slearning overall. Schools are now giving more atten-tion to the whole cross-curricular dimension of literacyand how it’s applied in different subjects.

A big area that wasn’t given early emphasis by theStrategy, but which I think is getting increasingattention now, is the whole place of ICT and itscontribution to literacy teaching. There’s huge poten-tial there for pedagogy, but also for the range andexperience that children have of the changing literacieswhich they’re encountering. I suppose the Strategy ismaturing. Many things are in place now. I’m not

suggesting they’re perfect, butmany things are in placeand we can then work to a wider agenda of how thatpermeates children’s learning and the curriculum.

KH: So are you saying this wider notion of literacyincludes ICT, multimedia texts – multiliteracies?

SA: Absolutely, yes. The work that we’ve been doingwith consultants in the last year has put a lot ofemphasis on the place of ICT and some of the mostexciting work is about what that can now offer in termsof the creation of texts, multimedia texts of verydifferent kinds, the integration of images, the exchangeof texts and electronic collaboration; there’s hugepotential there for some incredibly exciting develop-ments. Some teachers are already doing very interest-ing work there, and that’s not ‘outside’ the framework;it’s absolutely within the objectives of the framework,but just means interpreting it correctly, widely andrichly, and in a way that we’d all want it to beinterpreted.

KH: My last question. How do you see the futureof the Strategy under your directorship?

SA: I think it’s absolutely right that the LiteracyStrategy and the Numeracy Strategy in a sense nolonger exist as separate initiatives. For a period of timethey rightly had a great deal of prominence. They didtransform and have transformed provision in thoseareas. But it’s really important now that we use whatwe’ve achieved to work across a wider perspective,and I think the fact that it’s now a primary strategywithin which literacy and numeracy are absolutely atthe heart is a good position to be in. The challenge is toretain the sense that literacy and numeracy are centralto children’s entitlement to a rich, broad curriculumexperience. We’ve got to make sure that that hasthe maximum impact on children’s life experience. Ithink the other issue for me in terms of how it developsis that it’s more widely understood beyond theteaching force. It’s a truism to say that every primaryteacher is a teacher of literacy. I’d really want thatmessage to apply to everybody who supports primaryschools; everyone needs to have an understanding ofthe centrality of literacy and the importance and theplace of it.

I think one of the unintended consequences of ourwork with LEAs, for example, was that we developedvery strong links with literacy teams and numeracyteams, perhaps at the expense of links with the othercritically important people who support primaryschools, from link advisers to other curriculumadvisers. Now we’re beginning to take on that agendaandmake sure that our support isn’t just for colleagueswho specialise in numeracy and literacy, but thateverybody who supports primary schools is informedby that sense of the centrality of literacy and numeracy

124 An interview with Stephen Anwyll

r UKLA 2004

within a broad and a rich curriculum that is theentitlement of the child.

It’s a question of keeping the balance betweencontinuing to build on the benefits we’ve seen overthe last few years, doing so in a much broader context,and working with a whole range of partners. Forexample, it would include more emphasis on workwith communities and parents, more emphasis on thelowest attaining children. So, it’s about focusing onparticular areas that still need further work, but doingit in that more secure context of making sure we’reoperating across the whole field of primary education,because primary teachers will continue to teach acrossthe whole curriculum.

KH: I have no more questions. Are there any otherissues you would like to mention?

SA: One of the issues about the Strategy is that it isfantastically exciting, but also very challenging, tohave a sense of doing something that affects eighteenand a half thousand primary schools and twohundred thousand primary teachers. It’s trying tomake sure you keep a sense of balance between whatyou can do centrally, and clearly that’s limited, butalso understanding the potential that you have,through LEAs, consultants and leading teachers, toimpact on the work of so many teachers and so manyschools.

Perhaps one of the things I should have said aboutwhat’s changed in the Strategy is that whenwe started,when we were trying to make early video recordings,

in some cases we were actually asking teachers to dothings they had never done before just to illustratewhat we were trying to achieve. What is reallyencouraging now, as we develop new material, is thatwe are building on the best practice which is alreadyestablished. We can now go to schools where the bestpractice is happening and we can capture that on film.There’s a whole range of people now who I think aremuch better informed about what the underlyingprinciples of the Strategy are; they wouldn’t seethemselves as ‘working for the Strategy’, but areactually doing that job of improving provision from amuch more informed base than they were. It’s part ofthe business of working yourself out of existencewhich should be our intention; ideally, there shouldn’tbe a need for a National Strategy when we have goodlocal provision for literacy as a key entitlement for allchildren. Until that time, I’m very aware of thepotential impact that there is to be made, and that’sthe excitement, the challenge and the responsibility ofthe role – it’s a fantastically exciting one.

KH: Thank you for giving your time so generouslyand offering such full and detailed responses.

CONTACT THE INTERVIEWER/INTERVIEWEEKathy Hall, Leeds Metropolitan University,Carnegie Hall, Beckett Park Campus,Leeds LS6 3QSe-mail: K.Hall@leedsmet.ac.ukStephen Anwylle-mail: sanwyll@cfbt.com

Literacy November 2004 125

r UKLA 2004