The teacher assessment framework for writing, explained

What is the teacher assessment framework for writing?

The teacher assessment framework is the STA document against which every end-of-KS2 writing judgement is made. It defines three standards — working towards the expected standard, working at the expected standard, and working at greater depth within the expected standard — each as a short list of “pupil can” statements. Introduced in 2017/18 and unchanged since 2018/19, it is the document your moderator will have on the table.

Two framing rules matter before any statement is read. First, the framework is for the statutory end-of-key-stage judgement only — it says explicitly that it is “not a formative assessment tool” and should not be used to track progress through the key stage or to assess individual pieces. Second, judgements are made on a collection of independent writing overall, not piece by piece: one strong piece can evidence several statements at once.

What are the three standards?

A working summary first — the verbatim statements follow below. Read down a column and each standard has a distinct character: working towards is about secure basics, the expected standard is about writing that works for a reader, and greater depth is about deliberate, independent control.

The summary is ours; the wording that counts is the STA's, quoted in full in the next section.

What do the “pupil can” statements actually say?

Every statement below is quoted verbatim from the STA framework. The examples in brackets are part of the framework — but the framework itself notes they “do not dictate the evidence required”; they only show how a statement might be met.

The spelling statements point to the statutory word lists in English Appendix 1 of the national curriculum, and the punctuation statements to the range in English Appendix 2. The STA's exemplification materials show complete moderated collections at each standard — Dani (working towards), Morgan and Leigh (expected standard) and Frankie (greater depth) — and are the best calibration exercise available before you finalise judgements.

What do “most”, “many” and “some” mean?

The qualifiers are where borderline judgements are won and lost, and the framework defines them precisely:

“‘most’ indicates that the statement is generally met with only occasional errors; ‘many’ indicates that the statement is met frequently but not yet consistently; and ‘some’ indicates that the knowledge or skill is starting to be acquired and is demonstrated correctly on occasion, but is not yet consistent or frequent.”

The practical consequence: “mostly correctly” never means error-free. A pupil at the expected standard can still misplace an inverted comma or misspell an ambitious word. What separates the standards is the pattern across the collection, not the presence of individual slips — which is also why moderators read whole collections rather than hunting single errors.

How do the spelling and handwriting rules work?

Spelling and handwriting behave differently from the composition statements, and they trip up more judgements than anything else:

• They are gate statements at WTS and EXS. Each of the first two standards carries its own spelling statement tied to the statutory word lists, and its own handwriting statement — so a pupil writing superb narratives who spells almost nothing from the year 5/6 list has an evidence problem at the expected standard.
• They disappear at greater depth. The framework states there are no additional spelling or handwriting statements at GDS: the top standard is decided on control of form, register, formality and precise punctuation, not on neater writing or harder words.
• Joining is only required at EXS. At working towards, the footnote is explicit that joined handwriting is not required; at the expected standard the pupil should maintain legibility in joined handwriting at speed.
• Dictionaries are built in. The expected standard expects a pupil to “use a dictionary to check the spelling of uncommon or more ambitious vocabulary” — and the KS2 guidance counts unprompted use of a dictionary or thesaurus as part of independent writing, not a breach of it.
• Disability adjustments are explicit. Where a disability physically prevents a statement being demonstrated — handwriting is the framework's own example — that statement can be excluded from the judgement, with the reasoning ready for moderation.

How does a pupil move from working towards to greater depth?

The standards nest. The framework says teachers “should be confident that pupils have met the standards preceding the one at which they judge them to be working” — but adds that no separate evidence is needed for the lower standards: work that demonstrates the expected standard automatically shows the pupil is beyond working towards. In practice each step is a change in kind, not just quantity: from writing that is organised and technically secure (WTS), to writing that anticipates and serves its reader (EXS), to writing whose choices of form, register and punctuation are deliberate and independently made (GDS).

Cutting across all of it is the “particular weakness” flexibility — the framework's safety valve against tick-list injustice:

“teachers can use their discretion to ensure that, on occasion, a particular weakness does not prevent an accurate judgement being made of a pupil’s attainment overall. A teacher’s professional judgement about whether the pupil has met the standard overall takes precedence. This approach applies to English writing only.”

A particular weakness “could relate to a part or the whole of a statement (or statements)”, and the KS2 guidance requires the teacher to have good reason and to explain the call in the professional discussion — moderators are instructed to scrutinise it. Used honestly, it is the difference between a framework and a checklist.

Tracking statements is the easy half

Common questions

Does a pupil have to meet every 'pupil can' statement?

As the default, yes — the framework says a pupil's writing should meet all of the statements within the standard at which they are judged. But it immediately adds the flexibility: teachers can use their discretion to ensure that, on occasion, a particular weakness does not prevent an accurate judgement of overall attainment, and the teacher's professional judgement takes precedence. This applies to English writing only, and the teacher must have good reason, which moderators will scrutinise.

What is the difference between 'most', 'many' and 'some'?

The framework gives the qualifiers fixed meanings: 'most' indicates the statement is generally met with only occasional errors; 'many' indicates it is met frequently but not yet consistently; 'some' indicates the knowledge or skill is starting to be acquired and is demonstrated correctly on occasion, but is not yet consistent or frequent. So 'uses punctuation mostly correctly' tolerates occasional errors — it does not demand perfection.

Can poor spelling stop a pupil reaching the expected standard?

It can, because spelling has its own statement at working towards and at the expected standard — at the expected standard a pupil should spell correctly most words from the year 5/6 statutory list and use a dictionary for ambitious vocabulary. But 'most' tolerates occasional errors, and where spelling is a genuine particular weakness that misrepresents the pupil's overall attainment, the teacher's judgement of the overall standard can take precedence, with good reason.

Does handwriting have to be joined?

Not at working towards — the framework's own footnote says that at this standard there is no specific requirement for a pupil's handwriting to be joined. At the expected standard the pupil should 'maintain legibility in joined handwriting when writing at speed'. At greater depth there are no additional handwriting statements. For pupils whose disability physically prevents a statement being demonstrated, the framework allows those statements to be excluded from the judgement.

Should I use the framework to assess writing during the year?

No — the framework says so itself. It should be used only to make the statutory judgement at the end of the key stage, and it is explicitly 'not a formative assessment tool'. Teachers should assess individual pieces in line with their school's own assessment policy, and only at the end of the key stage make a judgement against the framework based on those assessments. Day to day, feedback against your own curriculum criteria does more for the writing than any framework tracking grid.

What evidence does a judgement need?

A broad range of evidence from day-to-day classroom work, including writing from curriculum subjects other than English. There is no required number of pieces and no portfolio format — a single example of work can provide evidence for multiple statements, and the STA tells moderators not to expect portfolios or checklists. The work used for judgements must have been produced independently.

Sources

1. Standards and Testing Agency, “Teacher assessment frameworks at the end of key stage 2” (for use from the 2018/19 academic year onwards) — all ‘pupil can’ statements, qualifier definitions and footnotes on this page are quoted verbatim from this document.
2. Standards and Testing Agency (updated 2 March 2026), “Key stage 2 teacher assessment guidance” — evidence, independence and ‘particular weakness’ rules.
3. Standards and Testing Agency (2017), “Teacher assessment exemplification: KS2 English writing” — worked collections at each standard (Dani, Morgan, Leigh and Frankie).