In his webinar with Bedrock Learning on the 14th May 2026, Dr Tim Mills MBE shared his experience regarding what schools need to rethink about reading, writing, and intervention.

The blog outlines some of the core takeaways for schools looking to take a more forensic approach to determining the real barrier to greater reading and writing ability.

Context: why reading and writing are difficult to teach and learn

Reading and writing are cognitively demanding. Both place significant pressure on working memory, the small “workspace” used to attend to multiple elements at the same time. Because working memory capacity is limited, successful reading and writing depend on long-term memory supporting automatic processes, freeing attention for higher-level comprehension and composition.

The difficulty is visible in outcomes. A significant proportion of children leave primary school without reaching an expected standard in reading and writing. This makes literacy improvement a leadership challenge as well as a classroom challenge, because progress depends on multiple components developing at different rates rather than moving forward in a single, linear sequence.

A leadership problem: broad labels and unhelpful data

A recurring barrier in schools is the use of broad labels such as “struggling reader” or “struggling writer” without specifying which component is insecure. When the specific difficulty is unclear, intervention selection becomes guesswork.

Some commonly used data points do not support precise action. A comprehension test is holistic and reflects multiple factors at once. A “reading age” provides a number but does not indicate where the difficulty sits on the continuum of reading development, so it does not clarify what should be taught next. More useful assessment identifies which elements are secure and which are not, so that the response can match the barrier.

A forensic approach to reading: assessing the continuum

Reading comprehension depends on several elements operating together within limited working memory. Decoding is necessary but not sufficient. Fluent word reading at an appropriate pace and accuracy supports comprehension, and comprehension itself draws on vocabulary, knowledge, and attention to cohesive markers in text.

A more forensic approach assesses reading along a continuum rather than relying on a single threshold score. Comprehension scores can indicate that further investigation is needed, but the next step is to identify the specific difficulty that is limiting progress.

Alphabetic code and phonics knowledge

A foundational step is assessing knowledge of the alphabetic code and grapheme–phoneme correspondence. Without sufficient phonic knowledge, children cannot reliably read words and will struggle to move into fluency. Assessing the full alphabetic code can produce actionable data, including in Key Stage 2 where gaps may persist and children may be attempting to “retrofit” missing knowledge.

Orthographic development: moving from decoding to instant word reading

Between phonics and fluency sits orthographic development: the process of becoming able to read words instantly. Some children move through this quickly, while others can become stuck, including some children who do not speak English as a first language. This stage can be assessed quickly and helps explain why some pupils appear to “stumble” even when phonics teaching has taken place.

Fluency: words read correctly per minute

Fluency can be assessed relatively easily using words read correctly per minute. In Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3, fluency is often a major limiting factor for comprehension because pupils may not read at a sufficient rate to extract meaning from text. A benchmark discussed is reading at a sufficient rate, with figures referenced around 120 words per minute correctly, and concern when pupils are significantly below that, such as below 100 words per minute.

Fluency assessment supports targeted action because there are specific approaches associated with improving it. Repeated reading, with feedback until a passage is read completely correctly, is described as successful, with research suggesting subsequent texts are then read more fluently. Reciprocal reading is also referenced as a route to promoting fluency.

Intervention structure: fluency gains and reading mileage

Evaluating a fluency intervention can include tracking words read correctly per minute, with the aim of reaching a rate that supports comprehension. However, fluency is also linked to reading volume. Reading mileage matters, and unmonitored reading is described as almost worthless. Fluency improvement therefore sits not only within discrete interventions but also within monitored, sustained reading routines that ensure pupils read a lot.

Comprehension and language: what to teach when decoding is secure

Reading comprehension can be framed through decoding and language comprehension, with the relationship described as multiplicative: strong word reading combined with strong language comprehension produces stronger reading comprehension. When pupils read fluently but struggle with comprehension, the barrier is likely to sit within language comprehension and related components.

Vocabulary and language development

Vocabulary is positioned as central. Limited vocabulary can damage understanding substantially, even when only a minority of words are unknown. Language and vocabulary development can be taught through explicit instruction and through immersion in listening to high-quality texts and literature.

Knowledge and the wider curriculum

Comprehension depends on the knowledge brought to a text. Without sufficient knowledge, fluent reading does not guarantee understanding. This connects comprehension to the wider curriculum, because building knowledge supports the ability to make sense of what is read. Vulnerable pupils may have fewer opportunities to build broad schematic knowledge outside school, increasing the importance of curriculum knowledge-building and preparation before reading.

Cohesive markers and textual markers

Some pupils miss the cohesive devices authors use to guide meaning, such as pronoun reference and synonym links. One effective approach described is working through a text with pupils and explicitly pointing out these markers so they learn to notice and interpret them. Related to this is explicit teaching of discourse markers that appear frequently in subject texts, reducing working memory load when pupils encounter academic reading.

Mental models for nonfiction and dialogic teaching

Secure mental models of how texts work support comprehension, particularly for nonfiction, which is described as more complicated and not fully understood by many pupils until later adolescence. Building these models earlier, especially in upper primary, is presented as important.

Comprehension is also supported by dialogic teaching. Discussion helps pupils clarify meaning, and pupils benefit from being taught to monitor understanding, reread when coherence breaks down, and summarise paragraphs to check comprehension. Summarising is described as a metacognitive process that expert readers do naturally but children need to be taught.

A forensic approach to writing: identifying barriers on the writing continuum

Writing is described as more cognitively demanding than reading, with research cited indicating it is twice as demanding. The increased difficulty is linked to working memory pressure and the need for executive function: unlike reading, writing requires the writer to generate, structure, and transcribe content without the “heavy lifting” already done by an author.

Because working memory is under such pressure, writing can fail in different places. If demands exceed capacity, composition may fall apart, or handwriting may deteriorate. Identifying the barrier requires attention to specific components rather than general judgments about writing ability.

Transcription: handwriting and spelling

Transcription—handwriting and spelling—needs to become as automatic as possible so working memory can attend to composition. If handwriting or spelling is not sufficiently fluent, composing and handwriting at the same time can overload working memory. In such cases, composition may still be developed, but transcription may need separate support or alternative means so that ideas can be expressed without collapse in output.

Handwriting is not the same as writing, but it is repeatedly referenced in writing research as a barrier. Better handwriting is associated with better quality written output and better later outcomes. Handwriting also affects redrafting: pupils with laboured handwriting may avoid rewriting because the initial production required so much effort.

Sentence structure, punctuation, and grammar

Sentence structure is positioned as foundational, described as the building blocks of writing. Time spent on sentence structure in primary is described as not wasted. Paragraph construction is linked to sentence competence, with the view that paragraphs should not be a focus until sentences are at least secure. Sentence-level control supports efficiency in expressing ideas and contributes to the ability to construct coherent text.

Links between writing and reading

Reading and writing are described as interrelated rather than separate. Supporting writing supports reading, and supporting reading supports writing. It is suggested that there are few pupils who are strong in writing composition while being very poor in reading comprehension, reinforcing the importance of treating literacy as connected components.

Handwriting in secondary: first steps when fluency is weak

Where pupils arrive in secondary with poor handwriting, there is described to be no shortcut. The priority is to improve fluency and fluidity as quickly as possible while maintaining legibility. The approach separates two elements: legibility and pace. Legibility requires instruction in letter formation when handwriting cannot be read. Pace is developed through practice. The recommendation is not to “unpick and start again” because habits are already embedded, but to make existing handwriting as fluent, fluid, and legible as possible through targeted teaching and extensive practice.

Key implications for choosing the right literacy response

Focus on difficulty, not diagnosis

A central implication is that schools often lead with diagnosis rather than difficulty. Diagnosis can be useful, but many pupils share similar difficulties without having a formal diagnosis. The actionable step is identifying the specific barrier—phonics knowledge, orthographic development, fluency, vocabulary, knowledge, cohesive markers, transcription, sentence structure—and addressing that barrier directly.

Build expertise to diagnose and respond

Selecting the right literacy response depends on staff expertise in the components of reading and writing and in the assessments that reveal where pupils are on each continuum. Expertise enables precise identification of what pupils can do and what they cannot yet do, making intervention selection more coherent and more likely to succeed.

Use assessment that leads to action

Assessment is only valuable when it informs what to do next. Fluency measures, alphabetic code assessment, and analysis of language comprehension components provide clearer routes to intervention than broad comprehension scores or reading ages alone. The goal is a coherent approach where assessment, teaching, and intervention align to reduce working memory load and build automaticity where needed, so comprehension and composition can develop.