Executive Summary

Literacy is fundamental to all learning. It encompasses the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, which are essential for pupils to access, interpret, and engage with learning effectively. As pupils progress, literacy skills enable them to articulate ideas, comprehend complex texts, and engage in critical thinking¹ In schools in Wales, literacy is defined as: A set of skills, including speaking, listening, reading and writing, which enable us to make sense of the world around us. Literacy skills allow us to understand written and spoken language, to interpret what has been written or said, and draw inferences from the evidence. It is also about being able to communicate fluently, cogently and persuasively. (Welsh Government, 2022).

During our inspections, we found that, in the strongest schools, literacy was central to the curriculum, with coherent planning, a clear understanding of progression, and a strong reading culture. Effective schools ensured that all staff shared responsibility for developing pupils’ literacy, supported by purposeful professional learning and well-coordinated leadership. Where planning was systematic and informed by self-evaluation, pupils made good progress in listening, speaking, reading and writing, and used these skills confidently across the curriculum.

However, the overall impact of literacy planning remained too variable. Weaknesses in transition arrangements from Year 6 into Year 7, limited clarity on national expectations, and gaps in teachers’ own literacy knowledge restricted progression. Many schools did not plan sufficiently for the progressive development of skills, particularly in reading comprehension, oracy, and vocabulary. Too few assessed listening and speaking effectively. While examples of excellent practice existed, especially in settings serving disadvantaged communities or delivering Welsh-language immersion, many schools still relied on ad hoc opportunities rather than coherent, purposeful planning for literacy across all areas of learning and experience.

Introduction

The Welsh Government established the expectation for literacy to be taught in schools as a cross-curricular skill from September 2013, when it introduced the National Literacy and Numeracy Framework (LNF) as a statutory requirement for pupils aged 5 to 14. This was a major shift in expectations, with literacy (and numeracy) positioned as every teacher’s responsibility, not just that of teachers of English or Welsh.

In Curriculum for Wales, literacy is both a distinct area of learning and a cross-curricular skill. The curriculum emphasises that literacy skills should be taught explicitly and that pupils should have opportunities to apply these skills across the curriculum at every progression step. The languages, literacy and communication (LLC) area of learning and experience focuses on developing pupils’ abilities in listening, speaking, reading and writing. The cross-curricular skills framework provides non-statutory guidance intended to support schools to plan opportunities for pupils to develop and apply their literacy skills across all curriculum areas.

Since the introduction of Curriculum for Wales, we have published a series of thematic reports that include our previous findings about the impact of schools’ planning for the development of aspects of literacy:

• English language and literacy in settings and primary schools (Estyn, 2021a)
• Caffael yr iaith Gymraeg (Estyn, 2021b)
• Developing pupils’ English reading skills from 10-14 years of age (Estyn, 2023)
• Datblygu medrau darllen Cymraeg disgyblion 10-14 oed (Estyn, 2024)

System-wide challenges

In the strongest examples, leaders prioritise the development of pupils’ literacy in their curriculum. There is coherent planning, a clear understanding of progression and a strong reading culture. However, the limited guidance about minimum expectations for pupils’ learning and progress in literacy has presented a challenge for schools. A lack of effective transition planning in many schools remained a barrier to the continuum of learning in literacy, particularly as a cross-curricular skill. In addition, the literacy skills of too many teachers were weak, especially in the secondary phase. This had a negative impact on their confidence and ability to support the development of pupils’ skills effectively. In Welsh-medium and bilingual schools, the standard of a few teachers’ oral Welsh was too variable. They did not model the language well enough for pupils, which hindered their acquisition and emulation of basic vocabulary and sentence patterns.

In initial teacher education (ITE), provision to develop student teachers’ ability to plan and support pupils to make good progress in listening, speaking, reading and writing was far too variable. In particular, ITE programmes rarely equipped student teachers with sufficient knowledge and understanding of how to plan for and teach reading effectively across age phases. In Welsh-medium and bilingual secondary schools, the recruitment and retention of staff with strong oracy and writing skills in Welsh remained a significant concern, particularly in certain subjects and areas of learning.

In those schools that had not used the non-statutory cross-curricular skills framework as a planning tool, nor replaced it with a suitable alternative, learning experiences were often pitched at too low a level. Opportunities for pupils to apply their literacy skills were frequently ad hoc, and teachers did not consider well enough how pupils made progress in acquiring specific skills or how to create appropriate contexts to support them in applying their learning. Generally, schools found it difficult to design a curriculum based on the ‘what matters’ statements in LLC, with the progressive and successful application of literacy skills woven through the other areas of learning and experience.

Planning for literacy

A majority of primary schools prioritised effective language and literacy pedagogy and the application of skills in authentic contexts successfully. Where pupil progress was generally strong, planning for literacy was thorough, cohesive and clearly aligned with Curriculum for Wales. Teachers demonstrated a shared understanding of progression in literacy, embedding listening, speaking, reading and writing across areas of learning and experience. Such practice was most evident where leaders placed literacy at the heart of the curriculum, invested in professional learning, and evaluated the impact of whole-school approaches routinely.

In a minority of primary schools, limited leadership oversight, insufficient time for collaborative planning and a lack of shared understanding of literacy resulted in a fragmented approach. Literacy skills were not integrated well enough across other areas of learning and experience. Alongside inconsistent understanding of progression, this led to tasks that lacked challenge and purpose, creating gaps in pupils’ skill development. An over-reliance on commercial schemes narrowed the curriculum in a few schools and restricted teachers’ autonomy to design literacy-rich learning experiences.

In most all-age schools and in a majority of secondary schools, there was an appropriate leadership structure to coordinate and develop pupils’ literacy skills. The most effective schools demonstrated coherent, purposeful approaches to literacy across the curriculum. They built pupils’ competence in listening, speaking, reading and writing through deliberate, well-sequenced provision within LLC and other areas of learning. Literacy, in its broadest sense, was identified as a key improvement priority in many all-age and secondary schools while, in a minority, improving reading was highlighted specifically. Where schools implemented their strategic approach successfully, pupils generally made good progress.

Many secondary and all-age schools asked subject departments or areas of learning to identify where pupils could apply their literacy skills, enabling pupils to benefit from more opportunities than in previous years. However, too many teachers did not consider well enough which literacy skills pupils needed to succeed in different subjects. Nor did they distinguish between developing pupils’ literacy and simply asking them to use skills they had acquired previously. This was due in part to limited professional learning on planning for progressive skill development and a lack of clarity about national expectations for literacy standards and progress. In close to half of secondary schools, and in a minority of all-age schools, planning lacked consistency, coherence or ambition. Activities, particularly beyond the LLC area of learning and experience, were often pitched too low. Literacy was not always embedded across subjects, and opportunities to develop language were underused or disconnected from meaningful learning contexts.

Planning for different groups of pupils

In a very few schools serving communities with high levels of socio-economic need, support and guidance for pupils’ language and literacy development were among the most effective, ensuring that pupils made strong progress in developing their literacy skills. Positive engagement between schools, families and communities was often a key component of this success. These partnerships benefited nearly all pupils, including those with additional learning needs (ALN), pupils learning English as an additional language (EAL), more-able learners, and those from low-income households. In general, pupils with EAL made rapid progress in their oracy. However, only a minority of schools focused well enough on developing such beneficial partnerships. Despite the funding available to address this, poverty remained a significant barrier to developing secure language and literacy skills in a majority of schools.

In the best cases, across all age phases, teachers identified pupils’ individual needs precisely and adapted planned provision thoughtfully, enabling them to access texts and tasks that provided an appropriate level of challenge. In a minority of primary and a majority of secondary and all-age schools, however, planning lacked sufficient ambition or coherence, limiting the progress of pupils who required targeted support or greater challenge. In these cases, planning did not take enough account of pupils’ starting points or provide consistent opportunities to deepen or extend their literacy skills.

In general, the highly effective pedagogy used as part of local-authority provision to immerse pupils identified as latecomers to the Welsh language had a strong impact on their acquisition of Welsh and progress in literacy. During the initial period of Welsh-medium education, these pupils often attended a Welsh immersion centre for a short time before joining a Welsh-medium or bilingual school local to their homes to continue developing their Welsh skills. The pedagogy used to immerse pupils in Welsh, alongside the beneficial transition support for pupils and families moving between language provisions, was a notable strength.

Planning for listening and speaking (oracy)

Schools with effective practice planned specifically for listening and speaking as skills in their own right, rather than merely as tools for reading and writing. High-quality planning was informed by the oracy strands in Curriculum for Wales and focused well on progression for pupils at all stages of learning.

In Welsh-medium and bilingual schools, highly skilled staff supported younger pupils to participate in activities that promoted Welsh language development, with the most effective practice nurturing speaking skills through rich, varied experiences. The immersion process played a crucial role in building pupils’ confidence and accelerating their progress in acquiring the language, especially for latecomers to Welsh-medium education.

Where teaching provision was strong, many older pupils engaged enthusiastically in meaningful activities that encouraged the use of more mature vocabulary and sentence structures. By the time they left primary school, they had developed their bilingual skills effectively, with many holding conversations confidently in both Welsh and English. In the best practice, pupils developed multilingual skills that enabled them to make connections between languages and converse increasingly confidently in different languages.

A notable proportion of pupils, particularly those from areas with high socio-economic need, started primary school with significantly underdeveloped listening, attention and communication skills. Role play, imaginative contexts and creative foundation learning provided rich, informal opportunities for children to develop language from their varied starting points. These contexts encouraged eye contact, turn-taking, listening and the use of everyday and sensory language. Many schools planned effectively to allow children to build spoken fluency and emulate adult sentence structures naturally through well-designed provision and supportive teaching. However, a few schools missed important opportunities to develop communication skills, offering insufficient adult interaction or poorly planned activities that restricted creative talk and exploratory conversation.

In many schools, teaching strategies such as guided reading and writing, and discussion-based activities, supported the development of oracy successfully as pupils moved through the primary phase. Staff encouraged pupils to justify their reasoning, develop expressive language and deepen their thinking, which fostered confidence and the ability to articulate thoughts and opinions.

While many schools planned purposeful opportunities for older pupils to present their learning or research in relevant cross-curricular contexts, there was a decline in structured oracy opportunities, with fewer debates, extended speaking tasks or explicit teaching of speaking for different audiences and purposes. Generally, primary schools did not consider carefully enough how to combine spontaneous, informal opportunities with deliberate, planned provision to develop specific oracy skills that built on prior learning and achievement. As a result, there was a gap in progression towards more complex oracy development and its application across the curriculum.

Many secondary and all-age schools focused on the progressive development of oracy skills as a key improvement priority in recent years and resourced this area well, including through external support. Stronger practice included teaching pupils to listen critically and reflectively, although many schools did not establish clear expectations for the development of listening skills.

In the best cases, teachers across the curriculum adopted strategies that engaged pupils well and encouraged clear, appropriate verbal responses. They supported impromptu discussion alongside planned tasks for extended speaking. In at least a minority of schools, however, planning for oracy development was limited to the LLC area of learning and experience. Too often, listening and speaking tasks in other subjects lacked sufficient challenge. Teachers rarely supported pupils to improve how they spoke or to apply their knowledge of language structures in different subject contexts.

Overall, teachers’ explicit planning for the progressive development and application of oracy skills across the curriculum was not strong enough. Listening remained overlooked in planning, despite research demonstrating that listening skills can be taught and improved (O’Malley, Chamot and Küpper, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Rubin and Thompson, 1994).

Planning for reading

The most effective primary schools demonstrated purposeful, structured approaches to planning for reading that were embedded deeply within the LLC area of learning, extended across the wider curriculum and fostered a love of reading. Leaders and staff demonstrated enthusiasm for reading and ensured that it was visible and valued in daily routines. These schools adopted a strategic balance between developing decoding and fluency, and promoting pupils’ deeper understanding and response to texts. They planned focused sessions to develop skills such as inferring meaning, skimming for overall understanding and scanning for specific information. The development of these reading skills was often supported by whole-school approaches or agreed frameworks.

Generally, in primary schools, teachers planned and used shared and guided reading approaches well, including effective questioning, to improve the fluency and accuracy of pupils’ reading and to scaffold their understanding and response to texts. The most effective planning and teaching included staff modelling reading strategies skilfully to pupils. By making explicit the skills that effective readers applied when reading, teachers helped pupils to develop a vocabulary for talking about reading and thinking. This modelling of thinking processes supported pupils to apply a wide range of reading strategies independently. As a result, they monitored their understanding of texts more effectively and became critical, discerning readers.

In a minority of primary schools, planning for reading lacked consistency or coherence. This included:

• not planning a systematic approach to developing pupils’ phonological knowledge, which affected their progress in reading and writing
• placing disproportionate emphasis on decoding or technical accuracy at the expense of deeper comprehension and reader engagement
• confining reading to LLC sessions, with opportunities missed to read for information and enjoyment across other areas of learning and experience

These weaknesses hindered pupils’ development in key aspects of literacy. Where planning was not guided by a clear understanding of reading progression, the level of challenge in reading texts and tasks varied too widely across classes. Even in the most effective schools, teachers did not consider well enough the prior knowledge pupils needed to draw on when reading, or the social and cultural experiences that enabled them to understand and respond successfully to what they read. This was particularly relevant for pupils from low-income households, who did not always have access to rich experiences outside school. While many primary schools planned appropriate targeted support for pupils with ALN, provision for pupils with gaps in phonological knowledge or sufficient challenge for more advanced readers was less secure.

Many secondary and all-age schools promoted the development of pupils’ comprehension, inference and vocabulary through shared and guided reading. In those schools where pupils made the strongest progress, reading was embedded across subjects such as science and humanities, with planned discussion and analysis of texts. The most effective planning for improving pupils’ reading skills was underpinned by a strong reading culture as part of a clearly understood, well-coordinated whole-school strategy. This often included:

• providing inviting spaces with diverse, accessible and high-quality reading materials
• selecting texts for reading across the curriculum carefully, mindful of their progressive complexity
• planning events and activities that celebrated reading
• developing partnerships with families and the wider community to support pupils’ reading development
• deliberately teaching and reinforcing positive reading behaviours and habits across all areas of learning

In these schools, leaders and staff were effective role models who promoted the benefits and joys of reading for pupils of all ages. Reading was part of the fabric of school life. The importance and value of reading to pupils’ educational success and broader lives were generally well recognised by secondary and all-age schools. In the few best cases, there was a clear understanding of how the context for reading influenced the level of challenge for pupils and planning for progression in specific reading skills. Teachers identified the skills pupils needed to succeed across the curriculum and provided purposeful opportunities for them to consolidate and apply those skills to support and extend their learning.

Where planning for reading was less successful, this was often because teachers did not have secure enough knowledge and understanding of how to develop pupils’ reading progressively. They were unsure which skills and strategies to focus on, beyond simple information retrieval. Opportunities for pupils to develop and apply advanced reading skills across the curriculum, such as synthesis, summary, comparison and evaluation, were too limited.

Only a minority of secondary and all-age schools used a suitable range of approaches to support the development and application of pupils’ reading skills, for example shared, guided and reciprocal reading. While planned interventions to support pupils with particularly weak reading skills worked well in most schools, the exit strategies to support these pupils on their return to mainstream classes were frequently weak. Despite the longstanding national message that ‘all teachers are teachers of literacy’, a minority of secondary teachers and a few senior leaders did not recognise their role or responsibility in developing pupils’ reading skills.

Many teachers set reading comprehension exercises that pupils of all ages completed across different areas of the curriculum. However, the quality and usefulness of these activities varied too widely. Teachers did not consider carefully enough the types of questions that would elicit depth of understanding or allow meaningful assessment of a range of reading skills. Only a very few schools planned explicitly for pupils to develop their reading of images as well as text, for example through engagement with multimedia texts such as picture books, web pages, animations and films. Pupils’ ability to apply advanced reading skills to interpret text and image from a range of media remained at an early stage.

Overall, planning across the curriculum for the effective progression and application of pupils’ reading skills in primary, secondary and all-age schools remained underdeveloped.

Planning for writing

Many primary schools demonstrated well-structured and progressive approaches to planning for writing. These schools provided regular, purposeful opportunities for pupils to write for a range of audiences and purposes, ensuring that they developed both the technical and creative aspects of written communication. Pupils observed good writing, practised with support and then wrote independently. The most effective planning included explicit teaching and modelling of sentence construction, linked directly to current writing genres and curriculum themes. In the strongest schools, planning allowed pupils to write at length in LLC and across the curriculum after being guided through the full writing process.

In a minority of primary schools, planning for writing was inconsistent or overly dependent on commercial schemes. Shortcomings in this planning included:

• an overemphasis on genre coverage rather than skill development
• too few opportunities for pupils to write at length or improve the quality of their writing through revising and editing
• writing tasks without a clear audience or purpose, resulting in superficial outcomes
• insufficient challenge for more-able pupils or scaffolding for those needing targeted support
• teaching sentence construction and punctuation in isolation, limiting transfer into independent or cross-curricular writing
• an overemphasis on the mechanics of writing, which restricted expression and creativity

Schools that taught writing effectively planned for and taught spelling explicitly. In a minority of primary schools where the teaching of writing was underdeveloped, teachers often tested spelling but did not provide enough opportunities for pupils to learn about word patterns and spelling strategies. Frequently, this reflected gaps in teachers’ own understanding of how the English spelling system worked, particularly their knowledge of morphology and etymology and how this supported spelling development. In Welsh-medium provision, teachers occasionally had a weak grasp of mutation and syntax. These weaknesses limited pupils’ independence and reduced the quality and accuracy of their writing.

In the majority of secondary and all-age schools, pupils benefited from a suitable range of meaningful opportunities to write at length in varied forms across the curriculum. In these schools, particularly where a consistently applied approach to technical accuracy was in place, pupils were more likely to produce coherent and well-structured writing. Where planning to support writing was weaker, schools planned numerous short-response tasks, which limited opportunities for pupils to develop narrative or discursive skills. This was exacerbated in schools that shortened Key Stage 3 and focused prematurely on preparing pupils for Key Stage 4 examinations rather than developing writing skills. Additional barriers included an over-reliance on scaffolds or structured prompts, which restricted pupils’ confidence and independence.

Planning for vocabulary development (across all skills)

In the most effective Welsh-medium and bilingual schools, leaders and staff gave high priority to promoting the Welsh language, creating rich opportunities for pupils to be immersed in Welsh throughout school life. In general, leaders had a clear strategic vision that permeated all aspects of their work and prioritised effective pedagogy to support strong progress in Welsh language acquisition. Teachers planned valuable opportunities for pupils to develop their vocabulary progressively, which in turn supported the beneficial development of their oracy and literacy across all areas of learning. In a few cases, leaders did not place enough priority on this aspect, and pupils did not develop their fluency and confidence sufficiently.

In English-medium schools where literacy teaching was highly successful, teachers planned explicitly for pupils’ vocabulary knowledge as a distinct aspect of language learning. In a very few schools across age phases, teachers considered carefully how to integrate the deliberate selection of appropriate words into teaching and learning. This helped pupils to listen purposefully, speak appropriately in different contexts, make meaning when reading and write successfully for a wide range of purposes.

In effective primary schools, teachers and learning support assistants used both planned and incidental opportunities to help pupils acquire and use new words. They provided a range of high-quality texts and engaging learning contexts that stemmed from pupils’ interests and needs, stimulating rich responses in spoken and written language. Often, teachers used a class text to extend vocabulary and probed pupils’ understanding through skilful questioning during shared and guided reading. They gave valuable feedback on writing to help pupils make better word choices.

Many all-age and secondary schools taught vocabulary through reading, word banks and subject glossaries. In stronger practice, vocabulary was taught explicitly and reinforced systematically across areas of learning and experience. A few schools planned and used pre-teaching of vocabulary effectively to support pupils, particularly those with underdeveloped language skills. These sessions provided essential knowledge in short, focused lessons before whole-class teaching.

Where provision for vocabulary development was weaker, there was not a good balance between formal instruction and opportunities for pupils to apply their knowledge independently in meaningful contexts. Too often, vocabulary was taught in isolation, limiting pupils’ ability to draw on this knowledge in future learning.

Across all age phases, a minority of schools did not focus sufficiently on developing pupils’ vocabulary, particularly for those without rich language experiences outside school. Vocabulary development was incidental, lacked structured progression and did not extend beyond subject-specific terminology. Overall, staff in these schools did not have a secure understanding of the importance of teaching vocabulary or of its impact on reading, listening, speaking and writing.

Assessing literacy development

The most effective primary, secondary and all-age schools integrated assessment purposefully into teaching and learning, using it to inform next steps and adapt provision appropriately. Pupils received clear, timely and purposeful feedback on literacy work, often through a combination of written comments, peer input and verbal guidance. Particularly in younger year groups, verbal feedback was immediate and supportive, helping pupils understand how to improve their work.

Many primary schools used a suitable range of assessments to monitor progress in language and literacy. For nursery and reception classes, schools used outcomes from language screening tools appropriately to identify pupils with ALN or potential developmental delays although there are fewer of these available in Welsh. In the best cases, schools analysed this information thoroughly to plan the type and level of intervention required.

In many primary schools, teachers used shared and guided reading activities effectively to assess pupils’ vocabulary and comprehension. In the strongest practice, schools supported pupils to reflect routinely on their progress in writing and provided them with the tools to make improvements independently. In secondary and all-age schools, written feedback on pupils’ writing was usually aligned with departmental or whole-school policies. Where practice was strongest, pupils were expected to redraft work and respond to comments, reinforcing a culture of continuous improvement.

Despite these strengths, weaknesses remained in assessment and feedback practice across phases. In secondary and all-age schools, ineffective peer and self-assessment were too common. These approaches lacked clarity and structure, leaving pupils unsure how to improve their writing. More generally, teachers did not assess pupils’ written responses to reading thoroughly enough, which limited their understanding of pupils’ ability to engage critically with texts.

A narrow use of reading data from personalised assessments, standardised tests or commercial packages was widespread in secondary and all-age schools, and to a lesser extent in primary schools. Schools did not use self-evaluation processes effectively to identify which reading skills pupils had mastered and which required further development. Consequently, learning experiences became repetitive and did not always support progressive skill development.

Across all phases, a minority of schools did not plan precisely enough for the assessment of literacy. In these cases, feedback was vague or focused on surface-level aspects such as spelling errors. Pupils were not given sufficient opportunities to act on feedback, redraft their work or reflect meaningfully on their learning. In the majority of secondary and all-age schools, verbal feedback to Key Stage 3 pupils was often summative or effort-related, offering little challenge or guidance on how to improve literacy skills.

The assessment of oracy remained underdeveloped in nearly all schools. While a very few schools provided helpful verbal feedback on clarity, vocabulary and structure of spoken language, planned assessment of listening and speaking was rare. This limited pupils’ understanding of their strengths and areas for development in oracy.

Key findings

Overall, the impact of planning for literacy in primary, secondary and all-age schools remained far too variable. Intentional, progressive planning for literacy was crucial to improvement. While spontaneous opportunities had value, it was planned provision—informed by precise self-evaluation—that ensured the key aspects most in need of development were addressed systematically.

Questions for self-reflection

• How well do we ensure that all teaching and support staff benefit from targeted professional learning to support their work in developing pupils’ literacy skills?
• Are there opportunities for initial teacher education providers to review their programmes to ensure that student teachers gain a strong understanding of how to plan for the development of pupils’ literacy skills and, in particular, reading?
• To what extent is our whole-school approach to developing pupils’ literacy skills progressively coherent and well understood by all staff?
• Do all staff and leaders recognise their role and responsibility to develop pupils’ literacy skills?

References

Estyn (2021a) English language and literacy in settings and primary schools. Cardiff: Estyn

Estyn (2021b) Caffael yr iaith Gymraeg. Cardiff: Estyn.

Estyn (2023) Developing pupils’ English reading skills from 10-14 years of age. Cardiff: Estyn

Estyn (2024) Datblygu medrau darllen Cymraeg disgyblion 10-14 oed Cardiff: Estyn

O’Malley, M., Chamot, A. U. and Küpper, L. (1989) Listening Comprehension Strategies in Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, 10 (4) 418 – 437. Available from: Listening Comprehension Strategies in Second Language Acquisition | Applied Linguistics | Oxford Academic

Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Rubin, J. and Thompson, I. (1994) How to Be a More Successful Language Learner. Heinle & Heinle, London.

Welsh Government (2022) Languages, Literacy and Communication: Introduction – Hwb