The teachers were just that bit too eager, the students unnervingly angelic. But the key stage 3 National Literacy Strategy training video did allow us to lift our heads out of the paperwork and remember what good English teaching is all about. The activities featured were pupil-centred, interactive and well resourced, leaving us bubbling with ideas for adapting existing schemes of work. As assistant curriculum team leader Claire Wiacek put it: “Some of the activities were excellent. It was really quite inspiring and made me want to experiment and share ideas.”

Innovative use of overhead projections for shared writing and A4 drafting whiteboards for pupils initially sparked a flurry of excitement - until we remembered that our budget would never stretch to one overhead projector per classroom. And then we considered the fun students could have rubbing each other’s work off the A4 whiteboards and filling them with “colourful” language.

Nevertheless, we cheerfully set about reviewing existing schemes of work. Fortunate enough to have two days of non-contact time, we split into pairs and set about adapting the schemes to incorporate the requirements of the strategy. The opportunity to plan collaboratively and share expertise was warmly welcomed, fostering a team spirit not always present in secondary teaching. Progression towards a more prescriptive approach to raising standards was also welcomed. Existing schemes already embraced many aspects of the strategy, but specific learning objectives at word, sentence and text level needed to be identified. We also aimed to ensure progression from key stage 2 and build on the literacy hour.

Planning the “starter” activities was a challenge. We wanted to make them fun, creative and as interactive as possible. The result was pupil-friendly games and activities, many demonstrating a radically different approach to literacy. Who would have thought a Marmite sandwich could be used to illustrate the past, present and future tenses?

It was an upbeat start to the new term. We would “wow” the Year 7s with our laminated grammar tiles, transparencies and Marmite sandwiches. They were clearly used to a structured approach to literacy. We, however, were not. And quite rightly so, we concluded, when we began to compare notes and discovered that the five-minute starter activities were taking 35 minutes, the development 25 minutes and the plenary . . . well, that might happen as they filed out the door. If they were lucky.

Within weeks, our lovingly devised short and medium-term plans were beginning to fall apart. It was impossible to cover the learning objectives for each lesson. Whole chunks of the scheme were scrapped and several lessons missed. We are a very successful department. Was it possible we were all hopeless time managers? Of course not. We are professionals who treat students as individuals. Our attempt to follow the strategy too stringently did not account for students’ individual learning needs. As Claire Wiacek explains: “Some of the work is very challenging for Year 7s. Take semi-colons or direct speech, for example - many students find this difficult and you need to spend time making sure they have understood. The strategy does not allow time for this.”

Resources were also a problem. What was initially attractive was the idea that students in Year 7 would cover exactly the same curriculum content at the same time, ensuring smooth progression through key stage 3.

Great in theory - near impossible in practice. Running lessons in tandem meant a massive hole in the budget for photocopying. Department budgets stretched to half-sets of books for each class and two new projectors - not enough to try those much-admired shared writing activities.

And there was also the enjoyment factor. The volume of work to be covered meant there was no time to foster a love of learning. Year 7 teacher Rachel King says: “Some of the starter activities really grabbed the students’ attention but there was no time to follow this through. It was straight on to the next activity.”

Claire Wiacek agrees: “There was no time to be spent enjoying a text. It was difficult to read a whole novel. We’ve only managed summarised versions.”

The short-term solution has been to adapt schemes of work to include a more manageable set of objectives, while trying to maintain the innovative approach to learning encouraged by the strategy. But whether these are just “teething troubles” remains to be seen. For some teachers, the rigidity of the strategy challenges the breadth and creativity that has characterised English teaching. As English teacher Rachel King says: “Some of the activities suggested on the training video were interesting and innovative, but I can’t help wondering if the very nature of the strategy will actually stifle individual teaching ideas. We have to remember that every child and every class is different. Our teaching has to account for that.”

Janet Murray formerly taught at the Bennett Memorial Diocesan School, Tunbridge Wells, Kent and is now a freelance writer