Teachers Turn Writing Into Skill, Not Luck

writing achievable – Educators are pushing back on the idea that writing ability is something students either “have” or don’t. In an interview with Dr. Barrie Olson, literacy curriculum leader at Curriculum Associates, she argues that stronger writing instruction means explicitly

“I’m just not a good writer.”

Teachers hear it the moment a writing task lands on the desk—right when students are expected to translate understanding into something they can put on paper. For many, that leap can feel less like a next step and more like a high hurdle with no handrails. Writing. after all. is often treated as a final “reveal” at the end of a unit: a performance of learning that raises the stakes for students who haven’t been given a clear roadmap.

Dr. Barrie Olson, vice president of Reading Curriculum & Instruction at Curriculum Associates, says the shift educators are making is simple in theory and demanding in practice. If students are going to succeed, teachers can’t only assign writing. They have to teach it—directly.

When the EdSurge interview turns to what strong writing instruction looks like in classrooms. Olson doesn’t start with more assignments. She starts with the research base around writing. describing it as clear: students become stronger writers when instruction is explicit. structured. and grounded in knowledge-building content. In her view, strong instruction isn’t about piling on essays. It’s about clarifying the final product so every lesson in a unit moves students incrementally toward it.

Olson also names what makes writing so hard. Writing, she says, is one of the most cognitively demanding things students do in a classroom. It asks students to generate ideas, organize those ideas, select evidence, construct sentences, and monitor conventions—at the same time. That cognitive load can feel overwhelming, especially when students don’t have the foundational writing skills the task depends on.

She links many writing struggles to gaps in those foundational skills. Some students may not have had enough structured practice to organize their thinking. Others may struggle to express ideas orally. which. Olson argues. makes writing even more difficult because the work of getting ideas onto paper becomes even heavier.

For teachers trying to make the first move. Olson points to “backward design.” The process begins not with “What is the teacher doing with the student?” but with the teacher asking what students need to be able to produce at the end of a unit. Is it a literary analysis?. An evidence-based argument?. An explanatory essay?. Olson also adds a second question teachers should ask: what kind of thinking should the work require from students.

Once that endpoint is clear, teachers can build a coherent sequence of lessons that step students toward the final task.

In this approach, the writing prompt becomes a central piece of instruction. Olson says the quality of student writing is determined by the quality of the prompt. Teachers and instructional designers often reach for shorter prompts or less complex ones, assuming they will be easier. But Olson argues the opposite can happen: vague prompts increase cognitive load because students are left guessing.

Clear prompts, in her telling, strengthen instruction and assessment because they can be aligned with explicit teaching. A well-designed prompt may still feel hard—but it sets students up for success by making expectations transparent. She also emphasizes that effective prompts should require students to return to the text. to quote. to analyze. and to explain. That structure does more than shape a single assignment; it reinforces close reading skills while strengthening writing.

Still, even with a strong prompt, writing can feel overwhelming. Olson’s answer is scaffolding—without lowering standards. The key, she says, is chunking complexity. And scaffolding isn’t something that starts on the day students are told. “Hey. start your essay.” It begins on the first day of the unit.

Olson is careful with the language here: this isn’t about dropping rigor so students can reach a conclusion. The scaffolds and the progression are meant to make rigorous writing achievable for all students. She describes how this approach helps students get where they need to be. while also sending an important message about how learning works: students collect information. layer it onto what they already know. and then communicate what they’ve learned.

There’s another shift at work in Olson’s framing—how reading and writing feed each other. She calls the processes reciprocal. When students analyze a text’s structure. an author’s argument. or the use of evidence. they’re building a blueprint for their own writing. Teaching reading and writing together. she says. makes literacy instruction more efficient and impactful because writing becomes a tool for thinking.

Olson describes the cycle plainly: stronger reading leads to stronger writing, and stronger writing helps students defend their thinking and deepen comprehension.

The goal, in her words, is not quiet compliance. “I want to walk into a classroom that’s loud because kids are so excited about what they’re learning that they can’t keep it in. Writing gives them a way to leave a permanent record of their thinking.”

This article was sponsored by Curriculum Associates and produced by the Solutions Studio team.

writing instruction backward design writing prompts scaffolding literacy reading and writing integration cognitive load classroom teaching Curriculum Associates