
As a tutor, I find it necessary to acknowledge the limits of the English syllabus and the structures that govern classroom essay writing. Too often, students are led to believe that their confusion or dissatisfaction stems from a personal failure to understand content or meet expectations. In reality, many of these difficulties arise from the curriculum itself—its gaps, its oversimplifications, and its tendency to prioritise standardisation over genuine expression. By openly recognising these lacunas, we validate the student’s experience and make it clear that their frustration is not a reflection of inadequacy, but a reasonable response to an imperfect system.
Much of the English curriculum is built to accommodate the “middle” student. Essay formulas like TEAL and PETAL exist to prevent failure, and they succeed in providing scaffolds for students who are developing analytical writing skills. However, they are not designed to support the highest level of critical engagement. When high-achieving students internalise these formulas as creative boundaries rather than stepping-stones, their writing can become constrained and mechanical. Ironically, strict adherence to the formula often results in lower marks, because sophistication, originality, and conceptual nuance are not achievable within such rigid templates.
This is why it is crucial for tutors to say aloud what the system rarely admits: the curriculum is not designed to fully cultivate excellence. In naming this truth, we give students permission to think beyond structures without feeling like they are betraying the expectations of their schooling. It empowers them to see the formula as a tool—not a rule—and to understand that real writing involves complexity, risk, and voice. Acknowledging these shortcomings is an act of respect. It shows students that their questions are legitimate, that their desire for deeper understanding is justified, and that education should not merely teach compliance, but enable critical independence.
Thea Macarthur-Lassen







