finished-dissertation

1
University of Reading
The category of “pupil” and its
effects:
A reading of “an inspirational
letter to Year 6 pupils”
Eleanor Catherine Cox
Dissertation submitted for the Degree of MA
(Res) in Children’s Literature
Department of English Literature
September 2015

2
Abstract
Thinking about types of education which are claimed to be different and the
presence or lack of testing within them, I was interested in examining a text which
was hailed as “inspirational”, from a school which was claimed to be different
from other schools because it knew and cared about it pupils and yet, was
informing them of their upcoming SATs tests and supporting the examinations
place within the pupil’s education.
In this dissertation I broach the question of whether types of education are really
that different or whether they are both, always invested in knowledge of the pupil
and how this motivation positions power.
Contents
Coloured image of letter page 3
Dissertation page 4 - 62
Bibliography page 63
To Diana Cox, my wonderful grandmother

4
Access
- how is it known to be “an inspirational letter” and what is claimed by
the address of the “school”?
Mail Online states that “parents have praised a primary school for sending an
inspirational letter to Year 6 pupils”, thus “an inspirational letter” is claimed by
this perspective to be a shared agreement on what this text is, because “a primary
school” sent “an inspirational letter” and “parents have praised” “Buckton Vale
Primary School” for doing so. 1
This perspective claims that there can be a “letter”
or “letter[s]” but “inspirational” is a certain type of “letter”. “An inspirational
letter” is a singularity amongst many possible “inspirational letter[s]”. At once
there is a deviation from the category “letter” which makes this “an inspirational
letter”, whilst at the same time there is an adherence to the category according to
this perspective’s categorising it as a “letter”. The “letter” was “inspirational”
before it was sent and so, necessarily, it is “inspirational” before the “parents”
“praised a primary school for sending” it. That the “letter” was “inspirational”
before its being sent affects what is it the “parents have praised a primary school
for”. I read that because the “parents have praised” “Buckton Vale” for the act of
“sending an inspirational letter”, the “letter” being the type “inspirational” is not
caused by “a primary school”, as it was “inspirational” prior to its being sent and
that is all “Buckton Vale” has been “praised” for.
What caused the deviation to the type “inspirational” is not claimed, rather
for this perspective the act of “sending” and that this act was “praised” is what
1 Jenny, Awford, “‘You are smart!’ Teachers send inspirational letter to primary schoolpupils
ahead of crucial exams”, Daily Mail, (10 May 2015), <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
3075790/Teachers-send-inspirational-letter-primary-school-pupils.html> [Accessed:25 July
2015]. (All further quotations to this text will be given in quotation marks but will not again be
referenced.)

5
happens after the existence of the “inspirational letter”. There is no ownership of
the “inspirational letter” as it is “an inspirational letter” (my italics), but “a
primary school” did “send” it. So there is a kind of access which is exclusive to
the “school”; the “parents” only “praise” and the “Year 6 pupils” are the
recipients. Involved in the act of “sending” is the claim of “an inspirational letter”
being “to” something/one and it may be that the group “Year 6 pupils” being the
recipient is partly what the “parents have praised a primary school for”. The
“parents” are not “Year 6 pupils” or “a primary school” and they are not the
recipients of “an inspirational letter”. However, that they have “praised a primary
school for sending” it without being the recipients claims that “an inspirational
letter” is known to be “an inspirational letter” to others who are not intended to
receive it. There is again a kind of access claimed as the “parents” have
knowledge of “an inspirational letter” being sent and this may suggest a
connection between the “Year 6 pupils” and “parents” which grants the “parents”
this access.
Although I have ascribed “a primary school” to be “Buckton Vale Primary
School” in this case, the instance of “a primary school” which could be one of
many is connected to the discussion of access above. “A primary school” which
could be one of many possible “primary school[s]” sent “an inspirational letter”
which could be one of many “inspirational letter[s]”; the “sending” of “an
inspirational letter” is dependent on the pre-existence of “a primary school”. Why
this matters is because “a primary school” is ascribed agency by this perspective
and the act is then claimed to have been “praised” by “parents”. Thus, this
perspective is asserting knowledge of an agent, whilst also suggesting the
possibility of other “school[s]” which have not acted in this particular way. This

6
reconnects, then, to the question of what access “a primary school” had to “an
inspirational letter”. I read, through the pre-existence of “an inspirational letter”
before its being sent, that rather than having part in its creation, this perspective is
claiming that all “a primary school” did, was send it. However, rather than this
being a lack of action for “a primary school”, as in, it could have done more than
send “an inspirational letter”, it is a claim that other “primary school[s]” have not
sent this type of “letter”.
The address of the “school” is within the white and green shape with green
outlines and this complicates the idea of access further. I am reading a connection
between “Buckton Vale Primary School”, the address and “Headteacher: Mr
Simon Hunter” as they are contained within this shape. This is different from the
rest of the text which does not have any outlines around it. Yet its shape is
structured as the words, due to when they continue onto another line, have a kind
of straight line on each side of them and this claims a border. The coloured shape
above does not adhere to this border as it is longer than the words on both sides,
as if it is a kind of heading above them. I am reading this as a heading to the rest
of the text and a hierarchy in which this shape is the top, and even beginning of,
the “letter”, because of the larger font of “Buckton Vale Primary School” and the
outline of the shape which is thicker than any other lines in the text. The larger
font, thicker lines and green colour compared to the uniformity of words below
the shape, mark, at least a difference, and my reading that the shape is a kind of
heading is also based on “Buckton Vale Primary School” being separate to and
larger than, “dear Year 6 pupils”. This “letter” is addressed to “Year 6 pupils” not
“Buckton Vale Primary School” and this is important as it leads my reading of a
heading to also be about “Buckton Vale Primary School” as the agent which sent

7
the “letter”, rather than being a recipient. At once it is claimed that the “letter” is
from “Buckton Vale Primary School” and “Buckton Vale Primary School” is
something which “Year 6 pupils” can read. Due to also being within the shape,
“Headteacher: Mr Simon Hunter” is also something which can be read and which
is not a recipient. “Mr Simon Hunter” is the “Headteacher” of “Buckton Vale
Primary School” and because of the larger font I read that the “letter” is from
“Buckton Vale Primary School” and that the address and “Headteacher” are of the
“school”. They are not a recipient of the “letter” but part of the sender: “Buckton
Vale Primary School”.
` The address claims a location of “Buckton Vale Primary School” which a
development of the claim of the source of the “letter”. “Buckton Vale” as an agent
is also where the “letter” was from and is also something that the “Year 6 pupils”
can read. Their reading in this case is about knowledge and access as addressing
them as “dear Year 6 pupils” leads me to conclude that they are “Year 6 Pupils”
of “Buckton Vale Primary School” because of the access which is necessarily
claimed in order to be able to address them, and the word “dear” which I read as
constructing a kind of relationship. The address of the “school” is contained
within the white and green shape and is therefore where the “letter” is from, rather
than being a recipient and it is the location of the sender: “Buckton Vale Primary
School”. The address is not claimed to be an agent itself, rather just a location
from which the “sending” occurred. Further, the address could be a claim to the
“pupils” having a lack of knowledge and a possible need for that knowledge in
order for them to be able to access “Buckton Vale Primary School” as a location.
Due to its containment within the shape with green outlines I have read the
address to be part of the sender “Buckton Vale” which claims to have a

8
relationship with the “pupils”, and so I do not read that the address is included as
necessary knowledge that the “pupils” require in order to access the “school”.
Instead the address is at once where the “pupils” are not, because the “letter” is
sent from the address by “Buckton Vale”, and where the “pupils” are “pupils” of,
and therefore are always connected to in virtue of being categorised as “pupils”.
The category of “pupil” is claimed to be adhered to whilst at the “school” and
away from the “school”, at least on “Friday 8th May”.
“Friday 8th
May”
- when is “Buckton Vale Primary School” claimed to exist?
The date could be the date of the “letter” having been written, sent, or
read, or all three. The sender, “Buckton Vale” is within the “letter” as something
which can be read and as a location. Thus the “sending” agent is able to be read
along with “Friday 8th May” and the reading of location claims its existence
somewhere other than within the “letter”. Location does not necessarily claim the
existence of the “school” outside of the boundary, “Friday 8th May”. The
existence of “Buckton Vale Primary School” after “Friday 8th May” is claimed
through the “pupils” of the “school” “sit[ting]” their “SATs tests” “next week”.
However, because the “SATs tests” are not ascribed a location, only a happening,
“Buckton Vale” does not necessarily exist as a location after the “8th”. Thus, the
reading that the category of “pupil” is maintained when away from the “school” is
also shown to not be dependent solely on “Buckton Vale” addressing them as
“pupils”, it is also sustained by the “we[’s]” knowledge of their future “sit[ting]”.
This knowledge forms the opposition between the “we” perspective and the “you”
in which the “we” informs the “you”. However, and I will continue to examine
this dynamic, the “we” uses the knowledge to develop the relationship that I read

9
in “dear”. The knowledge the “we” claims to have is about what “makes each of
you special and unique” and this is opposed to the lack of knowledge that “the
people who create these tests” have. Further the “we”, as a perspective is aligned
with “Buckton Vale” and it claims a pre-existence through having knowledge of
“how hard you have worked”. Subsequently the “we[’s]” knowledge of the “you”
is necessarily dependent on the “you” also having a previous existence before
“Friday 8th May”. Again, the connection between the “we” and the “pupil” does
invite a reading of the “school” as a location before the “8th [of] May”, but the
“work[ing]” is connected to the “you” and the “you” is a “pupil” whether at, or
away from the “school”. Further, the knowledge of this “work[ing]” is also not
claimed to have been known at the “school”, it is just about a “how” this
“work[ing]” has happened. I therefore find it difficult to argue that “Buckton Vale
Primary School” is claimed to be a location except on “Friday 8th May”. Instead,
on “Friday 8th May” the address is where “Buckton Vale” sent the “letter” from
and it is also something which the “Year 6 pupils” read.
However, “Ofsted raising standards improving lives Ofsted GRADED
GOOD”, “Healthy School” and “LPPA LEADING PARENT PARTNERSHIP
AWARD 2014 - 2017” do claim the existence of the “school” as a “Healthy
School”, that has been “GRADED GOOD” by “Ofsted”. I read the “-” in the years
“2014 – 2017” as standing for the years in between and “LEADING” as
something on going, thus this “LEADING” has previously happened, even if it is
ongoing and so the “LEADING PARENT PARTNERSHIP AWARD 2014 -
2017” has been given. I am reading that the grading and awarding were of/to
“Buckton Vale” because of “Healthy School” which is in between them, and
through their disruption of the structured border and the blue colours, these

10
images are a group. The grouping of these three images also leads me to read that
“Healthy School” may also be in the past as a deeming of this “school” as
“healthy”, deemed by something other than “Buckton Vale” itself in a similar way
to the grading and awarding, which were “GRADED” and “AWARDED” by
“Ofsted” and “LPPA”. Through the darker blue colour there is a similarity
between all three which constitutes their grouping as things which are not
“Buckton Vale”, but judge it in various ways. “Buckton Vale Primary School” as
the “Healthy School” which is “GRADED GOOD” by “Ofsted raising standards
improving lives” and given an “AWARD” about “PARENT PARTNERSHIP”
claims that the “school” is made up of things which can be “GRADED” and
“AWARDED”; it is partnered with “parent[s]” and is “GRADED” by “Ofsted”
which is “raising standards improving lives”. Thus, “Ofsted” grading “Buckton
Vale” “GOOD” means that in terms of “Ofsted[’s] raising standards improving
lives” “Buckton Vale” is doing this to a “GOOD” “GRADE”. Therefore,
“Buckton Vale” is connected to “parents”, “standards” and “lives” and as I have
previously read, “Headteacher: Mr. Simon Hunter” and “Year 6 pupils”, as well
as its address. “Buckton Vale Primary School” and its parts which are within the
white and green shape, the “pupils” which are of the “school” and the elements
that it is connected to, have a previous existence because “GRADED” and
“AWARED” happened in the past and “Buckton Vale” is claiming this existence
through its inclusion of this group towards the bottom of the “letter”. However, it
is does not necessarily follow that the location claimed by the address was the
location of the “school” when it was “GRADED” and “AWARDED”.
Subsequently, there is an idea of this “school” as something which is made up of
things, of which it claims ownership because of certain categorisations, “pupil”,

11
“Headteacher”, and things it has been judged upon, “raising standards and
improving lives”, “PARENT PARTNESHIP”, and the “school[’s]” existence is
dependent on them, rather than on its location or a reading of it as a building. I
would therefore like to develop this discussion to ideas about writing, as this
“school” is a construction through what is within the “letter”, rather than a claim
to a location outside of the “letter”.
Production of the “letter”
- “Buckton Vale Primary School” as the writer and how this writing
forms a construction of what the “school” is.
My statement: “Buckton Vale[’s]” inclusion of them within the “letter” is
claiming a development of the agency of “Buckton Vale” beyond that of a sender.
However, inclusion does not necessarily lead to ideas about writing, rather it is
about the production of a “letter” within which these images are included. As the
discussion above was about shapes and colours, my choice of the word inclusion
is because I am reading these as images, although they include words, rather than
the particular part of the “letter” which has a structured border and is in between
the white and green shape and these three images, which I am reading as text.
Nevertheless, through claiming that the “pupils” are readers, my recognition of
this text as English and that it is a “letter”, the idea of it having been written is
present. Due to the three images being about previous judgements upon “Buckton
Vale” the “school” is claiming to have knowledge of itself before the “8th [of]
May”, and through “dear”, knowledge of the “pupils” and a relationship with
them lead me to claim that “Buckton Vale” is the producer/writer, as well as
sender of this “letter”.

12
The circular image with two shapes in it, one of them green, and a border
of alternating green and white shapes which form the circle, next to “Buckton
Vale Primary School” is in the shape with a green outline that I have read as being
a kind of heading to the “letter” and a grouping of claims about where it is from.
There is space around this image and “Buckton Vale Primary School” and I read
this as a togetherness and consequently, a separation from the address and
“Headteacher: Mr Simon Hunter”. Thus this image is with “Buckton Vale Primary
School” or “Buckton Vale Primary School” is with this image and rather than
reading an equivalence, such as this image means “Buckton Vale” or the reverse,
there is a togetherness in which the two elements are grouped, but are not the
same. I read there to be a construction of what is “Buckton Vale Primary School”
through the colour green, and by what is, I would like to argue for ideas of the
“school” as creating its identity in which the colour green claims a unity and
interchangeability. “Responsibility Honesty Respect Happiness Aspire to
Achieve” frame the black text in a similar way to how the shape with a green
outline frames the black text. This framing can be read as a beginning and end
and/or a top and a bottom. They are similar because they are both green and
because the size of the font of “Responsibility Honesty” etc. is larger than the
black text and the white and green shape breaks the borders of the black text.
However, as “Buckton Vale Primary School” is the largest font within the “letter”
and as I have read, is in a shape which goes beyond the structured border of the
black text, “Buckton Vale” is the sender of the “letter”. “Responsibility Honesty”
etc. adheres to the border of the black text but is a frame to it through the colour
green. “Buckton Vale Primary School” and “Responsibility Honesty” etc. are not
interchangeable in terms of “Responsibility Honesty” etc. being the sender of the

13
“letter”, but through the sharing of colour, “Responsibility Honesty Respect
Happiness Aspire to Achieve” are what “Buckton Vale Primary School” is
claiming itself to be. Due to reading that the white and green shape is the top and
beginning of the “letter”, “Buckton Vale” as well as being the sender, is also
positioned as being read first. Thus there is a reading of “Buckton Vale” as the
hierarchal first for which other things stand in, but through the sharing of colour
and the claim to the “Year 6 pupils” reading all of the “letter” because it is “to”
them, “Responsibility Honesty. etc.” have the equivalent meaning as “Buckton
Vale Primary School” and vice versa. However there is still a distinction because
of the larger font and containment within the white and green shape and so they
do not have equivalence in terms of the role of the sender of the “letter”.
The font which all of the “letter” shares, except the three images, claims a
unity. The three images also have different fonts from each other, but they are
grouped together through the blue colours. I have previously read that the
commonality claimed by the blue colours is that these are things which are not
part of the “school” but have judged the “school” by claiming it to be “healthy”,
“GRADED GOOD” and “AWARD[ED]” “LEADING PARENT PARTNERSHIP
AWARD”. As the writer of the “letter”, “Buckton Vale” included these images
and sent them from its claimed location. The existence of the “school” in the past,
before “Friday 8th May” is claimed because it has been “GRADED” by “Ofsted”
etc. and the “school” has knowledge of these past judgements upon it. “Buckton
Vale” is what was “GRADED GOOD” and is including this information, the
“school” is therefore referencing itself and constructing itself as a “school” which
was/still is “healthy”, has been “GRADED GOOD” and has been given an
“AWARD”. The reading of groups being constituted through shared colours

14
and/or shapes, is applicable to the choice of font, so the unity of the font is about
being what is other to these agents which have judged the “school”. What is
claimed to be other to “Ofsted” etc. in this text is “Buckton Vale” and its parts in
order for them to be “GRADED” etc. However the agents which judge and
“Buckton Vale” share knowledge of or are both connected to “standards” “lives”,
“health” as something a “school” can be and “PARENT PARTNERSHIP”. Thus,
rather than the font claiming a unity in which everything in this font being
different from or not contained within these images, the unity is about what
exclusively belongs to “Buckton Vale”. For example, “standards” are connected
to both “Buckton Vale” and “Ofsted” by being in the image and the image being
included in the “letter”, whereas, “Headteacher: Mr Simon Hunter” is constructed
as being exclusively a part of “Buckton Vale” because it shares the same font and
is not within any of the three images at the bottom of the “letter”. As part of the
“school”, as I have read them to be throughout this examination, the “pupils” are
at once writing this construction and reading it. I would like to argue, even at this
early stage that this double role of writer and reader what is interesting about this
text and may relate and even problematize a reading of it as “inspirational”.
Knowledge differentiates
- how is a distinction claimed between two parts of the same “school”
and what knowledge do “the people who create the tests” lack?
Dear Year 6 pupils,
Next week you will sit your SATS tests
for maths, reading, spelling, grammar
and punctuation. We know how hard
you have worked, but there is something
very important that you must know:
There is a distinction between “Year 6 pupils” and “we”; I read the “we”
as other to the “Year 6 pupils” and the “you”. This “we” is imparting knowledge

15
about what will happen “next week” despite claiming that the “SATS tests for
maths, reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation” belong to the “you”. In this
instance the “you” refers to the “Year 6 pupils” as the “we” is addressing the
“Year 6 pupils” as a group who “will” all “sit” their “tests”. “Buckton Vale
Primary School” addresses the “pupils” and claims, through the constituting them
as recipients, to not be the “Year 6 pupils”. The “we” is therefore aligned with
“Buckton Vale Primary School” by continuing to address the “pupils/you”.
However, and this disruption has been read before, my claim that the “Year 6
pupils” are “pupils” of “Buckton Vale”, and therefore part of it, may compromise
the distinction between the “pupils/you” and the “we”. It compromises a
distinction based on them being separate in terms of the “school”, for example one
is part of the “school” and the other is not, but it does not mean that another
distinction is not claimed. My reading that the “we” is imparting knowledge is the
key to another distinction being instated. The “we” has knowledge of when the
“you will sit your SATS tests”, “how hard you have worked” and “something very
important” which the “you must know”. Whereas, despite ownership of the
“SATS tests” and the “you” having “worked” “hard”, the “pupils” are do not have
knowledge of these things. The “something very important that you must know”
is already known to the “we” and is also something about the “you” having
“worked hard” but which is in excess and in spite of the “you” having “worked
hard” and the “we” knowing that. Thus having “worked hard” is not sufficient for
the “you” to have knowledge of the “something very important”.

16
The SAT test does not asses all of what
makes each of you special and unique.
The people who create these tests and score
them do not know each of you like we do
and certainly not in the way your families do.
A lack of knowledge on the part of “the people who create these tests and score
them” is claimed to be in contrast with the “we” knowing that the “you” has
“worked” “hard”. The “we” are not the “the people who create these tests” but the
“we” knows and is making the “you” aware of what “the people” lack. The
contrast comes from the “but”, as in the “we[’s]” knowledge is not enough to stop
the effect of this other: “the people”.
Due to the “SATS tests” belonging to the “you” and the information about
“sit[ting]” them being given before “next week” the “SATS tests” exist before
they are sat. Thus the “you” “sit[ting]” them is additional to their existence and
their belonging to the “you”, so they could not be sat, not be sat “next week” or
they could be sat by a group other than the “Year 6 pupils”. This contrast between
the possession of the “SATS tests” and what is additional to them demonstrates
the “we[’s]” knowledge, sharing of that knowledge but also, despite ownership,
the “you” does not have control of the addition of the “sit[ting]” happening “next
week”. The ownership also claims that there are other “SATS tests” which do not
belong to these “pupils”. Similarly the list of what the “SATS tests” are “for”
means that there is a kind of base of “SATs tests” and the “your[’s] SATS tests”
are “for” something. The “you[’s]” “SATS tests” could be “for” things other than
“maths, reading, spelling, etc.” and there may be other “SATS tests” which are
possibly not “for” anything, or they may be sat by a group other than the “you”
“next week” or they could be sat by the “you”, but not “next week”.

17
“The SAT test” in the second paragraph of the “letter” is singular, both in
the amount of “tests” being one “test” and “SATS”, as in more than one, being
“the SAT” which does not belong to the “you” and reads as the only one of a kind.
It is also not “for maths… etc.” which furthers the reading of it as the only one to
also be the original version from which other “SATs tests” are a subsequent
versions. The implication of this change is that the “pupils” are being
“assess[ed]”, although not fully, because the “test does not assess all of what
makes each of you special and unique” (my italics), but they are “sit[ting] your
SATS tests for maths, reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation” “next week”.
The “assess[ment]” of “the SAT test” is not in the future and therefore not aligned
with “next week”, rather it reads as occurring whenever there is an occurrence of
“the SAT test” which is dependent on being “something very important” which
the “you” “must know”. Consequently then, “the SAT test” is able to partly
“assess what makes each of you special and unique” without having been sat by
the “pupils”. “The SAT test” is then followed by “tests” which are “create[d]” and
“score[d]” by “the people”, so “the SAT test” is not a person but is an active agent
which can “assess” and “the people” are also claimed to be active through
“creat[ion]” and “scor[ing]”. Through the return to the plurality of “tests”, there
may be an alignment between those which are sat by the “pupils” and these which
are “create[d]” and “score[d]”. There may be a claim to shared ownership then, as
the “SATS tests” are the “you[’s]”, but were “create[d]” by “the people” and will
be “score[d]” by them”. This “scor[ing]” it not “scor[ing]” the “pupils” but rather
“scor[ing]” of the “tests”. When the “we” states that “the SAT test does not assess
all of what makes each of you special and unique” there is a claim that the “we”
does know “what makes each of you special and unique” and that “the people” do

18
not “know each of you like we do and certainly not in the way your families do”,
which means that the “families” also know “what makes each of you special and
unique”. “The people” and “the SAT test” either “score” the “tests” or do not fully
“assess” the “pupils”, whereas the “we” is claiming that they, along with the
“families”, “know” “all of what makes each of you special and unique” (my
italics).
Knowledge is therefore a counter to both “assess[ment]” and “scor[ing]”.
However the “we” having knowledge of “how hard you have worked” is not
sufficient to counter that the “you” “must” “know “something very important”.
The knowledge the “we” claims to have about “all of what makes each of you
special and unique” through critiquing “the SAT test” as not fully “assess[ing]”
this, is knowledge that the “special[ness] and unique[ness]” of “each of you” is
not already part of “each of you”, inherent to them in some way, but has to be
made and it is a “what” that “makes” “special[ness] and unique[ness]”. There is a
connection claimed between the “each of you/you/pupils” and the “we” and
“families” because of knowledge about the “each of you/you/pupils”.
“The people who create” “and score” “these tests” are claimed to have a
lack of knowledge concerning the “each of you”. They “do not know each of you
the way that we do and certainly not in the way your families do”, so there is are
“way[s]” to “know” the “each of you” which the “we” and the “your families” are
“do[ing]” and “the people” not “do[ing]”. However, “the people[’s]” lack of
knowledge is only about these “way[s]”, they may “know” the “each of you” in a
different “way” or have knowledge which is not constituted as a “way”. “The
people” not “know[ing]” “in the way your families do” is more “certain”
according to the “we” perspective than their not knowing “the way that we do”.

19
The “we” therefore has knowledge of “the way” that the “families” “know” the
“you” without being one of the “families” or within the “families”. Despite the
“we” having knowledge about both, the two “way[s]” are still maintained as
different by the “we”, as they are both singular “the[s]”, and are owned by the
“we” or “families” “do[ing]” them. “The way” the “your families” “know” the
“pupils”, which “the people” do not “do” is “in the way” rather than “the way” of
the “we”. This “in” establishes another difference between how “the people do not
know… the way that we do” and “do not know in your families[’s] way, apart
from the difference claimed by ownership by the “families” and “we”.
Occupying positions
- knowledge is claimed to be an optional position to occupy, but what
about the category “pupil”?
The “in” claims an interiority to “the way” of “know[ing]” which is done
by the “families” and I read the “in” as connecting to the “certain[ty]” of the lack
of knowledge. It reads that the “families” “way” of “know[ing]” is about a
knowledge that can be occupied and from which “the people” are more distant.
The idea of occupation has arisen before in my discussions around the category of
“pupil” both inside and outside of the “school”. In this case, there is a kind of
optional occupation which the “families” fill through their action of knowing “in”
this “way”, whereas “the people” do not “know in [this] way”. This is an
interesting way to think about the “letter” as a whole. Again I would like to use
the “pupils” as a way into thinking about ideas of occupation. The “Year 6 pupils”
are grouped as such and then referred to as “you” which I read as claiming the
same grouping. I have read, and will continue to examine ways in which the
perspective upholds this grouping whilst promoting knowledge of “each of [the]
you[’s]” individuality, for example, “special[ness] and unique[ness]”. The

20
category of “pupil” is not given as an optional position to occupy in the way that
knowledge is. Instead the perspective of “Buckton Vale Primary School/we”
instates this “pupil[hood]” through sending the “letter” and information with it
“to” the “you” about “sit[ting] your SATs tests”, whilst claiming that there is
something other which the “tests” do not “assess”. However through the
opposition between “the pupils” and the “we” which claims knowledge of them,
the categorisation of “pupil” is always maintained, even with claims of this
something other; they are “special and unique” “Year 6 pupils”. MailOnline
classified this “letter” as “an inspirational letter” and in the article from which that
claim is extracted there are ideas about how this “letter” is different in the way
that it addresses “pupils”. However, even “an inspirational letter” which discusses
“special[ness] and unique[ness]” still upholds the category of “pupil”. My reading
of how the “pupils” are part of “Buckton Vale” and therefore involved in
addressing themselves as “pupils” and upholding this category claims a kind of
uncanny inescapable categorisation which is done by the self, which therefore,
self-categorises.
When examining perspective at any point of the “letter”, “Buckton Vale
Primary School”, as the source of the “letter” is always claimed and this leads to a
reading that the “we” was aligned with “Buckton Vale”. This alignment means
that a distinction is not reinstated between the “we” and the “pupils” in terms of
them being separate, as both are part of “Buckton Vale”. However, the knowledge
that the “we” has about the “pupils” at once reinforces a reading of them as
connected, whilst also making “each of you/you/pupils” something to be known.
The “we” is not part of the “you”, they are, however both are part of “Buckton
Vale”. This leads to a commonality but does not make them inseparable. Instead

21
the “you” is something which the “we” claims to have knowledge of. I do not read
this knowledge as a claim to sameness or a grouping in which “we” and “you” are
interchangeable, but there is an idea of alignment which makes the knowledge
possible.
Being addressed as a reader
- at what point are the “pupils” constituted as readers of the “letter”?
“Friday 8th [of] May” then, was written by “Buckton Vale” and the “letter” is
then claimed to be addressed to the “Year 6 pupils” who are being informed of
what “will” happen, as the “you” is positioned as not currently “sitting their SATs
tests”, but “will” “next week”. Through addressing the “pupils”, as I have argued
before, the perspective of “Buckton Vale” is claiming this “letter” is read by the
“pupils”. The question, then, of whether the “letter” was sent and read on “Friday
8th May” is related to issues around what constitutes being addressed and/or being
a reader, and how an address affects other parts of the text. I could suggest that
only through “dear Year 6 pupils” are the “pupils” addressed and from then on
claimed to be reading. This would mean that “Friday 8th May” and everything
within the shape with green outlines, even the shape itself are not read by the
“pupils”. However, according to MailOnline, “parents have praised a primary
school for sending an inspirational letter to Year 6 pupils” and so the “letter” has
been sent “to Year 6 pupils”. The “letter” being sent “to Year 6 pupils” claims a
wholeness of the “letter” which is in contrast to the suggested reading of “dear
Year 6 pupils” as the point at which they are constructed as readers. The
“pupils[’s]” role as the recipients of the “letter” means that they are addressed
twice; once through having been sent the “letter” and then through “dear Year 6

22
pupils”. This supports my reading of the “pupils” still being categorised as
“pupils” when away from the “school” and then furthers it to them being known
to be “Year 6 pupils” because the “letter” was sent to them. My reading that they
are known to be “Year 6 pupils” by those other to “Buckton Vale” is about how
the “parents” know them. The “school[’s]” categorisation of them as “Year 6
pupils” is, according to the MailOnline, agreed to by the “parents” who “praised”
the “school” for the act of “sending an inspirational letter to Year 6 pupils”. The
“school[’s]” categorisation is dependent on the “school” itself because they are
“Year 6 pupils” of “Buckton Vale” and that is how the “school” had access to
them in order to send the “letter”. In contrast, the “parents have praised” this act
but their “parent[hood]” is not claimed to be connected to the “Year 6[’s]
pupil[hood]”. The “parents” have access to the “letter” without being its recipient,
but the agreement to the categorisation, “Year 6 pupils”, is about having
knowledge of the “primary school sending an inspirational letter to Year 6 pupils”
rather than having knowledge of them as “pupils” before or without the “letter”
having been sent.
Claims of multiple sources and a unified source
- parts of the “letter” are claimed to be from certain sources, but how
does “Buckton Vale[’s]” role as sender effect this?
“Sleep, Rest, Believe! Good Luck! Mrs Brown, Mrs Quinn and Mrs Brierley”
is an ending to the “inspirational letter” which directs the “Year 6 pupils” and
wishes them “good luck” for the “SATs tests” “next week”. “Good Luck” is what
makes this readable as an ending as this perspective does not give any more
information or direction and references the future which is beyond “Friday 8th
May”. Additionally these two lines do not adhere to the structure of the text below
the green outlined shape in terms of the straight line border on each side and there

23
is an area of white between “good luck” and the female names. “Headteacher:
Simon Hunter” and the address were about a beginning, as a source which the rest
of the “letter” was from. The ending “good luck” is also written by “Buckton Vale
Primary School” as is “Mrs Brown, Mrs Quinn and Mrs Bierley”, but these three
female names are not “Year 6 pupils” to whom the “good luck” is directed, rather
they are the wishers of “good luck”. Therefore, the “letter” has multiple sources,
all of which are at once part of “Buckton Vale”, as the sender of the “letter” and
thus where it is from, and they claim to be the source of sections of the “letter”.
“Good luck” then, is from “Mrs Brown, Mrs Quinn and Mrs Bierley” and
“Buckton Vale” because “Mrs Brown, Mrs Quinn and Mrs Bierley” are part of
“Buckton Vale Primary School”. The perspective of “good luck” is “Buckton
Vale[’s]” perspective upon “Mrs Brown, Mrs Quinn and Mrs Bierley” which are
at once “Buckton Vale”, due to being part of the “school” and not “Buckton
Vale”, because they are “Mrs Brown… etc.”. Through my reading of the same
font as a way of unifying the “letter” in terms of what is from the “school” there is
a claim to a reading of these composite parts all being part of “Buckton Vale”. In
this reading the “school” is unified in terms of “Buckton Vale[’s]” having written
all of it and so “Buckton Vale” is the source, and the only disruption to that is the
group of three images which are claimed to be sources outside of the “school”, but
which are included in this “letter”.
However here I believe lies a problem, this “letter” is “Buckton Vale
Primary School[’s]” construction of “Buckton Vale Primary School” and I have
read that through “Responsibility Honesty Respect Happiness Aspire to Achieve”
as words which can be aligned with “GRADED GOOD”, “Healthy School” and
“LEADING… PARTNERSHIP”, and their green colour which “Buckton Vale

24
Primary School” shares. I read the consistent font within the “letter” as a way of
limiting readings of disruption in the construction of the “school” as the source of
“an inspirational letter”. The “letter” has a multiplicity of sources because it is
made up of different parts: the address, “Headteacher: Mr Simon Hunter”, “Mrs
Brown, Mrs Quinn and Mrs Brierly” and “we”. The font tries to unify these
sources under the heading “Buckton Vale Primary School” and to an extent it
does. Nevertheless, in another way my reading of “Buckton Vale Primary School”
as the beginning of the “letter”, the sender and how each of the subsequent parts is
indeed, subsequent, means that I read the font as trying to claim that the “Year 6
pupils/you” are being addressed by a unified source. I read an attempt to align the
“we” and “you” perspectives against “the people who create these tests”. This
alignment is claimed through the “pupils” and the “we” both being part of the
“school” and subsequently the “we” having knowledge of the “you”. However
rather than necessarily leading to a unification of the parts of “Buckton Vale”, the
claim of a unified address corresponds to the construction of the “pupil” as
something which can be addressed and known, both in terms of what knowledge
the “we” claims that the “pupil[s]” lack and what the “we” constructs as shared
knowledge. The opposition between the “we” and “the people who create these
tests” is due to the “people[’s]” lack of knowledge about the “you” in favour of
“creat[ing]” and “scor[ing] tests”.
Knowledge joins and separates the “pupils” and the “we” in this “letter”.
The knowledge which the “pupils” are claimed not to have, but need, is why they
are being addressed by the “school” and the “school” claims to have knowledge
about the “pupils” which “the people who create these tests” “do not”. In terms of
authority then, this text is always in tension as the “we” claims to have knowledge

25
of the “tests” partial “assess[ment]” and through this claims a knowledge of the
“what” which “makes each of you special and unique”. However the “we” claims
that “the people who create these tests” have, because of their creation, made the
“we” address the “pupils” in order to inform them of the “something very
important that you must know”. Further and most crucially the “pupils” are,
because of these “people”, according to “Buckton Vale”, going to “prepar[e]…
for the test” and “sit your SATs”. The “we” perspective informs the “you” of what
they “must know” before the “sit[ting] of your SATs” which “will” (my italics)
happen “next week”. I have read this information as being in spite of the “we
know[ing] how hard [the] you have worked and so there is a “something” which
“must be known” because of the “tests” which I read as claiming to be why this
“letter” was written and sent due to “must”.
Something strange and uncanny is happening alongside the claims to
unification through a shared knowledge which the “we” has without “tests” being
opposed to a lack of knowledge by a group which seek to “test”. Although there is
a distinction through the “we” informing the “you” , my reading that they are both
part of “Buckton Vale”: the “we” as a perspective aligned with the “school”
which is not the “you” or “the people”, and the “pupils” as “pupils” of “Buckton
Vale” and therefore belonging to it, means that the “pupils” are addressing
themselves. The brings into question the categorisation of “pupil” as something
claimed by the “school”, through “dear Year 6 pupils”, and other to the “school”.
Instead that which is “pupil/s” is also “Buckton Vale” and so there is a claiming to
a doubling of categorisation which leads to these groups being both at once and
also not fully one over the other. Therefore there are claims to distinction through
the “we” informing the “pupils” but I would like to argue that although the

26
distinction is readable, the knowledge which is claimed by the “we” to be shared
between the “we” and the “you” becomes less of a powerful counter to knowledge
gained through “tests” and is readable as an inevitability.
Once again “Friday 8th May” is an interesting claim to read alongside the
notions of categorisation, writing and subsequent reading, as the date limits a
reading that these processes happened separately, rather they are both marked by
“Friday 8th May” as a claim to when they occurred. The implication of this is that
for this text, production and consumption, writing and reading, are simultaneous.
Consequently, my analysis that the “pupils” are part of the production as well as
the readers, results in questions about the roles of the “school” and “teacher[s]”
which are not claimed to be authorities over the “pupils” in terms of production.
“Buckton Vale Primary School” is the source of the “letter” but the “school” is a
composite of different parts, thus the producer is not a unified authority, rather
production occurs and the recipient is part of the process of production.
A reading of another text which discusses “SATS”
- resulting in a reading of “pupils” as performers and the idea of
products
In the Key Stage 1 literacy SATS (taken
by 7 year – olds) pupils are tested on
‘instruction’ writing: they must be able
to write out instructions for an activity
such as how to wash one’s hands.
Marks are allocated according to a basic
framework that can be learnt mechanically
during the run up to the tests. Thus, whilst
children may not be able to construct a
basic sentence spontaneously, they will be

27
able to trot out instructions that score marks
according to the known marking scheme.2
This extract is from, Education: Better results and declining standards?
Online Briefing and I can draw a comparison between the perspective of the
“letter” and this text: the perspective claims that the “pupils” being “tested on” it
something about which is has knowledge but has not caused, rather it is dependent
on being “in” the “Key Stage 1 literacy SATS”. In a similar way to how the
“special[ness] and unique[ness]” of the “pupils” is that which is not able to be
fully “assessed” but that which “we” knows. The perspective of this text claims
that being “able to construct a basic sentence” is something necessary which is
counter to the “pupils” being “tested on ‘instruction’ writing”. I also read a
similarity between the perspectives through the categorisation of “pupils” which
claims that the perspectives are not “pupils” but have knowledge of them. Further,
the perspectives are not the “people who create these tests” or involved in
“allocat[ing]” “marks” but they have knowledge about the “people” or the “tests”,
for example the perspective of this extract knows that “marks are allocated” and
how: “according to a basic framework”.
“Next week you will” and “in the Key Stage 1 literacy SATS (taken by 7
year – olds) pupils are tested on…” are both non-optional; the “you” “will” “next
week” and the “pupils” being “tested on” is “in the Key Stage 1 literacy SATS”
and so if there is “the Key Stage 1 literacy SATS” there will be “tested on
‘instruction’ writing” within it. “Taken by 7 year – olds” claims that this type of
“SATS” are only “taken by 7 year – olds” and that being categorised as part of the
2 David Green, Anastasia de Waal & Ben Cackett, Education:Better results and declining
standards? Online Briefing, (December 2005), published by Civitas,
<http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/educationBriefingDec05.pdf> [Accessed:5 September 2015].

28
group “7 year – olds” means that you “take” these “SATS”, so this being “tested
on” is dependent upon being “in the Key Stage 1 literacy SATS” and the
occurrence of this type of “SATS” is dependent on it being “taken by 7 year –
olds”. They are “7 year – olds” when outside of the “SATS” so that they can
“take” them, but they are “pupils” when they are being “tested on ‘instruction’
writing” “in the Key Stage 1 literacy SATS”.
The interiority claimed by “in” what the being “tested on” occurs, is
contrasted with the “spontane[ity]” of the ability to “construct a basic sentence”
which this perspective deems necessary through “whilst”, but which is possibly
lacking. So if “the Key Stage 1 literacy SATS” are “taken by 7 year – olds” then
“pupils” are “tested on ‘instruction’ writing” within this type of “SATS”, being
“tested on ‘instruction’ writing is dependent on the existence on “the Key Stage 1
literacy SATS”. Whereas “a basic sentence” is “construct[ed]” “spontaneously”,
not within or dependent on anything else, it is only claimed that the “children may
not be able to” do this. Further I read “spontaneously” as being in opposition to
the possible “mechanical” “learn[ing]” of “a basic framework”. In the same way
as “construct[ing] a basic sentence” this “learn[ing]” happens outside of “the Key
Stage 1 literacy SATS” as it is claimed to possibly be done “during the run up to
the tests”, which I read as being before they are “taken”. However, this
“learn[ing]” is still constructed as being connected to the “tests” and limited by
them as it does not happen afterwards, only “during the run up”, whereas the
“construct[ion] of a basic sentence spontaneously” is not claimed to be for
anything else. However, and this brings me to my concern with both texts,
although there is a claim that “construct[ing] a basic sentence” could happen
“spontaneously”, which claims that the “children[’s]” ability to do this

29
“construct[ing]” is autonomous, this perspective has prior knowledge of this
possible “spontaneity” which it claims is done by the “child”. Through reading
knowledge of the “children” doing this “spontaneous” “construct[ion]” I would
like to argue a reading of ideas of performance. I read that because this
perspective claims to have knowledge of what the “pupils/children” do whether
within “SATS” or outside of them, the “pupils/children” are always constituted as
performing in order for them to be known. Performance is readable through “write
out”, “construct” and most convincingly, “trot out”. The “out[ness]” in two of
these quotations claims that it is something which they do rather than are.
My reading of this extract in line with my readings of the “letter” lead me
to this conclusion then: no matter what categorisation is given, “7 year – old”,
“pupils”, “children”, by not being the perspective which claims to have
knowledge, or “the people who create tests”, and in turn by being positioned as
the group which can and will be “tested”, the “pupils” are always what is known
and what can “mark[ed]”, “scored” or “assessed”. By being the one which is able
to known, or “seen” in “they have not seen your natural talent”, but is not always
“seen” or “asses[ed]” fully, the “pupils” are always constituted as performing.
This is a fixed position; what changes then, are the claims about whether this is
the right or sufficient performance, whether it is the performance most “natural”
to the “children” or the performance which is most lacking in “spontaneity” due to
its being “leant mechanically” for the “tests”.
The learning which these “children” are claimed to do “mechanically” is a
learning of “a basic framework”, the knowledge of and access to this
“framework” are shared between the “allocat[ion]” of “marks” and the “children”,
which this perspective claims through “known marking scheme”. However, the

30
“marks are allocated according to a basic framework”, so if there are “marks”
“allocated” they will only be “allocated according to a basic framework”, and for
the “children” “a basic framework” “can be learnt” but is not necessarily “learnt”.
The result claimed that “they will be able to trot out instructions that score marks
according to the known marking scheme” alters “a basic framework” to “marking
scheme”, but through “score marks according to” I read that there is a claim to the
same process. Thus, the “children” “can” learn “a basic framework” and this
learning is claimed to have occurred because of the result of being “able to trot
out instructions” which is going to “score marks according to” “the… marking
scheme” that the “children” know. Through the reading of performance in this
extract and the above reading of learning I would like to argue that the
performances are also about ideas of a product as resulting from these
performances. Products are produced through performances within “tests” and
performances of something “spontaneously”. To clarify before progressing then,
by being constituted as performances I have read a lack of difference between that
which is “tested/assess[ed]/scored” and that which is already known to be a
quality of the child, something “natural” or “spontaneous”, not brought out by the
“tests”. Both readings of performance are claimed through an idea of the “pupil”
as something which can be known. This lack of difference extends to the products
because they are claimed to be known no matter what performance they derive
from.
I read “trot out instructions that score marks according to the known
marking scheme” as a performance which has products; “instructions” are a
product which are performed in the manner of “trot[ting] out”. However, in this
sentence the “instructions” are already a product which is then performed,

31
“‘instruction’ writing” is a type of writing which can be “tested on”, thus the idea
of the product here exists before the “children[’s]” performances. In these claims
then, there is already an ideal product which is able to be “tested” and the
“children/pupils” perform this product with varying degrees of success. There is a
claim of the replication of something pre-existing and which has been deemed to
be “test[-able]”. However, the replication is supplemented by the “known marking
scheme” or “a basic framework” and it is replication “according to” adherence to
the “framework/scheme” which leads to the “allocat[ion]” of “marks”.
Conversely, what is claimed by this perspective to be important through “whilst”,
is not supplemented by a third, but is also the performance of a pre-existing
product, or in this case possible lack of performance: “children may not be able to
construct a basic sentence spontaneously”. This product is not something which
the children are “tested on” here and are not given “marks” for doing, rather it is
“spontaneous”. Further, because it is not something which is “mark[ed]” is it does
not have “a basic framework” which can be “learnt mechanically” and the
implication of this lack of supplementation compared with the “‘instruction’
writing”, is that the performance and the product are claimed to be closer to each
other without something in between them which the performance must pass
through in order to reach the product.

32
The levels you will get from this test will
tell you something, but they will not tell
you everything. There are many ways of
being smart. You are smart! So while you
are preparing for the test and in the midst
of it all, remember that there is no way to
‘test’ all of the amazing and awesome things
that make you, YOU!
In the “letter” the “we” perspective claims that the “you are smart” and I
read this as a further extension on the above reading of minimising the distance
between the “children”, their performance and then the product. The “we”
perspective claims that the “you are smart” before they have sat their “SATs
tests”, so the product “smart[ness]” is not known through a performance and then
a “marking scheme”, instead the “you” “are” the product. However the closeness
between the “you” and the product, here the equivalence, does not limit my
reading of the “child/pupil” as something which is to be known. The “we”
perspective, through its knowledge of what “makes each of you special and
unique” and “you, YOU” is claiming a similar idea of closeness through
knowledge of the essence of the “you” which I am reading through repetition and
therefore a deeper idea of “YOU”, and what “makes” the “special[ness] and
unique[ness]” of the “you”. The “we” perspective contrasts itself with “the people
who create these tests” through the “we” having knowledge of the “you” without
“test[ing]” the “you”. The “we[’s]” knowledge is not discovered through the act
of “creat[ing]” a “test” and “scor[ing]” it in order to define the “pupil” as “smart”
or not “smart”, instead the “we” knows what the “you” “are” which is the essence
of the “you” rather than how the “you” performs.
I find “the levels you will get from this test will tell you something, but
they will not tell you everything” interesting as it is a claim from the “we”

33
perspective that the “tests” are active and the “you” is positioned as being told
when the “test[ing]” is claimed to be over. Thus the idea of the result, which is
present in “the people[’s]” “scor[ing]” the “tests” and “the levels you will get
from this test”, is being extended beyond itself. “The levels” which are gotten
from “this test” are not the end product from the “you[’s]” performance in the
“test”, rather “the levels” then “tell” the “you”. Subsequently I read, “there are
many ways of being smart. You are smart” as the “we” telling the “you” what is
absent in “the level[’s]” “tell[ing]” and that the “you” is being told this because it
is unaware. Despite “smart[ness]” being what “you are” according to the “we”,
the “you” is claimed to not have knowledge of what it is. The implication of this
is that the “we” is claiming that despite “smart” being what the “you” “are” and
therefore “you” being what “smart” is, there can still be a distinction. Due to this
distinction I read that there is a way in which “smart[ness]” could be what the
“you” is without being known by the “you”. The “we[’s]” knowledge of the “you”
as being “smart” has come from a source which is not “test[ing]” and this source
is a “way” of “know[ing]”: “know each of you the way that we do”. This reading
leads to an important implication about how “smart[ness]” is constituted as
something which the “you” can be without knowing it and something which I do
read as being to do with “test[ing]” or “assess[ment]”, but something that is not
necessarily performed within the “tests”, despite its claimed inherentness to the
“you”.
The claim that “the levels you will get from this test will tell you
something, but they will not tell you everything” is similar to the statement “the
SATs test does not assess all of what makes each of you special and unique”
because here the implication is that it “does… assess” some “of what makes each

34
of you special and unique”. It is important to re-read this statement in light of my
conclusion that “smart” is something which the “you are” but do not necessarily
perform and I would like to engage with the way in which “Buckton Vale” is at
once claiming knowledge of the essence of the “you” without the supplementation
of “test[ing]” them, whilst also informing the “you” that “the SATs test/levels you
will get from this test” are not fully redundant or inactive.
“So while you are preparing for the test and in the midst of it all,
remember that there is no way to ‘test’ all of the amazing and awesome things that
make you, YOU” claims a “remember[ing]” which is dependent on the “you…
preparing for the test and [being] in the midst of it all” and consequently it may be
that “remember[ing]” this is only necessary whilst “preparing” and “in the midst
of it all”. This instruction to “remember” claims a kind of subsequence through
“so” which I read as being related to “there are many ways of being smart. You
are smart” due to the claims about the essence of the “you” in “you are smart” and
“make you, YOU”. The quotation marks around “‘test’” distance the “we”
perspective from this word in terms of ownership, but again “there is no way to
‘test’ all of the… things” claims that there is a “way” to “‘test’” some of “the…
things that make you, YOU”. I believe that how the “assess[ment]” and
“‘test’[ing]” is not claimed to be completely unable to “tell” the “you”, can
“assess” some “of what makes each of you special and unique” and may “‘test’”
some “of the amazing and awesome things that make you, YOU”, as well as how
the “SATs tests” are a non-optional “sit[ting]” which the “you” may do
“prepar[tion] for”, claim a kind of support for, or the “school[’s]” compliance
with the “the people” and their “tests”.

35
Readings around claims that the “letter” is
“inspirational” within the MailOnline article
It is difficult to read why this “letter” is claimed to be “an inspirational
letter”, that the “inspirational letter [is] to Year 6 pupils” directs the reading
towards the “Year 6 pupils” being “inspired” by the “inspirational letter” because
it is “to” them. However this mis-reads the “to” and the “sending” as the
“inspirational letter” is already “inspirational” before it is sent and it is claimed to
be “inspirational” by MailOnline and “parents” which are both not the “Year 6
pupils”. Therefore, “sending an inspirational letter to Year 6 pupils” does not
mean that the “letter” is considered to be “inspirational” by the “Year 6 pupils”
exclusively, rather it is categorised as “inspirational” by non-“pupils” but was sent
to “Year 6 pupils”. Here I would like to return to my reading of “a primary
school” and how that claims that other “primary school[s]” have not sent this type
of “letter”. This marks a difference between “Buckton Vale” and other schools in
terms of the sending of this particular type of “letter” and the “Year 6 pupils” of
other schools as they have not had “an inspirational letter” sent to them. The type
“inspirational” claims that other “schools” may send “letter[s]” but they have not
sent “an inspirational letter”. Therefore, “Buckton Vale” is claimed to be why this
“letter” is “inspirational” through its difference with other schools. More
specifically, “Buckton Vale” as the reason why reconnects to my argument that
“Buckton Vale” is the author of this “letter”, as well as the sender. Due to the
previous readings of how the “school”, as a writer was constituting itself through
the inclusion of images as a form of self-referencing, I conclude that the “school”
wrote a “letter” which was “inspirational” to others. The categorisation, “an
inspirational letter” is from MailOnline not “Buckton Vale”, however through the

36
oppositions claimed by the “we” between it and “the people who create these
tests” and the certainty of “there is something very important you must know”, I
read that the “school” has an awareness of its being different to “the people” and a
claim to know what could happen if the “you[’s]” “know[ing]” of “something
very important” did not occur. Therefore, although the categorisation of this as
“an inspirational letter” is not from “Buckton Vale”, I read that MailOnline claims
that it is this type of “letter” because of the difference between this “letter” and
other “letter[s]” which “Buckton Vale” constructs through its claims to unity and
including the positive judgements of the three images.
MailOnline claims that “Donna Owen said: ‘I have 11 – year – old twins
who sit their SATs next week, they go to a different school but your letter was
shared by a group of friends, I sat and read it with them with a tear because it’s so
true…’”.3 At least one other “school” has not written “an inspirational letter” to its
“pupils” who are “sit[ting] their SATs next week” but this raises readings around
access once more. “Donna Owen” is a “parent” who has “praised the school” but
is not a “parent” of “Buckton Vale[’s]” “Year 6 pupils”, rather she is a “parent”
who has “11 – year – old twins” who “go to a different school”. “Donna
Owen[’s]” access to the “letter” is therefore not through a connection with the
group to whom the “letter” is addressed or by being a “Year 6 pupil” herself,
instead access occurred because of a “shar[ing] by a group of friends”. This
“group of friends” must in some way have access to the “letter” in order for them
to be able to “share” it, although how they have access to it is not claimed, rather
3 Jenny, Awford, “‘You are smart!’ Teachers send inspirational letter to primary schoolpupils
2015]. (This quotation will not again be referenced but will be given in quotation marks.)

37
“Donna Owen[‘s]” access is dependent on theirs and the subsequent “shar[ing]”.
“Donna Owen[’s]” “read[ing]” of “your letter” occurs once it is “shared by a
group of friends” rather than being addressed “to” her by the “school”, but she
claims to address the “school” through “your letter”. I would like to argue that
addressing the “school” is dependent on “Donna Owen[’s] sitting and “read[ing]
it” which is dependent on the “shar[ing] by a group of friends”. Addressing the
“school” relates to her categorisation by MailOnline as one of the “parents who
praised the school for sending an inspirational letter”, although this does not
necessarily guarantee that she “read” the “letter” before “prais[ing] the school” as
the “praise” is for “sending an inspirational letter”. Rather I am reading that
“Donna Owen” is “prais[ing]” the “school” after “read[ing] it” because of her
agreement with the categorisation “an inspirational letter” which I read in her
claim to emotion, “with a tear”, and the claim that “your letter” is “so true”. The
sitting and “read[ing]” “it” is claimed to be shared between “Donna Owen” and
her “11 – year – old twins” through “I sat and read it with them”, as well as “with
a tear” as something other to “Donna Owen” and “them”. Through the
combination of “sat and read” and “with a tear” as a claim to something else
additional to sitting and/or “read[ing]”, as well a claim to emotion, I would like to
argue that this is about a “read[ing]” of the “letter” as an experience between
“Donna Owen”, a “parent” and her two children. The “letter” is therefore “shared
by a group” and then this “parent” and children experience the “letter” together.
However this shared experience does not lead to a shared addressing of the
“school”. Again, the categorisation as one of the “parents who praised the school”
is claimed after this experience of the “letter”. “Donna Owen”, who I read to be
experiencing it beyond the sitting and “read[ing]” through “with a tear” also

38
reviews “it” positively as “so true”. The “twins” are involved in the sitting and
“read[ing]” the “letter” but not with the claims to emotion and truth. Addressing
the “school” through “your letter” and the categorisation of “Donna Owen” as a
“parent” who “praised the school for sending an inspirational letter” claims a
relationship between the “parents” and the “school” as well as an access between
MailOnline and “parents” which leads to knowledge of this relationship. What
this access brings into question is whether the categorisation “an inspirational
letter” is claimed by MailOnline and then is agreed to by the “parents” through
their “praise” of “the school” according to MailOnline, or whether MailOnline,
through its knowledge of the “parents[’s] praise”, categorised the “letter” as
“inspirational”. This would challenge my previous reading that the “letter” is
“inspirational” to “Year 6 pupils” because it is addressed to them. MailOnline
claims that the “letter” is “read” by children such as “Donna Owen[’s]” and is “to
Year 6 pupils”, but their acts of reading the “letter” do not lead to “praise” in the
way that “Donna Owen[’s]” does. The claim that the “letter” is “inspirational” is
not from those who are going to “sit” “SATs” “next week”, it is from MailOnline,
either as a categorisation of the “letter” as “inspirational” or a categorisation that
the “parents” found the “letter” “inspirational”, and this is why they “praised” it.
The possibility of the type “inspirational” being claimed because of what happens
after the “parents[’s]” “read[ing]”, thus constituting their experience of the
“letter”, does trouble previous readings that the “parents” did not read the “letter”
but had access to those to whom it was addressed. Through “Donna Owen[’s]”
“say[ing]” that she “sat and read it” the MailOnline is claiming knowledge of at
least one “parent” who “read” and then “praised the school” and this one “parent”
is grouped with “parents” so the possibility of the other “parents” having “read”

39
the “letter” is present. What comes out as a consequence of the reading of this
“say[ing]” is that the children/“pupils” are constituted as readers and claimed to
experience the “letter” to the extent that they “sat and read it”, but they are not
claimed to interact with the “letter” beyond this in the way that “Donna Owen” is,
through emotion. Further they are not claimed to address the “school” once they
have “read” the “letter”.
The “pupils” being “part” of the “school” does not trouble this reading as
the only way in which the “school” is claimed to address the “pupils”, and
therefore itself beyond their reading of the “letter” is in terms of the “SATs” they
“will sit” “next week” and this address maintains the distinction between the
“pupils” as part of the “school” and “pupils” as the only part of the “school” being
made to “sit” “tests”. The “pupils” are not claimed “say” anything about the
“letter” in the way the “parents” do, instead they are, throughout, being informed
rather than prompted for response. To conclude this reading then, the
categorisation of this “letter” as “inspirational” is difficult to pinpoint in terms of
its reasoning, for example it may categorised as such because of MailOnline[’s]”
knowledge that the “parents” found it “inspirational”, but what is certain is that
MailOnline categorises it as “an inspirational letter”. Further, I conclude that the
“pupils” are not a source of this categorisation due to their role of reader rather
than those who “praised the school” and thus there is an appeal to silence around
the “pupils”.
What is problematic about this is that the claim that the “letter” is “to Year
6 pupils” means that the “letter” is, according to MailOnline exclusively “to” the
“Year 6 pupils”. This exclusivity is countered, as I have read many times, by the
access which others have to this “letter” without it being addressed to them. It is

40
worrying that even with a claim to a group of readers which the “letter” is “to”
and a subsequent idea of exclusivity, this group is not claimed to say anything or
“praise” the “letter” after they have “read” it. Their existence is claimed after
“read[ing]” the “letter” through “”sit[ting]” “SATs tests” “next week” and their
future “preparing for” and “get[ting]” “the levels” “from this test”, but they are
not claimed to have a reaction to the “letter”. Therefore, as stated before, the
categorisation that this “letter” is “inspirational” is not claimed by the
“child/pupils”, instead I read that it is the “parents” who find the “letter”
“inspirational”. “I sat and read it with them with a tear” positions the “I[’s]”
sitting and “read[ing]” as former and the “them” and “a tear” as additional, but
“with” the “I”. The sitting being before “read[ing] it with them” is why I have
claimed this to be an experience and a shared one, and “with a tear” is also an
appeal to experience because it is again additional to “read[ing]” and a claim to
emotion. I read this “with a tear” as being “with” the “I[’s]” sitting and
“read[ing]” rather than “with” the “them”, so this is a claim to a part of the
experience that is exclusive to the “I”. Through the claim that the sitting and
“read[ing]” happened “with a tear” is “because” the “it” is “so true”, as in there
are levels of how “true” it could be and it is “so”, which is in some way more than
“true”. The “it” which is “so true” is the either the “your letter” or a part of the
“letter” and so the truth belongs to “Buckton Vale”.
Similarly “Joanne Gubb”, another “parent” who MailOnline claims
“praised the school” “said: Such enormous pressure on young shoulders but this
sums it up perfectly”.4 The “letter” is claimed to be active in terms of “its [being]
4 Jenny, Awford, “‘You are smart!’ Teachers send inspirational letter to primary school pupils

41
so true” by “Donna Owen” and is also claimed to be active by “Joanne Gubb”
because of the act of “sum[ming] it up perfectly”. However, in the first instance
what the “letter” is “being” is “so true”, whereas “Joanne Gubb said” that the
“letter” does something, it “sums it up” and this a “perfect” version of
“sum[ming] it up”. The “letter” then, does “sum[ming]… up” to an “it” and so the
question of what the “it” which is “sum[med]… up” arises.
I would like to read ideas about wholeness and reduction or partition in
these claims. The “it” in “Donna Owen[’s]” claim is possibly a part of the “letter”
but I think “read it” refers to the “letter” as a whole “it”. Thus, the “it” of “its so
true” also refers all of the “letter”. In contrast “Joanne Gubb[’s]” construction of
the “letter” is as something which could, if her “wish” was granted, be replicated,
although not exactly, as “something similar”. Thus there is something about the
“letter”, a transferrable quality which can be extracted and made into “something
similar”. However through the action of “sum[ming]… up” the “this” is claimed
to be a whole which takes the “it” and reduces it to its “sum”. The “it” is
something which is “sum[med] up perfectly” and I read it as a counter or at least
opposition to there being, according to “Joanne Gubb”, “such enormous pressure
on young shoulders”, through “but”. “Gubb[’s]” saying, “I only wish [that] our
school had the insight to send something similar” claims through the past of “had”
and the “I” not being grouped with “young shoulders”, that this “I” is no longer a
“pupil” but still claims ownership of the “school”.5 The “wish” that “our school
5 Jenny, Awford, “‘You are smart!’ Teachers send inspirational letter to primary school pupils

42
had… [sent] something similar” is about a recognition of the “enormous pressure
on young shoulders” which I read as “Joanne Gubb” claiming an “insight” about
the “young” that her “school” lacked. This reading that the “something similar” is
“wish[ed]” for in a past is about the need for “something similar”, which was not
fulfilled in the past but has been satisfied by the “this” which “sums it up
perfectly”. This also claims that the “insight” the “school” did not have but which
“Joanne Gubb” has is consistent in terms of it being a necessary, but in the past,
lacking. The “this” is a reaction to the “insight” that there was and is “such
enormous pressure on young shoulders. Thus in some way the “letter”
“sum[ming] it up” is a counter to the “pressure” if not a way of completely
removing the “pressure on young shoulders”. This is where the reading of
reduction, through “sum[ming]”, is particularly relevant as the “it”, in order to be
“sum[med]… up” and reduced, must have been something bigger, possibly whole
and so I read that the “letter” “sums… up” “such enormous pressure on young
shoulders” “perfectly” and that this “letter[’s]” action is enough of a counter to the
“pressure” to be “wish[ed]” for by the “I”.
The two female “parents” claim the difference which I previously read that
the “school” itself was aware of, between itself and other “schools” who have not
sent “pupils” “an inspirational letter”. The implication of claiming this difference
between “sending” or not “sending” this “letter” is that the “parents” credit the
“school” with being different from others. I read this as relating to the claim that
the “letter” belongs to the “school”, through “your letter” and the subsequent
reading of this as authorship, and the “school” having “insight” which at least one
other “school” lacked. By claiming that “Buckton Vale” had the “insight to send”
the “letter”, “Joanne Gubb” is claiming that the “school” recognised that to send

43
the “letter” was necessary and in this I would argue that there is a claim to
“Buckton Vale[’s]” knowledge of the “pupils” of “Buckton Vale” as the group it
sent the “letter” to. I have read this knowledge throughout my examination, but I
think “Donna Owen” and “Joanne Gubb” also claim to have knowledge or
“insight” that the “school” has of the “pupils”. This is based on the claim which
“Donna Owen” makes about the “letter” as being “so true”. Thus if I am reading
that the “school” has a knowledge about the “pupils”, through her claim that this
“letter” which belongs to “Buckton Vale” is “so true”, “Donna Owen” is judging
this knowledge to be “true”. She is claiming then, to also have the knowledge in
order to be able to deem it “true”. “Joanne Gubb” says that there is “such
enormous pressure on young shoulders” and again by her judgements upon the
“letter” sent by “Buckton Vale” she claims that this knowledge of the “pressure”
is correct. Through the claim that this “school” is different from her “school” and
the subsequent wish” that “our school [had] the insight to send something similar”
“Joanne Gubb” claims that this “letter” had “insight” and supports the “school”
having sent this “letter”. The claim that “this sums it up perfectly”, “it” being
“such enormous pressure on young shoulders”, then claims that as well as being
“insight[ful]” and different from other “school[s]” the “letter” “sums… up” the
“pressure” “perfectly”, therefore “Joanne Gubb” claims to have the same
knowledge as the “letter” but the “letter” “sums it up”.
“Donna Owen” claims to have knowledge of the “pupils” of “Buckton
Vale” by her categorisation of the “letter” as “so true”, but this categorisation does
not lead to a claim to knowledge of her own children, it is only “said” that “I sat
and read it with them”. This reintroduces questions of what it means to be
addressed and what it means to “read” as the “11 year – old twins” are “read[ers]”

44
of the “letter” but they are not “Year 6 pupils” of “Buckton Vale”. By not being
claimed to be in this group, the knowledge that the “we” claims to have about the
“Year 6 pupils” is not knowledge of these “twins”, but “Donna Owen” has
knowledge of the “Year 6 pupils”. In this case then, the “twins” are only claimed
to be part of the experience of “read[ing]” the “letter” but are not addressed or
known by the “school” which supports my reading that the reaction to the “letter”,
“with a tear because it’s so true” does not come from the “twins”. It is possible,
according to the MailOnline[’s] claim to “Donna Owen[’s]” saying, to “read” that
which is not addressed to you, but to which you have access through “shar[ing]”,
and to “read” without any additions, such as emotion.
“Joanne Gubb” claims that the “pupils” of “Buckton Vale” have this
“pressure on [their] young shoulders” which is “sum[med]… up perfectly”. I read
that the “wish” that “our school had the insight to send something similar”,
because of the connection between “insight” and knowledge of the “enormous
pressure on young shoulders”, means that the “I” and the “our” were also “young
shoulders” in this past constructed by “had. Further, “I have just shared this to my
son and his friends. What a fantastic, thoughtful letter to send to the children”
claims a similar “shar[ing]” “to” rather than address to “my son and his friends”
and “what a fantastic thoughtful letter” being sent “to the children” aligns itself
with MailOnline[’s]” categorisation of this as “parents [having] praised a primary
school for sending an inspirational letter to Year 6 pupils” despite the claims
being “fantastic, thoughtful” and “children” rather than “Year 6 pupils”. The
alignment I am reading is through “fantastic, thoughtful” and “inspirational” as
positive words and that the “letter” was sent “to” a group. The “letter” is not
claimed to have been sent “to” “my son and his friends” and I cannot necessarily

45
read that “my son and his friends” are “children”. They are definitely, because the
“letter” was “shared… to” them rather than sent, not within the group “Year 6
pupils”. I also cannot read that “my son and his friends” are part of the group who
have “such pressure on [their] young shoulders”. In a similar way to “Donna
Owen[’s]” “twins”, “my son and his friends” are only claimed to have had the
“letter” “shared… to” them. This is not claiming a reading but a “shar[ing]”, thus
again this “parent” is not claiming knowledge of “my son and his friends” because
they are not grouped as “young shoulders” and thus the “letter[’s]” “sum[ming]”
this “pressure” “up perfectly” is not about them. Further, “my son and his friends”
are not claimed to be addressed by the “letter”, but it is “shared… to” them”
which I read as a non-independent access to the “letter” and not a claim to
“read[ing]” or anything beyond it having been “shared… to” them. The
implication of these readings is that agreement with the “letter” and therefore
claims to knowledge of the “Year 6 pupils” do not necessarily mean that there is,
or lead to, knowledge of “my son and his friends” or “11 year – old twins”. There
is however a claim that all “young shoulders” have “such enormous pressure on”
them and so being categorised as having “young shoulders” necessarily leads to
being “sum[med]… up perfectly and “Joanne Gubb” claiming knowledge of what
constitutes a “perfect” or “[im]perfect” “sum[ming]… up” of this “pressure”.
The location of the “such enormous pressure” is “on [the] young
shoulders” which means that this “such enormous pressure” is not elsewhere. I
read “shoulders” as part of a body and so the “pressure” is “on” this part of a body
which has “young shoulders”. The “enormous pressure” which is “on young
shoulders” is also claimed to be within the “letter” but in a reduced form because
the “letter” “sums it up perfectly”. When the “pressure” is “sum[med] up” it is not

46
“on” a part of the body, the “pressure” becomes an “it” which is being acted upon
by the “this”. My reading of the present, is being acted upon, is because the “this”
“sums” rather than has “sum[med] it up perfectly”, for example. However, the
“enormous pressure” is also claimed to be present and continual which I read as a
possible continued existence of the “enormous pressure on” the “young
shoulders” which are outside of the “letter”, whilst at the same time the “letter” is
“sum[ming]” the “pressure” “up”.
Knowledge without supplementation
- but is the “we” claiming to support “test[ing]” and knowledge which
is gained by this method?
They do not know that some of you speak two
languages or that you love to sing or draw.
They have not seen your natural talent for
dancing or playing a musical instrument.
They do not know that your friends can
count on you to be there for them; that your
laughter can brighten the darkest day or that
your face turns red when you feel shy. They
do not know that you participate in sports,
wonder about the future, or sometimes help
your little brother or sister after school. They
do not know that you are kind trustworthy and
thoughtful and that every day you try to be your
very best.
The group “Year 6 pupils” which is also the “you” and has been
constituted as a group without distinction between them, for example the “you”
“sit[ting] your SATs tests” and the ownership of the “tests” is by the group as a
whole and “there is something very important” that all of the “you” must know”,
is, at points within this section, claimed to be separated into a “some” of this
“you”. In contrast the “we” which does know and the “they” which does not, are
both always unified groups.

47
“They do not know that some of you speak two languages” claims that not
all of the “you” “speak two languages” but it may be that all of the “you” “speak”
one “language”. In contrast, that this “letter” is written and addressed to the
“pupils” which are being informed of what “will” be sat “next week” and
“something very important [that] you must know” means that an ability to read is
claimed by the “we”. It claims a reading of words but it may also be a reading of
“language”. Therefore it may be possible to argue for a connection between the
“language” which the “you” may “speak” and the “language”, which I am
recognising as English, that the “you” reads. However, the word “reading” when
claimed within the “letter” is not something which the “you” do, it is something
which they will be “sit[ting] your SATs tests for”. The “speak[ing] two
languages” is not dependent on anything else, or claimed as something which is
“test[ed]”, for example there is not a “SATs test for” “speak[ing] two languages”,
rather “some of you speak two languages” and those which are not the “some of
you” do not “speak two languages”. The lack of the “speak[ing] [of] two
languages” is not a lack in ability, as in the “some” can as those not grouped as
“some” cannot, it is a “speak[ing] of two languages” and a not “speak[ing] two
languages”. The claim to it being “two languages” which are spoken by the “some
of you” does direct my reading to a claim that all of the “you” “speak…
language” or one “language”. If this reading is followed then it may be that the
“they” does know about the “you” “speak[ing] [a] language” but “they do not
know that some of you speak two languages”. I read “speak two languages” as a
claim to the “speak[ing]” being something that is constant and ongoing rather than
in the past or being constructed as happening once. “Two languages” claims
“two” things which are in some way the same in order for them to both be

48
categorised as “language” and then grouped as “two languages”, but also, in order
for there to be a distinction which is claimed by “two”, they must be different.
I would like to follow the underlining reading which has been present
throughout this discussion and argue that the “we” perspective claims knowledge
of the “you”, or here, “some of [the] you” in opposition to “the people/they” who
the “we” claims do not have this knowledge. This opposition is about an
alignment of the “we” with the “you” because of the “we[’s]” “way” of
“know[ing] each of you”. The “we[’s]” “way” is not “the way” which “the
people” know “each of you”. I read that “the people[’s]” “way” of knowing the
“pupils” is claimed by the “we” to be through “assess[ment]” and this is also
claimed to be incomplete. Whereas the “we[’s]” and the “families[’s]” “ways” do
not involve “tests”, instead they have knowledge without supplementation. I
follow this line of argument because I read that the knowledge the “we” has that
“some of you speak two languages” is an agreement between the “some of you”
which “speak [the] two languages” and the “we” which has knowledge of this
“speak[ing] of two languages”. This leads back to the readings of performance,
which I read speech to be, and knowledge of a product without supplementation.
The “we”[’s]” knowledge that “some of you speak two languages” claims speech
as the performance of “two languages” which pre-exist as there is not a claim to
the “some of you” having created these “languages”. This knowledge is not
gained through, for example the performance of the speech occurring in a “test”
and this performance then being “allocat[ed]” “marks” “according to a basic
framework”, to borrow David Green’s formulation. However, “speak[ing] two
languages” is not something which the “some of you” are in the way which
“smart” was and so “speak[ing] two languages” is something other to the “you”

49
which the “you” does. Therefore this speech is an example of a performance
which is distinct from the “you” but which the “we” claims to know without
supplementation. I read this as a claim a pure performance and resulting product
which is in opposition to diversions through supplementary “framework[s]”.
The next part of this sentence, “…or that you love to sing or draw” is still
about what the “they do[es] not know”, and so “or” is an addition, another thing
which is not known by this group. I read a return to “you” as a claim to the whole
group of “Year 6 pupils” rather than “some” of this group, so only “some of you
speak two languages” but all of the “you” “love to sing or draw”. Similarly the
“or” of “that [the] you love to sing or draw” is about an addition. This is because,
rather than claiming that the “they” either “do not know” about the “you[’s]
lov[ing] to sing” or the “you[’s] lov[ing] to… draw”, this sentence is a kind of list
of what the “they do not know”. So the “they do not know that some of you speak
two languages” and “they do not know that you love to sing” and “they do not
know that you love to draw”. The “we” is claiming knowledge of the “you
lov[ing] to” do both of these. The opposition between the “we” and the “they”
claims that “they” “do not know each of you the way that we do”. Thus their lack
of knowledge is because of a failure to “know” the “each of you” in the “way” the
“we” do. There is space for a reading that this failure is also a deviation; the
“they” may “know” the “each of you” in a different “way” and the “we” does not
have knowledge of this “way”. In a similar way to how “the SATs test does not
assess all of what makes each of you special and unique”, but therefore
“assess[es] some of” this “mak[ing]”, the “they not know[ing]” in the “we[’s]”
way but possibly in other ways claims that knowledge about the “Year 6 pupils” is
always in complete. The “SATs test” has a partial lacking in its “assess[ment]”

50
and the “we” claims to “know each of you” in its “way”, but because the “they”
may know in a different “way” which the “we” does not have knowledge of, the
“we[’s]” knowledge of the “pupils” is also incomplete.
However, I would like to state that what a “complete” knowledge of this
group, or even parts of this group could be I do not know and that stating that I
did know this would inevitably be connected to asserting a view on whether
knowledge about “pupils” which is gained through examinations or knowledge
which is claimed to be known without examinations, is more effective than the
other. There is no basis for either view in my reading of the “letter” and instead I
have an interest in reading that there is knowledge by both of these methods
within the “letter”, which are at once claimed to be in opposition, and also
compatible. “The levels you will get from this test will tell you something” claims
that the “we” knows that this “tell[ing]” will be gotten by the “you”, will happen
and will be a “tell[ing]” of “something”. Despite this knowledge, as well as other
claims to knowledge about the “you” which are unrelated to “test[ing]” or its
“levels”, the “we” does not “tell” the “pupils” the “something” which “the
levels… will tell” them. I read this as a claim to there being a compatibility
between knowledge of the “you” without “tests” and knowledge which can be
gained from “tests/levels”.
The occurrence of the “you” “remember[ing] that there is no way to ‘test’
all of the amazing and awesome things that make you, YOU” is a happening
dependent on and during the “you… preparing for the test”, and also contained in
this “while” being “in the midst of it all”. The “we[’s]” claim of a “remember[ing]
that there is no way to ‘test’” “while you are preparing for the test” claims “the
test” can still be “prepar[ed] for” “whil[st]” “remember[ing]” that this “test”, as

finished-dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Featured

Featured (20)

finished-dissertation