To expect good grammar from a year three teacher?

[MrsFC]

I live in zone four of East London, and while I am originally not from that area and have a different accent, DC, DP, CM, exDH and all DC's friends do, and have a fairly pronounced East London accent.

Now: I have NOTHING against an accent from anywhere in the country, I really don't. But I DO have issues with the bad grammar that can sometimes come with it, for example:

'we done this at school today Mummy'
'Where is the book we was reading Mummy'
'I didn't eat nuffink for lunch today'

I have spent the past five years patiently correcting DC and explaining basic correct grammar to him. I also explain that while lots of the grown ups he knows speak incorrectly, he must not correct them, but must listen to how his teacher and I speak. I am lucky in that he is a competent and avid reader and so I have been encouraging him to read Harry Potter books to try and instill it in him further (top tip - if you want your son to read Harry Potter, buy the Lego DS Game - it worked for me!)

Anyway - I digress. I went to pick up DS from school yesterday and they came out of a different gate.When we found them his new teacher said to me:

'I'm sorry you wasn't told'

I was taken aback and mentioned it to another Mum friend of mine with a child in the same year(I could only mention it to this one friend as the other Mums probably wouldn't have noticed TBH). She smiled and said I was being a bit snobby.

What do you think? And what would you do, if anything?

YANBU

and I don't think it's an accent thing. My maternal family all have strong London accents, but still speak with correct grammar.

But I wouldn't get too worked up about it - I think children naturally tune into their parents' accents, as those are the ones they hear consistently throughout their lives.

You can teach as an unqualified teacher. It means they don't have a teaching qualification. And I have a number of excellent unqualified teachers among my colleagues. They all have qualifications relevant to the subject they teach of course. And a wealth of experience.

backwardpossom Due to the 'Workforce Remodelling' of BLiar's government, our 'teaching staff' vary from totally unqualified former LSAs through 'haven't got a clue' Graduate Teacher Programmers who have failed in industry and are career changing, to overseas trained teachers (who normally have high standards, excellent grammar & high expectations of the students) - none of these need to have any form of UK teaching qualification; there is even the classification UQT = general, unqualified teacher, through to experienced staff who are obviously fully qualified, but often disillusioned by the undermining of their subjects (especially Humanities and ICT) by the idea that 'anybody can blag that subject'. So in answer to your question, be afraid, very afraid, that your DCs will be taught by a completely unqualified and often inappropriate person ... The NUT opposed this but due to the existence of the NASUWT & ATL the Govt achieved their aim by divide and conquer :(

When you talk about "totally unqualified former LSAs", do you mean cover supervisors?

EE was definitely the standard offer for BEd and BA(QTS) when i applied too (six years prior to herethere - am wondering what the current offers are, though... bet they aren't much different.)

...but can i just say, i love reading threads where habbs and leq debate grammar and linguistics! i have a first class degree in english and still can't understand a bleeding word of it.

but i do remember bodmas keenly. apparently they taught 'math's' well in the early eighties, even if grammar standards suffered as a result. although, here, it's 'math'.

If I have to correct Charles once more to say "bottle" and "little" rather than "bockle" and "lickle" I shall just scream. I just know that he'll say "skelington" and I'll have to correct that too!

It really annoys me that grown women at nursery still do not seem to understand that how they pronounce words is just wrong! Especially when they are in a profession where they are encouraging children to learn.

My pet hate is were and was and me and my being used incorrectly. It would drive me mad if I were in your shoes, especially as there is so little that you can do about it.

One for the linguists- whenever the subject of the importance of correct grammar/ spelling comes up on these forums, the argument is always presented that language has always evolved so "could of" might become totally acceptable if enough people adopt it.

However, I would argue that a lot of this "evolution" actually represented shifts towards greater standardisation across regions to create a more universal English language as literacy levels and the printed word became more widely available.

Was just thinking about this the other night whilst watching the Tudors- just brought it home how few people could read, and that many people who could read/write English were not English native speakers so it's hardly surprising that you had a fair bit of variation. Now that literacy is (allegedly) universal and that English has become the International language (as far as there is one)the need for standardisation has increased.

Am I right, or talking out of my ass?

TheFallenMadonna - only too true, I'm afraid :(

It's an interesting point, Bagged - my initial reaction is to say "yes, in part". Even using the term "English" as a general term is misleading, or even "Standard English" - there are many standard Englishes in the English speaking world, in Scotland, Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia, etc and lots of other places where English is an official language there will be a standard.

Now, your proposition, as I see it, is that language will evolve to create a Global Standard English. Possibly, but I doubt it. The variations between the different standards are, on the whole, not sufficient to cause substantial communicative problems between speakers of different standards - there may be some small vocabulary confusions (I recall, with some embarrassment, a Jasper Carrott sketch about Durex, and oh, the fun we had in scholl when we discovered what Americans meant by "rubber"), some minor grammatical variants, but nothing that would hinder discussion/business, etc to any detrimental extent - cultural differences would play a larger role, I suspect, such as politeness norms.

There is probably, to my mind, a kind of equilibrium between the standards so that there's no communicative necessity for evolution towards a global standard, but with global communication on the internet I guess it's possible for a sort of Internet Standard English to arise... I'm mulling this over, tbh - my gut says it's not that likely, but I just don't know. Would love to hear David Crystal/Jean Aitchison's take on this.

Variation in the Tudor period is actually much more my area - well, a bit before that, but you get my drift.

And thanks, Nick! Though I imagine many other people are saying "oh just Shut Up, linguistics bore". To me, obv. Don't think anyone would dare diss Leq in such a fashion.

I disagree that only being able to speak to in a regional accent holds you back. It hasn't held me back, and many staff in the academic department I work in only speak with regional accents.

The BODMAS rule is taught in year 7 in schools.

Could someone explain to me how using incorrect grammar is a dialect? I thought using dialect involved regional words such as 'hinny' or 'nowt' which I would have no problem with a teacher using. Those words are not incorrect forms of another word; they are simply regional dialect.

Phrases such as 'I done it' are clearly an incorrect form of English. So is that really dialect or is it simply wrong? Are there other English dialects other than the SE one, where the main feature of the dialect is that the grammar is incorrect?

A usage is only "incorrect" if it's not the usage of the particular dialect/standard being spoken. In the middle ages, there were and enormous variety of dialects, which were verging on mutual incomprensibility. These evolved their own grammatical forms. Some merged to gradually evolve the Standard Englishes we have today. The other dialects retained their original grammatical forms (going through their own evolutions, naturally), but as the standards became more widespread people began to think that there were inherent fixed rules.

Now. That's true in a historical linguistics sense - I've never been a particular student of modern dialects, so I couldn't say if "I done it" was a dialect form - you'd have to look at the history of that phrase in the dialect, and see if it had been in consistent use.

Grammatical variants are fewer than lexical ones, certainly, but they do exist. Consider "my hair needs cut". Does that look "wrong" to you?

Did anyone hear Simon Heffer on the Today programme this morning talking about teaching grammar in schools (apoogies if this has been mentioned already, not read the whole thread).

One of his primary reasons for wanting more teaching of grammar was that 'you are judged by how you talk'.

Now, you are, obviously, and in a writing profession such as his that is of paramount importance. But for the majority of people who are using language verbally (face to face with the person they are speaking to) then they are also being judged as much, if not more so, on their appearance, body language and accent. But teaching dress sense, deportment and elocution probably wouldn't get much space on the curriculum, I don't think!

I agree that grammar should be taught, I just thought that was a weak argument to use.

What would Simon Heffer do he had no-one left to judge? He'd wither away, surely?

"if he" grr.

I'm a school governor and have been involved for some years in considering NQTs for vacancies. Don't get me wrong, we have appointed some fantastic ones, but on the other hand I find it incomprehensible that after 4 years at university, some teachers emerge with an appalling standard of communication, both written and verbal. I think these things should be picked up and addressed through the degree course and teaching practices. I was amazed to be told by a LEA HR adviser that we could not discard applications with poor spelling, grammar and presentation, as these things aren't on the job description .

I despair, I really do. OP YANBU. Nothing to do with snobbery.

The most reasonable post I have read in a long time. Teachers should be able to construct grammatically correct sentences both orally and in writing. They should also be able to spell a wide range of vocabulary correctly and know their x axis from their y axis. The fact that far too many are not capable of the aforementioned perhaps explains why at least one in five children do not achieve level four by the end of year six. Some failure may be the result of lack of support at home but far too much of it is due to ill educated teaching staff and low expectations in primary schools. Thankfully mine are now at secondary school but it is worth mentioning that ds who at 7 had a reading age of 13 and was sent to prep after a disastrous year 4 had a lot of catching up to do with respect to grammar and the correct construction of language when he got there. Mother in law taught for 40 years and bleats that it falls into place later and shouldn't be taught at the expense of imagination. Surely if you teach it correctly to begin with there is nothing ingrained and which has to be put right later. An outstanding primary school was actually just about satisfactory. One dreads to think about the standards in the schools that are judged satisfactory.

I was amazed to be told by a LEA HR adviser that we could not discard applications with poor spelling, grammar and presentation, as these things aren't on the job description .

To nick a daily mail hyperbole -It's the world gone mad!

"I was amazed to be told by a LEA HR adviser that we could not discard applications with poor spelling, grammar and presentation, as these things aren't on the job description"

Which is total nonsense, of course. The first move in the paper sift for any job I've been involved in recruiting for is to discard the people who can't spell and can't write: it happens before it even gets to me. If the public sector wishes to operate in a world where you neither ask for nor expect decent communication skills, that's its problem, not one of the law. The requirements for becoming a school teacher include a reasonable GCSE pass in English and Maths, so it's reasonable to discard all those that don't appear to have those skills.

The reasonable adaptation argument simply doesn't fly, even if people want to try it on with dyslexia and the DDA (which, of course, they would need to declare on their initial application, not in a subsequent dispute). It would be entirely reasonable to argue that the ability to form coherent written English is an inherent part of the job, just as being able to run and kick a ball is an inherent part of being a footballer.

yes, I own a bookshop, and when applications come to me, I discard them if the grammar and spelling is bad.
most people I know who are in positions where they employ people say the same.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only too true". My assertion that I work with some excellent, indeed "outstanding" unqualified teachers (true indeed but not )? Or my question about cover supervisors? When used appropriately (covering, rather than teaching, short term absences), they are IME far superior to most supply teachers. Again, not .

RE: dialect

Tired today and don't have time or clarity of thought to write this in my own words, so going to steal from a Wiki:

"The term dialect (from the Greek Language word dialektos, Διάλεκτος) is used in two distinct ways, even by linguists. One usage refers to a variety of a language that is characteristic of a particular group of the language's speakers.[1] The term is applied most often to regional speech patterns, but a dialect may also be defined by other factors, such as social class.[2] A dialect that is associated with a particular social class can be termed a sociolect; a regional dialect may be termed a regiolect or topolect. The other usage refers to a language socially subordinate to a regional or national standard language, often historically cognate to the standard, but not a variety of it or in any other sense derived from it."

Correctness is an interesting concept. The double negative, for example, is common in a number of urban dialects e.g. 'I ain't seen nuffink', 'don't nobody know the trouble I've seen', and AFAIK was once an acceptable grammatical form in standard English.

I am all for bidialectism - we talk to our students about using slang vs formal language regularly. I also believe teachers should be strong written and verbal communicators: however, I don't think that the use of dialectal forms such as "I wasn't" reflects on a person's linguistic ability or intelligence. As someone who works with students with specific linguistic disabilities, however, sociolects do not concern me in the slightest.

Delete that "however" in the final sentence! I said I was tired..

As a senior teacher who interviews staff the first applications to be rejected are those with poor spelling or grammar. We would also never employ someone with low A Level results and would rarely employ someone who did not have a first or a 2:1.

Some universities may have low admission criteria, but that does not mean that such student teachers will get a job.

yy to double negative, arses - Chaucer uses them a lot for emphasis. And it does work as an emphatic marker - "I ain't seen nuffink" is far less neutral and emphatic than "I haven't seen anything".

And Do Not get me started on the split infinitive. Or I'll start quoting hardcore linguistics (that someone else wrote, natch).