AIBU in being shocked that pupils aren't marked down in exams

[Hammy02]

for having poor spelling and grammar? Apparently the coalition are reintroducing marking down exam papers by 10% if spelling & grammar is not up to scratch. How on earth did the previous government get away with this? No wonder employers are having trouble when people can't write a decent application for a job?

Most exam boards have positive marking systems for spelling and grammar e.g. marks awarded for good spelling and grammer rather than taken away for mistakes. Remember that exams are very stressful environments for students and surely in most cases (except from English Language exams) the majority of marks should be awarded for knowledge and understanding rather than spelling and grammar.

It doesn't really surprise me as I know lots of young people with awful spelling/grammar and they have achieved better GCSE results than I did. I took my GCSE's in 1989 and we were marked down then. I wonder when it changed?

I know that exams are stressful but being able to spell correctly should be second nature. Having a great understanding of History or Geography is all very well but if you can't construct a sentence, you will struggle in the real world of work.

Children aren't actively taught spelling and grammar any more, so testing it isn't fair. If they're going to reintroduce penalties for poor spelling and grammar, they'll have to reintroduce the old-fashioned rote teaching of these things. I would be hugely hugely in favour of this BTW (I'm a primary teacher).

Are they not spelling and grammar? Ds1 (yr 2 state primary) has had spelling tests since yr1. I think they cover grammar too (not my strong point) as his homework exercises talk of nouns and pronouns etc.

Notpart it changed when Labour fucked up the education system here by forcing teachers to teach lessons that are "innovative" and "child-centred" in order to get good Ofsted reports. That meant that straightforward teaching of skills such as grammar and spelling (which is boring and repetitive) had to be thrown out.

Just yesterday I heard a report on the radio that Ofsted were complaining that lessons were "dull and uninspiring." WTF? Uninspiring? Teaching fractions is hardly going to be inspiring is it? And for a child to really understand such a hard topic it's necessary to go over and over and over it which can be dull. But at least then the child comes out with a real, active understanding of the topic.

But no, the current system (which seems to be changing under the Tories) would rather the children came out with armloads of "inspiring" projects and no actual knowledge.

It was snuck in under the radar during the last Government. It's laughable that Labour, who came to power on their slogan of "Education, education, education" have left a generation of children unable to read and write, and why, despite their protestations that standards haven't slipped, that we have been falling down the international education league tables for the past 10 years.

As an employer, I am shocked by the deterioration in the standard of English that I see from applicants - it's definitely about time that it was taught again, and students were penalised for it.

So are you saying that they touch on it but don't go into enough detail for the child to learn it properly?

my primary school dc is definitely being taught grammar. Are you sure it isn't being taught these days in all schools?

The trouble is spelling and grammar are not an indication of knowledge of intelligence. WriterofDreams you are wrong dcs have learnt far more about grammar and spelling now, than when I was at school in the 70s.
My DS has dyslexic problems, he can't spell despite a lot of extra help, but is considered gifted in his analytical skills. If he were to concentrate on his spelling he cannot put his thoughts on paper. He can,t do both.

Sorry that doesn't make an awful lot of sense, but I am typing on a mini keyboard.

I thought it made sense.

I'm shocked at this. How can people be expected to apply for jobs, express themselves clearly at work etc if they can't articulate their thoughts coherently?! Fair enough not to mark down for it at 11 or 14, but at 16, lots of these students could be out applying for jobs the next day.

I'm also shocked at how many (from the small sample who've expressed an opinion so far) Mumsnetters seem to think this is okay, when we are generally so scathing of people who use text speak and don't articulate clearly on here!

I agree with bruffin. There is loads of teaching of grammar now, far more than I learnt at school in the eighties ( Thatcher govt as you think that is relevant!)

Did your son's school get a good Ofsted report recently? If they did then that means they've been left alone to do their own thing, which means that they can go back to old-fashioned spelling and grammar teaching which will serve your DS so well in the future. It's great that he's getting that. If Ofsted came along and saw grammar or spelling focused lessons as part of their inspection they would complain that this is dull and would mark the school down. The school probably knows how to trot out Ofsted-friendly lessons when needed (full of computer graphics but very low on content) in order to get them off their back so they can do real teaching.

BTW my job at the moment is to teach small groups of year 6s who are stuck in English and Maths in order to improve their SATs results. When the Headteacher observed a lesson of mine he used the Ofsted criteria which judged my teaching to be satisfactory and he told me to add in all these song and dance features to bring my rating up to good. I said no and I pointed to the fact that the "stuck" children I teach have, in less than three months, almost all moved up at least two sublevels having made no progress for at least a year previous to that. These children need direct, old fashioned teaching as the "interactive" (disorganised and chaotic) teaching they've experienced thus far has totally passed them by. I don't think he was happy but he later came back and said he won't be observing me again, which I took to be tacit agreement with my methods despite the fact that Ofsted doesn't allow him to hold this view.

Prob been said but they don't mark down so that life get a chance to demonstrate their skills and what they know even if they can't spell. Right or wrong.

"A White Paper being published today will outline how schools will be targeted for failing to ensure at least 35 per cent of teenagers gain five A* to C grades including English and maths".
I can't believe the target is just 35%! What the hell is it now? Where did the figures that Labour have been producing come from that led us to believe standards were improving. In reality, they must be appalling.

I had no idea spelling and grammar was no longer taught. I'm surprised. Do independent schools have this approach as well?

By the way writer of dreams, I can teach fractions in a non boring way because I am a good teacher. Not every lesson is the best ever but with effort and imagination it is possible to do better than 'page 58 today' which we had when I was at school. It is only dull if the same method is used again and again. Don't judge me by your biased yardstick!

I was also at school in the 80's and can't spell very well (looks can be deceptive - I use the trusty browser spell checker which underlines my spelling errors and gives me the correct suggestions a LOT) and I have very VERY little proper understanding of grammar.

To be honest I'm more concerned about the attitude they seem to be taking towards vocational qualifications in schools......

Bruffin your son's case is different as he has a specific learning disability. What I'm talking about are children who can write and spell reasonably well but who have never learned the more difficult spelling words or who look blankly at you when you say the word "noun." If the school isn't being molested by Ofsted then chances are it will teach these skills properly, and I am heartened to hear posters saying their children are getting explicit teaching of these skills. But if Ofsted is sniffing about then teachers have to start using videos and playscripts and other "inspiring" media which of course leaves no time for simple paper-based skills work which can't be hidden in "fun" stuff but which needs to be done repetitively.

BTW the kids I'm teaching this year, who due to Ofsted have missed out on grammar teaching, are absolutely loving my grammar lessons. I think they enjoy finally feeling in control of the English language having felt that it was a bit of a mystery before. They actually ask me for grammar exercises!

OP, go into a school that doesn't get 35% 5 A*-C. See the children who speak little english. The ones from horrendous backgrounds existing in the most appalling homes, the children with SN who are struggling to count to 20 at age 14. Then you will understand why they get the results they do.
They don't mean 35% of all students in all schools just some of them!

Also with Bruffin on this. Obviously if you are testing a language, then spelling and grammar are major components of the exam. However, as long as you can make yourself understood in other subjects, spelling should not be an issue.

That said, I feel there is not enough attention paid to teaching of spelling and grammar in literacy. If it does not become automatic early in a child's education, it is next to impossible to teach what is an irregular language, with many dialects, often misspoken by the child's family and friends, to an older student.

I also feel that learning the logic of grammar can help a person to think logically in general. We don't spend nearly enough time teaching children how to think.