To think spelling and grammar can't be ignored

[busyhouseof8]

DS2 is in Yr6. He came home from school with homework for a 30 minute piece of writing to describe a friend.

I gave the usual talk about being careful with your spelling and punctuation only for him to say, "it's OK, Mrs P says she doesn't mind about any of that so long as she can work out what we're trying to say".

AIBU to think that actually learning spelling and punctuation is reasonably important? DH is currently sifting through graduates to employ, many of whom have excellent degrees but can't seem to spell for toffee or string a literate sentence together. His firm runs remedial English classes just so they can write a letter to a client that makes sense and will be paid for!

Parents' evening this week - should I question her methods?

Apologies for all spelling and grammar errors in this post..............

An honest question: why is there so much emphasis on creative writing in English? As others have pointed out, language lessons in most European countries focus on orthograpy and formal grammar with little time spent on creative writing, at least in the early years. So why is it considered so important here?

EllaDee - my DP is French and always speaks French with all three of his children, who all speak French among themselves. I always speak English to DD and am the only family member to do so; but of course she spends a great deal more one-on-one time with me than with anyone else!

I don't know, but good question.

I'm never sure about the idea that doing creative writing helps you to read literature sensitively - it's often been suggested, I just can't tell if it is true! I suppose the other thing is, whether you do 'creative' writing or whether you learn to write a business letter (no joke, DH's brothers had this one absolutely hammered into them early on as part of schoolwork), you're still learning some of the same skills: choosing your own words (from within a framework of varying rigidity), working out how to concentrate on finding the next word while not mis-spelling the one you're writing, working up a good speed , etc. etc. Some people would find it easier to learn writing a story. I don't think it does work for everyone, though. There will always be at least one child sitting mournfully wishing to god he or she wasn't being asked to make something up again.

Cross-post. That sounds fun!

It must be really exciting to see how she is learning.

Russian declensions are second nature to any native speaker just through hearing them every day. Only foreigners have to make a big drama of rote learning them. The reading and spelling is overwhelmingly phonetic - although I agree the teachers are generally very fussy about accuracy.

It is very interesting observing my own private little experiment in bilingualism!

It is critical to ensure that exposure to each language is of similar quantity but also quality. I don't think DD learns nearly as much French chatting with her school friends as she does English watching BBC period drama, for example.

Elladee, using the disability card is totally irrelevant - we know whether applicants are dyslexic, so of course in their case allowances are made.
In any case spell-check facility or a grammar-check programmes are not sufficient: it would not help you with stationery/stationary, for instance. You still need to know what you are doing.

At the end of the day someone with poor presentation and basic literacy/numeracy skills is less likely to get offered a job than a candidate who has got "the full package" (and there are some amazingly well-rounded young people out there).

I am not sure why we should lower expectations on young people because spelling and grammar are perceived to be "boring" (as opposed to creative stuff) or because some people cannot do something. Why not supporting those who struggle more?

Elladee isn't suggesting that spelling is unimportant, merely that it is not the same as having logical, creative or persuasive ideas - its rules (in English) don't have a great deal of logic, unless you study their history in depth. You learn all the exceptions using arbitary memorisation tricks.

Presumably it's thought that if a child feels the power of their ideas is recognised, that will motivate them to learn to spell better. It's the same as one of us giving a powerful presentation dressed like a tramp then realising that it would have had a better effect if we'd dressed decently.

I wasn't suggesting 'using the disability card' (what a nasty way to phrase it). I was merely making the point that there are laws in place to stop discrimination.

I am making two basic points: one (which lingle has said better), is that SPAG are not a very efficient predictor of how good someone is at other skills. The second is more idealistic: why does it matter that there we distinguish 'stationary' and 'stationery'?

At the level this child is at (Year 6), this exercise must be only one among much other teaching. I doubt suspending penalties for poor SPAG will do him any harm, and it may do some children a lot of good.

I don't think it is 'having lower expectations' to suggest people who are not good at SPAG should not be discouraged from writing and English as a subject, either.

The number of times people told me while I was growing up that I would be less likely to succeed given poor spelling skills is astonishing - and AFAIK they were totally wrong. I have done precisely the sorts of things for which I was told SPAG would be crucial, and lo and behold - nobody now cares in the slightest.

It would be very sad to see other children discouraged.

I simply don't see how you can write rubbish like 'In any case spell-check facility or a grammar-check programmes are not sufficient' and expect me to take seriously this idea that spelling and grammar are crucial in your line of work. Surely, given the above example, you need to self-correct on occasion, so what is wrong with employing someone else who also needs to self-correct?

minervaitalica , your phrase 'using the disability card' is totally offensive .

They do need grammar, spelling and punctuation, BUT they also need to be able to express themselves, and don't you think it might me a bad thing to be a child who has difficulty with spelling etc maybe because of dyslexia or something, yet though they can use spoken language very expressively, never get any credit for it? If that were the case, don't you think they might stop trying to write stuff? Grammar, spelling etc and expression are different skills, even though they are linked. You need to teach both, but there are times when it's good to separate them, and then you can really find out what talents each child has and teach them accordingly.

Depends what the purpose of the homework was.

If it was creative writing and the teachers was wanting to see the ideas that the child would produce, I would just about excuse the lack of concern for spelling and punctuation in a first draft It might also then help the teacher see where the children have problems and therefore which areas of grammar she should be concentrating on in future.

Our ds (P7, which = Y6) has language homework and separate topic homework. In his language homework, he is expected to watching his spelling and punctuation and produce more "interesting" sentences using connectives and more advanced punctuation (can't remember the rest of the guidelines that are pasted on the inside of his jotter). She corrects all errors (and if by any chance, she were to miss one, dh or I would point it out )

For his topic homework, she is more interested in his research skills and how he organises and presents his work. I've noticed that for this, she doesn't correct every grammar mistake - she just marks the overall piece of work.

I think that that shows a good balance of continuing to reinforce the grammar rules but also allowing kids to express themselves.

Dh and I are both sticklers for grammar (my own bugbear is "it's" being used instead of "its") so we always watch carefully for grammatical errors. (I have even - last year - corrected a piece of homework that was marked incorrectly and sent a note in to that effect - fortunately I have a good relationship with the school )

lol prettybird,

I have also alerted our headmistress to a rogue apostrophe that found its way on to our school website. Just as I would tell a friend if she had a bit of food stuck between her teeth.

I apologise if the language used was unfortunate - however I have a (physical) disability myself so I am very touchy when disability is brought in the discussion to score a point when in fact it's really not relevant; of course allowances are made for "us" and I am grateful. But I really cannot see how the fact that there are some disabled people who need allowances means that others should get away with not pursuing all-around excellence just because it's hard or boring.

Let's just stop maths teaching to the ones who are struggling too - use a calculator. And music for those who are tone deaf: no need for these people to do music? Just get I tunes. "Only learn what you find easy or natural - you can always away with it" is a message that no teacher should ever give out.

minervaitalica, good for you for seeing how that came across wrong and apologising. we don't want this thread getting misunderstood.

EllaDee -

I remembered that there used to be "Simplified Spelling Society". Seems like it is still around but has changed its name - lost its nerve perhaps. See here: www.spellingsociety.org/. You should sign up!

Going back to your more idealistic question: why does it matter that we distinguish 'stationary' and 'stationery'? I don't think it does, because it takes an enormous effort to misconstrue "the vehicle was stationery at the time of the accident" or "I've run out of stationary". I think it's completely unimportant save for the fact that other people have been taught to spot the mistake and not to respect those who make it.

It would be nice to focus on situations where communication is more likely to be lost or confused and just be fussy about those situations. My favourite example here is the word "disinterested". "Disinterested", as in "disinterested observer" ie "not having a vested interest" is a hugely useful word (especially in business and law when talking about any kind of negotiation position). I really struggle when people use the word "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" because it means that we are losing a word for "not having a vested interest" and that's a word that we still need to have. I got very grumpy for several hours when I discovered that the secondary meaning of disinterested is now in the dictionary as an alternative usage. It quite put me off my dinner.

I am not letting my 11 year old get away with anything on that front atm. Primary were OK about spelling etc but just not consistent nor making it out to be important. I know at secondary other things are prioritised and teachers too busy. Just don't let them hand in incorrect homework in any subject. No one will bang on about it from now except you and the GCSE examiner.

Spelling grammar is a load of rubbish until your DC meets an employer like the OP's DH and is competing with kids from indie schools who surprisingly might have better grasp of SPAG or anyone who has the edge. Why would you not want your DCs to be able to write properly. Unfortunately in RL and on MN people judge you badly if you can't read/write properly. why take the risk.

"I got very grumpy for several hours when I discovered that the secondary meaning of disinterested is now in the dictionary as an alternative usage. It quite put me off my dinner."

Quite. In the same way, the wrong use of " 's" put me off my dinner (this is also one that seems to have become acceptable).

lingle - yes, that annoys me too!

I do find SPAG errors irritating (especially the ones on this thread, since my mind is on them!). It is pretty clear that several people who argue for the importance of SPAG, and who claim it simply becomes habitual to write correctly, make basic and irritating errors - so either it cannot be true that these things become habitual, or we accept as adults we sometimes relax our attention (but a Year 6 child must not be allowed to do so, ever?), or we are pushing children to do something we know is beyond us. The last one is understandable, but IMO we need to stop to think whether or not it's realistic and fair to continue with the same zero-tolerance approach to errors many of us were taught at school, now there are so many easy shortcuts to checking these things.

spelling, not to be ignored. But its not all that important on MN. Takes all
sorts to make a message board cheers

I think computers have a lot to answer for. I almost never make spelling mistakes when I write with a pen, but as my brain 'says' the word my fingers sometimes fly to the wrong keys on the keyboard and I find I have typed "their" instead of "there" or "your" instead of "you're". Similar things happen when I type in French.

But I read things over and check them, swiftly and sometimes insufficiently on MN because it's a chat forum, more thoroughly in RL. I can do that because I know the rules. And I do it because I think those rules are quite useful.

FWIW even a "their"/"there" confusion can cause the reader to stumble. It happened to me on MN today, when someone typed "I'll get it from the shop their in X". Once it had read "their", my brain expected "the shop their someone/something was doing something to" or something along those lines (e.g. "the shop their sister company has just opened in X") and it had to go back and re-read. It's not fatal, by any means. But it is a niggle, and the niggle gets redirected to the author of the error.

Chill, I agree - sometimes people cannot make a cogent argument so they use spelling. However, some posts are totally unreadable ("stream of consciousness" types with no punctuation).

It's totally realistic to expect people to know how to spell/the grammar of their first language. In the same in which it is realistic to expect people to know how to use + - % * / 1/2. Obviously people will make mistakes (who doesn't), but that should provide the impetus to get better at something, not to give up.