As grammar is being discussed, this is the new Yr 6 SPAG test

[katmanwho]

AIBU to use Google to answer half of them!!

Good luck

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439299/Sample_ks2_EnglishGPS_paper1_questions.pdf

This looks quite similar to the tests that French children used to sit in Y6 (at age 10), and that both my children did. They were stopped for political reasons, but everyone knew they were pointless. My children's secondary school used to use test results for initial set placement, but did their own tests in the second week of term so they could move children around into the correct sets. And a lot of children did move, because teaching to the test and outright cheating by teachers meant that the test results were largely meaningless. My daughter's best friend, an all round A* student, was initially put in the middle group because she came from a school that didn't game the tests!

The other issue was the marking - you could answer a multi-part question correctly except for one mistake, and get zero. Same issue with this test.

Finally, teaching formal grammar makes sense in French, as you cannot spell correctly unless you can at the minimum identify the verb, subject, tense and mood, and know how to spot at adjective. This isn't the case in English which requires little formal grammar knowledge to spell correctly (punctuation is far more important in English).

FWIW, in France French DC all learn grammar to this sort of level by the end of primary. Most of the things in the test that look a bit tricky are covered in years 5 and 6, not before, as they are conceptually too difficult to grasp any earlier than about the age of 8/9.

Ok so maybe I'm wrong to say not difficult for adults - I should have said not difficult for me. Certainly the first half of the questions a very simple. I think my 12 year old would be fine with this test and would have been able to answer most (if not all) questions last year. However she is strong in spag and languages.

It's needed in French you say...which many children pick up in y7 with no prior knowledge. So yes it's useful to learn the grammar in primary then

You do need to know this stuff on the super selective 11+ papers round here as I've seen many past papers. They do also have a creative writing and comprehension element as well, as you say. No VR or NVR as they have decided it is too easily tutored for. From what I have seen the VR tests actually do separate the more able kids out but they seem to disagree for some reason, and I am not a teacher or any kind of expert.

I took the 11+ a long long long time ago. I passed it - but honestly don't remember this stuff. I think I learnt about more complex tenses when doing Latin and French.

It reminds me of this:

I don't see anything wrong with this - in fact I find it very heartening. Presumably they will have had lessons explaining the various technical terminology. Also remember that all students won't be expected to get 100% - scores will be differentiated by ability.

katman it's very different from our day. My 11+ was all VR now there is about 3-4 questions of it. It is all about maths and English and the expectation is your child needs to be what was a L5/6 in y5 to pass.

The problem is it's not just the kids with supportive parents who are capable of 11+ who have to sit this paper. It's the thousands of children who struggle to get to school, it's the children who's parents can't punctuate a sentence, never mind help them with subordinating and co-ordinating conjunctions, it's the children with dyslexia who get absolutely no consideration for this (the test also consists of a 20 word spelling test, a severely dyslexic child can expect to get 1 or 2 maximum, they'd have to get near enough full marks on that paper just to be considered working at y6 level, never mind those who are highly able and should be working above but won't be judged as that solely due to having dyslexia).

The question isn't whether children CAN learn this, of course they can, it's whether they SHOULD be learning this. Surely better to spend the time on times tables, the arts, even playing a good game of rounders, rather than learning what the past progressive tense is?

It's also worth making the point that children with poor handwriting (or in fact even just children who print rather that write in a joined up manner) or children who cannot spell (hitting the dyslexic children again) can now NOT be judged as working at the national level for writing, even if the rest of their writing is absolutely outstanding. No compromise, no common sense.

theycallme if you struggle with spelling you'd have to get near enough 100% on this paper to be considered working st expected level. You'd have no chance of being graded as working at a higher level, no matter how able you are, if you are dyslexic.

Presumably they will have had lessons explaining the various technical terminology

Yes - at the expense of other lessons. Time is limited in primary schools.
What is the purpose of such a test? Will knowing how to identify the subordinating conjunction help children improve their English writing?

Will it make children develop a love of writing?

These tests may help children when it comes to MFL. Not that MFL teaching is seen as important at secondary by this Government.

Those children who get things will get it and do well. Those who struggle with literacy will struggle with this - something that will not help them write. Knowing what a subordinating conjunction is no good when you can't even construct a sentence verbally.

Develop their language. Engage them in a love of writing. Make sure they can do SPAG. But I wonder how much educational time is wasted learning complex technical terms for grammar?

Totally get that lungs. That MP videonwas very reminiscent of my DS 11+ preparation ....

It's also worth making the point that children with poor handwriting (or in fact even just children who print rather that write in a joined up manner) or children who cannot spell (hitting the dyslexic children again) can now NOT be judged as working at the national level for writing, even if the rest of their writing is absolutely outstanding

Really - I hadn't read this. Can you point a link to that? That might be something to discuss with school.

This actually looks harder than the SPAG my dd took last year and she was really good at it and performed amazingly well in the 11+. So, the bar is set quite high.

My dd that is bad at spelling/possibly dyslexic doesn't stand a chance, bless her, because of the new spelling tests. She's actually quite good at punctuation and creative writing, but this will end up not counting which is sad for her, but I will probably hide/draw attention away from the SAT results, as I know they don't really reflect her ability. Luckily they are expressed in nonsensical levels which hardly anyone really understands so it's easier than if it were an ABC type situation.

I don't see anything wrong with this - in fact I find it very heartening

I agree. I was at school in the 80s/90s and we weren't taught any of this. As for posters saying they need to start early, as far as I'm aware, they do. My 7 year old has been doing SPAG since Y1.

I'm also pleased with the emphasis on times tables at dd's school. Another thing that was missing from my school days.

I'm going to be unashamedly selfish, and say it's about time schools focused on the bright children and focused on stretching the other children. Education has embroiled in a race to the bottom for years.

The terminology seems scary to us because we've not learned it and are looking through our eyes at it. Ask your dc what they think of it and these terms will be more than familiar because it's everyday stuff to them.

I will say I don't understand the terms and had to learn them to help my dc. I'm also mildly dyslexic. Had this been the style of education I'd have received from day one it wouldn't be as daunting as it is to me now.

Found it

Teachers should refer to the national curriculum programmes of study for items marked * (e.g. to exemplify the words that pupils should be able to spell).

Where pupils have a physical disability that prevents them from being able to write, the statements relating to handwriting can be excluded from the teacher assessment.

Where pupils are physically able to write and meet all of the statements except for being able to produce legible handwriting, they may be awarded the ‘expected standard’ but cannot be awarded the ‘greater depth’ standard. This refers to the final statements within ‘Working towards’ and ‘Working at the expected standard’

That sounds crap - how do you define legible handwriting? If you are able to create a masterpiece of writing, perfectly punctuated, using a range of expressions - but it's not handwritten beautifully, why should you not be given "greater depth" assessment?

I suspect you also need a diagnosis to qualify for the exclusion from handwriting.

Does anyone have any good text book recommendations for this?

This has been landed on Year 6 with no warning or build up in teaching over the years. At the same time the maths has also been changed. Children are being intensively coached and the stress levels are high. I feel very sorry for the pupils and their teachers.
I have extensive experience of the 11 plus and can guarantee that this test is harder than the papers I have seen and set in the last few years.
Much of the content was in fact on the syllabus for first year of grammar school in the 1940s.
I am not saying that we don't need to teach grammar. We need to plan and teach over the whole of ks2.

It's worth pointing out that several children's authors have spoken out about how this SPAG test limits the creativity of children's writing eg. Michael Rosen (www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/03/morgan-grammar-test-right-answer-spag-english-spelling-punctuation-grammar). For example, the test states that an exclamation mark can only go at the end of sentences beginning with two words (I think of the words is how, can't remember for sure).

Furthermore, trust me, a child knowing what a semi colon is and being able to answer a multiple choice question about it doesn't make them anymore likely to punctuate written sentences correctly. This test is learning by rote.

I have printed out this test X2 and am going to Sit my yr10 & yr6 DDs down this afternoon and get them both to do the test. DD2 has done this paper already at school but has some working memory issues so cannot remember it's content at all. I'm pretty sure my very bright yr10 DD is going to really struggle at some of the questions in the latter part of the test.
Also I might (probably) be being very dim but I cannot find an answer sheet for this test, is there one on the website because I can't find one and there are some questions I'm nor sure I can answer

It is much harder than the SPAG tests that were introduced a couple of years ago.

Millais that's my experience exactly. I honestly think it is pretty hard and something you couldn't do from scratch at this point.

My eldest dd's Year 6 was an utter misery of stress and just demotivation due to the SATS (and her school's over-emphasis and silliness about them). She looked grey and fed up and it was just an utter waste of time repeating the same few test papers week after week. Now she's in secondary, actually learning new things and new subjects, she's flourishing. I don't think the government have got the Year 6 thing right at all, the exams are tedious and not particularly increasing overall ability, and for the brighter students who flourish in a creative and academically interesting environment, this is as dull as ditch-water as their teachers will drill them on it endlessly at the expense of art, science, music, IT, indeed anything outside the SATS paper remit.

Surely the black box next to each question number is missing the instruction.

eg 'Only one of these has no errors. Tick the one which is correct'

And, yes there are errors with the use of full-stops in the multi-choice questions throughout the test.

Appalling really.