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 may be a bit of a tangent but my 9yr old has just flew through this test. He absolutely loves English. I knew he was good at it but I was shocked that he knew all the terms etc and didnt struggle (maths is another story) . He genuinely loves learning this stuff though and does have a real talent for it which I am very pleased about considering my bad dyslexia.

However reading this thread has made me think and I feel quite bad. My ds is being tutored for the transfer test (in NI), as are the other 27 children in his class. He will be aiming for the top grammar beside his primary, which we moved to to help his chances. This was never even questioned, we always just assumed it would be our aim. I was always of the opinion of, if I can I will when it come to my child. I never stopped to think of the reality of children who don't have parents who push them and sit doing homework at night and revision on weekends. Or who struggle to get to school or dont even have space at home to do their work. These issues where just never on my radar. I feel almost ashamed of my attitude now. I don't want to teach my child that all that is important is getting ahead. I do feel he deserves every chance but not to the detriment of other children. Thanks for opening my eyes.

I do feel he deserves every chance but not to the detriment of other children

How does helping yours hinder others? That is just a race to the bottom and a suggestion that no child should ever be taught anything because some aren't able to access education.

Don't feel ashamed. Of course you do the best by your child - you should feel proud that you invest time and energy into his education.

It's true that there are lots of kids whose parents are either anti education or totally apathetic or also far far too pushy.

Carol that's not what I meant. I'm not putting it very well. I've heard people say how children with extra help, tutoring and bring coached through the exam get most of the places and it's harder for children who are just as bright but don't get extra help. How these kids can be pushed out. I've just never actually sat and thought about it before and reading some of these posts just made it obvious to me. I just feel I want him to know not everyone is as lucky to have the opportunities he does. I can never put down in words what I'm thinking in my head!

I can accept that this syllabus could be useful and agree that children need a good grasp of English. The thing that is wrong is that it is being crammed into less than one year because it was only decided last year.
Year 6 pupils are being treated unfairly and the teaching is being crammed into them.

At last a government that is getting all children to do well.

No. Making tests harder doesn't imply that all children will suddenly achieve more.

I think it is more a philosophy which is helping the top 25% to fly (good), but simultaneously making at least the bottom 25% feel like complete failures even from age 11 (v bad).

It is similar to what is happening with GCSEs. e.g. the restrictions in books that can be covered for English Lit.

The poverty of aspiration on this thread is outstanding - there is no reason any NT child should fail to get a grade C in GCSE english and maths - this test is just a stage to getting there.
Some children find it harder than others, life is not easy so we should not lie to children and pretend it is.

No it's not easy carol but children living in poverty with no parental support know that. I have high aspirations for every child at my school however that doesn't mean I think it's right for so much of their final year at primary school to be focused on tests especially those which give very little time for realunch concrete learning. I have no problem planning and supporting those teaching the test but some of it is very dry and hard to make inspiring and that's the kind of teacher I want to be. When it comes to year 2 where I have worked incredibly hard to support children who were not making any progress in English now the fact that they have made phenomenal progress in writing will be ignored because they are not spelling to a high enough quality or haven't learnt 100 new spag terms which are meaningless such as what 2 words an exclamation starts with. This is not a race to the bottom. This is about tests not designed to best support children's learning

It is not "poverty of aspiration" to feel that learning grammatical meta-language is not particularly important.

It's is ignorant to blindly accept and celebrate every single new government idea for How To Make School Harder.

Of course people should be able to discuss this on an Internet forum.

I don't have 'poverty of aspiration' for my DCs.

Quite the opposite. In fact, what my DD1 achieved in her GCSEs was amazing if you knew what she has had to contend with in her life.

I want teaching time for my DD2 to be spent on the critically important stuff, such as spelling, rather than the more esoteric aspects of English Grammar.

I have no problem with more able children learning this stuff if it is suitable for them. However my DD2, who doesn't have any learning difficulties diagnosed (yet), is not benefitting in any way from this - rather the negative as she is feeling massively disheartened.

Poverty of aspiration? quite funny really, just don't see this as connected to this very detailed grammatical learning (it is beyond what is currently in Level 6 SPAG). I am actually behind teaching grammar as part of a number of aspects of English, but it is also true that having not been taught any grammar, I am extremely successful academically, and so its value for an entire cohort is just not clear to me.

My biggest problem at university level teaching is not the students' poor grammar, it is the poverty of being unable to think for themselves. Many of my students think learning is repeating what you have been taught for the purposes of testing and rewriting words they find on the internet onto some different pages and handing them in. I blame the testing (and retesting) regime entirely for this. I also have quite a few dyslexic students, who have poor spelling, but are clever novel thinkers and I value this more highly than nicely written regurgitated material.

It depends what you want- I don't see why you couldn't teach this stuff, but as for obsessing about making every child pass this quite difficult test, thereby managing to sow failure in some and an inability to think for yourself in others, no thanks.

caroldecker it's not just NT children who sit this test. My year group has 20% on the SEN register this year. They are expected to know this too.

Today we did relative clauses. My children already include subordinate clauses in their writing. Now they can label it as a relative clause. I don't see what they have gained.

Great blog post on the issue:
www.literacyshedblog.com/blog/for-the-love-of-facts-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-the-ks2-spag-test

So ickle wants to dismiss spelling, whilst teenandtween thinks it is most important - there is little agreement on where to focus and test.

HP testing is not responsible for inability to think for themselves, but teaching to the test. Blame teachers, not the tests.

I don't want to dismiss it just saying is it more important than being able to write creatively? Should it be worth 50% of their English mark age 6?

Holy shit-balls! Both myself and DP are dumbfounded and I am now afraid of me shite to post incorrectly.

Where should the dash go in the above passage? (up yer hole)
Is dumbfounded spelt correctly? (haven't a fuckin' clue)
Circle the profanities in the passage above. (you want me to shove the shit/shite up yer hole?)

What the actual fuck? Unless intensive teaching of this level of grammar is involved, there is no way a ten year old could answer this shit!!

I'm loving your use of creative writing Wilde

I don't think spelling is 'most important'. But my DD has trouble spelling so that is where I would like some extra teaching time for her.

She already writes quite creatively, unfortunately she spells quite creatively too .

Children need to have mastered the level of grammar tested in the link in the OP before embarking on the study of MFL.

French 5 year olds seem to be able to speak the language perfectly well without knowing this bollox!

Marniasmum - French DC learn all this grammar. My DD goes to a French school. She is French. All the DC learn this much grammar and more.

Where on earth has the idea that French children don't learn grammar come from?

French primary textbooks and workbooks are full of the stuff from fairly early on.

I though the French education system was quite well known for teaching lots of grammar.

"HP testing is not responsible for inability to think for themselves, but teaching to the test. Blame teachers, not the tests."

And why do teachers teach to the test? Because their salary, and ultimately, their job, depends on it. Because 'unacceptable' test results (by themselves) can destroy schools. And communities.

'Blame teachers' - well, yes. That's quite the thing these days. Do you work for the DfE?

German children learn all this stuff and more as well. Are British children really less capable than their European counterparts?

Where on earth has the idea that French children don't learn grammar come from?

I have a 5 yo French niece whose French is (as you would expect) of a much higher standard than a British GCSE student.Does she know what a subjunctive clause is ? Of Course not!

Marniasmum - French DC learn all this grammar. My DD goes to a French school. She is French. All the DC learn this much grammar and more.

*Where on earth has the idea that French children don't learn grammar come from?

French primary textbooks and workbooks are full of the stuff from fairly early on.

I though the French education system was quite well known for teaching lots of grammar*

Both missing the point.I must not have made myself clear.What I meant is that native speakers of any language do not need to be taught any grammar to become proficient in that language.They certainly do not have to be know how to name different types of clauses, and circle connectives.

To be honest, I think French native speakers might need it more because of all the silent endings. It's essentially making a science out of an art.