Or is this spelling test a nonsense?

[user5292769]

Surely no apostrophes are needed for single words, only in the context of a sentence? Does this not encourage them to stick apostrophes everywhere including for plurals where they aren't needed?

Curious..it's 'stripped' ..just saying'.

YANBU. Context is everything here. And this is grammar/punctuation, not 'spelling', and should be taught as such.

It’s ridiculous even for teaching the possessive since we rarely say ‘the chair’s leg’ or ‘the pencil’s tip’ but rather ‘the tip of the pencil’ or ‘the leg of the chair’ anyway.

we rarely say ‘the chair’s leg’ or ‘the pencil’s tip’ but rather ‘the tip of the pencil’ or ‘the leg of the chair’

Or the chair leg and the pencil tip if we are preserving the order.

Should be done in sentences, and ideally mixed with non-possessive plurals to show that an apostrophe is not automatically stuck on every time you add an S.

Also, in my ideal test, it would have sentences that call for "chairs", sentences that call for "chair's", and others that call for "chairs'" in order to reinforce the correct use of the apostrophe. Plus, depending on age, the difficult example of the possessive form of proper nouns ending in S so for instance, "That's Ross's pencil".

Otherwise they'll all end up spellling like grocers, with notices like "Bean's 2.50/kilo" etc. Or writing "That's Ross' pencil". Shudder.

I saw some 'egg's for sale' on the side of the road last weekend. I bet the seller of the 'egg's' had an edumacayshun like this.

"That's Ross' pencil"... for the pedants among us, apparently if you have a proper name ending in "s" you add a possessive "s's" UNLESS the final "s" of the name is silent. I.e. "Charles's pencil", and "Descartes' pencil" are both correct.
Arguably the second "s" of "Ross" is silent, so "Ross' pencil" could possibly be right?
Lol

My DS in Year 4 had something similar but it was part of a larger lesson on possession etc and while they use it as spelling exercise, they also put the words onto sentences etc...

dogs I am not sure that's the only error I made

As a spelling exercise it doesn't make much sense, but I suppose it kind of works as a combined grammar and spelling exercise...
I agree it's confusing completely out of context, though

@claraschu

Depends on the style guide you're using. NY Times have " 's " whatever the ending of a noun.

The time DD was in year 3 and the spelling test for the week included the words chauffeur, chandelier and chateaux lives on in memory.....

The second s in Ross is audible, as his name is pronounced Ross not Ros (ie hard s not z-equivalent). So Ross's it is.

Other exceptions to the 's for names ending in s are Jesus and Moses... We get Jesus' and Moses' instead of Jesus's and Moses's, and that's down to pronunciation: if you can hear a difference between the possessive form and the non-possessive form (ie if you can hear the added s), then, most grammaticians agree, you should add the s after the apostrophe.

I was joking, folks.

This is.. but we might say 'the pencil's in the tray'. Or 'the chair's comfortable.' So this as the use of an apostrophe to denote a missing letter or letters. The same goes for words like we'll (we will) or I'll (I will) etc.

dog Yes but it says right at the top of the page that it’s about possessives not contractions.

Stand corrected!