To question the way English is taught/learnt in primary schools?

[Blowfishmalibu]

I've been homeschooling my DC - years 3 and 4 - and going through the worksheets sent by school. So far, the maths/topic work is generally engaging, fun and seems to be conveyed in the most interesting way possible (considering homeschool limitations).

On the other hand the English/SPAG is really dull and formulaic, and often seems to make little sense to the children! Often long grammatical concepts, lots of re-writing texts. I think it's a shame that things that could be picked up naturally through a love of reading/writing are drilled in this narrow way.

I'm not blaming the teachers for this in any way - I'm aware it's the national curriculum that must be followed, but AIBU to think that this curriculum could be (much) more creative and stimulating?

Yes, please do address your questions to Mr M Gove. As a primary school teacher, I like the mastery approach adopted in maths - lots of use of concrete and visual resources (although far too much in the curriculum to actually manage to master it in any depth) - but the English is far more dull for pupils than it used to be. Spelling and grammar are important, but there needs to be fewer grammatical concepts taught at primary school so they can be built into a more varied curriculum. We used to plan based around text genres which the children enjoyed and you could build grammar teaching into.

Reading comprehension expectations are unnecessarily high in the earlier years too where it is more important to develop a fluency of reading.

I was taught the basics of grammar and am fairly pedantic, but it has helped with learning other languages (Latin was so easy to me, German and French equally quick to pick up). I still couldn't explain a fronted adverbial. DS missed out on the technical Spag stuff because he had left primary by then, but he found learning languages quite difficult, so I think there is a correlation. It can be taught in an engaging way though, it doesn't have to be dull.

Phonics on the other hand - I just don't get it. Glad we missed that.

An adverbial phrase is a perfectly recognisable grammatical term. Fronted just means it’s at the front of the sentence.

And re the subjunctive, this is a point of English grammar that people may not use correctly if they aren’t taught it. You frequently see “I wish I was taller” and similar even in formal writing.

Thanks so much for all the replies - I'm really glad I posted, it's such an interesting discussion.

I agree some basic grammar needs to be learnt (although think most rules can be picked up instinctively by reading a lot), but most or sometimes all of the work we're getting is grammar based. And YES to the boring/formulaic creative writing tasks. I have been livening things up a bit by streaming children's writers on Instagram etc.

I accept it's probably more exciting in school - more engagement with books etc - although tbf I think they DO study a lot of grammar etc as far as I can tell.

I am so disheartened to hear about secondary English
I had a wonderful time studying English at secondary level - inspired me for life. Could anyone tell me more about how it is these days?

I think that part of the problem is that they are so desperate to achieve a basic level of literacy that they fail to challenge children. My Y1 child is constantly promoted to check for capitals and full stops. It’s unnecessary. IMO they’d be more successful if they focused on widening vocabulary and teaching sequential communication first so that children actually have something to write about and then teasing out the little details when they’re old enough to understand and apply random rules quickly rather than spending a year plus ensuring that children can write ‘The cat’s ears are blue. But his nose is pink.’ perfectly. Never missing out a full stop at age six isn’t as important being able to explain your thoughts clearly and concisely.

Then there’s the absolute bullshit. At the moment our children are being asked to make sentences more interesting by making them longer. Fucking lunacy. It’s like these people have stepped straight out of Nicholas Nickleby.

In my experience, schools in Scotland don't teach English grammar to the extent it is done in England. I recently looked at a Year 6 SATS paper and had no idea what a lot of the things were - modal verbs, fronted abverbial clauses etc.

I have reached my age without ever needing to know this stuff, so it must be awful having to learn this when you're young.

*As a primary school teacher, I like the mastery approach adopted in maths - lots of use of concrete and visual resources (although far too much in the curriculum to actually manage to master it in any depth) - but the English is far more dull for pupils than it used to be. Spelling and grammar are important, but there needs to be fewer grammatical concepts taught at primary school so they can be built into a more varied curriculum. We used to plan based around text genres which the children enjoyed and you could build grammar teaching into.

Reading comprehension expectations are unnecessarily high in the earlier years too where it is more important to develop a fluency of reading.*

Totally agree @DippyAvocado!

Then there’s the absolute bullshit. At the moment our children are being asked to make sentences more interesting by making them longer. Fucking lunacy. It’s like these people have stepped straight out of Nicholas Nickleby.

Phonics - person should be shot who decided this in curriculum. Doesnt teach blending as a skill - just assumes kids will pick it up.

Interesting point on other languages. My ear seems to tune naturally into French and I'm sure if I lived there for any duration I'd pick it up easily. Languages like Russian or Greek, no.

I'm on the side of descriptive as opposed to prescriptive grammar. I don't even mark students down for splitting the infinitive anymore. Language is constantly shifting and evolving and will resist any endeavours to pin it down.

Even so:

'Impact' sets my teeth on edge when used as a verb.

Tenses are becoming a serious problem. 'Being' and 'been' are a constant source of confusion.

'I was sat' makes no grammatical sense unless someone has placed you in that position!

And since when did 'definitely' become 'defiantly?' I'm all for a bit of rebellion, but this is going too far ...

I remember doing some of my niece’s homework with her a few years ago and saying how boring it was. It was so unnecessarily dull for an 8 year old. No wonder children are put off.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

I completely agree. Homphones have been taught from what feels like the beginning of time and I would say around half the adult population uses common ones like their/there your/you're incorrectly.

Knowledge of verb/verb tenses and what pronouns/adjectives are proves useful when learning other languages e.g. in Spanish the adjective comes after the noun. You do not need to know the very technical grammatical terms KS2 kids are learning to gain an understanding of another language. The syntax of sentences in other languages vary so much when translated they cannot always correlate with our sentence make up.

Phonics - person should be shot who decided this in curriculum. Doesnt teach blending as a skill - just assumes kids will pick it up.

The worst of it is, it's based on scant and largely unproven research: a tiny sample of people in darkest Clackmananshire. And the first stragetic release alone proved that the very demographics the useless phonics system was intended to help, were still struggling once it was brought in. As for the ones who were achieving using the earlier system, it's murdering their joy in books and reading. My 6-YO, who has had and loved books all his life, is a case in point.

As for Gove and his constant 'screening', he was hands down the worst education secretary I can ever remember.

The Gove method of teaching English is appalling - turgid, analytical and nonsensical. A great way to squeeze every ounce of enjoyment or enlightenment out of reading.

*excuse the ironic errors in my post. There seriously needs to be a preview/edit function on here

It’s awful, my 7 year old is expected to learn grammar and terms and sentence structure that would challenge many adults.
Absolutely pointless but if she can’t identify the noun, adverb, adjective and verb in a sentence she’s not at the expected level in year 3.

The issue isn't whether or not a child can understand what a fronted adverbial is if it's explained.

This issue is, why teach them something so pointless?

Why not teach them how to use grammar rather than describe it?

I already seeing students who have terminology coming out of their ears, but they're not actually able to do anything useful with it.

Obviously, you could say this is because they've been badly taught, but I think it's more or less what Gove intends. His style of learning is all about parroting disjointed facts and fancying you're back in the Good Old Days when everyone could recite Latin verbs and the oiks stayed in the coalmine where they belonged.

@sarahandquack personally my view is that it is good to be taught formal grammar because it is good to understand why language is how it is. Not just “this is how it is and that’s that”. People are also less likely to make mistakes if they understand the rules of grammar. As I said upthread personally I think that understanding grammar improves my thinking and ability to express myself. I also agree with PPs that it helps with foreign language learning.

I also don’t agree that teaching formal grammar to everyone is barking back to the days when some are reciting Latin and some are down the coal mine. The point is that teaching formal grammar puts all children on an even footing. If state schooled children don’t learn formal grammar and privately educated children do (whether by being taught it in English or Latin lessons) then a division does arise.

*harking back that is!!

I think formal grammar has a place, but this isn't it, is it?

Nor is learning a set of names for grammatical terms necessary to learning grammatical rules.

I didn't say teaching formal grammar necessarily harks back to the 'Latin vs coalmine' days, either. I said Gove is harking back to that. And he is. He likes the idea of formal grammar because a certain kind of voter says approvingly 'ah yes, children should learn grammar! I learned Latin grammar and it did me the world of good! And bring back strict rules to keep the plebs in check, too!'

Surely the answer to the problem you describe, with some pupils learning formal grammar and others not, is to reconsider whether we should discriminate against people whose formal grammar isn't very accurate? Not to insist everyone learns it, regardless of use.

And, I would love to know what learning the nomenclature of formal grammar actually helps people to do. Not vague generalisations about 'I think maybe it helps me with foreign languages' or 'maybe it helps me think better,' but real, concrete uses.

At the moment, I think far and away the most 'useful' thing formal grammar does is to allow certain people to display their superior schooling. If all state educated pupils, of all backgrounds, learn formal grammar, the only result will be that grammar will lose its snob status.

People aren’t going to discriminate against people who can’t use formal grammatical terms, but they might well discriminate against someone who makes grammatical errors (and some errors do arise as a result of not being taught, eg when the subjunctive is used as I said upthread). There are also circumstances where a better understanding of grammar has a practical advantages. Drafting and interpreting contracts and legislation are examples. And if you think that an ability to analyse English grammar helps with foreign language learning then that is another practical advantage.

I also genuinely don’t understand why you think that extending education that has traditionally been available only to the elite to everyone is a way of keeping the plebs in check.

I disagree. Our school has been linking their English to their topic for the term. We are writing poems, diaries, we have been learning about onomatopoeias through reading stories and spotting them and now we are applying that to writing our own poem.

I do think this will depend on how the teacher chooses to apply the curriculum. Ours has been very engaging for both maths and English and all subject really

Some secondary English is fantastic (I would say that though). I've just had a student email me to say he is switching to English Lit A Level as he misses our lessons more than his others. It's not all boring. And it's not all old texts.

My issue is that [fronted adverbial]'s a term entirely invented for the 2014 curriculum - it didn't exist before then and respected grammar experts were baffled.

Thank you! I thought I caught a whiff of BS around that odd phrase, but my own primary and secondary education up to GCSE was so lacking that I wasn't quite sure. The only grammar I learned was Latin (in my spare time, school didn't approve) and German (at A Level in a fancy grammar school, having fled from a shitty comp where you were supposed to be boorish, ignorant and proud of it). It's ironic that the Tories threw out the old junk curriculum, only to replace it with freshly minted garbage. If anything, teachers must need to have even less integrity than they did in the past, when all they had to do was put their feet up: after all, what intellectually honest person would want to be the Gradgrind of gibberish?