A* in GCSE English but can't spell - even at Harrow!

[speedymama]

I sniggered when I read this .

I thought that one of reasons that parents pay exorbitant fees for the privilege of sending their children to private/public schools was that the smaller classes enables pupils to receive more attention from their teachers. Maybe they need to concentrate on teaching the children the basics as well as intensively coaching them to pass exams to maintain their position in league tables.

I congratulate the head of English on his candour though - he could have easily come out with some spurious line that the education his pupils receive far exceeds that of the proletariats in the state sector. I do wonder however, that if he is the head of English, wasn't this problem evident through the course work and essays that pupils write before they embark on taking their exams?

I agree bloss, I think it's just sloppiness that will have a pervasive effect on lots of areas. The dictionary/spell checker stuff isn't going to work until all exams are run like that. And presumably doctors will have to have access to spell checkers when they write prescriptions. I can't really see why it would be easier to ditch spelling and precision in writing?

I think that some of the issues around technical language are that not that long ago everyone learnt Latin, and could understand the roots of many words, as much scientific terminology is based on Latin (or Greek, but slightly less so) meanings. Certainly my parents frequently decipher new words using their classical language knowledge. But that knowledge has mostly gone now, as few people learn Latin anymore, because of a perception that it wasn't useful. Indeed my dh claims all his grammar knowledge comes from his school Latin, because Latin has very clear grammatical rules and few irregular words (unlike English which has both complicated rules of spelling and grammar). Not that I enjoyed learning Latin! But I do think that some of the reason why people might give that "whatever" response may be more to do with embarrassment than anything else.

From a safety perspective the fact that hyper and hypo are so similar is a real risk factor, and maybe we should be going down an entirely different route, and changing the words we use to describe things. There are well documented fatal errors caused by misreading of labels with such small differences.

'My point is that we should value spelling and grammar and not treat them as optional extras.'

Who does? Schools which follow the National Curriculum HAVE to teach these things.

'If we say they don't matter, we are holding people back.'

Who does say they don't matter? But there's a difference between teaching students about the differences between Standard and non Standard English and when it is appropriate to use each and teaching them that the way most of them speak and write is incorrect but there is a correct way (which there isn't Standard English is just a dialect which has gained prestige). For example, a Scottish student may use the word 'wee' for 'small' and 'bairn' for child. This is not incorrect it is just part of his or her dialect.

'I'm not blaming teachers, per se, but I do think an examination system which doesn't value spelling and grammar is stupid and damaging.'

I think you've been slightly misled by the article. Marks ARE allocated for spelling and grammar on GCSE English papers and assessment criteria means students are given credit when they use 'appropriate discourse markers' or 'a variety of sentence structures' for example. Also, if spelling and grammar impede meaning students are marked down as you would expect. I have had the great privilege to mark 300 English GCSE scripts .Usually there's a link between good spelling and students who are good at English generally. Other subjects also allocate marks for spelling and grammar - certainly History and Media Studies do. A student who is awarded an A* in English is very good at English even if his or her spelling isn't perfect I can assure you (though no doubt you will know exceptions).

Also, I note nobody has responded to my point about Shakespeare. He might well fail his English GCSE if spelling was the main criterion. Some of you sound like a bunch of Gradgrinds to me.

'And I'm afraid it's simply not true that an inability to spell or write clear English doesn't hinder understanding. What about censure/censor, complaisant/complacent, councillor/counsellor, diffuse/defuse, just for starters?'

There would be very few cases where you couldn't work out what someone was communicating through context. We all make these kinds of mistakes when we're tired etc.

As I say, nobody these days would find it difficult to understand 'C U L8R' but it certainly doesn't use standard spelling.

Of course, we need to communicate clearly and of course there are occasions where it is inappropriate to use dialect or non-standard English but this emphasis on 'correct' spelling as though there were such a thing often has more to do with snobbery than clarity.

Oh, and tatum doctors do have decision checking software on their prescriptions (mostly electronic systems now) as errors happen all too frequently, some of which are picked up by dispensing pharmacists, but not all. To err is human.

The older I've got the more open I am to different attitudes towards spelling and grammar.

I have always found words fascinating. I like the idea that I can look at a word with hyper or hypo in and because I know the root I can make an educated guess as to what it might mean. I like writing and playing with words. I don't get the same pleasure with the same ease with maths, because I just don't enjoy figures and I could no more have a fun evening analysing a series of numerical statistics than pole dancing.

However, if I had to do so then I would use every tool available to help me, eg yesterday I did have to spend some time analysing some figures and making calculations..I used a calculator.

So I think not being able to spell is not the end of the world provided you have learned how to use tools to help you.

My exh is useless at arithmetic making errors even with simple numbers and yet he has a very highly paid and high powered job as a forensic scientific consultant. He uses a calculator or software. He has to know how to make complex calculations and he knows he has to get the figures right but he uses a tool to help him. He also has to write very heavyweight reports which can end up in civil court or criminal court or public inquiries and may be worth millions. He uses a dictionary and Fowler's etc if necessary.

(Nooka I did Latin A level)

Yes, I know they do in surgeries nooka, but not always in hospitals, surely?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I do object to this idea that students 'haven't been taught to spell properly'. Who are these teachers who tell their students spelling doesn't matter? Or don't bother to teach them how to spell or why it matters? How do they get away without following the NC? You may be surprised to know that I still set spelling tests for my re-sit 6th form students from a list of the 250 most commonly mis-spelled words. I teach them the 'rules' and the exceptions. I know they have been taught it all before because they tell me. Some of their teachers have come up with some excellent ways of remembering spellings (like one collar and two socks for necessary) but they still get them wrong. Not our fault.

No, I never use them either. They're useless for writing science anyway

On the other hand, I recently sat exams as part of becoming a qualified company secretary and the text book specifically said that students would be marked down for "untidy crossings out, poor spelling, incomplete sentences, use of slang, unsatisfactory grammar and wayward punctuation" (among other things) so clearly there are examination boards out there who think these things are vitally important! I must admit I preferred the programme management course I sat a while ago where the examiners emphasised they would be looking for understanding and application of theory to practical situations...

I have no problems with using a calculator. But I also know it's easy to enter something incorrectly, say missing out a decimal point. If I do that, I can tell I've done it because the answer cannot possibly be right. And I know that because I spent many happy hours doing paper sums, moving decimal points, learning the rules of arithmetic. If I hadn't learnt the rules, I might not spot my error.

Hmm - not sure, as I don't work in a hospital at the moment. Probably though, but also I would suspect that there are fewer prescriptions written in hospital, and that the range of drugs for each doctor is less, although the drugs themselves probably have more risk. The most damaging errors coming in hospital from chemo drugs and IVs. A few decimal point errors come into play as well.

I don't use a spellchecker either!

I agree there isn't much point ordering 2000sq metres of carpet for most front rooms

B&W cat it is NOT snobbery, it is about ensuring everyone has access to the basic information they need to communicate. The article is about examinations and teaching, not looking down on people who can't spell. I don't and I haven't suggested anyone should. Sheesh.

Am relieved to see you saying spelling is marked during examinations, though. How many mistakes are you allowed to make and still get A*?

I've already said context may help you to decipher something that is incoherent, but not always. Poor spelling + poor grammar can make text very confusing to read.

As for Shakespeare, you can hardly argue that every child taking GCSEs is a genius. Shakespeare was writing at a time before any rules were laid down - before the first dictionary. Today we have dictionaries and other tools to help us communicate, why not use them?

Btw, great examples of misunderstanding between different regional variants in the Canterbury Tales - someone from London unable to ask for eggs in Kent, for instance. It would make life more interesting if we went back to those days, but it might make it more difficult too.

I feel my fascination with written English and Markov chains coming on again.

Perhaps we should have a challenge to write in grammatical English which has no meaning.

Go on then, I challenge you!

I often hear people say things like "he learnt me how to do that". That always makes me crnge.

Another common mistake is brought vs bought. Even when considering the context, one can easily be mistaken by the message a person is trying to convery, e.g. "I bought the skirt from the market" as oppose to "I brought the skirt from the market". If someone meant the former but wrote the latter, you would misinterpret the meaning if you are a pedant-in-training like me.

cringe

convey[blush[

I might need some help from Hunker and Chomsky!

I honestly don't think the distinction between -phobe and -phile as suffixes will disappear because of that sort of error, bloss. Sounds like a classic situation of someone getting confused and plumping for the wrong word, then getting embarrassed so trying to brush it off as unimportant. I'd bet money that the speaker knew they weren't the same thing but couldn't remember which was which and simply plumped for the wrong one. I do find that embarrassing disasters often occur when you know that there is an important rule/correct term but can't quite remember the said rule or term accurately. This is particularly bad if there are two options and one is right but you can't for the life of you remember which... I sometimes get mixed up with people's names in that way (Dominic and Douglas, Stanley and Sidney are my among my nemeses and v mortifying it is too when I address poor Douglas- or was it Dominic?- and Sidney- or do I mean Stanley?- with the wrong name.) And once I'm aware that I've got someone's name wrong via being corrected I forever worry that it will happen again which seems somehow to make me less able to find good strategies of remembering the right name, though it is now essential in order to avoid giving grave offence. Sigh. I bet it's the same for your poor Francophilephobe friend. But I don't think you should fear the end of meaningful speech- a very few people making drongo-brained errors won't make phobe/phile interchangeable anymore than it will cause Stanley to change his name to Sidney.

speedymama - the difference being that if someone says they "brought" the skirt from the markey you would assume that they had stolen it?

'B&W cat it is NOT snobbery, it is about ensuring everyone has access to the basic information they need to communicate.'

But I find this idea that there are teachers out there who are somehow keeping this information secret truly bizarre and offensive. Have you ever heard the expression, 'you can take a horse to water ...?'

Making asumptions about a students' abilitie or 'standards' based on their spelling is a bit like doing the same because of their acent or dialect. In fact, its alot like it because often a students spelling reflects his or her accent and dialect [I have deliberately made lots of 'errors' in my previous sentences. Did it affect the clarity of my point?]

'How many mistakes are you allowed to make and still get A*?'
The last GCSE English papers I marked were English Literature where spelling and grammar is not as important in the assessment criteria as understanding and interpretation (make sense?). Nevertheless we had to give a mark out of so many (can't remember exactly) specifically for SPG (spelling and grammar) which was then converted to a percentage. With straight English GCSE spelling and grammar isn't crucial for only 1 of the sections (the comprehension for obvious reasons) unless it does impede meaning. However, spelling and grammar are integral to the way the other 3 sections are assessed. For example to get a C grade a student would need to use a logical structure (which would include paragraphs and tense), appropriate discourse markers etc, common words would need to be spelt accurately and students would need to use a reasonably wide vocabulary.

'Poor spelling + poor grammar can make text very confusing to read.'

I wouldn't argue with this although, as I've said, you mite be suprised how rarely you find it difficult to understan what someone is communicating because of his or her spelling

'As for Shakespeare, you can hardly argue that every child taking GCSEs is a genius.'

I'm not arguing this. Just saying you can be a genius and still not have 'perfect' spelling.

'Shakespeare was writing at a time before any rules were laid down'

Exactly - the 'rules' are relatively recent and often completely nonsensical.