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 still think it's possible to expect children to demonstrate they've learned the rules, such as they are, while encouraging them to think about those rules. You stand a much better chance of challenging any orthodoxy if you understand how it works.'

I think I've already agreed with you on this one. Don't know anyone who doesn't. It's one reason why I became an English teacher and TBH I don't know how you'd cope if you didn't feel this way because you'd be working against your department, school, exam boards and national curriculum.

'If AQA (wasn't there a big scandal about them being crap some time ago, btw?)'

I think you're talking about OCR not marking properly a few years ago.

'does demand correct spelling and grammar, how come people are getting A* while being unable to spell - the original point of the article cited in the OP?'

I think I've already addressed this. You couldn't get an A unless you performed extremely well in your English GCSE exam and coursework. Only a tiny percentage do get A. The vast majority of these students will be good spellers and many will be excellent. However, like Shakespeare, some excellent readers and writers may make a few spelling errors. If exam markers decided that a few spelling errors which did not impede meaning in an otherwise exceptional exam response meant that a student couldn't get an A* they wouldn't be following the mark scheme agreed by QCA and they shouldn't really be examining.

'Btw, don't see how the line that teachers do teach spelling stacks up against the argument that you don't want to correct their mistakes for fear of covering their work in red pen. If you aren't correcting their mistakes, how do they know they've made them?'

Did you read my previous post? Any English teacher who does not 'teach spelling', point out errors and find strategies to help his or her students address these is a very strange creature. I've not met any. I would find it difficult to believe that an English teacher who didn't care or couldn't be bothered to do spelling could exist in any school which follows the National Curriculum. But there may be some weird exceptions.

'There must be a way of encouraging creativity while pointing out factual errors, surely - make margin comments in a different colour for positive points?'

Yes, quite a few ways. As I've said it is more helpful to tackle 1 or 2 errors or patterns or errors in each piece of work than cover a piece of work in red pen randomly without showing a student how to improve or focusing on the bigger things - structure, interest, sentence structure ... Doesn't this make sense to you? If a dyslexic student or any student had made 20+ spelling mistakes in a single piece of work how would it help him or her to cover these in red, orange or purple pen? If that was my work I'd be gutted. If I was the parent of a teacher who did this I'd be livid and I'd wonder why the teacher had such a hang-up over spelling rather than dealing with a piece of work as a whole.

Haven't read the whole thread, but have to admit I am a bit of a pedant when it comes to spelling and grammar. Any mistakes in my MN posts are due to typing errors, honest!

My response to people who say spelling and grammar aren't important and that they repress creativity is to say, "You can only creatively misuse a language when you know how to use it properly in the first place. It's a but like Les Dawson and his crazy piano playing. You know that to play the piano so comically badly, he really knows how to play it well in the first place.

Also correct grammar and spelling illuminate your meaning rather than obscuring it. The English language is quite idiomatic and eccentric and it's only by having a good working knowledge of the basics that you can fully exploit the possibilities of communication.

'You have to learn the rules before you can break them. '

But I've already said many times that the 'rules' aren't hard and fast. I'm almost certain that there as many or more words that break the ie rule as follow it. And Speedy has illustrated that 'alright' which she was told was unacceptable and non-standard English has now become perfectly acceptable just as God be with you has become Goodbye and all mighty has become almighty. There's nothing right or wrong about words. Standard English is just the language that has become conventional because it's associated with power and prestige.

And I don't know that Benjamin Zephaniah or Leonard would be happy about the perception of their poetry as 'breaking the rules'. I think they see their accents and dialects as being as valid as anyone else's.

These poets write in dialect as do poets like John Agard and Grace Nichols because that's their dialect. It's the way they speak.

Of course all accents and dialects are valid - it's nothing to do with regional variations - but by not knowing where to put commas or where to pluralise, for example, you simply obscure what you're trying to say and make it harder for readers to understand.

English is a growing and evolving language and poetry is something that has a language all of its own - but by telling young people "Oh it doesn't matter if you can't spell," you're denying them access to resources which they may need or want to deploy in a career. I use txt speak when I'm txting or emailing, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to write proper, like. I'm not the world's best writer at all but I do make a living from writing and I understand the satisfaction that comes from being able to communicate something exactly the way I intended it to be communicated because I know how to write it in such a way that the reader will know exactly what I mean!

(Having said that, that last sentence is probably a little obscure.)

this article commenting on the original story is amusing, but in para 3, the writer claims that the previous 2 paragraphs of bad spelling were easy to read. I have to disagree; I could read them, sure, but it took me longer and made me want to give up.

Right. Have now read the whole thread. Realise much of what I said in my last 2 posts has already been said.

What I can't understand, BWC, is why you seem to be making the argument that knowing 'proper' spelling and grammar means that you can't use regional dialects? When I read, the voice in my head probably has a Brummie accent, because that's my background. Does that mean I should therefore yowse a compleeterly diffrunt toype of spellin, loike? No, because written standard English does not mitigate against any particular 'accent' when it's read. The Leonard poem was trying to make a point; it wouldn't have been amusing or thought-provoking if it were written in standard English. However, that's hardly the same as believing the English language is so fluid as to render any rules meaningless.

'What I can't understand, BWC, is why you seem to be making the argument that knowing 'proper' spelling and grammar means that you can't use regional dialects?'

I'm not.

'When I read, the voice in my head probably has a Brummie accent, because that's my background. Does that mean I should therefore yowse a compleeterly diffrunt toype of spellin, loike?'

Quite clearly there are some contexts where it would be inappropriate to do so. But if you wrote a novel using a Brummie dialect should or would a publisher dismiss it out of hand BECAUSE of the dialect? Yet, if you were a genius student who wrote a piece of original writing in dialect for your GCSE English exam you would be severely penalised.

'No, because written standard English does not mitigate against any particular 'accent' when it's read.'

Don't really know what you mean here. The English language is not spelt phonetically anyway. And we all read according to our accents as you suggest. I pronounce 'glass' with with a short 'a' cos I'm a northener but if you're a southerner you pronounce it 'glarse'.

'The Leonard poem was trying to make a point; it wouldn't have been amusing or thought-provoking if it were written in standard English. However, that's hardly the same as believing the English language is so fluid as to render any rules meaningless.'

Again, not quite sure how to respond to this. I've already pointed out that there aren't as many 'rules' as you might think and they're often pretty arbitrary and often they're more about what is considered acceptable (because of convention and prestige) and there are often as many, if not more, exceptions to them. It's not anyone's beliefs that make these 'rules' meaningless they just are few and far between and more about conventions or myths (as in the case of ie) than logic.

Neoligisms can take years to become "accepted". Same with grammar - my pet hate of different to seems to be in common use now, though I would always correct my children. Maybe creativity is more important - it's certainly harder to teach. Benjamin Zephaniah is dyslexic.

I think Ben Zeph is a bit of a one off realy..his whole life is prety much off the wall

'

I use a spell checker to pick up my typos. Thought that's what most people did. Doesn't pick up form for from though. Damn.

First time I've had a chance to check back into MN all day and I see this has made discussion of the day while I wasn't here.

what about people who get "there" and "their" confused? Spell check doesn't pick up on that because it only checks spelling.
My biggest bugbear is its v. it's
It is soooooo annoying and easy to understand...I even found it on my company's intranet and wanted so much to mention it but didnt dare.

"The English language is not spelt phonetically anyway."

No but if a standard form of spelling is learnt it becomes recognisable through sight reading and it is much easier for the majority of people to read, most of the time. If it were acceptable for everyone to spell a word however they pronounced it and assumed it to be spelt, reading for everyone would be a lot more difficult, as was proved in the article Wordsmith posted. I gave up during the second paragraph.

B&WCat - is your argument that there shouldn't be standardised English? Excuse my ignorance, but was there a point in history where standardised English became the norm and was there a reason for that?

"The English language is not spelt phonetically anyway."

No but if a standard form of spelling is learnt it becomes recognisable through sight reading and it is much easier for the majority of people to read, most of the time. If it were acceptable for everyone to spell a word however they pronounced it and assumed it to be spelt, reading for everyone would be a lot more difficult, as was proved in the article Wordsmith posted. I gave up during the second paragraph.

B&WCat - is your argument that there shouldn't be standardised English? Excuse my ignorance, but was there a point in history where standardised English became the norm and was there a reason for that? Or is your argument that Standard English ought to change so as not to be so elitist?

Beatie:I seem to remember that BAWC was off on her hols

I agree with you btw.

Ahhh - I see. I hope she has a good time.