Against the proposed Y6 Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling Tests - your views needed!

[KarenInglis]

All - please read this open letter to the Times Educational Supplement from Alan Peat about the proposed grammar, punctuation and spelling tests for Y6 children. I don't know Alan - this just happened to pass my Twitter feed. But I am glad that I read it.

My children are all grown up now but as an author and being passionate about encouraging reading and writing I think what he has to say needs a very close look.

If you agree with what he has to say please do tweet/FB etc using the hashtag he has supplied. He is clearly trying to raise the profile of his piece to ensure that it will be picked up by the TES. alanpeat.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/open-letter-to-the-tes-opposing-the-y6-grammar-punctuation-and-spelling-test/

Best wishes,

Karen

I said that a lot of information is being GIVEN to those not in teaching (i.e. by teachers). I know very well that you are mrz!!!

I just think it's rather inflammatory to state that 10 and 11 year olds need to know x,y,z when actually, the average (and even the above average) Yr6 child doesn't)

I think she means the parents on mumsnet who are reading these threads.

Although what do I know? I clearly can't use brackets!

XMASTIME Sorry for capitals!

When you say you have been looking through the tests, where have you been looking?

I want to look!!

media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/g/sample%20ks2%20l3-5%20english%20gps%20short%20answer%20booklet.pdf

level 6
media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/g/sample_ks2_l6_english_grammarpunctationandspelling_extendedtask.pdf

media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/g/sample_ks2_l6_english_grammarpunctationandspelling_shortanswer.pdf

media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/g/sample_ks2_l6_english_grammarpunctationandspelling_spelling_script.pdf

You are good mrz!!

Are they just example papers then?

Is it worth printing them off for DS to practise with?

I actually like those tests - they seem simple and structured. As long as they are not taught instead of creative writing, I don't see the problem. Then again, I'm only a parent - does my opinion count?

I just hope they include the apostrophe rule in the test - it is ridiculous how many people get it wrong, and it's such a simple, logical thing.

Yes they are examples of what the test will look like obviously the content will be different.
vess schools are already dropping creative writing to teach technical terms judging by the response from the 500 schools attending the conference I was at earlier this month.

mrz - I was talking to DS's teacher and I said I was surprised that he hadn't had any creative writing homework.

Teacher replied that as it was not part of SATS they were focusing less on creative writing and more on the grammar.

Very sad about that.

Thanks for the links.

At the training people were asked to put up their hand if they were doing less writing in class as a result of the test . . . there were an awful lot of hands in the air!

I just had a look at the L6 test with DD2 who is in Yr5 and she didn't seem particularly fazed - but she ended up getting the answers from context, not from knowing the technical terms. And there was one thing in there that I didn't know, and I'm the Lynne Truss of the office. I think the focus is far too much on technical terminology - these questions could be set in a much more 'writing-friendly- way. But what the Idiot Gove wants, the Idiot Gove gets. Evidence is anathema to the man.

At first, I was pleased to hear about these tests. But I have a 10 year old daughter, in year 6, who is complaining - for the first time ever in her entire school career - that literacy is "boring". Judging by the tedious nature of her homework for the last six weeks, I can only deduce that this is because her teacher is having to spend a disproportionate amount of time drilling them in grammatical terms.

She is in the top set, likely to sit the level 6 paper. Her creative writing is expressive, grammatically correct and imaginative. Her spelling is pretty good. She uses nouns, adverbs et al correctly and chooses interesting words for her writing.

I am really sad that she is currently finding literacy so tedious, as a result of the Govt rushing in yet another test without giving schools the chance to implement it properly (i.e. not rushed through at the last minute).

He's too busy making a name for himself - he's not interested in any chaos he leaves behind.

Nor in the fact that the name he leaves behind will be Mud, Feenie!

mrz

what sort of scores would the dcs be expected to get for level 6?

and dd wants to know if she would be allowed to write more than that for the arguments about cyber school

dd likes tests -I think they are way over the top

spellings yes but the rest is stiffling the depth of english they are doing IMO

I don't think the government have decided sausagesandwich (or they just aren't telling). My son loved tests too

Well, it's obvious - they haven't invented extra hours in the day, so something will have to go and it will have to be something that isn't being specifically tested.

DD2 loves tests too, but I think she will soon change her mind when she finds herself (inevitably) drilling this stuff over and over again and not being allowed to write creatively.

I teach grammar, punct, spelling etc - as a Functional Skills and ESOL teacher - and absolutely loathe these tests. They appear to be designed for non-native speakers, as I cannot see any reason why native speakers should benefit by being able to name grammatical terms in this way. I have yet to meet a native speaker who misuses modal verbs - 'could' or 'should', say - so can see no logical reason why 10-11 year olds who are (or are assumed to be) native speakers would benefit from knowing that when they use 'could', 'should' or 'must', they are using a modal verb. If these terms are to be learnt, the only sensible context is as part of the MFL tests.

Learning some grammatical terms - such as adjectives or adverbs - IS useful, as it enables pupils to consciously seek to vary or improve their use of these constructs.

But there is no communicative aim in much of what is being tested - it really is testing for testing's sake. Which I think is a terrible shame - because what is actually being learnt by the pupils is this; 'English/literacy is tedious and just a pointless list of rules'.

Nothing is more likely to turn the young 'off' English altogether than forcing them to learn a list or irrelevant rules and terms. I really couldn't justify teaching this, when there are far more important things to be covered in valuable classroom time - creative writing for one.

As a parent, and a professional teacher of grammar, punctuation and spelling, I shall be personally boycotting these tests in the only way I can - I shall NOT be giving my own DD (year 6) any help or preparation for this test at all, despite the fact that I am a great stickler for the correct use of gr, punct & sp - and will have no interest in whether she achieves a level 3 or level 6 (which, coming from a confessedly pushy parent, is saying something).

It really is the most unconscionable waste of time.

And that's the thing, breadandbutterfly - why are these tests even necessary? Why is it not possible to look at a piece of writing and assess the correct use of grammar, spelling, punctuation, extended vocabulary and advanced linguistic constructs from that?

These tests seem to me to see grammar as an end in itself - when it's the means to an end, which is useful and contextually appropriate communication. I'm a non-native speaker of English (though fully bilingual) and I agree that it is useful to understand adjectives, adverbs, connectives and clauses. These all have a function in improving the quality of written work, and are readily explained to young children in a way that makes them useful. The rest of it is just more Govean nastiness.

My DC does loads of grammar at school, and weekly spelling tests. But very little creative writing or reading poetry or plays together, etc. I don't like it at all. I want to see my children doing loads of reading and writing - preferably for fun as well as schoolwork. I don't remember learning English grammar or spelling, certainly know almost no grammatical terms, but have well above average spelling and grammar. You pick it up by doing lots of reading for fun, and practise it by doing creative writing and essays. And apparently they've done research which shows that learning spellings is a waste of time. My DC usually doesn't even bother reading through the week's spelling list before the test - I support her in that (and she usually does well in the test).

Obviously it's not great that these tests have been introduced at the last minute and teachers are forced to make room in the daily schedule for more grammar. But once things fall into place and everyone is more used to it, I really can't see why it should limit creative writing. Why should it be either one or the other?

If you have a child who is good at writing, they will probably pick up the new things quickly, and won't be too bothered, other than to say that practice for the test is a bit boring. I happen to have a dyslexic DS who is struggling with writing, and no matter how much his English teacher praises him for creativity and great ideas, he is still on level 4a in Y8 because his sentence structure, punctuation and spelling let him down. And I can't help but think that if he was taught grammar separately in primary school, it would have worked better for him. In fact, I think teaching grammar separately from composition may work better for a lot of kids because the focus is on one thing at a time.
I wonder what will be the impact on secondary schools - are they going to teach more grammar now?

Exactly, pointysettia - Gove seems to have randomly picked out bits of grammar that matter when learning other languages - but not when using one's native language correctly. His memories of grammar teaching are obviously based on his schoolboy French/Latin, not on English lessons, and are thus basically totally irrelevant.

The way to improve one's literacy skills are to read as widely as possible, and write across a range of genres and task types. Beyond an understanding of the essential building blocks, there is nothing to be gained by knowing the name of every grammatical construct there ever was.

The irony is that, even when learning foreign languages, this kind of 'grammar rules' approach is incredibly dated. Few would argue now that one could learn any language from scratch simply by learning a list of grammar rules. And of course, we have no need to learn our own native language from scratch. So these tests really do not serve any useful purpose at all.

Sadly, that is not all they do. By taking up important time in the curriculum, they prevent pupils from reading real texts or writing creatively themselves - ie what they should be doing.

Gove really is an idiot.

vess but you are basing your statements on the assumption that children aren't being taught grammar in primary school.

Nothing could be further from the truth. DD1 is now almost 12 and she learned this stuff in primary long before the test was even a twinkle in The Govester's eye. She learned the useful bits that I mentioned above, which have helped her enormously in her writing. This is the problem with Gove - he does not actually have a clue what goes on in state education. I'm sorry that your son's primary failed him, but what Gove should be doing is putting in place structures which will allow best practice in primaries (of which there is a lot) to be cascaded or percolated through to other schools. This whole throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach helps no-one.

Writing and grammar should be taught in tandem - it is perfectly possible to set an exercise which incorporates a particular aspect of grammar whilst also incorporating the techniques that make for a high-quality piece of written work - DD2, for example, has just completed a piece of work on describing Santa Claus and his room, which has to contain a range of apostrophes used in different ways (possessive/contraction) and other punctuation to make the piece interesting. She has written a beautiful description with engaging vocabulary and has really enjoyed it. It isn't a zero sum game at all.