Have a go at the key stage 2 grammar SATS.

[neolara]

Have a go at this mini Key Stage 2 SATs test.

See if you'd pass.

I think it's incredibly important that all 10 year olds know what subordinating conjunctions, modal verbs and determiners are because I use these terms on a daily basis in my actual daily grown up life.

In fact, I'm delighted that my kids will be spending more time learning to label parts of speech and consequently less time on largely irrelevant stuff like computer programming, art, developing social skills, music, history, geography etc. The sort of things that barely impacts on my actual daily grown up life as I work alongside other people, use computers every day, travel, work as a social scientist, appreciate a wide range of cultural experiences such as music on the radio, plays, art galleries .......

While I totally get the need for kids to learn good spelling, punctuation and grammar, somehow I can't get my head round the feeling that things have just gone nuts. Firstly, learning to label grammar parts is not the same as learning to use good grammar. Secondly, learning to label grammar parts at the expense of learning all the other much more useful stuff seems crazy.

Ellie the tests are at a higher level (they include questions equivalent to old level 6). At the moment no one (and that seems to include the DfE) know exactly what the expectations are in order to reach the magic 100 scale score.
Judging by the exemplification material being released (in dribs and drabs) expectations are now around level 5 old money .. But it could all change!

Thank you for talking me through it mrz

Could you just clarify for me further why terms like subordinate conjunctions and modal verbs were declared so difficult if they had been taught all along?

I see. But I also heard that in the past teachers could decide whether a child was able to enter a level 5 or level 6 SAT at Year 6 as opposed to level 4 which was more the expectation. So it was like having three types of tests at the same time with increasing levels of difficulty that could suit a low, middle or high attainer.

But now it's like the teachers have been taken away that choice even though they are in the best position to know what each of their students is capable of.

Well, I read on the other thread that you said the NAHT (head teachers union) gave the DfE a week to respond to concern and are considering action. I hope something good comes out of this.

There used to be a test that covered level 3-5 and a further test for level 6. All children working at or above level 3 sat the first one, teachers could decide who should sit the latter. Now there is just one test covering all levels ( although we're not sure how much "level 3" or "level 6" content there might be in the test)

Ellie in previous years there was one test which covered levels 3-5 depending on the number of correct answers. In recent years the level 6 test was reintroduced which schools could choose to administer to some pupils ( level 5/6 being the expected level for the end of KS3 -14 year olds and equal to a GCSE oasis) and nationally very few pupils have achieved this (less than 1% in English).
The new test materials seem to be equivalent to old level 4-6 ...

Did you skip the part about context and content previously taught to older pupils moved down Dorothy?

No I didn't. I know from my own teaching that if these things were taught in context before then the knowledge certainly didn't stick. So I think a move to explicit teaching will be beneficial.

Grammar doesn't exist without context

You can learn definitions.

Then you could, as I said before, apply them to more than one example.

Eg the definition of the passive voice can be learnt.

Then students could be told in certain writing situations "Try to use the passive voice more!"

Or "Remember all modal verbs combine with an infinitive."

When it comes to learning an mfl they would get these things straightaway.

But hey, let's not burden them with all that... While other countries do and their students do better.

Unfortunately they are being tested on definitions ...

And?

If all teaching was fine and dandy so far, why was the UK 22 out 24 when tested on literacy?

Like most things that depends on the measure www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27314075

www.statslife.org.uk/opinion/1074-the-problems-with-pisa-statistical-methods

And if they were being tested on definitions wouldn't that be simple"

www.gov.uk/government/news/progress-in-international-reading-literacy-study-pirls-2016

My nine year old son just got 70%.He is not at a school that do SATS.

This is the kind of nonsense we're putting up with atm:

schoolsweek.co.uk/key-stage-1-changes-take-writing-back-to-the-19th-century/

Why do the exclamatory sentences need to start with what or how?

What is wrong with the following examples (all of which are more natural for 6 and 7 year olds than the odd stilted ones that the moderators appear to have been told to look for): Run! It's a monster! He won! It's mine!

They're all full sentences and exclamations.

Surely a child using any of them (particularly in an appropriate context) should be given the credit for being able to use exclamatory sentences in writing.

Nope. They have to start with 'What' Or 'How' - and not just for the purposes of the test, but in their own writing, or they are not at the 'expected' standard.

And none of this was even made clear unti now, halfway through the year.

Even if it hard been made clear, it's completely nonsensical.

I suspect it wasn't made clear before because they didn't want people to point out the very obvious flaws in the DfE reasoning.

Exactly. Nonsense.

Of course, this is a really lovely example of why teachers are not supportive of this nonsense. It has absolutely nothing to do with lacking skills or being scared of grammar. It's because, as usual, it's a set of entirely arbitrary and pointless hoops to make children jump through that actually prevent properly teaching grammar.

I despair. I'm not even slightly surprised though.

I bet no one at the DfE has an answer for why the exclamatory sentences must start with how or what. Because, really, what possible reason could there be?

Wow! Totally agree with the teachers on this.

I'm happy there is more emphasis on grammar in the new curriculum, but agree with the critics done by the teachers that this kind of arbitrary and rigid expectations do not help the children improve their writing and use of grammar.

What a load of nonsense (this is)!

While I agree that this is rather ridiculously nitpicky, especially for Key Stage 1, it is the case that exclamatory sentences are in their true definition sentences that start with what or how. Just sticking an exclamation mark on the end of a sentence doesn't make it an exclamatory sentence.

The Cambridge dictionary disagrees with you:

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exclamatory-sentence