Will all the grammar for SATs be used in Secondary?

[bicyclebell]

A question for teachers, both primary and secondary.

I'm appalled at all this obsessive grammar learning children are being made to do in primary for the SATS - under the new curriculum.

Its the labeling I can't stand. I'm sure its useful to learn some grammar - although I didn't in the 80s. And I still went to university to study English.

Its worrying me so much that I'm thinking of taking my children out in Year 6 to home school them and so miss the stress and boredom of that SATS year. I'll keep them learning - but not bother with all the grammar labeling.

Will that cause problems in secondary school do you think?

UnmentionedElephantDildo Sorry! You are right. It is about entirely how useful the grammar will be further down the line. That is completely separate from the way it is being taught and tested. I think I must have imagined that there was some parental concern over the teaching and testing in Y6, as in some parents mentioned they were thinking about home schooling because of their concerns. Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick.

icurgnmum

Sorry too! Threads can and do wander from the point of the OP, and I wondered after I'd posted if I'd been a bit too strident. Really relieved you didn't come back all guns blazing!

For goodness sake, no one is arguing that grammar shouldn't be taught! There is concern that

1. the new curriculum expectations HAVEN'T been introduced carefully and steadily-they have been dropped on the year 6 children with one year's prior warning yet the expectation is that the children will reach the "required standard" or be labelled failures
2. the terminology to be used has changed with no apparent reason behind it-fronted adverbials anyone? This means that not only have the children to relearn much of what has already been taught, they have to remember the correct terminology too.
3. the standard expected is considerably higher than that required in many A level and university courses-we have adults on here with English degrees struggling to "pass" the tests that we are expecting 10 and 11 year olds to face
4. the knowledge gained in primary school is then not followed through in English classes at secondary-and will therefore be lost
5. the fact that it will help with the acquisition of foreign languages is a benefit but again if the technical terms are not followed through or taught in secondary, by the time the children come to be using the passive voice in French they will have forgotten what it was in English!
6. the use of language in writing is being reduced to a tick list of grammatical features to be included, children have to ensure they include the passive voice, subjunctive mood, past progressive and present perfect tense and words from the Year 5/6 list of spellings rather than expressing a range of emotions, thoughts and ideas ( a recent briefing from the STA told teachers to ensure that children used words they could spell rather than experiment with more adventurous vocabulary they were perhaps unsure about as that would mean the spelling component of their writing could be "ticked off"!)

Grammar and spelling have been part of the year 6 testing regime for a number of years, what is different this year is the sudden increase in the standard expected. In recent assessments my year 6 children sat both last years grammar paper and this years sample. On the previous paper all but 2 reached the pass mark, on this years paper ONLY 2 achieved a similar mark. For the rest, their understanding of grammar and spelling didn't drop from one day to the next but they now face the probability that they will "fail".

Year 6 teachers will do their very best to ensure that the children they are responsible for have the knowledge and understanding they now need to demonstrate, that's their job! But don't expect us to think that the WAY the curriculum has been introduced is a benefit to the children, it isn't.

spanieleyes brilliantly put.

i agree spaniel eyes! Already the school near me have lost time in the more creative subjects to cram for being able to underine a fronted adverbial. Thats the kind of thing that makes me consider homeschooling. That level of "understanding" isnt needed by the general population. Fine if you're on a linguistics degree but not for every 11 year old child. Really.

Really well put Spanieleyes.

Oh, and as Year 6 teacher I LOVE teaching grammar ( I'm a maths specialist and find the rules and regulations of grammar very similar!) but HATE the effect it is having in my classroom!

I totally agree with spaniel. I teach secondary and with the pupils coming through having done the recent SPaG I have found that creativity is lost. There is no link between new GCSE changes in English (current year 29) and the changes in KS2.
True there are more marks for SPaG but these are for me use of sentence structure, vocabulary and punctuation. The KS2 changes seem to be the opposite of what is required in the new spec GCSE (narrative writing included again after a break!). No where in the exam are you asked to identify the use of high level grammar expected at primary.
What is interesting is that in years 7 and 8 pupils struggle with certain aspects of comprehension as they will answer technically and point out the techniques used - not what is actually needed.
The implications for progress 8, KS2 results etc are horrific - primary and secondary need to stand together!
Oh and we have been told anyone who has missed KS2 SATS will resist in year 7.
Governments need to ask teachers!!

Please Excuse any typos / in a car with a very excited pug on my knee!

So what about KS1 SATs? As these children have been taught under the new curriculum since last year in Year 1, they should be prepared to meet expectations with the new test.

And presumably this cohort will be the first to be fully prepared to take the KS2 new tests in four years time without having to play catch up and all the stress associated with it.

Agree that the main problem is the way the changes have been introduced.

For KS1 the main issue is that the expectations from Y3/4 have been moved to the end of Y2 so children are expected to learn what previously took 4 years in half that time.

So were there no creative writers before grammar was dropped from the curriculum in the 80s? What a load of bollocks. Are there no creative writers in France, where there is an absolute right and wrong? Of course not.

I'm in publishing and we're getting young editors, with English degrees, who don't know quite basic grammar. That is not a good situation.

I really do think it's absolute laziness. If you're learning a foreign language you can't get away from getting spelling and grammar wrong, but we don't expect British people to get their own language right? But of course the previous little darlings at school now can't be expected to be both creative and know grammar.

*precious. Typing in the car!

River Tam grammar wasn't dropped from the curriculum in the 80s ...there wasn't a National Curriculum until 1988 before that schools were free to teach what they wanted.

Grammar has always featured in the National Curriculum (anyone remember Grammar for Writing?) but in context not in a pub quiz formula.

River Tam I suggest you look at how useful the new grammar tests are in relation to creative writing before you comment. Pupils can deconstruct a sentence but struggle to write a creative one as over thinking the grammar. They have been taught (not at the fault if their teachers) to think about grammatical structure rather than what makes something a pleasure to read.
I would have thought you in your publishing job more than anyone would understand that.
Nobody is saying no grammar - just the grammar that is taught at KS2 is rather pointless as not needed in the GCSEs. Pupils at my school (state comp) have grammar and spellings every week in English alongside a wealth of other skills - as I am sure most pupils do. What teachers are arguing about us a multi choice exam that is being taught in place of creativity by primary teachers under pressure from a government who appear to have as much knowledge about what happens in classrooms as some posters ....

Nicely put spaniel

River Tam grammar wasn't dropped from the curriculum in the 80s

No, it was in the 70s. I did teacher training in the early 70s and remember being told we shouldn't correct pupils' grammar and spelling because doing so would stifle creativity. This was at primary level.

The consequence has been that, as River Tam says, there are people who use English in their professional lives who don't know how to use an apostrophe or punctuate a sentence.

IT wasn't dropped from the curriculum in the 70s either ( or 60s 50s or any other decade). There wasn't a national curriculum until 1988 before then schools could teach grammar or not teach grammar as they wished!

Harriet nobody is saying that functional grammar is not important - just how it is being taught and at what level to primary school pupils

www.independent.co.uk/student/news/can-you-pass-the-government-s-new-controversial-key-stage-2-english-grammar-punctuation-and-spelling-a6719501.html

Have a go ... Remember this is to be done by 10 and 11 year olds

No, it was in the 70s. I did teacher training in the early 70s and remember being told we shouldn't correct pupils' grammar and spelling because doing so would stifle creativity. This was at primary level.

That was over 45 years ago, things have changed somewhat since then!

Mrz we have to highlight every spelling and grammatical error these days ....