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?

Yes

DorothyL I have to admit that if those worksheets are about the same level as the SATs then it won't be as bad as I thought for my DC1.

Those worksheets are from a Gymnasium in Germany. Do they also do the same level of work in a Realschule or a Hauptschule? Just wondering as obviously 5. Klasse is secondary school level but our year 6s are still at primary and all of them will be expected to do the same work.

Realschule

Hauptschule

You can't see the actual tests here but the headings show what is being tested.

Thanks for those. They do seem slightly easier, mainly 'Wortarten, 4 Fälle, Fachbegriffe, Artikel.'

Leslieknope45 Just wondering as obviously 5. Klasse is secondary school level but our year 6s are still at primary

I'm a bit confused as DorothyL said that Klasse five was the same as year 6 primary.

I've not read through the worksheets but if the headings (pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, Commas, propositions, prepositions) are, anything to go by, the SATs will not be any problem for my DS as he has certainly covered all these areas in years 3, 4, 5 & 6.

Actually mrz, I don't think I stated when grammar was 'dropped from the curriculum ' or in fact said that it was dropped at all. I don't really know anything about the curriculum from before I was at school.
I am not saying no grammar has been taught. I'm saying not enough grammar has been taught. And yes, I am extremely familiar with which parallels can usefully be drawn between English grammar and that of other languages, since I only ever make those comparisons in order to help pupils, not just for the sake of teaching them extra English grammar (which, though a worthy aim in itself, would nit be very good use of MFL curriculum time).

In Grundschule do they study eleven different subjects? In 1 klasse? In 2 klasse? Or do they focus on basics?

Merciful the point is that prior to 1988 one school might teach grammar rigorously and the school down the street might teach it less rigorously and the school in the next town might not teach it at all because they could teach what they wanted.
There was NO curriculum so it was hit and miss about what schools taught ... That's why a national curriculum was introduced.
Grammar wasn't dropped,it was never in ... Because there wasn't a curriculum for it to be in!

My DC go to an independent school and so don't do sats but they do have to sit entrance assessments for senior school (essentially a version of the 11+). They have to do a lot of grammar (and as a 1970s/80s state school child I have been learning it along with them even though I instinctively know a lot of it anyway just by virtue of being able to speak English).

I wouldn't have thought the grammar required for SATS is that different to that required for the 11+/private school entrance exams?

I've not read through the worksheets but if the headings (pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, Commas, propositions, prepositions) are, anything to go by, the SATs will not be any problem for my DS as he has certainly covered all these areas in years 3, 4, 5 & 6.

Is there any mention of subjunctive mood, past progressive tense,present perfect, passive and active voice, subordinate clauses, cohesive device, co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions, fronted adverbial phrases, transitive and intransitive verbs, modal verbs etc because these are what your year 6 child is now covering

But what is the problem with that? I've read the entire thread and I don't yet understand what the problem is. Is it the fact that there will be less time for creative writing? Because the reality is that grammar will be far more useful to them in later life than creative writing (in all likelihood).

redhat Mon 29-Feb-16 07:29:24 I wouldn't have thought the grammar required for SATS is that different to that required for the 11+/private school entrance exams?

I'm not sure the 11 plus used for state selectives (I don't know about the 11 plus used for private school tbh) can be compared to the SATs as the purpose for which it is designed is very different. What's more there is no standard 11 plus exam (VR, NVR, Maths & creative writing).

Given that the 11 plus for selective state schools is designed to identify the top 5%, 10%, 25% or 30%, I would actually expect it to be harder, in some cases, than the SATs exams.

spanieleyes passive and active voice was mentioned, my DCs (yr 6 & yr 3) have both had lessons which have covered this. None of the others were mentioned. However I got the impression that DorothyL is familiar with the SATs content which is why they provided those worksheets to demonstrate that the same level of grammar is being expected of primary school children in Germany.

Progressive tenses are not mentioned because they don't exist in German. Instead a lot of time is spent on cases, which English children don't have to worry about. Otherwise yes, they are all included.

Yes for Hauptschule the demands are lower but then I'm sure the material is going to be differentiated here.

Usually primary children have 6 to seven subjects, with one of them covering several - Sachkunde is history/geography/science combined. School ends at midday so I don't think they have more time to cover the basics.

Yes I'm not arguing with any of that, mrz. I am merely saying that almost no British person I've ever met except linguists and classicists has anything even approaching a decent knowledge of the grammar of their own language. I am basing my judgement on the many classes I have taught and the many acquaintances and colleagues with whom I have discussed the issue.

I am not interested in harking back to some supposedly golden pre-1970 or 1980 age of grammatical rigour, because I have no reason to think that really existed. I am merely saying that I believe that a considerably more thorough understanding of the structure of English will be beneficial and that I am glad (and surprised) that it is finally being addressed. I am concerned (but not surprised) at the haste with which it is being introduced and at the apparent lack of training and preparation for the teachers and the first cohort of pupils. Unfortunately it is often thus.

I heard about all this in MFL at secondary, so it might have been useful to know in advance.

I offered to take DD out of school in year 6. She chose to stay and seemed happier knowing she was there by choice.

But what is the problem with that? I've read the entire thread and I don't yet understand what the problem is. Is it the fact that there will be less time for creative writing? Because the reality is that grammar will be far more useful to them in later life than creative writing (in all likelihood).

I have two DDs who went through one of the most selective independent girls' schools in the country, and have As in English Language and Literature GCSEs and one has A at A level in English Literature and is currently studying it on one of the most highly ranked university courses in the country. Like me, I attended one of the most selective state (direct grammar) schools in the country in the 60s /70s, they have never studied grammar in such a mechanistic way. What they learnt was how to express themselves articulately and appropriately given the purpose and audience for their writing whether it is an inspiring speech , a piece of meaningful creative writing, a report or a piece of journalism. And a lot of skill in that comes not just from practise but from widespread and diverse reading. I am so glad my children were not put off a love of literacy by having to study it in such a dry and mechanistic way, instead of focusing on developing those skills.

It seems to me a bit like driving a car. As it happens because I am fascinated by it I do know exactly how an engine works and what each part is called but I don't think that everyone needs to know that to drive a car well. I wonder how many people would be put off driving a car by being required to understand the process of internal combustion, and draw diagrams of it?Equally I respect that some people want to be what I regard as a bit anal about grammar and spelling, I am sure linguistics is fascinating for some. However as a senior manager what I needed was to be able to communicate effectively, and frankly some of the most effective business leaders I know were practically illiterate but with a few grammar free bullet points could communicate exactly what they wanted........

Redhat: I'm pleased that many people think it is worth learning grammar in such detail, because I am less worried now about feeling that my children will be wasting their time and energy and stress on all of this.

However, I'm still not completely reassured ... because it seems from what teachers have written that none of this grammar is going to be continued in secondary. So children will be using a lot of time and energy to learn a complicated system that will then be forgotten. I don't imagine much will be retained if its never used again after Year 6.

What do you feel about this? Happy for you to convince me that its still all OK!

Why is it never used again after YR6? I assumed it will be treated as a basic knowledge and used as such? Like they don't keep teaching you about punctuation once you learned it, but you keep using it afterwards?

Thank you tiggytape.

Yes for Hauptschule the demands are lower but then I'm sure the material is going to be differentiated here.
Well no, that's the thing, the exam won't be differentiated (unless exam level differentiation counts when it's differentiation by result)

I have two DDs who went through one of the most selective independent girls' schools in the country,

These are the kind of children who are more likely to be able to pick up grammar and punctuation intuitively.

There are many others who don't. This can be clearly seen by anyone reading through a selection of randomly chosen GCSE exam scripts. To understand punctuation, especially commas, you actually do need a fair knowledge of grammar, unless you are able to punctuate intuitively. By restricting the ability to write correctly to those who can do it intuitively, we have set up a lot of children for unnecessary difficulties in their future jobs and lives.