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?

Oh, TeenandTween, the horror! Just seeing you having written it there makes me see how ridiculous it would be.....but, yes, a little bit. I think it would be useful, for example, if they can tell the difference between nouns and verbs. Knowledge of clauses, and a sketchy knowledge of tenses has been quite useful. Pronouns, determiners etc. has helped....

But, ultimately students have to write about the effects of language features. For that, I'm not sure most of the terminology they've used in Year 6 will be relevant. The fact that they've learnt it though, means that I will be using it in Year 7 lessons from September.

Teen and curious in none of the exemplar material has tha sort of phrase been included - whether A* or E.
The highest level grammar was along the lines of 'the use of complex sentences here...' And 'by using pronouns the writer..'. There was nothing more complex than that ...

Mum the grammar in this format has been taught for a few years now (but not as complex). Before that grammar was taught in context. Which is much more relevant - in both private and state!

So you are teaching your year 10s what we are teaching our year 6's!

spanieleyes to be fair they have said they will be teaching it to lower year groups too.

Curious Great, we're all in agreement then (I think). Useful to know the parts of speech, tenses. But the more complicated 'naming', perhaps not so useful.

Also The fact that they've learnt it though, means that I will be using it in Year 7 lessons from September.

Don't hold your breath. The fact they have been taught it doesn't mean they have learnt it.

Thinking more about this, I would much rather my DD2 were learning about assonance, or juxtaposition, or use of rhetorical questions than some of the grammar she is being told about (and not understanding)

Not in as much detail as your poor year 6s but more in context depending on ability. Some of my poor pupils still struggle with your/you're (level 2 high school starters).
I have stuck with what I always do and teach them in context rather than as a separate subject. It used to be just building on what they did at primary but that has changed now as the skills coming through are very different. I don't envy any of us - primary or secondary!

At least the year 10's might have a better idea than my poor EAL and SEN pupils!

I just feel for anyone who is below the average. They have not been thought about at any age!

Oh well, back to teaching the different uses of commas, brackets and dashes tomorrow!

^"This is why your department provided a ludicrous list of “expected” levels for year 2 and year 6 children, full of terminology such as “subordinating conjunctions” and “fronted adverbials”.

You must hope we parents are so mystified by this that we’ll think it represents “rigour”. In fact, it’s the grammar invented to describe how the Romans wrote. Our forebears neither knew nor cared how the Romans spoke, so they devised a self-serving system of descriptions that bear little relation to why we say or write things the way we do. So, back with the new gold standard of “subordinating conjunctions”: all this kind of description does is describe language as if humans invented it for the sole purpose of fitting it together.

Amazingly, we invented speech and writing to enable us to do things. Language varies according to what we want it to do. But, oh heaven, treating it as a sealed system with right/wrong rules and answers is so very useful for giving very young children “reliable” tests, which then supposedly test whether the teachers have taught these rules, and which, hey presto, give you a score in your office. Then you’ve an excuse to fire a few teachers, and rush in one of your pet sponsors to take over running subordinating conjunctions for a few years."^

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/01/nicky-morgan-testing-primary-assessments?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This blog by an teacher of English makes an interesting argument against teaching grammar in context:

"If you want to teach grammar in context, you have two choices. You either give them feedback on their writing which concentrates just on the grammatical knowledge which you are engaged in actively teaching at the time, or you give them feedback on all the grammatical mistakes in every piece of work. If you take the first approach you will be forced to ignore certain mistakes and allow pupils to embed bad habits. Practice makes permanent and pupils become skilled at what they practise doing. If on the other hand you pick them up on every mistake you run the risk of overloading their working memory with the result that they will fail to learn anything. But if grammar is taught systematically and out of context then pupils will be able to master each item grammatical knowledge before moving on to the next step."

www.learningspy.co.uk/english-gcse/glamour-grammar/