Every so often, I like to go against the grain, fight
against the tide and, metaphorically, hit my head repeatedly against a brick
wall. I like to look at a current issue and look at it from the opposite point
of view and develop a reasoned argument. I could easily follow the crowd and
surf the waves of popularity and, possibly, common sense, but I like to think
about all aspects of an issue before I pick up my pitchfork and flaming torch
and storm the castle.
The recent grammar test for Year 6s has caused lots of
publicity. We have had teachers boasting they couldn’t answer the paper. We
have had famous writers saying that they couldn’t possibly complete the paper.
We have had headteachers writing letters to students openly critiquing the tests.
We have had teachers making students write letters to the Prime Minister to
abolish the tests because of the stress it has caused them. I think it is fair
to say that there is no love for the test. I have, however, sat and read all
the articles and listened to all the discussions and they have been all
one-sided. Everybody is in agreement it is rubbish, but I am not so sure.
Point 1: It is
stressful.
One argument that has been paraded around by novelists and
writers is that it causes stress. The test apparently causes stress for the
children at a time they should be enjoying life. This week I have seen Year 11s
sit their GCSE exams for English and Maths. The exams could be described as a
very stressful time as their future is dependent on the result of their
performance. The path they take will be influenced by that one paper. There are
high stakes involved. As teachers, we help them manage with that stress. As a
head of department, I speak to students before and after the exams. I cajole
and reassure before and after an exam. This week I had to support a student who felt
they had underperformed in one particular exam. I metaphorically picked them up
and helped them place a bit of perspective on things. A student feeds off a
teacher for emotions.
Exams and tests are stressful in nature, but it is the
teacher’s reaction to the test and the consequences of the testing that are
important. What is making a grammar test so stressful? Why is it more stressful
than a writing test? Or a reading test? Are we, as teachers, transferring our
stresses onto the students? For teachers, we know there are high stakes for
schools. SATs are an accurate or inaccurate measuring stick of teaching quality
in a school. But, what does the test mean to the student? All students want to
do well. I can see how a student might be worried about this fact. They want to
do well. They want to please their parents. They want to please the teacher.
They want to show off. But, what makes this test more stressful than other
tests? What do the students think will happen if they do badly with this one
grammar test?
I’d like to know why a headteacher wrote a letter to
students, because the question I’d be asking is: what is the real cause of the
stress? What will happen if the student does badly in the test? Nothing much.
Secondary schools will use the data in some way or not. But it is not clear and
concrete as to what the outcome of the tests are likely to be. Stress is like a
disease. It spreads and mutates. A stressed headteacher means stressed heads of
department which means stressed teachers which results in stressed students. Students
don’t get stressed in isolation. They must have something around them
signalling that this is a stressful situation.
Point 2: It is
difficult and it spoils a love of reading.
One of the common arguments thrusted in the debate is that
the test will put off students from reading. Interestingly, the people putting
this argument forward are novelists and writers. The fear is that the test and
the focus on the test will have a detrimental effect on a love of reading.
Where is the evidence that a focus on SPaG reduces an enjoyment of literature?
Rarely, have I heard students moan about the teaching of grammar in lessons.
They moan about writing, but not the grammar necessarily. In fairness, the
amount of time dedicated to reading might be affected. This is a valid point in
the argument, but again that is dependent on how the school wishes to treat SPaG.
I fear that the grammar test focus is only one little crack
in the dam. The problem is getting students reading and keeping them reading.
Some students have no books at home. Some students have no role models around
them reading. Some students have no opportunities to read or borrow books. Some
students have nobody to guide them towards reading. Culturally, students aren’t
reading enough independently. Mr Gove’s comment about students reading fifty
books is right. They should be reading more. That will make them better. Getting
more books in young people’s lives is important. Books are good enough on their
own to get students to love reading. We should be working on making more
opportunities for students to connect with books and that doesn’t mean in the
classroom.
Stop the closing of libraries. Stop the closure of libraries
in schools. Make sure teachers have loads of books for students. Make sure
students have access to books everywhere. A small exam booklet will not fix or
break the world.
Point 3: It isn’t
necessary.
The grammar paper has done one thing. It has raised the
profile of grammar and grammar terminology. We are all talking about fronted adverbials
now. The language in the classroom has improved and become more grammar focused. However, I don’t wash with the argument that some have given: I can write
really well, but I didn’t know about the rules. When students don’t read enough
to learn the rules, we need to be more explicit with the rules. It is
interesting to note that all the people spouting off about how they weren’t
taught grammar at school, yet they can write brilliantly, are big readers.
Could it be that they taught themselves to use grammar through their reading experiences?
Our students are not reading enough and so they need explicit grammar teaching.
They are not subconsciously learning the rules of language through exposure to
good texts that follow or play around with the rules. We need something in place. Either we have
enforced reading in schools for one or two hours, or, we combine reading with
explicit teaching of grammar concepts.
Furthermore, would you teach science without explanation?
No. What would science lessons be like if you never explained why things happened?
Today’s lesson is about the sun. Ohh, isn’t bright? Isn’t it hot? End of
lesson. You would explore what makes it hot and why being hot is important.
Teaching reading and writing needs some explanation. Grammar is the
explanation. It is not necessary for appreciation, but it is necessary for
copying and recreating. The term fronted adverbial explains what the bit is at
the start is for. Your life might not be radically changed, but you will understand
the construction of the sentence better and you might use it again.
The problem with grammar is that people get bogged down with
terminology. There is a fear of grammar, and, terminology is just another block
to stumble over with when facing this fear. Yes, I didn’t know what a fronted
adverbial is before, but now I do, and I can teach it. Knowledge should be
passed on and shared. It might not be necessary, but it could and will support
or help someone. People may have used them in their writing before knowing the
term, but they will be more likely to use them more often now they know of it.
Before, it was random chance. Now, it is an option.
I think the problem with the grammar test is that we weren’t
consulted about what grammar terms should be tested. That is where the problem lies.
It was decided for us. However, the learning of grammar terms appeals to some
students. The ‘wishey-washiness’ of English has been a problem. Things are
occasionally too abstract at times. The concrete rules of language (when we
decide what the rule is) appeals to some students. I can spout hundreds of
technical terms associated with the early special effects of Doctor Who, such
as C.S.O. I liked the technical aspects as a child. I can bore you to death with the special effects of 1970s television. As a school, we have been setting all KS3
students a grammar test and it is interesting to see how the students respond
to it. The boys, in my anecdotal experience, are quite positive towards it because
it is clear, concrete and either right or wrong. Grammar could be the aspect
that motivates some boys. There is a type of student out there who loves the
cataloguing and naming of aspects - it was me as a teenager.
I also think it is necessary because it is another way to teach writing and reading. There are a number of ways to teach reading and writing and there is no one consistent method. This way, at least, there is some sense of consistency. Until we have a clear, sure-fire way of teaching students to read and write, then another strategy is better than none.
I love primary teachers. I really do: I married one. She’ll
probably punch me after I have typed this. Anybody who teaches students several
different subjects in a day with a wide range of abilities in one class has my
utmost respect. This blog isn’t about undermining the hard work primary
teachers do daily. It is about providing a bit of balance to one-sided argument
so far.
Thanks for reading,
Xris
P.S. No students were harmed in the writing of this blog and
no student has been made to write a letter to the Prime Minister requesting for
more tests. Like all things, I don’t think we should include students in our political
arguments. It only adds to their stress.
