There has been much comment, discussion and even fury in the media about the new grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS) tests for primary school pupils. Parents, teachers, academics and other commentators claim that the tests are inappropriate for primary pupils and that these high-stakes assessments have a deleterious effect on teaching and learning.
Part of the problem lies in terminology. Children have to spot examples of grammatical constructions such as “fronted adverbials”. This term has become notorious as it has not previously been used in grammatical descriptions and seems sometimes to apply to phrases that are essentially “adjectival”. The deeper problem is that the label becomes more important than the underlying reality. It is obviously good to teach children the structures of language, particularly if such knowledge helps to express themselves more accurately. But testing a knowledge of labels is very different from testing an understanding of language structures.
Such understanding requires a connection between children’s everyday understanding of language and the grammar they have to grasp. Linguists such as Halliday have developed a functional approach to language that gives meaning to everyday interactions. However, GPS relies on ‘ideal’ forms of language that contradict everyday experience. The Oxford or ‘serial’ comma is outlawed when it is in fact common and correct usage. GPS requires that ‘exclamations’ must begin with ‘How’ or ‘What’ and include a finite verb – which is not the case in real language use. Terms like ‘command’ or ‘exclamation’, which have a social function, refer in GPS only to specific grammatical structures.
This context-free view of grammar implies that children’s language is either right or wrong. Lord Bew’s review (2011) of Key Stage 2 testing, assessment and accountability seized (p.60) upon “spelling, grammar, punctuation, vocabulary” as elements of writing “where there are clear ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers, which lend themselves to externally-marked testing”. GPS performance thus becomes a key indicator of a school’s success or failure – even though the view of language enshrined in the tests is so limited.
2 thoughts on “Testing grammar”
Great stuff John. Right on point. Language is for people’s benefit , not the other way round!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It is obviously good to teach children the structures of language, particularly if such knowledge helps to express themselves more accurately. But testing a knowledge of labels is very different from testing an understanding of language structures.”
Seems close to criminal that we are back to backward thinking of the the debates of the 1950’s when it comes to teaching “grammar”. While language study is interesting and worthwhile I don’t think prescriptive instruction does much to help those struggling to express themselves in borrowed forms when their own rich and complex language that’s close to their lives and heart is challenged and dismissed as second rate, needing correcting and etc.
And “frontal adverbials”? Say what? Are they related to “dangling participles”?
Limping around in borrowed forms of language never did lead to confident writing.
Need to start with a clear statement of what it is we really want from young writers? What’s the purpose here? Then the work can begin on thinking about the best ways to accomplish that. It certainly never begins with inducing a sense of linguistic inadequacy and inferiority.
LikeLiked by 1 person