For those who say that children don't learn grammar any more.....

Wow, this was difficult. I got 80% but Heaven knows how! Terminology has changed since I was taught, (1950s and 60s). I'll never again say, 'Grammar isn't taught any more'.

railman the compiler of the test is implementing Government policy. Perhaps people have not realised the extent to which the Government micro-manages the curriculum now?
MaizieD I read the article, but it is obviously written from a completely American point of view. Does the US have a centrally controlled curriculum like the English one?
Schools in England really don't have the freedom to teach non-standard English, in the way that you suggested earlier in the thread.

Dear 'bear', your comment, " What is now being taught in schools is Oxford English grammar, which is different again and is formulated in Latin grammar, which is why so much of it doesn't make sense" struck home as my daughter who studied Latin explained the split infinitive rule to me and it made perfect sense - in Latin!

All this may (modal!) improve their knowledge of English, but will it enhance their enjoyment of it?

What about the children with learning needs who are working hard, but are unable to grasp the analysis of the language in such depth?

At what stage do they become disenaged and ultimately disenchanted with English?

Ha ha! I was in exactly the same position. Never formally taught grammar myself, I picked up the 'how to do it' bit by reading and I learned the rules from reading textbooks and grammar books. Came in quite handy since I taught English for 34 years.

I agree with you Lupatria. I have written a number of books, hundreds of thousands of words in a wide range of magazines and journals - even edited a couple - and I too found the questions themselves barely intelligible.

There seems to me a complexity in the structure that doesn't help good communication.

To understand the questions maybe the children (and the teachers) should be provided with a copy of "Fowler's Modern English Usage" as a textbook!!

Many of the definitions - like "determiner" perhaps - seem to require teachers to have addressed the use of "referent" or "referents" of a "Noun phrase".

For children aged 7 to 11 !! Really, how will this improve communication?

I suspect that the compiler of questions in the English Key Stage 2 tests may not achieve a "Plain English" award.

I blame the linguistics academics who tortured the life out of the A level English Language syllabus I taught in the 90's. I have known students who could spout all the terminology, but couldn't communicate ideas in a workable sentence to save their lives. I have known secretaries who could write a better letter than I, an English teacher! Some people have an instinct for writing grammatically, and some people communicate ungrammatically admirably. BUT, i still get worked up about the greengrocer's redundant apostrophes.

I am all for teaching grammatical structure (and always did even in the seventies and eighties) and I am not too bothered about changing the terminology; you just have to learn what it means. I had to re-learn a lot of it when I started teaching English as a foreign language in France, but if you have a good grasp of the language it isn't difficult, just another code. I am learning Spanish through the medium of French at the moment and I have certainly had to re-acquaint myself with gerunds.
I don't think you can expect to learn everything you are ever going to need at school, lifelong learning is essential to survival, surely?
I think over-focusing on grammatical structure to the exclusion of writing practice is wrong. You learn to write by writing (and it would be helpful if French schools understood that you learn to speak by speaking).
Why are they doing it at this level in primary schools? Because Michael Gove said so and Nicky Morgan agrees with him.

I also got 9/10, but a lot of the questions were quite difficult for someone with a really good knowledge (GCE Grade 2 pass, 1964) of English Grammar, let alone primary school kids. I was misjudging SATs (thought they were just to show that kids had an appropriate level of education for their age group!)

I also got 9/10, but a lot of the questions were quite difficult for someone with a really good knowledge (GCE Grade 2 pass, 1964) of English Grammar, let alone primary school kids. I was misjudging SATs (thought they were just to show that kids had an appropriate level of education for their age group!)

An example of the 'teaching grammar is elitist' debate:

paintingthegreyarea.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/literacy-privilege/

One of my primary school teachers (p3, perhaps?) read us a story book, 'The Grammatical Kittens' which painlessly introduced us to grammatical terms such as nouns, verbs, adjectives etc. If we could absorb those terms, presumably the Y6 children of today know how to use terms such as determiners. As GS and GD both achieved Level 5, I have to assume that they had learnt all about modern grammatical terminology and were able to apply it. Unsurprisingly, I am told by one who knows these stats, that far fewer children reach level 6 in English than reach it in Maths.
One of the more peculiar questions in my Higher English paper (almost 60 years ago) was: "Write sentences using 'round' as five different parts of speech".

Some of the terminology was unfamiliar to me. However, I consider that I write and speak correct English, and surely that is the point, and should be what is tested, if tests must be taken.

i know that things have changed in the years since i left school with english language O level but i found myself unable to understand the wording of the questions!!!

i was never taught any of the "grammar words" which they are now and yet i am able to write and speak "properly" grammatical sentences - at least so i think.

i too the test and got only 2 right - if they're teaching children this way these days no wonder so many [and i include both my older grandaughters here] are finding english both hard and boring at the same time.

it's all very well wanting them to be able to write and speak grammatically but why on earth are they teaching them in such a convoluted way?

and there's no mention of spelling here - my second grandaughter had some evil spellings to learn over the christmas holiday [my daughter thought that it wasn't the right time to be learning spellings anyway] and she did badly in the test. there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the way spellings are taught either - sometimes the words are appropriate to her age and sometimes they're way, way above ........ and she's got a very good vocabulary too.

and [sorry to go on] handwriting is another things which has reared it's ugly head for my second grandaughter. all of a sudden she's expected to use "joined up" writing and HAS to get it right [on the line] practically overnight or she gets a detention .................. she's only 10 and i think it's far, far too early for her to be under the stress she is currently with english - don't get me started on maths!!!!

I think that's standard English as opposed to dialect bear. Many people are 'bilingual' in that sense. A prime example of this can be seen in the poems of Robbie Burns, where he can move effortlessly from broad dialect into perfect English.

Grammar every day sounds like a good way to murder any interest in reading and writing. Unless the teachers are brilliant at making it fun. Which would be a challenge to some I suspect.

At the risk of getting shot down in flames for saying this, we all learn grammar at our mother's or carer's knee, absorbing it naturally as we learn to speak. And so equally naturally we all learn slightly different grammars to suit the English we are speaking. South London grammar for example is very different to that of West Indian English. Both are equally correct. What is now being taught in schools is Oxford English grammar, which is different again and is formulated in Latin grammar, which is why so much of it doesn't make sense.

It's also called the past continuous, gettingonabit, which I always think describes it better. It's the tense where you would say ' I was walking ....'. Basically it's the '...ing' tense, and there's one for past, present and future tenses.

Found it! It's what I know as the "imperfect".

I found another one of those quizzes on the Guardian site. I did a bit better on that one, thankfully.

Still don't know what a "past progressive" is though.

Any ideas?

I fink you might be right there!!!

anya cross-post there, sorry!

In my book, teachers' grasp is correct. There is more than one teacher, and "grasp" is indeed a noun, so follows the "teachers' books, pupils' shoes" rule.

Thats wot I finks, anyway.

No Anya the sentence is : 'teachers' grasp of spelling is woeful'. The verb here is 'is' not 'grasp' which is a noun and is possessed (or not) by teachers.

anya if you're referring to teacher-bashing, then, yes, I agree.

This is something that really surprised me when dd was younger. I couldn't believe the extent to which teachers were undermined by parents, and quite often within the hearing of the children. These parents seemed to think that these people, doing a demanding job under difficult circumstances, were fair game.

I'm a teacher myself (no longer practising, thankfully) and there's nothing that would put me off going back into the classroom more than the thought of my work being constantly picked over.

Correct me if I'm wrong Baden but the apostrophe usually denotes possession. Can you possess a verb? Yes, the teachers' staff room, or the boy's books or boys' books, and so on. But is not grasp, used in this context a verb?

Interesting point. Let me ponder that further....