Should children be put in ability sets?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
Guest
On the subject of formulaic teaching and jargon:
I remember both my children being taught the word 'phoneme' in Year1; they had both forgotten it by Year 3. What's wrong with the word 'sound'? No child is going to understand the true meaning of the word 'phoneme', and how many adults have even heard of the word?
And a real bugbear of my children: ENPs or 'extended noun phrases'. My children are both advanced readers/writers and hate the artificiality of writing filled with these. (For those fortunate enough not to know what I'm talking about, these are phrases which involve piling up a large number of adjectives in front of a noun). My year 4 son brought home a 'class story' that all the children had contributed to. Their writing was marred by these ENPs.
(Sorry, but I'd rather not be identifiable; I'm unpopular enough with my children's school!)
I remember both my children being taught the word 'phoneme' in Year1; they had both forgotten it by Year 3. What's wrong with the word 'sound'? No child is going to understand the true meaning of the word 'phoneme', and how many adults have even heard of the word?
And a real bugbear of my children: ENPs or 'extended noun phrases'. My children are both advanced readers/writers and hate the artificiality of writing filled with these. (For those fortunate enough not to know what I'm talking about, these are phrases which involve piling up a large number of adjectives in front of a noun). My year 4 son brought home a 'class story' that all the children had contributed to. Their writing was marred by these ENPs.
(Sorry, but I'd rather not be identifiable; I'm unpopular enough with my children's school!)
-
ANDREW THE POET
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Spalding, Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Thanks Catherine!
As to a few more words on jargon the reason why our children are being subjected to abstract concepts such as those mentioned, it is that the government want to address the poor standards of literacy amongst many primary children – as you probably know! However, this approach is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived ‘trendy’ approaches of teaching pioneered in the seventies. (I’m no fan of these either!) Advisors thought they could raise standards by ramming grammatical concepts down the throats of children who can barely scribe a few words together. It’s no wonder that so many children decide to regularly remove themselves from the system. This limited approach is also a factor in the deterioration of children’s behaviour in primary classrooms. In essence, many are simply very bored. I’m stupefied that teachers think it appropriate to dish-out such material. It calls into question as to whether the teachers involved have any real instinct as to how children actually learn.
Of course, it isn’t just the jargon which is at fault. Many of the skills children are ‘taught’ simply do not match their own abilities. For example, I was in a year 2 class who were doing ‘note-taking’ and making salient points from a given passage. Confused, most just opted to copy everything down! All children at Yr2 need to do is to have a love of language and confidence in spelling core words with a view to sentence structure. Another class in Yr4 were doing argumentative writing. This is a demanding skill used in GCSE work. Perhaps you could make a bit of a stab at this, but why not wait until they have the confidence and ability to do this properly. My son has been doing subordinate clauses in Yr 6. What he needs to be doing is extended writing in preparation for KS3. If all of this was really being taught then the secondary schools would have little else to do. As it is, secondary schools complain that many of their Yr7 pupils come to them lacking in basic spelling and writing ability – even at our local grammar.
Some schools I visit have thrown-out much of the literacy hour altogether and have stuck to a creative curriculum. Of course, spellings and writing skills are still taught. It’s just that these places are happier and a great deal more productive than many of the schools I might mention.
Now, that really IS enough from me.
PS ... enjoyed all your posts!
As to a few more words on jargon the reason why our children are being subjected to abstract concepts such as those mentioned, it is that the government want to address the poor standards of literacy amongst many primary children – as you probably know! However, this approach is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived ‘trendy’ approaches of teaching pioneered in the seventies. (I’m no fan of these either!) Advisors thought they could raise standards by ramming grammatical concepts down the throats of children who can barely scribe a few words together. It’s no wonder that so many children decide to regularly remove themselves from the system. This limited approach is also a factor in the deterioration of children’s behaviour in primary classrooms. In essence, many are simply very bored. I’m stupefied that teachers think it appropriate to dish-out such material. It calls into question as to whether the teachers involved have any real instinct as to how children actually learn.
Of course, it isn’t just the jargon which is at fault. Many of the skills children are ‘taught’ simply do not match their own abilities. For example, I was in a year 2 class who were doing ‘note-taking’ and making salient points from a given passage. Confused, most just opted to copy everything down! All children at Yr2 need to do is to have a love of language and confidence in spelling core words with a view to sentence structure. Another class in Yr4 were doing argumentative writing. This is a demanding skill used in GCSE work. Perhaps you could make a bit of a stab at this, but why not wait until they have the confidence and ability to do this properly. My son has been doing subordinate clauses in Yr 6. What he needs to be doing is extended writing in preparation for KS3. If all of this was really being taught then the secondary schools would have little else to do. As it is, secondary schools complain that many of their Yr7 pupils come to them lacking in basic spelling and writing ability – even at our local grammar.
Some schools I visit have thrown-out much of the literacy hour altogether and have stuck to a creative curriculum. Of course, spellings and writing skills are still taught. It’s just that these places are happier and a great deal more productive than many of the schools I might mention.
Now, that really IS enough from me.
PS ... enjoyed all your posts!
-
ANDREW THE POET
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Spalding, Lincolnshire
- Contact:
The literacy strategy is flawed, one of my specialist interests is on speech and language and as SENCO I worked closely with the speech and language therapists.
The strategy expects children to use concepts that are not yet in place with the majority of children of that age.
Tehh jargon is ridiculous! I have been to trainings where year 1 and Year R teachers were expected tpo tlak about phonemes.
When the startegy was first introduced I can remeber us all having to learn teh grammatical jargon, phonemes, graphemes, .....
The strategy expects children to use concepts that are not yet in place with the majority of children of that age.
Tehh jargon is ridiculous! I have been to trainings where year 1 and Year R teachers were expected tpo tlak about phonemes.
When the startegy was first introduced I can remeber us all having to learn teh grammatical jargon, phonemes, graphemes, .....
My experience is rather that grammar is not taught a lot in state primaries. At the beginning of year 7, my son knew that a verb is a 'do' word, but 'to be' not being an action, he didn't know that it was a verb!ANDREW THE POET wrote:ugh what happens inside classrooms to comment much. Just one thnig. I am suprised by yoyo123's and your comments about grammar:andANDREW THE POET wrote:dvisors thought they could raise standards by ramming grammatical concepts down the throats of children who can barely scribe a few words together.yoyo123 wrote:When the startegy was first introduced I can remeber us all having to learn teh grammatical jargon, phonemes, graphemes, .....
It looks like the curriculum changed recently to include more grammar, with some iffy terminology..
-
ANDREW THE POET
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Spalding, Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Hi Catherine,
I agree that children need to have a smattering of grammatical knowledge, but what has happened in primary schools is simply information-overload.
I'd never advocate a 'free-for-all' in such an important area. I'm a firm believer in regular (and appropriate!!!) spellings, a broad (and relevant) selection of material to read from and plenty of active learning to put the fun into learning just how the English language is put together.
Thanks for the last few posts - great stuff!
I agree that children need to have a smattering of grammatical knowledge, but what has happened in primary schools is simply information-overload.
I'd never advocate a 'free-for-all' in such an important area. I'm a firm believer in regular (and appropriate!!!) spellings, a broad (and relevant) selection of material to read from and plenty of active learning to put the fun into learning just how the English language is put together.
Thanks for the last few posts - great stuff!
