Do you know a subordinating conjunction or a preposition?
Discussion
Argument going about whether an MP knows if in the sentence
'I went to the cinema after I’d eaten my dinner”
'after' is a subordinating conjunction or a preposition
and particularly should primary school kids know?
How many of us know?
Does it affect your every day life? How much do you worry about it?
Someone tell me that in every other country of the world primary kids ( or older) know the difference between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/03/b...
'I went to the cinema after I’d eaten my dinner”
'after' is a subordinating conjunction or a preposition
and particularly should primary school kids know?
How many of us know?
Does it affect your every day life? How much do you worry about it?
Someone tell me that in every other country of the world primary kids ( or older) know the difference between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/03/b...
saaby93 said:
Argument going about whether an MP knows if in the sentence
'I went to the cinema after I’d eaten my dinner”
'after' is a subordinating conjunction or a preposition
and particularly should primary school kids know?
How many of us know?
Does it affect your every day life? How much do you worry about it?
Someone tell me that in every other country of the world primary kids ( or older) know the difference between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/03/b...
Absolutely no idea what either of those terms are -'I went to the cinema after I’d eaten my dinner”
'after' is a subordinating conjunction or a preposition
and particularly should primary school kids know?
How many of us know?
Does it affect your every day life? How much do you worry about it?
Someone tell me that in every other country of the world primary kids ( or older) know the difference between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/03/b...
How have I survived for 5 decades without this knowledge!!
williamp said:
Romans they go the house?
As long as no one suggests their dinner may be fit for Jehovahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 4th May 00:09
I heard that live, ironically on the way to a school meeting. This is the second time recently that I've heard questions posed to 'people who should know' where the obvious appearance of a preposition (that was not) seemed to be a deliberate trap. My worry is that some of the test questions used as the basis for these might also be set-up, trap like, to really test children. If so, many in the heat and rush of a test (and given their young age, at 10 or 11 years) might well fall for it and make errors they probably wouldn't in class.
The way in which children are often taught to recognise a subordinating conjunction (effectively) is to look for a subject and a verb following the cue, leading to a subordinate clause. Gibbs was right that after can be a preposition, but missed the trick here and then flapped, trying to say it could sometimes be a conjunction, then that it "wasn't about me"! They never learn. Perhaps he should tale a leaf out of Cameron's book and plead the Nicky Morgan defence.
The way in which children are often taught to recognise a subordinating conjunction (effectively) is to look for a subject and a verb following the cue, leading to a subordinate clause. Gibbs was right that after can be a preposition, but missed the trick here and then flapped, trying to say it could sometimes be a conjunction, then that it "wasn't about me"! They never learn. Perhaps he should tale a leaf out of Cameron's book and plead the Nicky Morgan defence.
Bring on the clowns said:
The way in which children are often taught to recognise a subordinating conjunction (effectively) is to look for a subject and a verb following the cue, leading to a subordinate clause. Gibbs was right that after can be a preposition, but missed the trick here
When you say 'are often'How often?
Do most kids in school know this today?
saaby93 said:
Argument going about whether an MP knows if in the sentence
'I went to the cinema after I’d eaten my dinner”
'after' is a subordinating conjunction or a preposition
and particularly should primary school kids know?
How many of us know?
Does it affect your every day life? How much do you worry about it?
Someone tell me that in every other country of the world primary kids ( or older) know the difference between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/03/b...
It's a subordinating conjunction and the fact that the clueless education minister (identified with the tests) utterly failed, miserably so, in answering it correctly, tells you everything!'I went to the cinema after I’d eaten my dinner”
'after' is a subordinating conjunction or a preposition
and particularly should primary school kids know?
How many of us know?
Does it affect your every day life? How much do you worry about it?
Someone tell me that in every other country of the world primary kids ( or older) know the difference between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/03/b...
6-7 year olds don't need to know about subordinating conjunctions. There is plenty of time ahead for them as they get older. 6-7 years old FFS!!
Eamonn Holmes early this morning said 'kids hate going to school anyway so does it matter?'
Yes, it does matter. And shows how out of touch he is. Most kids of 4,5,6 and 7 will skip joyously to school, they love it! I sometimes take our granddaughter. She absolutely loves school! Her sister is just over 2 years old has started playschool. Her face literally lights up on the days she goes. Their innocence is a joy.
F. leave it that way until they are older. There is enough stress later on without it this early on.
And yes, the 6 year old is getting her education. Her spelling (something that matters more than knowing what a subordinating conjunction is at 6 or 7) is better than
saaby93 said:
Bring on the clowns said:
The way in which children are often taught to recognise a subordinating conjunction (effectively) is to look for a subject and a verb following the cue, leading to a subordinate clause. Gibbs was right that after can be a preposition, but missed the trick here
When you say 'are often'How often?
Do most kids in school know this today?
The problem is that we've had decades of apologists who have systematically dumbed down GCSEs and A Levels, decades of 'every one is a winner' and decades of 'don't worry about grammar or spelling or syntax, just express yourself' in schools. What this means is that when the little blighters get to University (that's nearly 50% of each cohort remember) so many of them are functionally illiterate and indeed barely numerate. The number of students who seriously cannot string two sentences together is alarming. At least someone is trying to do something to address the issue.
dandarez said:
It's a subordinating conjunction and the fact that the clueless education minister (identified with the tests) utterly failed, miserably so, in answering it correctly, tells you everything!
6-7 year olds don't need to know about subordinating conjunctions. There is plenty of time ahead for them as they get older. 6-7 years old FFS!!
Eamonn Holmes early this morning said 'kids hate going to school anyway so does it matter?'
Yes, it does matter. And shows how out of touch he is. Most kids of 4,5,6 and 7 will skip joyously to school, they love it! I sometimes take our granddaughter. She absolutely loves school! Her sister is just over 2 years old has started playschool. Her face literally lights up on the days she goes. Their innocence is a joy.
F. leave it that way until they are older. There is enough stress later on without it this early on.
And yes, the 6 year old is getting her education. Her spelling (something that matters more than knowing what a subordinating conjunction is at 6 or 7) is better thansomemany on here!
6 and 7 year olds don't learn about subordinating conjunctions. They leave that til they are 10 or 11 and have to do KS2 SATS. I will ask my 11 year old the question and see what he says.6-7 year olds don't need to know about subordinating conjunctions. There is plenty of time ahead for them as they get older. 6-7 years old FFS!!
Eamonn Holmes early this morning said 'kids hate going to school anyway so does it matter?'
Yes, it does matter. And shows how out of touch he is. Most kids of 4,5,6 and 7 will skip joyously to school, they love it! I sometimes take our granddaughter. She absolutely loves school! Her sister is just over 2 years old has started playschool. Her face literally lights up on the days she goes. Their innocence is a joy.
F. leave it that way until they are older. There is enough stress later on without it this early on.
And yes, the 6 year old is getting her education. Her spelling (something that matters more than knowing what a subordinating conjunction is at 6 or 7) is better than
Bring on the clowns said:
The way in which children are often taught to recognise a subordinating conjunction (effectively) is to look for a subject and a verb following the cue, leading to a subordinate clause. Gibbs was right that after can be a preposition, but missed the trick here and then flapped, trying to say it could sometimes be a conjunction, then that it "wasn't about me"! They never learn. Perhaps he should tale a leaf out of Cameron's book and plead the Nicky Morgan defence.
Am I the only one to think this is gibberish? I understand every word used but the overall meaning is completely opaque. Presumable it is supposed to be satire.The purpose of writing is communication not obfuscation, it is clear that education policy in regard of these tests is complete shambles.
Diderot said:
The problem is that we've had decades of apologists who have systematically dumbed down GCSEs and A Levels, decades of 'every one is a winner' and decades of 'don't worry about grammar or spelling or syntax, just express yourself' in schools. What this means is that when the little blighters get to University (that's nearly 50% of each cohort remember) so many of them are functionally illiterate and indeed barely numerate. The number of students who seriously cannot string two sentences together is alarming. ....
that maybe so but do you think scaring them with jargon is going to help them come around or do you think it will lead to further separation, those who can be bothered showing an interest in this type of thing, and those for which this is the final straw, who retreat further into the corner of the room to learn about the sticky effects of chewing gum?I had an English teacher who loved the language and was able to transfer this love to her charges. For the two terms before our GCEs we went from learning to being taught how to identify tenses and such and, most importantly, name them.
I write as a hobby and make a bit of money from it. The learning by rote and knowing what pluperfect means has, or should that be had, no benefit.
For a while I was an instructor and my colleagues and I once complained that our only function was to get students through examinations. We taught in order to test. Our boss was a refugee from a comprehensive school and he said: 'Welcome to my old life.'
Being tested on the names of tenses is like having a written examination before a boxing match.
I write as a hobby and make a bit of money from it. The learning by rote and knowing what pluperfect means has, or should that be had, no benefit.
For a while I was an instructor and my colleagues and I once complained that our only function was to get students through examinations. We taught in order to test. Our boss was a refugee from a comprehensive school and he said: 'Welcome to my old life.'
Being tested on the names of tenses is like having a written examination before a boxing match.
4x4Tyke said:
Bring on the clowns said:
The way in which children are often taught to recognise a subordinating conjunction (effectively) is to look for a subject and a verb following the cue, leading to a subordinate clause. Gibbs was right that after can be a preposition, but missed the trick here and then flapped, trying to say it could sometimes be a conjunction, then that it "wasn't about me"! They never learn. Perhaps he should tale a leaf out of Cameron's book and plead the Nicky Morgan defence.
Am I the only one to think this is gibberish? I understand every word used but the overall meaning is completely opaque. Presumable it is supposed to be satire.The purpose of writing is communication not obfuscation, it is clear that education policy in regard of these tests is complete shambles.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff