Do you know a subordinating conjunction or a preposition?
Discussion
saaby93 said:
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?
It's the English language. We shouldn't be considering it "jargon". I suppose "verb", "noun" and "adjective" are jargon too? We shouldn't be trying to dumb anything down so that everyone gets to the same sub-mediocre level. If some kids are bright and keen enough to understand, that should be celebrated. If some kids would rather chew gum, then get the best out of them (in English or other subjects) without having to bring everyone down to their level.
Our focus on "equality" is seeing us slide down the educational world rankings IMO. We are compromising those who are academically gifted in a vain hope that those who are not will be improved in the process. None of which is good for the country's future prosperity.
Life is not an even playing field. We should focus on getting the very best out of every kid, and that will not mean in the same subjects. That too should be celebrated.
And whether you or I use those corners of the English language is irrelevant. Just as it is if we use sin/cosin, algebra, what colour magnesium turns litmus paper on whatever. The point is, some jobs/careers will use them and we shouldn't simply abandon them because they're "too hard".
Mabbs9 said:
A test is pointless if everyone gets 100%. So they throw in some hard questions that few or any will know the correct answer.
There was a fantastic discussion on the World At One or PM (I forget which) yesterday where a very eloquent lady figuratively ripped apart a hand-wringing parent who had promoted the "strike".Her main argument was that not everyone could be a winner in life and that pretending so at school sets people out to fail.
We are seeing this phenomenon in a lot of Millennials, for example one widely reported instance where a graduate recently said photocopying was "below his pay grade"...I don't think so!
The interviewee forcefully pointed out that there are a multitude of well qualified and well motivated people coming from Europe who are better educated and want a job and unless we produce similarly motivated and educated children, they will lose out in the long term.
The fact that there is no time limit for the test, that it can be run informally and that the results are used to measure the performance of the school and not the pupil shows how crazy the objections are.
loafer123 said:
Mabbs9 said:
A test is pointless if everyone gets 100%. So they throw in some hard questions that few or any will know the correct answer.
There was a fantastic discussion on the World At One or PM (I forget which) yesterday where a very eloquent lady figuratively ripped apart a hand-wringing parent who had promoted the "strike".Her main argument was that not everyone could be a winner in life and that pretending so at school sets people out to fail.
We are seeing this phenomenon in a lot of Millennials, for example one widely reported instance where a graduate recently said photocopying was "below his pay grade"...I don't think so!
The interviewee forcefully pointed out that there are a multitude of well qualified and well motivated people coming from Europe who are better educated and want a job and unless we produce similarly motivated and educated children, they will lose out in the long term.
The fact that there is no time limit for the test, that it can be run informally and that the results are used to measure the performance of the school and not the pupil shows how crazy the objections are.
I saw some of the coverage on the news and have gleaned a bit online too, and from what I see, the striking parents are the sort that feel knitting your own yoghurt is a productive use of time. Serial protesters, whingers and underachievers, completely atypical of just about anyone who achieved anything - in Great Britain or anywhere else - or amounted to anything. And no, I'm not talking material worth, but just being a useful, productive human.
The world has globalised rapidly, is continuing to do so and fat-happy, lazy, profligate Western economies and populations have no answer for it. We could become insignificant within a couple of decades. What is even more worrying is that the grunting masses are driving tax-and-spend policies which are also crippling our businesses ability to compete too.
I have some egg on my face! Quite pleased in a way. 
Took my granddaughter (she turned 6 in January) to school this morning. As said in my previous post, she skips all the way (it's not too far away). I said she is good at spelling, they have a spelling test weekly, given 10 words, she regularly gets 10. As we neared school I said 'I know one hard word you haven't had to spell yet, a conjunction.'
My jaw then dropped!
'Do you mean a subordinating conjunction, grampy? It's joining of...'
'Ok, ok, that's okay we're at school now...'
Bloody hell! Gobsmacked or what? I was sort of well, speechless. Um, yes!
Anyway, she runs off into school and I grab (not literally!) her teacher, explaining what has just happened.
Oh, the children have all done the test, we did it over a couple of days, the secret is not to make a fuss. It's more work in addition but that's life. The children don't even know it was a test.'
Well, well, bloody well!
I've changed my mind completely. BUT it depends obviously on the schools and the teachers. Some, like all walks of life, are far better at teaching than others.
LIFE. You live and learn.
Even at my age!
Took my granddaughter (she turned 6 in January) to school this morning. As said in my previous post, she skips all the way (it's not too far away). I said she is good at spelling, they have a spelling test weekly, given 10 words, she regularly gets 10. As we neared school I said 'I know one hard word you haven't had to spell yet, a conjunction.'
My jaw then dropped!
'Do you mean a subordinating conjunction, grampy? It's joining of...'
'Ok, ok, that's okay we're at school now...'
Bloody hell! Gobsmacked or what? I was sort of well, speechless. Um, yes!
Anyway, she runs off into school and I grab (not literally!) her teacher, explaining what has just happened.
Oh, the children have all done the test, we did it over a couple of days, the secret is not to make a fuss. It's more work in addition but that's life. The children don't even know it was a test.'
Well, well, bloody well!
I've changed my mind completely. BUT it depends obviously on the schools and the teachers. Some, like all walks of life, are far better at teaching than others.
LIFE. You live and learn.
Even at my age!
I would argue that you don't need to know what either is as long as you know where to put them? If you are taught to speak and write correctly they are where they are and they are what they are. What they are called is irrelevant.
Something in me expects a correction in my use of language!!!
Something in me expects a correction in my use of language!!!
loafer123 said:
The fact that there is no time limit for the test, that it can be run informally and that the results are used to measure the performance of the school and not the pupil shows how crazy the objections are.
Quite. And there was some policy wonk on the Today programme making the very good point that parents should be livid with their kids' teachers if the kids are anxious about these tests. Trophy Husband said:
I would argue that you don't need to know what either is as long as you know where to put them? If you are taught to speak and write correctly they are where they are and they are what they are. What they are called is irrelevant.
Something in me expects a correction in my use of language!!!
In a way, you're right, but knowing the correct terminology of grammar does not really take much and adds a bit more of a structured, principle-based dimension to that knowledge.Something in me expects a correction in my use of language!!!
dandarez said:
I have some egg on my face! Quite pleased in a way.
Took my granddaughter (she turned 6 in January) to school this morning. As said in my previous post, she skips all the way (it's not too far away). I said she is good at spelling, they have a spelling test weekly, given 10 words, she regularly gets 10. As we neared school I said 'I know one hard word you haven't had to spell yet, a conjunction.'
My jaw then dropped!
'Do you mean a subordinating conjunction, grampy? It's joining of...'
'Ok, ok, that's okay we're at school now...'
Bloody hell! Gobsmacked or what? I was sort of well, speechless. Um, yes!
Anyway, she runs off into school and I grab (not literally!) her teacher, explaining what has just happened.
Oh, the children have all done the test, we did it over a couple of days, the secret is not to make a fuss. It's more work in addition but that's life. The children don't even know it was a test.'
Well, well, bloody well!
I've changed my mind completely. BUT it depends obviously on the schools and the teachers. Some, like all walks of life, are far better at teaching than others.
LIFE. You live and learn.
Even at my age!
Can sh break down all sentence structure to the same level or does she know this because she is being taught to pass the SATs?Took my granddaughter (she turned 6 in January) to school this morning. As said in my previous post, she skips all the way (it's not too far away). I said she is good at spelling, they have a spelling test weekly, given 10 words, she regularly gets 10. As we neared school I said 'I know one hard word you haven't had to spell yet, a conjunction.'
My jaw then dropped!
'Do you mean a subordinating conjunction, grampy? It's joining of...'
'Ok, ok, that's okay we're at school now...'
Bloody hell! Gobsmacked or what? I was sort of well, speechless. Um, yes!
Anyway, she runs off into school and I grab (not literally!) her teacher, explaining what has just happened.
Oh, the children have all done the test, we did it over a couple of days, the secret is not to make a fuss. It's more work in addition but that's life. The children don't even know it was a test.'
Well, well, bloody well!
I've changed my mind completely. BUT it depends obviously on the schools and the teachers. Some, like all walks of life, are far better at teaching than others.
LIFE. You live and learn.
Even at my age!
Being absolutely fluent and fully understanding your native language can hardly be considered a negative. It allows for clarity of thought and expression. The english language hasn't been taught like this for a long time and mass communication is slipping into a kind of faux cockerney sludge.
ATG said:
loafer123 said:
The fact that there is no time limit for the test, that it can be run informally and that the results are used to measure the performance of the school and not the pupil shows how crazy the objections are.
Quite. And there was some policy wonk on the Today programme making the very good point that parents should be livid with their kids' teachers if the kids are anxious about these tests. Children go to school to learn stuff, we then need to know if what they're being taught is being retained so we test the children and can determine how good the teacher is at teaching them.
It's notable that of the people in my acquaintance who've expressed a negative opinion on the tests, a large proportion are teachers or ex-teachers.
Bring on the clowns said:
By the end of ks2 children are expected to know about, to understand and to recognise and distinguish between such niceties as subordinating and coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, relative clauses, adverbial phrases etc.
Until I just looked them up I had no idea what any of those things were.fblm said:
Bring on the clowns said:
By the end of ks2 children are expected to know about, to understand and to recognise and distinguish between such niceties as subordinating and coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, relative clauses, adverbial phrases etc.
Until I just looked them up I had no idea what any of those things were.To my mind, it seems a very easy, straightforward and useful thing to have taught as early as 6 or 7; helps make sense of a lot of the English language and grammar. That I've picked quite a few of the 'rules' up, if not the nomenclature up over the intervening years is merely down to being an avid reader.
Can't see why we wouldn't want to teach kids English grammar. It's not just naming things we all know anyway. It's about being able to understand the structure of the language. And it isn't very difficult stuff to understand either, particularly if you're taught the basics when you're young.
The only reason I could be fairly confident about answering the original question is that I was taught grammar formally ... but only when sitting in French, German and Latin lessons, none of which I did well at. So I can have a stab at English grammar by applying half-remembered rules of three languages that are closely related to English. That is pretty silly.
And while I'm in complaining mood, by English standards I'm quite well educated, but by any sane measure my formal education became very narrow far too young. Those of us who chose maths and science A-levels weren't taught anything more about language or writing since we were 15/16 years old. Those who chose arts or language A-Levels would leave education with pretty rudimentary maths and science. And possibly worse still, those who tried to maintain a balance of subjects at A-Level risked getting penalised by bad timetabling at school and then being disadvantaged by universities' entrance criteria. I hope AS Levels have helped round kids' education.
The only reason I could be fairly confident about answering the original question is that I was taught grammar formally ... but only when sitting in French, German and Latin lessons, none of which I did well at. So I can have a stab at English grammar by applying half-remembered rules of three languages that are closely related to English. That is pretty silly.
And while I'm in complaining mood, by English standards I'm quite well educated, but by any sane measure my formal education became very narrow far too young. Those of us who chose maths and science A-levels weren't taught anything more about language or writing since we were 15/16 years old. Those who chose arts or language A-Levels would leave education with pretty rudimentary maths and science. And possibly worse still, those who tried to maintain a balance of subjects at A-Level risked getting penalised by bad timetabling at school and then being disadvantaged by universities' entrance criteria. I hope AS Levels have helped round kids' education.
ATG said:
Can't see why we wouldn't want to teach kids English grammar.
Me neither, except that it looks excruciatingly tedious 
. Personally I've done ok without ever having formally learned the rules of grammar but thats no reason not to be taught it. Most people will never use maths beyond arithmetic either.
fblm said:
ATG said:
Can't see why we wouldn't want to teach kids English grammar.
Me neither, except that it looks excruciatingly tedious . Personally I've done ok without ever having formally learned the rules of grammar but thats no reason not to be taught it. Most people will never use maths beyond arithmetic either.If they're merely memorising that a word joining what would otherwise be two sentences is a subordinating conjunction or any other jargon word then you've just developed a memory test
If on the other hand youre teaching them how to string two sentences together that's great.
It's the same in any other field
You can get a set of people who get good marks because theyre good at memory.
Another set who may not get as good marks but can work out how things come together.
Same in PH. You'll often get the spelling pedants have a go at someone. But it may not be their spelling - they may be great at that. It's their typing skills.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff