So I’m wondering how many parents actually kept their primary school children off school today? It’s a big deal to make a protest of this nature as it means, unless you are a stay at home parent, that you had to take a day off work. Would it have worked as a protest? I’m not really clear about what has changed in the world of testing children. I remember my children had to do SATs tests back in the day, but the school made sure the children didn’t really have a clue that they were happening, so it didn’t really make a difference. Perhaps now schools are more concerned about the results…and are therefore putting more pressure on the children? Or are they doing them at an earlier age?
I don’t particularly have a problem with children being tested, BUT WHY DO THEY HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT GRAMMAR?? WHO CARES ABOUT GRAMMAR? I know I’m a little bit shit at grammar (you see? That’s not even a grammatically correct sentence) but does it really matter? Thanks to the rise of Google and all things computer based a lot of the millennials have basically no interest in the structure of a sentence – not even the spelling of it – nor should they….as long as we all understand what they are trying to say isn’t that enough? So in particular I really wonder why our government feel the need to foist grammar on small children? Why not let them just enjoy the bloody sentences? Why focus on the booooooring detail of the structure of the sentence, on the nouns, pronouns, propositions and coordinating subjunctions – or is it subordinating conjunctions? WHY DOES IT MATTER?
I have never understood the point of grammar and never will (except maybe for the above example). I don’t think it’s crucial for the development of the human race, even when learning other languages – so why put small children through it? I know there are grammar police out there who totally disagree with me and who will argue that letting go of grammar is tantamount to letting go of the human race and that it’s all about maintaining standards, but it feels to me like something you should do if you love it, but don’t do if you don’t. Rather like art. If you’re creative, then do art, if you’re not then don’t. If you love grammar, that’s great. Put a fabulous sentence structure together and then enjoy deconstructing it, but if you are more interested in the sounds and colour of the sentence, rather than the structure, then surely that’s fine too? English language, or indeed any language should be enjoyed by all – and that means it should be approached in many different ways – according to each individual child, rather than taught by rote.
You might also like
3 Comments
Have to disagree entirely. It’s like it says in the graphic. Without grammar you can completely mess up what you’re trying to say and, well, fail to communicate. Even artists have to deal with other people, and the more successful they are in the world, the more likely they are going to need clear communication. I’m not saying we should laugh at people who split their infinitives; that doesn’t change meaning, but if everyone spells and forms sentences however the heck they want, consistency goes flying out the window and who knows what people really mean.
I agree to an extent, but just feel that inflicting a level of grammar on 7 year olds that I don’t even understand is too much. I think it takes the creativity out of life to have to worry about that sort of stuff when you’re just getting used to putting whole sentences together. But hey, as I said, I was expecting to be disagreed with! Lx
Too early for 7 year olds.