Grammar

"Grammar is what gives sense to language .... sentences make words yield up their meaning. Sentences actively create sense in language. And the business of the study of sentences is grammar." Professor David Crystal

Until the 1960s grammar was a mandatory element in examinations. Teachers educated since the late sixties generally missed out on formal grammar lessons. The introduction of the national curriculum in 1989 explicitly set out what grammar should be taught at what age. Formal grammar teaching formed part of the National Literacy Strategy introduced in 1998. Teachers are required to teach children aged from five to seven about nouns, verbs and pronouns. Older primary school pupils are expected to learn the names and functions of all the main parts of speech as well as the grammar of complex sentences. There have been numerous complaints from universities, employers and the business world in past years about the quality of students grammar, punctuation and communication skills on leaving school.

For a review of research and other related information on grammar and punctuation from the Primary National Strategy (DCSF) visit: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/

Summary of past news on grammar
Grammar resources
Articles from Literacy Today on grammar

Summary of past news on grammar

2006
In 2006, the TES reported on a proposal from the QCA that from 2009 tests should to be introduced to assess pupils' mastery of the rules of written English. Teenagers would have to show they can use quotation marks, commas and the apostrophe correctly in functional English tests. All pupils would have to pass the tests to achieve a C or above in GCSE English, as the Government reacts to employers' concerns about standards of English. The tests go further than the English GCSE, which simply mentions the need for accurate punctuation and spelling. For more information visit http://www.qca.org.uk/

In December 2006, the TES reported that French ministers had decided that giving pupils greater mastery of grammar could help prevent outbreaks of violence. Gilles de Robien, the education minister, also demanded that French grammar should be taught in a simpler way because children in France - like pupils in Britain - can find the subject daunting. The announcement followed 2005's riots in Paris, when thousands of cars were torched and policemen attacked. Mr de Robien said improving the way pupils were taught grammar could avert violence, if disputes could be settled by reasoned argument. Dr Sue Beverton, a lecturer at Durham university who has specialised in English teaching, said that young people in the UK are more likely to end up in prison if they have low reading abilities but said the notion that grammar lessons might cause teenagers to solve arguments peacefully was "a really far-fetched concept to entertain".

2005
In November 2005, the Telegraph reported on a report by the exam board AQA which said that teenagers were treating punctuation as an affectation they can ignore, making it hard for markers to understand what they are trying to say. Even quite fluent 16-year-olds wrote at length without any full stops or commas. But the examiners heralded "a significant rehabilitation" for the apostrophe, the most misused rule of punctuation over the past few years. Despite a better understanding of sentence structure in 2005, answers were spoiled by lack of punctuation. "The time is rapidly coming to reunite sentence structure with punctuation. Only then will what is written become easier to read," says the report. Poor or non-existent use of paragraphs were also highlighted. "It is these issues which appear to the chief examiner to be far more useful, important and urgent than spelling if increases in literacy levels are to continue," the report continues.

The Independent reported in 2005 on a Government-funded study by the University of York which concluded that schools are wasting their time teaching children the rules of English grammar because there is no evidence that it has any impact on pupils' writing skills. It recommended that ministers should cut back the teaching of formal grammar and let children "learn to write by writing".

The study, which researchers claimed was the largest review of existing research on grammar teaching, recommended that teachers should concentrate on teaching children to combine short sentences into longer ones to improve their writing skills. They found no evidence that teaching the grammar of word order or syntax helped pupils aged from five to 16 to write more fluently or accurately.

Professor Richard Andrews, who coordinated the research, said his team's findings did not mean that teaching formal grammar was "not interesting or useful in its own right." But he continued, "in a pressured curriculum, where the development of literacy is a high priority, there will be better ways of teaching writing. Whether there is space in the curriculum to teach syntax for its own sake, or for other purposes, remains to be seen."

However, Richard Hudson, a retired professor of linguistics at UCL, queried the relevance of the EPPI research review of the effect of grammar teaching on the quality of writing, he still believes that grammar teaching can improve writing skills. For more information on his view and grammar within the Secondary National Strategy, visit www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/kal/top.htm.

2004
In 2004, the Telegraph reported that the sloppy use of grammar, punctuation and spelling was singled out for criticism by examiners in history, geography, English, business studies, critical thinking and art. The examiners of OCR, one of the three examination groups in England, were also concerned at the increased use in formal essays of slang, colloquialisms and the abbreviated language of text messages. Typical phrases included "chucked them out", "all this hassle" and "would want his reputation 2 B kept", examiners report.

The most trenchant criticism in the reports on how candidates performed in each subject came from examiners in history. Poor use of English was a problem "at all levels, not just at the bottom of the ability range," said The Chief Examiner for History. Common mistakes included confusion between where and were, there and their, and loose and lose. "It is often poor punctuation which impedes clarity; and the omission of verbs and nouns and the inaccurate use of the apostrophe is so widespread as to be almost universal," they said. There was a widespread inability to use capital letters correctly and an increasing number of candidates using "would of" instead of "would have".

Complaints were also made from universities about the standard of English among undergraduates.
Research by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Government's exams watchdog, also drew attention to the poor quality of written English in exams.

The TES reported that Dr Sue Beverton, from Durham University, told the British Educational Research Association annual conference in September 2004 that teaching children grammar has virtually no effect on the quality or accuracy of their writing. Research into the effect of teaching syntax, the correct way of ordering words in sentences, showed that other methods and theories, such as learning to write by writing, should be given greater credence. The findings are the results of a study of research carried out for government-backed evidence for policy and co-ordination centre (EPPI) at London University's Institute of Education. The study claimed to be the largest systematic review in the history of research on the topic - 4,566 potentially relevant papers were examined.

The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) on 5 to 16-year-olds' accuracy and quality in written composition, by Richard Andrews, Sue Beverton et al, is available from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/review_groups/english/review_six.htm

2001
In September 2001, the TES reported on findings based on an audit by Wasyl Cajkler and Jane Hislam between 1997 and 2001 of 503 Leicester University trainees, of whom 167 were English specialists, which found that many trainee primary teachers were 'confused and imprecise' about the scope of grammar and attempts to identify abstract nouns caused great uncertainty.

2000
In 2000, a national drive by the National Centre for Literacy and Numeracy to teach grammar to teachers was launched in autumn 2000 to help improve children's writing. 25,000 Year 5 teachers in England plus some additional staff from key stage 2, received the first round of training. A programme for secondary English specialists was piloted in 150 schools in 17 authorities in England. The teachers' pack, Grammar for Writing, aimed to enable children to learn how language works  to increase their range of writing. The courses emphasises that there is no incompatibility between teaching grammar and fostering creativity. Nearly 400 local education authority literacy consultants were briefed in June 2000 and will then run the courses.