One of the reasons I write this blog is that I enjoy writing; the expression of ideas, opinions and analysis via the written word. It’s something I’ve enjoyed since being a child and it’s extended to my appreciation of good literature; realising and embracing compelling texts that engage the reader in the way that all good writing should achieve. Undoubtedly, grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax all play a role in good writing and they provide the foundations for well written text. Although they aren’t the essence of it in providing that intangible quality that draws a reader in and captures their attention.
In teaching primary school children the basics of good writing, the principles of the aforementioned do need to be understood. Students need to be taught how to correctly punctuate sentences to give their writing structure and desired effect. Similarly, the teaching of good grammar is necessary to equip students with the ability to correctly structure their writing for lucidity and coherence. And as primary school provides the bedrock for subsequent education, knowledge and skills we use in our adult lives, it’s only right that there is coverage of this in the primary English curriculum. However, with the still relatively new curriculum, there’s an imbalanced focus in favour of the above and at the expense of what really constitutes good writing. As a result, it’s destroying the notion of good writing in schools and wrongly teaching children that good writing is more about spelling, punctuation and grammar than the substance that captivates a reader.
In what has become characteristic rhetoric from the DfE (Department for Education), it’s claimed that the primary English curriculum is providing a ‘back to basics’ approach with emphasis on the fundamentals of the English language. That means ‘SPaG’ (spelling, punctuation and grammar) has been brought to the forefront of writing and is considered an entity itself for assessment purposes. In fact, had it not been for the government having leaked the key stage 1 SPaG SATs paper online before the actual SATs, it would have been a further source of anxiety for seven year olds across the country along with the Maths and Reading papers they sat this term.
Writing assessments (which are teacher assessed) are also SPaG-heavy and outline much of the gauge upon which students’ progress in writing is measured. Therefore a soulless piece of writing that lacks the ability to attract its reader could conceivably be considered a ‘good’ piece of writing because it includes the SPaG features upon which writing is now assessed. This isn’t what primary school children should be taught yet they’re erroneously some of the measures of what constitutes good writing. Not only does this mislead students as to what good writing is but it also erodes the creativity and soul that should be central to any form of text.
When reading a good book, article or any text for that matter, I’m yet to be compelled by the number of contractions (merged words such as ‘don’t’ or ‘should’ve’) or conjunctions (words such as ‘because’ or ‘when’ that are used to join or coordinate clauses) used by the author. Nor have I ever remarked “what great use of a preposition”.
In my personal and professional life, I’ve never written a letter, email or report where I considered my use of expanded noun phrases or fronted adverbials in communicating my argument either. These simply aren’t the hallmarks of good writing and as adults, they aren’t attributes that we consciously call upon when writing. Furthermore, if reading the above terms was met with bafflement, you needn’t worry as they’re commonly used in everyday writing. We just aren’t forced to recognise them with their respective terms as the DfE force children as young as 6 and 7 years old to as an indication of their writing ability.
After speech, writing is one of our most dominant forms of expression and the reason why talk for writing at an early age is invaluable. The journey made by a thought that is then articulated before manifesting itself as the written word, is a journey and process that many of us take for granted. Yet for young children, it's a process that requires development via confidence, practise and encouragement that their ideas are worthy of putting pen to paper without fear of error. It's fostering the bravery that artists of all forms of expression possess and what allows our creativity to be unbridled. Though having to consider a quagmire of terms and conventions at such a young age surely hinders that and saps the soul of a piece of writing with every feature that is recalled.
As children get older, the rules of writing will fall into place and become present in one's writing. We needn't aggressively foist it upon young children when they're at an age where formulating their ideas is the most important aspect of developing their writing and language skills.
As we (or I should say the DfE) obsess over results, we also often deny children the opportunity to truly immerse themselves in a text for fear of insufficient coverage of other areas of the curriculum. In doing so, we diminish students’ ability to appreciate text as a crucial principle of reading. Not to mention, this lends itself to damaging their writing with fewer examples where good writing has been modelled and without the obsession of everything they're taught in their SPaG lessons.
Lower down in primary schools, the focus on phonics and decoding words as the primary strategy for early reading and writing illustrates the extent to which the government desires a rigid approach to literacy. Higher up the school system in secondary schools, teaching to the test, which Nick Gibb, ironically lamented, is even more rife in English lessons where texts are rattled through with an increased focus on exam question preparation and less focus on the appreciation of the text. At the behest of the government, students are therefore again robbed of the practical and academic skills of good writing via reading.
The government seemingly doesn’t know what makes for good writing and how to achieve it. Furthermore, they don’t seem to be able to meet their own definition of what constitutes good writing via the rules they’ve determined either. Nick Gibb was unable to answer a question from a key stage 2 SATs SPaG paper and Nicky Morgan doesn’t appear to be able to spell. I wouldn’t judge either of them as being poor writers on account of that. But based on their criteria, and the 'no excuses' culture that they are injecting into the English school system, perhaps I shouldn't be so kind.
Good writing has soul. It represents the writer’s ideas how they intended and engages the reader as the words jump off the page to convey opinion and arguments or evoke images and emotions. There shouldn’t be anything sterile or overly systematic about good writing but the government’s approach is creating just that.
In teaching primary school children the basics of good writing, the principles of the aforementioned do need to be understood. Students need to be taught how to correctly punctuate sentences to give their writing structure and desired effect. Similarly, the teaching of good grammar is necessary to equip students with the ability to correctly structure their writing for lucidity and coherence. And as primary school provides the bedrock for subsequent education, knowledge and skills we use in our adult lives, it’s only right that there is coverage of this in the primary English curriculum. However, with the still relatively new curriculum, there’s an imbalanced focus in favour of the above and at the expense of what really constitutes good writing. As a result, it’s destroying the notion of good writing in schools and wrongly teaching children that good writing is more about spelling, punctuation and grammar than the substance that captivates a reader.
 |
Writing assessments (which are teacher assessed) are also SPaG-heavy and outline much of the gauge upon which students’ progress in writing is measured. Therefore a soulless piece of writing that lacks the ability to attract its reader could conceivably be considered a ‘good’ piece of writing because it includes the SPaG features upon which writing is now assessed. This isn’t what primary school children should be taught yet they’re erroneously some of the measures of what constitutes good writing. Not only does this mislead students as to what good writing is but it also erodes the creativity and soul that should be central to any form of text.
When reading a good book, article or any text for that matter, I’m yet to be compelled by the number of contractions (merged words such as ‘don’t’ or ‘should’ve’) or conjunctions (words such as ‘because’ or ‘when’ that are used to join or coordinate clauses) used by the author. Nor have I ever remarked “what great use of a preposition”.
In my personal and professional life, I’ve never written a letter, email or report where I considered my use of expanded noun phrases or fronted adverbials in communicating my argument either. These simply aren’t the hallmarks of good writing and as adults, they aren’t attributes that we consciously call upon when writing. Furthermore, if reading the above terms was met with bafflement, you needn’t worry as they’re commonly used in everyday writing. We just aren’t forced to recognise them with their respective terms as the DfE force children as young as 6 and 7 years old to as an indication of their writing ability.
After speech, writing is one of our most dominant forms of expression and the reason why talk for writing at an early age is invaluable. The journey made by a thought that is then articulated before manifesting itself as the written word, is a journey and process that many of us take for granted. Yet for young children, it's a process that requires development via confidence, practise and encouragement that their ideas are worthy of putting pen to paper without fear of error. It's fostering the bravery that artists of all forms of expression possess and what allows our creativity to be unbridled. Though having to consider a quagmire of terms and conventions at such a young age surely hinders that and saps the soul of a piece of writing with every feature that is recalled.
As children get older, the rules of writing will fall into place and become present in one's writing. We needn't aggressively foist it upon young children when they're at an age where formulating their ideas is the most important aspect of developing their writing and language skills.
As we (or I should say the DfE) obsess over results, we also often deny children the opportunity to truly immerse themselves in a text for fear of insufficient coverage of other areas of the curriculum. In doing so, we diminish students’ ability to appreciate text as a crucial principle of reading. Not to mention, this lends itself to damaging their writing with fewer examples where good writing has been modelled and without the obsession of everything they're taught in their SPaG lessons.
Lower down in primary schools, the focus on phonics and decoding words as the primary strategy for early reading and writing illustrates the extent to which the government desires a rigid approach to literacy. Higher up the school system in secondary schools, teaching to the test, which Nick Gibb, ironically lamented, is even more rife in English lessons where texts are rattled through with an increased focus on exam question preparation and less focus on the appreciation of the text. At the behest of the government, students are therefore again robbed of the practical and academic skills of good writing via reading.
The government seemingly doesn’t know what makes for good writing and how to achieve it. Furthermore, they don’t seem to be able to meet their own definition of what constitutes good writing via the rules they’ve determined either. Nick Gibb was unable to answer a question from a key stage 2 SATs SPaG paper and Nicky Morgan doesn’t appear to be able to spell. I wouldn’t judge either of them as being poor writers on account of that. But based on their criteria, and the 'no excuses' culture that they are injecting into the English school system, perhaps I shouldn't be so kind.
Good writing has soul. It represents the writer’s ideas how they intended and engages the reader as the words jump off the page to convey opinion and arguments or evoke images and emotions. There shouldn’t be anything sterile or overly systematic about good writing but the government’s approach is creating just that.
