Sunday 20 July 2008

Fair Does

The Times reports that a 'child who had performed much better than a classmate in the Key Stage 2 English test was marked lower.'

Child A wrote about Pip Davenport, a fairground inventor, “If he wasent doing enthing els heel help his uncle Herry at the funfair during the day. And had stoody at nigh on other thing he did was invent new rides. “Becoues he invented a lot of new rides he won a prize. He didn’t live with his mum he lived with his wife.”

Child B wrote, “Quickly, it became apparent that Pip was a fantastic rider: a complete natural. But it was his love of horses that led to a tragic accident. An accident that would change his life forever. At the age of 7, he was training for a local competition when his horse, Mandy, swerved sideways unexpectedly, throwing Pip on to the ground, paralysed.”

'Both children were awarded five out of eight for sentence structure. Child A was given eight out of twelve for composition and effect while Child B received only seven marks.'

Performed much better?

The second script is punctuated well and using commas too often is open to taste. The correct use of a double point is impressive. The spelling conforms to standard usage, indeed the spelling of: apparent, led, forever, swerved, sideways, unexpectedly, and paralysed puts countless bloggers to shame. Usually numbers are written in full in such a text so the use of a numeral is failing to conform. Being severe, 'thrown to the ground', not 'on to the ground' conforms better.

The other text needs more extensive editing.

“If he [wasn't]wasent doing [anything]enthing [else]els [he would help]heel his uncle [Harry]Herry at the funfair during the day[,][delete .] [and]And had [to study]stoody at [night]nigh[insert full point] [One]on other thing he did was invent new rides. [Because]Becoues he invented a lot of new rides he won a prize. He didn’t live with his [M]mum [,] he lived with his wife.”

"If he wasn't doing anything else he would help his uncle Harry at the funfair during the day, and had to study at night. One other thing he did was invent new rides. Because he invented a lot of new rides he won a prize. He didn't live with his Mum, he lived with his wife."

“Quickly, it became apparent that Pip was a fantastic rider: a complete natural. But it was his love of horses that led to a tragic accident. An accident that would change his life forever. At the age of seven he was training for a local competition when his horse, Mandy, swerved sideways unexpectedly, throwing Pip to the ground, paralysed.”

The marks were fair. Child A speaks with a lively, observant, eleven year old voice. Child B has been tutored more to conform to objectives that have silenced that liveliness and produced a 'correct' but curiously sad text.

Rhetorical usage, standard spelling, punctuation, are essential. But child A has the edge in communicating time, place, personality and character. Pip the prizewinning fairground rides inventor comes alive, with an uncle Harry who is part of the funfair and whom he loves, studying in the evenings, and a Mum who one day he will no longer live with and, instead, a wife.

Having a horse called Mandy, who swerves, and being paralysed from the fall at seven?

We should be vey careful about imposing conformity at such a cost to insight, imagination, fantasy and the sharing of emotion.

15 comments:

Sackerson said...

Good argument, HG.

hatfield girl said...

When very small in Hatfield it was the most extraordinary good fortune to be at an infants and juniors trying out some of the 'modern' theories and educational practices. I was astonished decades later on visiting the Bauhaus museum in Berlin to find the model for the way we learned to write: first regular patterns on lined paper - Kandinsky's thoughts on line come to mind - then the formation of series of letters, then their individual delineation. In the end we could all be distinguished by the sheer beauty, utility and perhaps alas, conformity of our handwriting.

At the same time we were nature walking through the north Hertfordshire countryside, rubbing tree bark and church brasses indiscriminately (their architecture remain intertwined in my mind) and learning not to collect birds' eggs, not to scrump but offer politely to collect windfalls, keeping nature diaries, (and grass snakes, poor creatures - I was severely punished for releasing them all while snakes' monitor), and playing exciting games with slithy mercury, and various experiments involving bunsen burners and eyebrows.

We put our long-suffering aircraft-worker parents through evenings of declamation, plays, photography and art expositions,(I don't even refer to the beautifully carved aeroplanes in balsa wood and working powered and glider mdels - if ever there was parental intervention it was there), sports of every shape and kind until they could gratefully retire with their children safely in the grammar and direct grants on the way to 'the' university. (the definite article gives an idea of just how few were the universities then.)

But we were F1s as tomato growers would call us; the first cross between the brightest and the best and opportunity. The problems now are not the same. It is not lack of opportunity and its feeding, as they fed us. It is meeting a different need, and the stupid do-gooders of the our world are the product of what we had. just an experimental few of us, and cannot conceive that something else must be offered to all the children we left behind.

After all, the kind of background they come from took only one dose of us to realise the threat and slam closed the gates.

The wicked pretence that more means worse continues from K. Amis and co onwards. The truth is different strokes for different folks but all they will offer so that they can set their filthy 'social concsciences' at ease is what worked in the '50s and '60s and among the then trendy learning gurus.

They haven't gone away, they're just old and in power now. Absolutely full of themselves with their parental generation or even grandparental generation notions of the nature of learning and happiness - ruinng the chances and hopes of most.

Sackerson said...

I haven't the answer, and I've spent c. 18 years teaching, on and off; but I'm glad you're passionate about the issues. My preference would be (1) establish unquestioned dominance in the classroom, then (2) explore in wonder.

hatfield girl said...

Predominance in the classroom! Clearly you never met Mr Cuneen, or Mrs Flatman (and her board pointer).

Child A wrote wonderfully, and with elements of speech patterns that should be acknowledged and honoured. I have straightened out texts far worse by people far grander and less capable than child A of saying it.

'Step up, turn round, and say your part, tactful' as one of the small HG's teachers advised. Child A did. Why is the headteacher undermining her?

Anonymous said...

Surely the real criminals here are the idiot teachers who after six years of teaching have been unable to instil basic correct spelling in an obviously fairly intelligent 11 year old. I see where you are coming from HG - and to a certain extent I agree, or, rather, sympathise - but Child A will have considerable difficulty and will be looked down on or otherwise disadvantaged later in life if he/she fails to master the real basics. Basic arithmetic requires accuracy so why should not the same standards apply to language?

(Will be offline for a while - going walkabout tonight. Carry on without me - as my old English master used to say!)

lilith said...

What if child B just wrote like that because she has read everything she can get her hands on, has had no special tutoring, and is trying terribly hard not to set the school on fire from boredom, (which she then will go on to do when she hits 14?)

Anonymous said...

"Child B has been tutored more to conform to objectives that have silenced that liveliness and produced a 'correct' but curiously sad text."


Exactly. A "correct" text should not necessarily receive a high mark.
It's content should be used to assess the likely social background of the child. Her mark then being adjusted accordingly.

hatfield girl said...

They are so lovely, Lilith. Imagine child B thinking 'All right; you want punctuation? Take that! You want conformist spelling including trikki verb conjugations? Here you go. I'm done now and next time ask me something interesting or leave me alone.'

And child A hearing her own thoughts and setting them down as they sounded; cry your eyes out early English writers or, better, smile on one of you.

Of course they received similar marks, and well done the examiner. It's the head teacher who needs a good slap.

hatfield girl said...

'It's content should be used to assess the likely social background of the child. Her mark then being adjusted accordingly.'

You need a good slap too, Anon.

hatfield girl said...

Enjoy yourself, Nomad and wave when you are back.

Child A can pay someone later to straighten out the spellings. She will never have need of someone to straighten out her ideas and arguments.

Anonymous said...

"Child A can pay someone later to straighten out the spellings."

Hasn't someone been paid already or do state school teachers work for nothing.

lilith said...

I was called in by my daughter's teacher when she was 8 and told my daughter was lying to her about her reading ability. And that was a GPDST school. Her teacher refused to believe that My Girl finished her 150 to 250 page book before supper the previous evening. The scandalous thing to me (apart from her assessment that My Girl was mendacious) was the the teacher HAD NO IDEA about my girl's reading and writing skills (after a term and a half in her class and three years at the school...) Bloody silly school. They tested them all the time but wouldn't give them the marks in case it made them feel bad/good.

If child A spells like that at 11 surely she is either severely dyslexic or her teachers are not worthy of the job title? I agree she is fluent, articulate, confident, vivid...if reading out loud.

Anonymous said...

"Exactly. A "correct" text should not necessarily receive a high mark.
It's content should be used to assess the likely social background of the child. Her mark then being adjusted accordingly."

Far from deserving a good slap, Anon has it right - and full marks for Maoist irony... Having read a few decent enough comments on my first trip to your blog (hope it's not the last) I was staggered to read your crass support for this bizarre marking - marking that is the distilled essence of the crappy, slipshod, intellectually dishonest, utterly pernicious, treacherous corruption of education that has occurred in the past 45 years or so. You seriously imagine it does favours to kids like Child A to have their pitiful barely-literate ramblings praised and rated equally to those of a more competent (not necessarily more imaginative, just better) Child B - ? If you really do, you're off your fucking head. I sincerely hope you're not in education yourself. I was, in my "middle period", in between working in shops/factories/banks, and being a freelance journo. I have a wide experience not only of teaching (18 years) but of working with blokes who'd been fucked up by "progressive" education of the sort you commend.
And you shouldn't perpetuate the Guardianista canard about Amis saying "more means worse" - he himself lamented this gross distortion of his specific warning re education that "more (univ education by right) will mean worse" into some kind of general principle. And he's been proven right...

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid you're talking utter nonsense here. What is being tested is not artistic talent or some sort of personality characteristics but the ability to write clear, correctly spelt, and comprehensible prose. The sort of skills required to be able to function as a competant member of society. It's very possible that Child A has the more natural writing style than Child B, but do you really think it's going to do her/him any good to send them out into the world writing like that? What employer wants semi illiterate employees?

Education, especially at the younger ages, should be about giving children the basics, leaving the artistic talent to develop later. Child B will probably never be a novelist, but neither will Child A if he/she is not grounded early on in the basics of grammar and spelling.

hatfield girl said...

Marks were being given for more than spelling competence.

Edited into standard English presentational mode child A writes better than child B; it was on 'composition and effect' that she gained an excellent mark.

A solution might be to simplify English spelling. Many have tried but there is considerable investment in class discrimination when it comes to written English.Perhaps we could go for the anthropological rule, 'consonants as in English, vowels as in Italian' and simplify the lot.
A red line through perfectly acceptable home language usages that spring from generations of linguistic inheritance does not encourage learning to write.