Primary literacy ...split digraphs

When I was learning Italian I soon saw that they paid more attention to grammar than we do, but they didn't drag in all the stuff that schools are teaching now. I have yet to meet a teacher who thinks it is anything but but a waste of time and aimed at getting a good review from Ofsted.

Well, I agree with Dr Seuss - "Children want the same things we want. To laugh, to be challenged, to be entertained and delighted." I would far rather that a child could read "Green Eggs and Ham" to me with real understanding and pleasure than that they could analyse its grammar. Plenty of time to learn formal terms and grammatical rules when they are older. Considerably older! When they are very young, let them learn to read freely and immerse themselves in books. The pleasure of reading is a lifelong gift.

Sometimes children do just need to learn stuff, I agree. But some of the stuff they are now required to learn benefits them not one jot.

I could never help my grandchildren with homework because everything I knew now has a new name, usually a multi- syllable nonsense word which means nothing.
Apparently 10 year olds now have to learn all the formal grammar which was dropped when I was 10. You don't need to know the made- up names of every sort of word in order to write good English. We all learned to speak without this gobbledegook and without it children might have time to learn more valuable stuff.

Forgot - what is different to the children today? Why do they need to enjoy everything. As a teacher myself, I have tried to make it enjoyable, but sometimes one just has to learn stuff.

When I was a child, I was brought up speaking/reading/writing both French and English. English in the morning, French in the afternoon - we were all bilingual, so it wasn't a problem. The thing was that in English, it was "look and learn" and you learned grammar without any real terms or rules, whilst in French, we had it all drilled into us. OK, sometimes it wasn't fun, but I remember my French grammar much better than the English one. I don't really remember English grammar other than punctuation and collective nouns! . The French stuff on the other hand is stuck in my head, and is very helpful when learning Spanish when I was 60 onward...

The Gradgrind approach to education seems to have taken over the entire system, from primary school to university. My friend, a recently retired FE teacher, speaks wearily of the fact that there is now only one way to read a text, one set of key words which must be included in an answer, and absolutely no original thought whatsoever...

As for the children, I was surprised when my granddaughter started in Year One and the teacher announced they would be learning to use terms such as "adjectives" and "adverbs". Wouldn't it be helpful to get them all reading fluently, before you start worrying about grammatical terms? Bearing in mind that some 5 year olds are struggling to read at all.

Absolutely GranE

Five year olds are like sponges - they absorb whatever is offered to them in class provided that they enjoy it. We should give credit to teachers' ability to provide fun, informative and appropriate lessons. They are the professionals. Primary school classes are far richer and very different from those which most of us experienced. What was good(?) for us is not necessarily good for today's Year 1 children. My 5 year old grandson loves his phonetics lessons and proudly (and correctly) explained split digraphs to me a few months ago.

I am a retired teacher, also head teacher. I was horrified that my 5 yr old grand daughter was using phonics trying to 'sound' out 'fire fighters' so I said the words to her. She looked very patiently at me and said 'Yes Grandma I know what it says but I have to sound it as well as reading it'. Out of the mouths of babes.......

Many very young children learn to read quickly and just absorb the digraphs etc. That would be the "look and say" method.
Then they would have to learn the letter combinations when it comes to spelling.

It is part of the teaching of literacy that uses phonetics to teach. It means that in order to understand a split digraph a child needs to understand a digraph- 2 vowels that make a sound e.g. ee or ea or ie. A split digraph then needs another letter or sound inserted between the 2. It is probably enjoyed by your GD because it is taught quite often in a practical session where 1 child holding a card inserts themselves between the 2 who are the digraph.Children really enjoy this. But a lot liked the 'magic e' as well. I always think anything that works is OK. Of course English isn't a phonetic language- but that's another argument!!

Split Di gaff

'leave da house'

There is a time for children to learn these terms, and the Primary stage is not the right time.

As a long retired Primary school teacher with a nine year old Granddaughter I am horrified by the way joy has been sucked out of education for the young and replaced by a ghastly sausage machine full of tired and disillusioned teachers dealing with tick boxes, targets and SATS.

proper terminology

We can't have it both ways. If children are going to be taught proper grammar as the children of other countries are, instead of letting them learn by osmosis, it is better to give them the pro-pert terminology than just the vague rule.
As for learning to read and write, children are taught by the method that is flavour of the month rather than letting the teacher use whatever one suits her/her pupils at the time.

Yes, harrigran they are

Thank goodness DC were taught the old fashioned way, I would have been bald by now. Never heard the likes, are they inventing things just for the sake of change ?

If asked I would have thought it was a medical condition.

I asked my two youngest GSs to tell me about split digraphs but they were unable to help. However, the 10-year-old was able to explain 'fronted adverbials' to my satisfaction.

Got it in one, Jalima.

So: what do they call it when people in the South call a bath (short 'a') a 'barth' (long a)?
Does that have a technical term too?
or is it that Londoners just don't speak proper like us from north of the Wash?

DD has been going to meetings at the school to explain how they are teaching maths and english. She brought home sample tests for year 2 and year 6. Not impressed - some of the grammar would have been beyond me at Grammar School and I can't imagine how terminally boring it must be to learn at primary school.

I am continually harping on about spelling and punctuation, but but most of this stuff is way over the top. Let's concentrate on stopping them saying "Was you" and "Would of"

split digraph - I had to think twice about that, and I spent years teaching children to read. Mostly remedial.
In my experience children learn to read either quickly and without problems. Or if they have a problem they struggle and need ways of making reading a pleasure and fun. Rather than technical terminology.
The bigger problem comes with spelling.
And yes we said "the e at the end makes the previous vowel say its name. "
No help though if parents teach their children to say the ABC
(with names of letters.)

Jalima !