Grammar - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

 So far in this series of posts on looking at our curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review (Transition, Phonics, Vocabulary), it has been very useful to look at how thought-through our curriculum is, and where we want to continue to make tweaks. Not because we think Ofsted "wants" us to, but because we have identified areas to continue to work on. Let's see if Grammar turns out to be the area where we have to change our plans...

The points I highlighted in the Ofsted Research Review when it comes to Grammar are:

Structures should be revisited in different contexts with increasing spontaneity.

The Grammar pupils are taught should be planned. It should fit with what they need, and what is appropriate. And it shouldn't be rushed to tick things off for the sake of getting through a list of content.

We will need to consider what grammar we teach, based on the pay-offs between its complexity, usefulness and frequency.

Pupils may meet structures in set phrases at first, but should understand what the component parts are and learn to manipulate them. Full paradigms of verbs may be overwhelming if demanded too early.

Grammar should be explained, and pupils should spot and explore patterns, and practise producing structures across Speaking, Listening, Reading and Writing. Pupils shouldn't be left to acquire structures by osmosis.

From our KS3 review

I think our department works from different principles to this, but that they are not incompatible. We have a clear vision that our main aim is for pupils to get better and better at using their language. Extending Speaking and Writing with increasing spontaneity, independence and complexity. This idea is completely missing from the Ofsted Review. But it does mean that our approach to grammar is fine-tuned to what pupils need and can cope with next, in order to extend their repertoire. It means we have a deliberate focus on recycling grammar in different contexts with increasing spontaneity. Ofsted perhaps mean spontaneity in manipulating the form. We mean increasing spontaneity in creating meaning and expressing themselves. Our vision is greater than theirs and includes theirs as one of its elements.

From Steve Smith's linguascope webinar

Because of our focus on pupils being able to use their language, we are very used to the idea that Grammar isn't learned in one go. It may be met in set phrases, or explained as a concept, or as a rule or a process. In all cases, it is going to be something which needs to be met and used over and over in different contexts as pupils' repertoire develops. I wrote in the post on Vocabulary about how our curriculum is like a snowball gathering more snow, and how all our language is joined up and nothing is ever left behind.

So in terms of the bigger picture, the Ofsted Review doesn't seem to hold too many issues for us. But what about the detail?

I have written here about how we plan the teaching of verbs. In Year 7, pupils meet the verbs to be and to have, mainly as lexical items, but with also a glimpse of how the paradigm works. They meet the verb manger in different persons of the present tense and in past and future in the first person. Reflexive verbs are introduced for daily routine in the present tense. Then in Year 8 we build a very strong core of verb + infinitive. We then add present tense in all persons and then the perfect tense. All as part of a coherent repertoire so pupils can say more and more. In Year 9 we introduce verb tables as a valuable tool and to help conceptualise the bigger picture of tenses. I think our plans for verbs are coherent and well thought-through.

I worry that Ofsted think the verbs to be and to have are very important. As we don't have a curriculum built around nouns (and the verb to have) or adjectives (and the verb to be), then these key verbs don't feature as highly as an outsider might expect. As I wrote in the post on Vocabulary, perhaps we are moving in the opposite direction to other schools. We stripped down our curriculum 15 years ago to a core of language we want pupils to get good at. And now we have established that strong core, maybe it is the time to bring back more sets of nouns and adjectives, and the verbs to have and to be.

Similarly, the Ofsted Review expects detailed mapping out of other aspects of Grammar. We do have a plan for when we teach things like adjectival agreement, negation, interrogatives. But I am not convinced that these things are ever taught, finished, done and dusted. Things like du, de la, des can be explained, but the explanation doesn't get you very far in terms of how they are used and what they mean. So we teach them all the time - they never go away. And it is by constant exposure, pattern-spotting, conscious rationalisation and subconscious acquisition, that they are learned. I suppose I could invent a paper-based "plan" of when we claim to teach them. But as I wrote in the post on Vocabulary, a curriculum plan is no replacement for constantly monitoring the pupils and what they need. When it's foggy, concentrate on the road. Don't try to drive by looking at the satnav screen.

I wrote in this article for the Language Learning Journal in 2005 about the difference between enabling, generative grammar, and censoring, corrective grammar. I think that with the grammar that enables pupils to express themselves with a growing repertoire of language, we have a well thought-through curriculum and we share it well with pupils so they understand how they are learning. Perhaps we have more work to do in terms of planning and sharing how we intend to work on the censoring, correcting aspects of grammar. Teaching the nitty-gritty rules and accuracy.

But...

I am not sure with de la confiture or du pain, for example, if pupils really do work it out by thinking through a conscious rule. J'aime manger de la confiture avec du pain. In English it would be, "I like to eat jam with bread." There is no "some" in that sentence in English. And would J'aime manger la confiture avec le pain be the same or would it be different? Language isn't just grammar + vocabulary. It is also idiomatic. By which I don't mean fancy expressions about cats and dogs. I mean that you are learning by chunks and collocation what people actually say.

This brings me back to another point I also made in the post about Vocabulary. Perhaps we don't teach Grammar and Vocabulary as Ofsted envisage as separate "pillars." We teach a repertoire of language where grammar and vocabulary are not taught separately, but as part of a coherent and growing core of language that can be deployed with increasing fluency, independence and complexity.