Compulsory Grammar Tests In England's Schools Aren't Improving Children's Writing

(MENAFN- The Conversation) For over a decade, children in year six – the final year of primary school in England – have taken the grammar, punctuation and spelling test as part of their Key Stage 2 Standard Assessment Tests (Sats). This GPS test has shaped how grammar is taught in primary schools.

It is mostly a multiple-choice questionnaire test with some short answer questions. It tests pupils' knowledge of grammar, punctuation and spelling rather than their ability to write.

The GPS test was introduced in 2013 as part of wider curriculum reforms to raise writing standards. It focuses on a vast array of grammatical terms, and uses decontextualised examples that do not represent the complexity of everyday language. For example:“The lion approached silently as the zebra rested in the grass.”

This test has been criticised for narrowing the curriculum. Because the results affect how schools perform in league tables, teachers prioritise GPS content, rather than teaching grammar in context to reading and writing.

It also risks encouraging“teaching to the test” – children learn how to answer test questions, rather than the wider uses of grammar. This finding is supported by a number of studies including my recent thesis.

Rote learning

While the GPS test improves pupils' ability to talk about grammar and spot grammatical features, it does not necessarily improve the quality of their writing. Pupils are not applying their grammar knowledge in writing.

This is important, given the government's proposal to change the test. The Department for Education's 2025 review of the the national curriculum and assessment states that the GPS should include“new tasks to more effectively assess writing composition and the use of grammar and punctuation”. The government therefore accepts that the GPS test isn't doing its job.

Spanning a ten‐year period, my research adds to the limited amount of analysis on the GPS test. It explores the gap between what pupils can identify about language and what they can do in writing, highlighting the wider tension between policy expectations and classroom reality.

I analysed 29 pupils' GPS scores, alongside a sample of their writing, at Key Stage 2 (age 10-11) and Key Stage 4, before they took their GCSEs. While the test boosts pupils' knowledge of grammar and punctuation, this doesn't automatically lead to better writing. I found common errors in pupils' writing, such as basic errors with full stops, capital letters and commas.

Both samples included many run-on sentences and sentence fragments. This shows that pupils have a lack of understanding of clauses and sentence structures, despite the same pupils having little difficulty answering questions related to these aspects in the test.

One way the GPS test has been successful is in bringing grammar back into the curriculum. Teaching grammar can no longer be avoided – which is what previously led to the “grammarless generation” after the 1960s, when grammar disappeared from the English curriculum due to research at that time calling its usefulness into dispute. This led to decades of confusion over the usefulness of grammar teaching.

Training needed

Despite the requirement to teach grammar, training for teachers is lacking. Many have reported being self-taught since the implementation of the test.

PGCE programmes are not obliged to teach grammar, unlike phonics, despite its statutory requirement. Subject knowledge enhancement courses, designed to help trainee teachers gain skills before beginning a teacher training course, are not currently available in English language. The system assumes trainee teachers have mastered this knowledge before they start their training.

Teachers have gained skills as a result of the GPS test, but the test itself is not an effective means of helping pupils to become better writers. It leads to teaching for the test and teaching grammar in isolation, taking away opportunities for teaching grammar in context to reading and writing through exploration, discovery and playing with language.

The government's call for evidence has found that the content at primary level is too“theoretical”. More advanced content could be covered at secondary level.

This suggestion was supported by linguist Michael Halliday, who was a major proponent of the idea that grammar should be a source of“making meaning” – a creative tool for making linguistic choices, rather than a set of prescriptive rules to be learnt by rote.

Primary education should focus on discovering grammatical features through a process of exploration and experimentation. Pupils would be introduced to the basics at meaningful and relevant points.

Ten years of the GPS test has shown that pupils can learn grammar without becoming better writers. As the government rethinks how grammar and writing should be tested, it has an opportunity to bridge the gap between knowledge and application.

It is not enough to test knowledge. Pupils must understand how to apply the tools of grammar to crafting a piece of writing.

MENAFN08092026000199003603ID1111635222