Dear Editor,
I note the letter from Mr Raj Singh (“a concerned parent/educator”) in the Sunday Stabroek of April 15 captioned: ‘Sunday Stabroek Grade Six Practice Test Papers were an abomination.‘
I commend Mr Raj Singh for bringing his concerns to public attention. I also commend Sunday Stabroek for printing his letter in full. May I say, however, that I consider the language used by Mr Raj Singh to be quite unnecessarily intemperate, and that I am persuaded – beyond peradventure – that he himself is guilty of some of the same errors of sentence construction and grammar over which he condemns Sunday Stabroek so roundly.
In the published literature, there are two places that come to my mind at this time. One is the place where angels fear to tread. The other is the china shop. I have not yet decided which one I would wish to apply to Mr Raj Singh’s letter.
I do not know who writes and/or compiles and/or proof-reads the practice test papers that Sunday Stabroek publishes, and I have not seen the practice test papers. From reading Mr Raj Singh’s comments, however, I am persuaded that some of his concerns are quite valid. Sunday Stabroek may wish to reconsider the system that it now has in place, and encourage more careful setting of questions and more careful proof-reading of the final documents.
Mr Raj Singh has the right to demand that I substantiate my assertion that he himself is guilty of some of the same errors of sentence construction and grammar over which he condemns Sunday Stabroek so roundly. I shall provide some of the evidence, proceeding in sequence and confining myself to his general comments and his comments under English Paper 1. Providing further negative analysis of the sentence construction and grammar in the rest of his letter would be far too tedious and depressing.
Mr Raj Singh says: “Grab your copy of the Practice Tests and follow along with me and you would soon find out that the claim is well supported by the evidence.” He should have said “come along” and “will.”
Mr Raj Singh says: “From the point of view of the sheer number and type of errors, the practice tests are unacceptable.” He should have said “types.”
Mr Raj Singh says: “Imagine 18,000 pupils being subjected to this sort of test.” He should have used the plural possessive (pupils’) because his sentence construction involves a gerund. (Editor’s note: This was SN’s typographical error; Mr Singh did say “pupils’.”)
Mr Raj Singh says: “Overall, this paper had 40 multiple choice questions. Twelve of those questions or 33 ⅓% had errors!” I am informed by my ten-year-old grandchild that 12 items out of 40 items would be thirty per cent and not thirty-three and one-third percent. Mr Raj Singh may wish to re-check to see whether my grandchild has given me the correct information. Mathematics is not my major field of expertise.
Mr Raj Singh may wish to look again at the punctuation convention (the comma) that he employed when commenting on “Questions 9 and 10” and compare that with the punctuation convention (the colon) that he employed when commenting on “Question 13.” His first is incorrect and his second is correct.
Mr Raj Singh says: “Since the set of choices presented include a question it is misleading to ask the pupil to ‘select the sentence . . .’ since that would exclude the question.” He should have inserted a comma at the end of his introductory adverbial clause and he should have used a singular verb (“includes”) to agree with the subject which is singular. Too, he seems to believe that a sentence cannot end with a question mark. I suggest to him that a sentence can end, not only with a full stop, but also with a question mark or an exclamation mark.
Mr Raj Singh says: “Presumably, the ability being tested here is the pupil’s ability to observe and compare two things – in this case 2 charts – and make inferences.” He should have said “draw inferences.” He may wish to consider the difference between “imply” and “infer” and the way in which each of these two words is used correctly in standard English.
Mr Raj Singh says: “Which hobby Rachael favours the most?” The note by the editor takes care of that infelicity.
Mr Raj Singh says: “Our poor kids must have found themselves in a tailspin and skip the question.” The intervention of the Editor takes care of that infelicity.
Mr Raj Singh says: “No wonder our kids are having difficulty with the English language.” He should have said “have difficulty.” The wording he is using is employed by educated speakers to express future time, eg, “We are having a party tomorrow.”
Editor, I have looked again at the strong language that Mr Raj Singh uses in respect of the Sunday Stabroek Grade Six Practice Test papers (eg, Sunday Stabroek gets an ‘F’; replete with poorly formulated questions; awkwardly worded instructions; muddled questions; grammatical, punctuation and logical errors; unacceptable; shameful; incompetence; the situation is very worrying; God help us!; improperly worded; Does Sunday Stabroek know the difference? It would appear not; the confusion does not stop here; another howler; The compilers themselves have a difficulty with the English language, etc).
I have looked again, too, at some of his own display of linguistic competence.
Sadly, I find it hard not to call to mind the dictum:
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
Yours faithfully,
George N Cave
Editor’s note
Mr Raj Singh’s “strong language” was actually applied to the Ministry of Education, because he assumed that that ministry had set the Practice Assessments. Since this was a private initiative by the Sunday Stabroek the name of the newspaper was substituted in the letter for that of the ministry.
Sunday Stabroek apologises for any typographical and proofing errors in the Grade Six Assessment Practice Test Papers.
