The Hidden Crisis in Literacy: Why is it OK that ELA Teachers Can’t Define a phrase or a clause?

Metalinguistics is the analysis, reflection, and use of language as an object to understand a particular subject better.  As parents of elementary students, we would all like to assume that our children’s teachers have sufficient vocabulary and metalinguistic knowledge to teach students what they are supposed to know under state standards. I mean, how hard could it be to only master up to 5th-grade knowledge? It turns out to depend on the subject. 

Ask a third-grade math teacher to define 'denominator' – they'll answer instantly. Ask an ELA teacher to define 'phrase’ – watch them struggle. The CCSS demands far less precise grammatical terminology from ELA teachers than mathematical terminology from math teachers; the knowledge gap is deepening our literacy crisis."  Math teachers are required to use more than 100 technical terms, such as quotient, dividend, perpendicular, and circumference. This is not the case in ELA standards, which identify fewer than 40 metalinguistics terms. A majority of ELA teachers are unable to demonstrate mastery of basic terms (e.g., parts of speech), let alone the specific metalinguistic terms needed to discuss sentence-structure concepts. Apart from the subject and verb, no words related to sentence structure are even identified: there is no mention of phrases, clauses, direct objects, indirect objects, expletives, let alone infinitives, participles, and gerunds. Our students deserve teachers who understand the architecture of language as deeply as mathematicians understand numbers. Let's hold ELA instruction to the same professional standards we demand in mathematics."

Let’s look at some examples.  You would expect a third-grade math teacher to define and comfortably use the term 'denominator.' Same thing with graphing terms such as slope, plane, and Y-axis. Many of us who have been out of school for a long time will probably remember learning the mnemonic “Please excuse my dear aunt Sally” to help with the order of operations. Math standards require teachers and students not only to learn the necessary metalinguistics but also to understand and apply that knowledge with precision. The introduction to the math section of CCSS emphasizes knowledge and understanding: “There is a world of difference between students who can recall a mnemonic device to expand a product such as (a + b)(x + y) and students who can explain where the mnemonic comes from. The student who can explain the rule understands mathematics and may have a better chance to succeed in a less familiar task, such as expanding (a + b + +c)(x + y)” (https://www.thecorestandards.org/Math/Intro).

In ELA, if a teacher wants to discuss writing with a student effectively, they should be able to specifically articulate the difference between these two sentences: “During the sunset, the sky was pink.” “After the sun had set completely, the sky was orange.” The first is a simple sentence containing the phrase “after sunset.” The second sentence is a complex sentence that contains the clause “after the sun had completely set.” That’s a tall order if teachers cannot explain the difference between a phrase and a clause. The same is true for the following two sentences. “The birds in the nest ate the food.” and “The birds ate the food in the nest.” If teachers are unable to articulate the difference between adjectival and adverbial phrases clearly, they will likely encounter even more difficulty when tackling the type of clauses in compound and complex sentences. If teachers are not intentional about explaining how structure creates meaning, students won’t become effective writers, nor will they develop the syntactic awareness essential for reading comprehension.

Our students deserve teachers who understand the terminology and architecture of the English language as deeply as mathematicians understand the vocabulary related to numbers. Let’s start holding teachers and preparatory programs accountable, ensuring mastery of the metalinguistics of syntax and structure. If we expect math teachers to know "associative property," we should expect ELA teachers to know "subordinate conjunction. Let's hold ELA instructors to the same professional standards we demand in mathematics."