For reference, I hate passive voice vs active voice too as in complex moments it does get confusing, but I think best way is to say that "An active subject does, a passive subject recieves." Maybe put a name tag on a kid that says "Subject" and then have two cards, which look exactly the same, but on one it says "Passive" and one says "Active", then place a sweet on their desk. They choose a card at random (passive or active is hidden from view) if its active, the sentence would be "[Student's name] gives a sweet to Mr. Jack." And they have to give it back to you but if they choose passive the sentence would read, "[Student's name was given a sweet by Mr. Jack." Its a bit mean, but could be funny, you could also do it so that they all get the sweet but either write "NAME was given a sweet by Mr Jack." Or "Mr Jack gave NAME a sweet." For passive and active respectively.
Frankly, I think making grammar too complicated discourages people from wanting to understand it. Keep it simple: the “was” and the “by” are big passive voice clues. Try to write in active voice: it sounds cleaner. But there is a need for passive voice sometimes—particularly in legal writing. The worst writing I ever saw was in a school district that banned passive voice and all linking verbs. I hope your school is not headed in that direction!
We once had an ELA teacher defect to the Social Studies team and he marveled at how much shorter our department meetings are since we don’t have to argue about commas, semantics, and passive voice. Lol. 😂
Certainly not an expert, but I agree. Why oh why are we teaching this to 10 year olds! As another commenter said, language is both an art and a science. The best way to teach kids (any age) is to get them reading and writing as often as possible, without so many complex rules. The more they read and are exposed to active and passive voice, the more they'll be able to recognize it in their own writing.
As a senior teacher, college prep teacher, AP teacher, and pretty involved writer myself, I think talking about passive voice should only come very late in the process of teaching writing--junior and senior level; advanced level. And, like essentially all rules in English, this one's made to be broken. I typically say things like "Eight out of ten times, the active voice is better, but the other two times the passive is what you want," or, "when you catch yourself writing 'was' or 'would,' see if you can sharpen your writing by expressing the sentence a different way."
Like much of our terminology ("predicate"; "direct object"; "object of the preposition"; "prepositional phrase"), I find that making explicit use of the term 'active voice' becomes either a) a signal to my students that this can't possibly be important, and they should tune out, or b) an insurmountable impediment to understanding. I try to explain grammar and usage in functional, friendly ways without the fancy words. In my class, clarity is king and we write explicitly for the purpose of communicating our ideas to others. I've found that this can be done largely without using the explicit terminology. (Though I do make use of "independent" and "dependent" clause, which seem, to me, a tad less abstract.)
I've never uttered the words "subject, verb, object" in that sequence in the entirety of my teaching career :).
I usually teach my EFL students to avoid the passive whenever possible. Only use it when you do not want to specify who or what is the object (or subject!?)
I think what’s going on here is that it’s more complicated than the introductory explanations used for kids.
Word order doesn’t determine parts of speech (subject, verb, object). It’s the other way around: parts of speech determine word order (for a given language). For example, English is usually subject, verb, object, but Hindi is usually subject, object, verb. If kids are being taught to infer parts of speech from word order they’re being taught something that isn’t reliable or necessarily true, even in English.
Which noun is ‘performing’ and which noun is ‘receiving’ also isn’t determinative. This confuses semantics (meaning) with grammar. (The terms linguists use here are agent and patient.) The passive voice is a good example of why identifying subject and object from agent and patient is invalid.
The answer to your question is that the subject is the noun (and its modifiers) being in the state expressed by the verb (or more precisely by the predicate, which comprises the verb and any objects or modifiers).
In “The fence was blown over by the wind”, ‘the fence’ is the subject. It’s in the state expressed by the predicate (‘was blown over by the wind’).
In “The mouse was chased by the cat”, ‘the mouse’ is the subject. It’s in the state expressed by the predicate (‘was chased by the cat’).
No real answer for the SVO conundrum 🫣 but my English teacher in college told us the easiest way to find passive voice in our essays (used unnecessarily - but she also had a vendetta against passive voice) was to go through and highlight all the times we use any form of “to be” - is, was, be, etc. Once identified, find the bit in the sentence that is actually performing the action and put it first with the verb in… whatever form it’s supposed to be… IAM NOT an English teacher clearly. But that method helps when going through drafts if you want it to be in more active voice.
However. I agree with your real question - why on earth expect ten year olds to grasp this when even college students are needing tips and tricks to remember how it works??
All the best to you and your students! Sounds like quite the lively faculty meeting 😂
I'm afraid I can't answer your question on what is correct with subjects and objects - previously thought I understood it but reading your article has undone that 🤣. However, this has reminded me of the section in Stephen King's biography about grammar, which includes a lengthy explanation of his hatred for passive sentences!
I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked why we are teaching this to 10-year olds. As King says 'fear is the cause of most bad writing' and it's trying to teach things like this that creates that fear.
In looking at this, I did what I always do on a tricky primary grammar question and consulted the Paramours’ book (The Grammar Book). They are clear that the object becomes the subject in this scenario. From a pragmatic point of view, this also helps children because the SVO order stays in place.
This thread is loved by me, and I love this thread. There's an art and science to language. Sometimes it's more one than the other, but the fact that it's even a Substack comment thread in 2025 lifts me up. Or, am I lifted up by the thread?
What a fascinating thread of answers. As an English specialist and enthusiast - having the pleasure to study my subject to degree level, I do see the benefit of studying and exploring grammar in action. However, how often conversations and discussions fly around schools in planning meetings and when dissecting standardised test papers around the 'correct use' of these is concerning.
I am not able to add anything further to the grammar-side of the discussion beyond your clear explanations and explorations Jack - and also those of our fellow Substackers (so beautifully explained). Really, I do feel the question comes back to the value added for our writers when the lines are so blurred and easily contested.
I do believe that it is important to empower our children with the language around grammar. They should understand how the author has employed the active and passive voice to achieve a particular effect on the reader. The complications enter the room when children have to complete closed questions at the end of Year 6 which impact their final writing grade. This clinical, stress-inducing task which takes all of the joy out of using grammar to create meaning, feeling and impact. It saddens me, to be honest.
For reference, I hate passive voice vs active voice too as in complex moments it does get confusing, but I think best way is to say that "An active subject does, a passive subject recieves." Maybe put a name tag on a kid that says "Subject" and then have two cards, which look exactly the same, but on one it says "Passive" and one says "Active", then place a sweet on their desk. They choose a card at random (passive or active is hidden from view) if its active, the sentence would be "[Student's name] gives a sweet to Mr. Jack." And they have to give it back to you but if they choose passive the sentence would read, "[Student's name was given a sweet by Mr. Jack." Its a bit mean, but could be funny, you could also do it so that they all get the sweet but either write "NAME was given a sweet by Mr Jack." Or "Mr Jack gave NAME a sweet." For passive and active respectively.
Dunno, what do you think?
Love the teaching idea!
My question to you is - don’t the words ‘active’ and ‘passive’ refer to the verb, not the subject/object?
I think the most important sentence in this column is your question, why are we teaching this to 10 year olds?
Frankly, I think making grammar too complicated discourages people from wanting to understand it. Keep it simple: the “was” and the “by” are big passive voice clues. Try to write in active voice: it sounds cleaner. But there is a need for passive voice sometimes—particularly in legal writing. The worst writing I ever saw was in a school district that banned passive voice and all linking verbs. I hope your school is not headed in that direction!
Nailed it.
We once had an ELA teacher defect to the Social Studies team and he marveled at how much shorter our department meetings are since we don’t have to argue about commas, semantics, and passive voice. Lol. 😂
Certainly not an expert, but I agree. Why oh why are we teaching this to 10 year olds! As another commenter said, language is both an art and a science. The best way to teach kids (any age) is to get them reading and writing as often as possible, without so many complex rules. The more they read and are exposed to active and passive voice, the more they'll be able to recognize it in their own writing.
As a senior teacher, college prep teacher, AP teacher, and pretty involved writer myself, I think talking about passive voice should only come very late in the process of teaching writing--junior and senior level; advanced level. And, like essentially all rules in English, this one's made to be broken. I typically say things like "Eight out of ten times, the active voice is better, but the other two times the passive is what you want," or, "when you catch yourself writing 'was' or 'would,' see if you can sharpen your writing by expressing the sentence a different way."
Like much of our terminology ("predicate"; "direct object"; "object of the preposition"; "prepositional phrase"), I find that making explicit use of the term 'active voice' becomes either a) a signal to my students that this can't possibly be important, and they should tune out, or b) an insurmountable impediment to understanding. I try to explain grammar and usage in functional, friendly ways without the fancy words. In my class, clarity is king and we write explicitly for the purpose of communicating our ideas to others. I've found that this can be done largely without using the explicit terminology. (Though I do make use of "independent" and "dependent" clause, which seem, to me, a tad less abstract.)
I've never uttered the words "subject, verb, object" in that sequence in the entirety of my teaching career :).
I usually teach my EFL students to avoid the passive whenever possible. Only use it when you do not want to specify who or what is the object (or subject!?)
I think what’s going on here is that it’s more complicated than the introductory explanations used for kids.
Word order doesn’t determine parts of speech (subject, verb, object). It’s the other way around: parts of speech determine word order (for a given language). For example, English is usually subject, verb, object, but Hindi is usually subject, object, verb. If kids are being taught to infer parts of speech from word order they’re being taught something that isn’t reliable or necessarily true, even in English.
Which noun is ‘performing’ and which noun is ‘receiving’ also isn’t determinative. This confuses semantics (meaning) with grammar. (The terms linguists use here are agent and patient.) The passive voice is a good example of why identifying subject and object from agent and patient is invalid.
The answer to your question is that the subject is the noun (and its modifiers) being in the state expressed by the verb (or more precisely by the predicate, which comprises the verb and any objects or modifiers).
In “The fence was blown over by the wind”, ‘the fence’ is the subject. It’s in the state expressed by the predicate (‘was blown over by the wind’).
In “The mouse was chased by the cat”, ‘the mouse’ is the subject. It’s in the state expressed by the predicate (‘was chased by the cat’).
Hope that helps!
No real answer for the SVO conundrum 🫣 but my English teacher in college told us the easiest way to find passive voice in our essays (used unnecessarily - but she also had a vendetta against passive voice) was to go through and highlight all the times we use any form of “to be” - is, was, be, etc. Once identified, find the bit in the sentence that is actually performing the action and put it first with the verb in… whatever form it’s supposed to be… IAM NOT an English teacher clearly. But that method helps when going through drafts if you want it to be in more active voice.
However. I agree with your real question - why on earth expect ten year olds to grasp this when even college students are needing tips and tricks to remember how it works??
All the best to you and your students! Sounds like quite the lively faculty meeting 😂
I'm afraid I can't answer your question on what is correct with subjects and objects - previously thought I understood it but reading your article has undone that 🤣. However, this has reminded me of the section in Stephen King's biography about grammar, which includes a lengthy explanation of his hatred for passive sentences!
For children struggling with all the complex rules and terminology, to hear a bestselling author advocate for keeping it simple is refreshing. https://teachingagainstthetide.substack.com/p/on-grammar
I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked why we are teaching this to 10-year olds. As King says 'fear is the cause of most bad writing' and it's trying to teach things like this that creates that fear.
In looking at this, I did what I always do on a tricky primary grammar question and consulted the Paramours’ book (The Grammar Book). They are clear that the object becomes the subject in this scenario. From a pragmatic point of view, this also helps children because the SVO order stays in place.
This thread is loved by me, and I love this thread. There's an art and science to language. Sometimes it's more one than the other, but the fact that it's even a Substack comment thread in 2025 lifts me up. Or, am I lifted up by the thread?
What a fascinating thread of answers. As an English specialist and enthusiast - having the pleasure to study my subject to degree level, I do see the benefit of studying and exploring grammar in action. However, how often conversations and discussions fly around schools in planning meetings and when dissecting standardised test papers around the 'correct use' of these is concerning.
I am not able to add anything further to the grammar-side of the discussion beyond your clear explanations and explorations Jack - and also those of our fellow Substackers (so beautifully explained). Really, I do feel the question comes back to the value added for our writers when the lines are so blurred and easily contested.
I do believe that it is important to empower our children with the language around grammar. They should understand how the author has employed the active and passive voice to achieve a particular effect on the reader. The complications enter the room when children have to complete closed questions at the end of Year 6 which impact their final writing grade. This clinical, stress-inducing task which takes all of the joy out of using grammar to create meaning, feeling and impact. It saddens me, to be honest.