The Conditional Key That Marks the Correct Answer Wrong
During a grammar revision cycle for 42 Senior Secondary students, a teacher marks a ten-sentence editing task worth 10 marks. Sentence 6 reads: 'If the committee would have approved the proposal last month, the new wing would be functional by now.' The marking key requires 'would have approved' and marks 'had approved' as wrong. Nine students wrote 'had approved'; 27 wrote 'would have approved'; six wrote other forms. Sentence 9 reads: 'The news about the results are disturbing,' and the key correctly requires 'is'. The teacher has one 40-minute period to return scripts, and the school requires a written rationale for any key change. Two students have asked why English 'changes the rule' for conditionals. The department head wants a decision before the scripts go home.
1. Is 'had approved' or 'would have approved' the defensible form in Sentence 6? Explain the conditional pattern and the error in the key.
Read the worked answer
'Had approved' is the defensible form. Sentence 6 is a third conditional: it describes a counterfactual past situation and its past result. The standard pattern is: If + past perfect, would have + past participle. So the sentence should read: 'If the committee had approved the proposal last month, the new wing would be functional by now' or 'would have been functional by now', depending on the intended time reference.
The key is wrong. 'Would have approved' in the if-clause is a common overgeneralisation from the second conditional ('If the committee approved...'). In standard written English, 'would' does not normally appear in the if-clause of a third conditional. The nine students who wrote 'had approved' applied the correct pattern. The 27 who wrote 'would have approved' followed the keyed form, but the key is not evidence of correctness. The teacher should correct the key, award the mark to the nine students, and not award it to the 27 for this item unless the department confirms that the wrong form was explicitly taught and assessed as a class convention - in which case the item, not the students, is the problem.
2. What should the teacher do with the nine students' marks, and what written rationale should go to the department head?
Read the worked answer
Award the mark to the nine students. Their answer is grammatically correct, so denying the mark would penalise accurate grammar because of a faulty key. Do not award the mark to the 27 who wrote 'would have approved' unless the department confirms a documented teaching convention; otherwise the assessment would reward an error. If the wrong form was taught, the fairest action is to drop the item for all 42 and rescore out of 9, because the error originated in instruction, not in student performance.
Written rationale should state: the item number and sentence; the rule (third conditional: if + past perfect, would have + past participle); the key's error; the counts (9 correct, 27 keyed form, 6 other); the decision and its fairness basis; the rescoring method if the item is dropped; and the re-teaching plan. Attach a corrected key and a note that the item will be revised before reuse. Keep the tone factual, not defensive. The rationale protects the school if scripts are moderated externally and gives the department a record for future item review.
3. How should the teacher explain the difference between Sentence 6 and Sentence 9 to the two students who asked why English 'changes the rule' for conditionals?
Read the worked answer
Separate the two systems. Sentence 6 is about conditional verb forms: the if-clause marks a counterfactual past, so it takes the past perfect ('had approved'), and the result clause takes 'would have + past participle'. Sentence 9 is about subject–verb agreement: 'news' is an uncountable singular noun, so it takes 'is', even though it ends in -s. English is not changing the rule; the two sentences are testing different rules.
Classroom explanation: Write two columns. Column 1: 'If + had + past participle, would have + past participle' with the committee example. Column 2: 'news, mathematics, physics = singular' with the results example. Ask students to identify which system each sentence belongs to before correcting it. Then give two fresh sentences and ask them to label the system first. This prevents students from overgeneralising 'would have' to every past-looking clause and from treating final -s as always plural. The goal is to make the rule choice visible, not to ask students to memorise an exception list.