English teaching

Press, 6 March 1984, Page 20

English teaching

Sir, — I support the plea of Agnes-Mary Brooke (“The Press,” March 3) for the restoration of English grammar teaching in our schools. As a writer, I count among my valued assets the thorough grounding given me in both grammar and word usage, Creativity is enhanced, not hampered if one’s “tools of trade” are familiar, and learning their use is not necessarily difficult or dull, whether in the craft of words or in music, woodwork or whatever. If we wish to communicate effectively, we have to realise that what we think we are saying is not always what the recipient thinks we are saying we must aim for clarity. The splendid adventures of the imagination now encouraged in our schools are a great advance on the dull topics once thought appropriate; and they come off best when the words are put together with skill. — Yours, etc., ELSIE LOCKE March 4, 1984.

Sir,—Agnes-Mary Brooke’s article is well overdue. Her assessment of the state of the English language in society and schools in

particular is succinct and accurate. Unfortunately, while deploring, the absence of syntactic teaching, she does not name its cause—the lack of literate teachers and appropriate textbooks. We are well into the second generation of students unskilled in their mother tongue, for teachers who continually recycle the garbage about creativity being all are generally affirming their own lack of instruction. When a teacher can be heard to say “Him and me’s going to the meeting,” little wonder if his pupils follow suit. The absence of a recognised English textbook in primary schools for the last 25 years can be attributed to a dollar-conscious government abetted by misguided aducationists, while the whole situation is symptomatic of our age of indiscipline and false values.— Yours, etc., P. ALLISON, Geraldine. March 3, 1984.