Bravo, Of Troy.
You are certainly a worthy exponent of the other side of this argument. And, for that, you are to be commended, not least, by me.
"english is no longer a simple creole that children can instintively 'grasp'
fine maybe you did, and maybe even most people do.. but a hell of a lot of people don't. they need to be taught grammar"Disagree, Of Troy.
What they absolutely do NOT need is to be "taught grammar".
What they
need is to be exposed to the speaking and reading of proper english, fortified by consistent correction, so they can be hard-wired into proper english.
And, dear Of Troy, how can it be an argument for exposing
all pupils to the pointless torture of all of this esoterica when, by your own admission, only a
minority would benefit from it?
I am not trying to win debating points here, Of Troy. But what sense does it make to design any general program, any general program at all, around the most uncommon, common denominator [even if that minimalist standard actually had some conspicuous record of success ... a record painfully and conspicuously absent here].
What sense does that make, Of Troy?
And, who is the "minority" we are patronizing, Of Troy?
That "minority" is generally kids who were not privileged to experience proper english at home.
So, let's stop and think about this, Of Troy.
If kids who
are privileged to experience proper english at home, before they enter school, have no need to learn "parts of speech" and complicated rules of grammar to become proficient in the 'sound' and structure and 'grammar' of proper english, why do you think we ought to impose another, far more onerous model on children who do not have the advantage of that privilege?
Why, Of Troy?
