A* in GCSE English but can't spell - even at Harrow!

[speedymama]

I sniggered when I read this .

I thought that one of reasons that parents pay exorbitant fees for the privilege of sending their children to private/public schools was that the smaller classes enables pupils to receive more attention from their teachers. Maybe they need to concentrate on teaching the children the basics as well as intensively coaching them to pass exams to maintain their position in league tables.

I congratulate the head of English on his candour though - he could have easily come out with some spurious line that the education his pupils receive far exceeds that of the proletariats in the state sector. I do wonder however, that if he is the head of English, wasn't this problem evident through the course work and essays that pupils write before they embark on taking their exams?

IMO it's the opposite of egalitarian, it creates/worsens existing disadvantage or social division. Why hide information from children? Can't you have both - marks for communication and marks for grammar? That was certainly the case when I was at school.

'The rules exist - what's wrong with teaching them to give children the tools they need to do the job? '

No they don't - the rules that is. There are as many and often more exceptions to the 'rules' in English (did you see my earlier examples?)as words that fit them. And grammar doesn't work according to 'rules' as does mathematics for example. Nevertheless I have never met an English teacher (myself included) who hasn't tried to teach her students how and when to write in Standard English. Home life, reading, peers, tv etc are all more influential than a couple of hours a week in an English class.

'The state of English in this country is deeply embarrassing when you compare it to speakers of English as a second language who are taught grammar and spelling.'

Are you saying that users of English as a second language are better at it than 'native' users?? I don't think so though of course there are exceptions. Many of my students have English as a second language and some have to sit and re-sit their English GCSE while in some cases getting A grades in Science A Levels for example. English is a notoriously difficult language to learn because it does not follow simple rules the way French does. E.g. pronunciation and meaning of minute/minute the exceptions to the 'ie' rule eg weight, height, and pronunciation of the ough sound in through and tough.

Oh Beatie, are you really sad? Lots of people do it nowadays, even the BBC. Don't worry!

I don't get the egalitarian point at all!

Speakers of English as a second language who have been educated elsewhere - not the kids who are educated in England.

Teaching children the rules involves teaching them the exceptions, of course. Don't think the fact exceptions exist is a reason for abandoning the task, otherwise why bother teaching English at all? There are exceptions in other subjects too.

'But inaccuracy hinders communication!' Rarely, in fact e.g. text messages IYSWIM. I have never met an English teacher 'hiding' information from a student. What a peculiar idea. Don't blame teachers. We may have 4 hours a week to teach English to a class of 30 in secondary schools by which time it's very hard to break any bad habits. IMO what a child learns before going to primary school and during the early years has more influence than anything else. And as I've said most of a child's understanding of how language works comes from parents, friends etc.

I think spelling is less important than being understood. There are some contexts where it is necessary and others where it isn't..perhaps the essential teaching is to differentiate between the two.

In the case of a scientific paper there is no justification for publication without it being proof read and edited. But better a scientist who can't spell than a talent lost to science.

I don't think anyone here is "blaming" teachers BWC, no need to be defensive!

I know that when I see spelling mistakes in a publication of any kind it makes it less credible in my eyes, but perhaps that's because I'm an old pedant. How much does it really matter nowadays, that's what I'm wondering?

'Speakers of English as a second language who have been educated elsewhere - not the kids who are educated in England.'

Don't get this at all. Some of my students HAVE been educated elsewhere and recently come into the country from Poland, Pakistan, Russia wherever. I teach at 6th form level. Others came to England as young children, others were born here but grew up in families where English is not spoken at home.

To say English is spoken better by foreigners than the British is absolute rubbish though of course there will be exceptions.

Also, as I've said there are many 'rules' where there are more exceptions than the rules themselves.

Also, Standard English, is just one of many thousands of dialect which gained prestige because it was spoken by those in places of power who gained power. There is nothing more 'correct' about it than any other dialect. Shakespeare and Chaucer spoke and wrote in a very strong regional dialect. Are you saying their work is any the worse for that??!

btw I completely agree with your last point zippi

some of the cleverest people I've known have been hopeless at spelling (and some have the handwriting of a small child)

egalitarian

I'm suggesting that there is a sizeable number of people who find spelling extremely difficult. If you take spelling out of the equation, but still teach those people how to use tools to help them spell and select the right word when necessary then you open up further education/higher grade jobs to more people with talent and aptitude.

Reginald, when people bemoan a decline in standards, it's always the teachers/schools/the education system that's to blame. People don't recognize that language is far bigger than these institutions IYSWIM. And people never seem to find the changes positive. It's ok for us to use abbreviations,phonetic spelling etc 'C U L8r luv' but not teen-agers. Why?

You only have to look at mn to realise that people can make a forceful point despite their spelling and grammar

As far as employment is concerned then spelling is a skill in the same way that mathematical ability is a skill. Many careers just don't require either.

I think there will come a time when emails have no punctuation or capitals even in a business context..rather like the way some people write on mn.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

BWC, I realise that teachers do come in for some stick on this subject, but I am not of that opinion.

I don't necessarily think that the decline in spelling standards is a bad thing. I don't like it because I'm a pedant, but I think there's an interesting debate to be had about how much it really matters, and zippi is making some excellent points.

"Oh Beatie, are you really sad?" Edam. No, not really. I was going to end my sentence with a but fancied a change. See the as an ironic 'oh poor wounded me'

When I was studying for my PhD in chemistry, one of my Professors said that if he had his way, all science students would study History up to O'level standard (showing my age here) because they would at least learn how to write grammatically correct English. Writing my thesis opened my eyes to how much I had to learn with respect to grammar. I knew things like nouns, verbs, prepositions etc. but it was the more detailed things like split infinitives, passive or active voice etc. where I was lacking.

In my work, I write technical reports where I summarise the results of research, draw conclusions and provide suggestions for future work. Without a decent command of English, I would struggle to convey my message to a customer unfamiliar with my area of research. Even now, I am still learning in order to improve my grammar.

To be honest, my grammar has been helped by the fact that I have studied French and I am still studying German. In order for my reports to be published, they have to be grammatically correct because my organisation will not allow customers to receive poorly written reports because it will reflect badly on the company. That's why, IMO, pupils need to understand the English language because without it, your chosen career in future may be hindered as others may perceive you as someone unable to pay attention to detail (this is the case where I work).

i got a* can't spell fer fcuk

I would agree that grammar is more important than spelling, but that requires a high standard of spoken English first and foremost. I am amazed at how many people do not seem to read aloud what they have written to check that it makes sense, but if your spoken English is poor, then you aren't going to understand that someone else might misinterpret what you have said. I manage a complaints department, and so we are very careful about what we write (have you ever received a complaints response with typos - it makes you think that your complaint hasn't been taken seriously - "can't they even be bothered to look at what they have written" type thing). I also conduct audits, and again what you write is incredibly important in order to get comparable responses to the questions you thought you were asking. Having said that how many people write formal letters any more? I was taught business English when I learned to type, but I don't think that's what Harrow is suggesting (although I have found it very useful). On the other hand I am a dreadful speller, and with dyslexia in the family I think that understandability is more important than anything else. Re. people who have learnt English as a foreign language, my experience from work, where we have people from many backgrounds (I work in the NHS) is that many write in very idosynchratic ways that makes reading hard work until you pick up their linguistic habits. Teaching my son his spellings at the moment (he's 7) I think it is useful to learn to spell things, because it helps with reading. However in some ways as I know I am a poor speller, I check my work very thoroughly to avoid embarrassment, and I think (at least I hope!) that the quality of my end result is much higher in terms of understandability. We also have someone in the team who went through plain English training, and that's a very useful skill too. I can't imagine Harrovians going for that one though! (Ha ha - Google spell check wanted to turn that into Harridans!!)

I agree with zippi re communication trumping accuracy these days. I sometimes wonder if that is why some very very high functioning people with aspergers are more likely to be diagnosed these days. Perhaps in an age that values communication over accuracy they stand out all the more?

Glad that was ironic, Beatie, wasn't sure from your post!

My point is that we should value spelling and grammar and not treat them as optional extras. If we say they don't matter, we are holding people back. I'm not blaming teachers, per se, but I do think an examination system which doesn't value spelling and grammar is stupid and damaging.

And I'm afraid it's simply not true that an inability to spell or write clear English doesn't hinder understanding. What about censure/censor, complaisant/complacent, councillor/counsellor, diffuse/defuse, just for starters?

I think that in most cases context will let you know what people actually mean, although in formal documentation it can of course lead to problems, sometimes very serious ones. However I agree about the Asperger's thing. We have had several people at work who have communication difficulties of that nature, and their e-mails cause far more problems and grievance than the normal typo ridden stuff that everyone else produces (although I think not turning on the spell check is lazy, personally). Beautifully typed with good grammar, but just completely unaware of the political undertones that most of us take for granted (things you do not tell the chief executive to do, for example...)

agree edam