English Should not be Compulsory in High School

[Loss Leader]

I am pretty sure that those of us who will never be able to write an essay on what TS Eliot meant by his poems have a great deal to contribute to society and should not have this built in disadvantage at the most important year of our schooling.

I would be interested in hearing other perspectives on this.

In America:

If you have a disability, you are entitled to accommodations so as to receive a free and appropriate public education. If you can't write an essay because of a problem with executive decision-making might be able to use aids like flow-charts or outline forms. If you have difficulty manipulating a pen, you might be allowed to type or even dictate your answer.

There are also multiple levels of English & Language classes. In my school, there was Resource, Regents, Honors, and AP. All students were required to take the Regents test for a diploma. But that test was very easy. It certainly didn't require a dissertation on TS Eliot's overarching thematic symmetry in his verse-writing. It would present a few stanzas of a poem and ask a couple multiple-choice questions about it. The college-level test presented two short poems and asked the student to write an essay asking them to compare and contrast.

All this being the case, I think ELA is as or more necessary than any other skill taught in high school. The ability to interpret language is of desperate importance seeing as it's the way we, um, communicate. The ability to create an ordered and logical argument is equally important. I'm not sure how any mathematician or engineer could convince anyone of anything without that skill - let alone read the very dense texts they need to master such skills in the first place.

If you are just making a rhetorical point about math: I agree that it should be taught through all of high school. One may argue that one "doesn't use math," but I find this unavailing. It's important to be able to see the precision and logic of the world and appreciate the exacting task of invention and innovation.

We were required to take math through 12th grade and pass Regents tests. The lowest level of math stopped just before Calc. The highest level was Calc. BC (I actually dropped down to Calc. AB because I had no idea what was going on.) I fulfilled my college liberal arts requirement with that AP test and a class on logic.

 

[bobdroege7]

Kindergarten is optional in the US, said the guy who didn't go.

 

[Robin]

It is a most necessary skill.

English majors may not make top salaries right out of college, but after 20 years they do indeed catch up.

Say you and another engineer are in competition for a promotion, the other one has a minor in English, but you are the better engineer. I would bet against you getting the job.

If you can't get there, their, and they're right nor can you get your, you're and yore right, better go back to school.

If someone hasn't got "there", "their" and "they're" right by Year 10 then they probably never will. You don't learn grammar in Years 11 and 12.

In Year 12 you learn to say that when T S Eliot says "Six O'Clock" he is making some point about the alienation and absence of meaning brought about by increasing urbanisation, or something along those lines.

I could never do that, no matter how hard I tried to learn and I can do quite a lot that is useful without being able to do that.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have found that if I'm reading a passage with correct grammar and spelling, I can comprehend it smoothly and quickly. If I encounter a grammar or spelling mistake, then I have to stop and interpret it, which disrupts the smoothness of my reading. That's why I feel that if someone is writing with the intention of being read, they should be using correct grammar and spelling. But that's my opinion, and I acknowledge that other people can have different opinions on this subject.

 

[Robin]

In America:

If you have a disability, you are entitled to accommodations so as to receive a free and appropriate public education. If you can't write an essay because of a problem with executive decision-making might be able to use aids like flow-charts or outline forms. If you have difficulty manipulating a pen, you might be allowed to type or even dictate your answer.

Same in Australia, but it is not a matter of how you say it, it is rather what you are supposed to say.

Take Eliot's Preludes, and start with first poem. To me it is just a word picture of a winter evening in the city. Rather a good one, it evokes that subject well, but that is all it is to me.

I gather from example essays that it is supposed to convey ideas to the reader about alienation, emptiness and loneliness of modern life.

OK, so the scraps of leaves are grimy. The chimney pots are broken. You can smell steak.

So what?

That is just part of the charm of a city to me, it speaks nothing to me of alienation, loneliness and emptiness. You can be lonely, alienated and empty in a smart suburb with carefully swept streets and neatly clipped lawns.

If I could understand how Eliot is supposed to be getting from the one thing to the other then think I could find a way to convey this to the examiner.

But I can't. And I don't think I could ever learn to do that. No matter how hard I tried.

 

[Robin]

I have found that if I'm reading a passage with correct grammar and spelling, I can comprehend it smoothly and quickly. If I encounter a grammar or spelling mistake, then I have to stop and interpret it, which disrupts the smoothness of my reading. That's why I feel that if someone is writing with the intention of being read, they should be using correct grammar and spelling. But that's my opinion, and I acknowledge that other people can have different opinions on this subject.

My father in law left school at 11 to work on the family farm, and never learned English until he was 18 and his grammar was faultless.

If all we had to master in years 11 and 12 was grammar then I should have no issue with English being compulsory.

 

[arthwollipot]

My father in law left school at 11 to work on the family farm, and never learned English until he was 18 and his grammar was faultless.

If all we had to master in years 11 and 12 was grammar then I should have no issue with English being compulsory.

Let me guess - your father in law read a lot? That was me, too. I was a voracious reader from early childhood. So by the time I did learn the smatterings of very basic grammar that were all I was taught in school, I already had a very good grasp of English. I don't recall ever getting less than 100% in a spelling test. If we had spelling bees in this country, I would have made the nationals.

 

[Robin]

Let me guess - your father in law read a lot? That was me, too. I was a voracious reader from early childhood. So by the time I did learn the smatterings of very basic grammar that were all I was taught in school, I already had a very good grasp of English. I don't recall ever getting less than 100% in a spelling test. If we had spelling bees in this country, I would have made the nationals.

I can't recall having seen any book in his house besides the Bible and some technical books on building codes. English wasn't his first language, so I expect he took some evening classes.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can't recall having seen any book in his house besides the Bible and some technical books on building codes. English wasn't his first language, so I expect he took some evening classes.

Ah, okay. That's interesting.

 

[Robin]

But as I said, if grammar was the criterion for getting a good grade in English I would have no issue with it being compulsory.

 

[angrysoba]

I'd like to see kids these days study more English grammar and spelling, because what they have now is atrocious. On the other hand, written language is evolving alongside spoken, and while awful from a grammar traditionalist perspective, it is rarely unreadable.

I see a lot of claims about how kids today can't read and write proper grammar, but is there any evidence that reading and writing comprehension is lower today than it ever has been in the past?

"Grammar traditionalists" have been bemoaning the decline in grammar for hundreds of years, from those who thought Shakespeare couldn't write proper grammar, to Swift, to Strunk and White, to George Orwell and to modern day pedants like Lynne Truss and Simon Heffer, despite the fact that literacy has risen over those centuries, and the fact that they mistake "What I learnt when I was at school" for "correct grammar", and their books tend to littered with all kinds of errors which are pointed out by actual linguists.

 

[Robin]

I knew someone who refused to do English in Year 12, just didn't turn up to class.

In fact he refused to do anything except maths and science. The school said "without your ATAR you won't be able to get into University" and he contacted the universities directly and they said "How soon can you start?"

Of course he was exceptional in those subjects and other students can't follow this example, but I think, as long as that last year of high school is so critical to success in life, it should be open for people to decide that how to maximise those results, instead of there being this built in advantage for people who happen to be good at English.

After all, the educational system has had 11 years to teach good communication skills.

 

[arthwollipot]

I see a lot of claims about how kids today can't read and write proper grammar, but is there any evidence that reading and writing comprehension is lower today than it ever has been in the past?

"Grammar traditionalists" have been bemoaning the decline in grammar for hundreds of years, from those who thought Shakespeare couldn't write proper grammar, to Swift, to Strunk and White, to George Orwell and to modern day pedants like Lynne Truss and Simon Heffer, despite the fact that literacy has risen over those centuries, and the fact that they mistake "What I learnt when I was at school" for "correct grammar", and their books tend to littered with all kinds of errors which are pointed out by actual linguists.

While the grammar traditionalist in me wails in frustration, he also cannot help but agree.

 

[rjh01]

I would like to have students be able to look at statements and say if they are any good. Like look at political propaganda from various sources and then write a short essay about who is talking garbage and who is talking sense.

For maths they should be able to do some sort of budget. Then compare it with how money is spent.

They should be able to use a spreadsheet, emails and edit documents.

 

[jenspen]

Maths is a rigorous discipline but it's a small subset of us that can be competent in calculus.

I do think that courses in Logic and Basic Science - the scientific method(s) anyway - should be compulsory.

I was reading poetry from the age of 7 but I hated English classes all through my schooldays - can quite sympathise with OP's friend. I guess the important thing is to make sure that the vast majority leave school being able to read.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let me guess - your father in law read a lot? That was me, too. I was a voracious reader from early childhood. So by the time I did learn the smatterings of very basic grammar that were all I was taught in school, I already had a very good grasp of English. I don't recall ever getting less than 100% in a spelling test. If we had spelling bees in this country, I would have made the nationals.

Oh, to this I should add that I learned most about English grammar by studying four years of Latin.

 

[lionking]

For all of the talk about electives, the most important thing is that children get through to the end of high school. All research shows that children who get through year 12 do better on average than those who drop out at year 10. So even though I would prefer to see English, Science and Mathematics compulsory to year 12, that is a secondary consideration.

 

[arthwollipot]

For all of the talk about electives, the most important thing is that children get through to the end of high school. All research shows that children who get through year 12 do better on average than those who drop out at year 10. So even though I would prefer to see English, Science and Mathematics compulsory to year 12, that is a secondary consideration.

I think that's the basis behind Canberra doing the last two years in a separate school with a different structure. Some kids would go from Year 10 to a trade school, while others would go on to do the extra two years, and would be expected to go to university after that.

I did the extra two years, but never went on to uni.

 

[angrysoba]

For all of the talk about electives, the most important thing is that children get through to the end of high school. All research shows that children who get through year 12 do better on average than those who drop out at year 10. So even though I would prefer to see English, Science and Mathematics compulsory to year 12, that is a secondary consideration.

I don't doubt it, but I wonder if that is more correlation than causation. I know a lot of people at school who were more of the working class persuasion who did badly at school because they were not studying, saw no point in it and were happy to leave as early as possible to get a job, get pregnant, maybe even get married... whereas families that have stable incomes, and can pay for their kids to stay in education and go onto university had no pressing need to leave.

 

[angrysoba]

While the grammar traditionalist in me wails in frustration, he also cannot help but agree.

Oh, to this I should add that I learned most about English grammar by studying four years of Latin.

Very true, and I also learnt most of what I know about grammar while studying Japanese - not that they have similar grammars at all.

 

[lionking]

I don't doubt it, but I wonder if that is more correlation than causation. I know a lot of people at school who were more of the working class persuasion who did badly at school because they were not studying, saw no point in it and were happy to leave as early as possible to get a job, get pregnant, maybe even get married... whereas families that have stable incomes, and can pay for their kids to stay in education and go onto university had no pressing need to leave.

Maybe, but at least in Australia, cost is not an issue as public schools are free. Private schools, of course, are not and students there are more likely to complete.

I’m so proud at my stage of life, to support students to become school-based apprentices, where at year 11 they can work one or two days, go to trade school one day and school two or three days. By the time they finish year 12 they will have completed a full year of an apprenticeship and will be in good shape. With year 12, they also have the option to go to university later.

This program is so good that the UK stole it from us and are putting thousands of students through it. I tried to interest the US Department of Labor in talking about it, but they weren’t interested. Apparently if it isn’t thought of first in the US it’s not important.

 

[angrysoba]

Maybe, but at least in Australia, cost is not an issue as public schools are free. Private schools, of course, are not and students there are more likely to complete.

Yes, that is true in the UK, too, but I am thinking more along the lines of the income a student could be earning if they were doing full-time work instead.

I’m so proud at my stage of life, to support students to become school-based apprentices, where at year 11 they can work one or two days, go to trade school one day and school two or three days. By the time they finish year 12 they will have completed a full year of an apprenticeship and will be in good shape. With year 12, they also have the option to go to university later.

This program is so good that the UK stole it from us and are putting thousands of students through it. I tried to interest the US Department of Labor in talking about it, but they weren’t interested. Apparently if it isn’t thought of first in the US it’s not important.

That's great!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

In Australian high schools, mathematics is not compulsory in the last two years of high school, but English is.

This has always struck me as a highly discriminatory practice as some of us will never be able to get a decent result in this subject,

Of course it's discriminatory - by design.

I am pretty sure that those of us who will never be able to write an essay on what TS Eliot meant by his poems have a great deal to contribute to society and should not have this built in disadvantage at the most important year of our schooling.

If you can't analyze TS Eliot then you don't have what it takes to contribute the most to society. Perhaps you could become a scientist or an engineer, but you will never produce a great piece of literature. You probably wouldn't even make a mediocre journalist or screenplay writer. Imagine a society without these essential skills!

 

[Thermal]

Count 'em

New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia

Stars and Stripes: Count 'em

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Flag_of_the_United_States_%281777-1795%29.svg/353px-Flag_of_the_United_States_%281777-1795%29.svg.png[/qimg]

Unlucky for some....

You forgot that there are one each of kinderstar and kinderstripe.

Plus we still don't count Georgia.

 

[Robin]

Maths is a rigorous discipline but it's a small subset of us that can be competent in calculus.

I do think that courses in Logic and Basic Science - the scientific method(s) anyway - should be compulsory.

I was reading poetry from the age of 7 but I hated English classes all through my schooldays - can quite sympathise with OP's friend. I guess the important thing is to make sure that the vast majority leave school being able to read.

I also read poetry from an early age. I had a couple of poems published in newspapers by the age of nine. My Gran told me that it was one of the great disappointments of her life that I did not grow up to be a poet.

I still read poetry for pleasure, even T S Eliot. But apparently I am getting them all wrong.

 

[Trebuchet]

Maths is a rigorous discipline but it's a small subset of us that can be competent in calculus.

That small subset never included me, even though they kept making me take courses in it. Then there was matrix inversion....

I'd have done much better grade-wise to have majored in English or History. I did better career wise in Engineering.

 

[Thermal]

I'd have done much better grade-wise if they didn't harp on all that academic stuff.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I've recently qualified for a program for career-changers who want to become school teachers; I'm currently in the process of looking for a job. I'm eligible to teach math, English, and science, among other subjects. I believe that all three of these should be compulsory in every year of secondary school, for reasons that have mostly been mentioned already.

As has also been mentioned, I believe that critical thinking should be required, along with demonstrated proficiency therein.

One thing that I don't believe has been mentioned, though, is foreign language. I believe US schools need to start teaching it much sooner, and again require demonstrated proficiency for advancement and graduation.

 

[The Atheist]

Presumably those with a weaker grasp will be taking compulsory remedial classes, rather than the more advanced compulsory classes for those in a position to deepen their mastery of the nuances.

I don't know what planet you're from, or whether you've ever met a human teenager, but getting teens aged 16 - 18 to do something they don't want to do is pointless.

Far better we teach life & work skills.

I can say without any doubt that apart from languages, the only thing I learnt at high school that I've used in my life is typing. Maths/English/Chemistry/Biology/Physics, not one of them has served me any useful purpose in 45 years out of school.

I guess the important thing is to make sure that the vast majority leave school being able to read.

Kids ought to have those basic reading and arithmetic skills at primary school.

We spend trillions of dollars on schools around the world, yet we turn out kids who don't know what a loan is, how interest works, and are completely lacking in life, sex, relationship and parenting skills.

Parents have proven pretty useless at teaching those things, and we have the little bastards held captive for 6 hours a day - why on earth aren't we using it wisely?

Oh, to this I should add that I learned most about English grammar by studying four years of Latin.

You can double it if you're learning French as well - the three languages are so interconnected that they all grow in unison. Stupid subject on its own, but very useful for linguists.

 

[Loss Leader]

Same in Australia, but it is not a matter of how you say it, it is rather what you are supposed to say.

Take Eliot's Preludes, and start with first poem. To me it is just a word picture of a winter evening in the city. Rather a good one, it evokes that subject well, but that is all it is to me.

I gather from example essays that it is supposed to convey ideas to the reader about alienation, emptiness and loneliness of modern life.

First, I don't think I agree with the alienation/loneliness interpretation. I thought it found beauty and comfort in a human connection, even among the run-down streets.

Second, it appears that most of that "modern life" interpretation comes from reading Eliot's poems in total. That's something no high school student would ever be asked to do. In fact, I think "Preludes" isn't particularly suited to a high school-level poetry unit even by itself.

And that's third: Even if you can't find anything in this poem besides word pictures, you'd probably still pass a poetry unit exam. These are fragmentary images conveyed in short bursts in very few words. Understanding the scene Eliot is painting, unraveling metaphors, and building that cityscape in your mind - that's not an easy skill. To understand, "The morning comes to consciousness," as meaning dawn and new activity is already at least average for high school. You'd pass the poetry unit with a B- if I understand the rubric.

Last, it's the exposure to these challenges that is, in itself, the point of requiring English throughout high school. This is a time when the mind does not know what it's capable of or where its interests might lie. Forcing children to read (and poetry is only one small part of it), that itself is the mission.

 

[Startz]

It is a most necessary skill.

English majors may not make top salaries right out of college, but after 20 years they do indeed catch up.

snip

No argument that English isn't important, but the suggestion that English major salaries catch up just ain't true. Here are numbers for University of California graduates.

................ 2 years out 15 years out
English ... . 34k .............. 86k
Engineering 81k ...............150k

 

[angrysoba]

You can double it if you're learning French as well - the three languages are so interconnected that they all grow in unison. Stupid subject on its own, but very useful for linguists.

I don't buy the argument that it is useful to learn Latin to learn English grammar or other European languages.

If you want to learn French, just learn French! It's an inefficient Rube-Goldbergian method to learn Latin first.

But what if you also want to learn Italian and Spanish too? Wouldn't Latin be useful for that?

Not nearly as useful as...I dunno...learning Italian and Spanish instead of Latin!

Just a thought!

But what if you want to learn English grammar??!

Then learn English grammar!

 

[The Atheist]

I don't buy the argument that it is useful to learn Latin to learn English grammar or other European languages.

I'm guessing you didn't, so therefore have little idea what you're talking about?

It's simply a case of getting 3 for one. If you never did Latin + another language, you wouldn't have a clue. There are so many words in English & French derived from Latin that you can often get the meaning of a word from knowing their Latin root. That enables you to do much better at dictation and comprehension. The grammar of Latin helps with English grammar, and many of the rules we still have in English are the same as those from 2000 years ago.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm guessing you didn't, so therefore have little idea what you're talking about?

It's simply a case of getting 3 for one.
You don't get 3 for 1!

If you never did Latin + another language, you wouldn't have a clue. There are so many words in English & French derived from Latin that you can often get the meaning of a word from knowing their Latin root. That enables you to do much better at dictation and comprehension. The grammar of Latin helps with English grammar, and many of the rules we still have in English are the same as those from 2000 years ago.

Yep, and guess what. You can also know many words in French because they are the same word in English or near enough. Knowing that one word is a cognate in another language is trivially easy to do without having to actually know Latin.

I didn't have to study Latin to know which words are Latin in origin. That is trivially easy as well.

And what are you talking about when you say the rules of English are the same from 2000 years ago!!!!

Do you know anything at all about the history of the English language? If you did, you wouldn't claim that English has 2000-year old Latin roots. The Latin came much later. Old English is Anglo-Saxon in origin. We might use metalinguistic terminologyd derived from Latin to describe the grammar, but that's only because much of the study of the language was done after the Renaissance when study of grammar became popular.

 

[Loss Leader]

It's simply a case of getting 3 for one. If you never did Latin + another language, you wouldn't have a clue. There are so many words in English & French derived from Latin that you can often get the meaning of a word from knowing their Latin root. That enables you to do much better at dictation and comprehension.

Look, I agree that knowing Latin is very useful for english comprehension but there's something of a limit to that.

First of all, English is composed of so much from so far that Latin does little to help overall. As a lawyer, I have a great appreciation for Latin. However, if I were a doctor, I'd have an even greater appreciation for Greek. Naming the days of the week? Norse gods will help with that. English is actually classified in the Germanic family. By your reasoning, decoding English would require mastery of at least half a dozen languages, all thousands of years old,

Second, a whole lot can change about a word in a thousand years. Hard sounds become soft (especially in the middle of words), prefixes and suffixes get merged into the root word, spellings change and with them pronunciation, and everybody invades everybody else, upturning languages in the process.

For instance, I doubt that a knowledge of Latin would help many people find the similarities between "Inhabit" and "ability." "Luc," the Latin for light, might help you figure out "translucent." It probably wouldn't help with the word "lucid."

I could go on but I really don't want to.

Yep, and guess what. You can also know many words in French because they are the same word in English or near enough. Knowing that one word is a cognate in another language is trivially easy to do without having to actually know Latin.

Having an appreciation for etymology is, I think, essential to fully decoding the world. The fact that "chaos" and "gas" are derived from the same Greek word is fascinating to me. You get a glimpse into the minds of scientists who died long ago.

 

[Minoosh]

I have used quadratics and trigonometry in real life. But I agree about the fractions and decimals. Especially the decimals, because when I went to college calculators weren't a thing and slide rules wouldn't put the decimal in correctly.

Quadratics and trigonometry have pretty accessible "real world" applications, but a lot of kids seem to have such a phobia about math that it's hard to get them up to the point where they are comfortable crunching numbers and manipulating variables. For generations of Americans that pesky x in algebra seems to slam down their cognitive functions.

In a way math should be easier than English, because there is an actual right answer that can be checked.

 

[Minoosh]

Someone please help me how to start a new thread

Call up the sub-directory in a given topic. (In this case the sub-directory is "Education.") You should see a "New Thread" button right under the bold-face category title. Click it and it will be obvious what to do next.

"Education" is not a very active sub-category. Others are more popular.

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't have to study Latin...

Surprise, surprise, I was right.

Look, I agree that knowing Latin is very useful for english comprehension but there's something of a limit to that.

That's funny - I distinctly typed that it was useful, yet some people seem to think that equates to "essential".

Stupid subject on its own, but very useful for linguists.

 

[lionking]

Not quite on topic, but I did 6 years of Latin (catholic school) and got good results. It did help me with English comprehension, like being able to work out words like neologism without looking it up. But more important was the ability to throw Latin terms into reports, proving simultaneously that I was both a Latin scholar and a smart arse.

 

[angrysoba]

Surprise, surprise, I was right.

And wrong about everything else. Nevermind.