Chris, this is David Hornsby. We taught in the same school way back in the late 60s. Sorry mate, you didn't get it then, and you still don't get it. If our English teaching is based on sand, how do you explain the fact that the OECD has just (again) ranked Australia 5th in literacy (see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/australia-ranks-fifth-in-literacy-and-13th-in-numeracy-says-oecd/print). We're always in the top 10 countries and we're way ahead of the USA and the UK (who use approaches similar to those you're advocating). Chris, we need to look at ALL the evidence! Cheers.

Reply to David Hornsby
We taught at the same school in Fitzroy over 40 years ago. My reported facts stay as they are because they are (as always) factual and verifiable. You really have assumed that you actually know what I am currently recommending. Like you so emphatically advised, we really do need to need to examine ALL of the evidence. Might I also suggest that we keep both eyes open as well?

A well-reasoned article, Chris, with one major English communication problem, however.
Your continuous use of split infinitives!
I would have thought that a specialist teacher, especially one who expresses so well on the problems exisitng with the teaching of correct English use, would get one element of that use, albeit one with its origins on Latin grammar, correct.

A reply to Ponder: I you don't got your grammar right then you don't got nuthin' right. I do apologise for split infinitives. I use them so much in my speech that I don't notice them in my writing, and this despite training in Latin some 55 years ago. Perhaps we could argue that English is still alive and developing but that Latin has long since suffered its rigor mortis. I hope you forgive the blatant excuse with my apology.

When I left industry in 1998 there was a perceptible problem with getting young workers who were literate to safe standards, hence the firms for which I worked tended to hire older people because they had an acceptable standard of written and spoken English.

Sydney University had a remedial English course for 1st year undergraduates in the '80s and it was the practice in some disciplines to allow students to read their essays/tutorial papers to the person who was in the unfortunate position of marking them, because their writing was indecipherable.

One only has to visit various Australian forums on the net to see the appalling standard of the English used.

"your" for "you're" being so common as to be almost normal usage.

Listen, youse! Weall went to school, din we? Weall got bits of paper that said we were illiterate, din we?

I studded Shakespeare and Ican recite lions from his playze. So there. "Weall fight them on the beaches!" Howzat?

Schools shood be banned. Teachers aren't fardinkumology! They only do it for the hols. Tke the holdiaze away and teachers wood go the way of the dodo, a lizard in the Doldrums or Galipoli or somepink.

I am thinkn of studying a Doctorator, youno, a PHddiddly squat at Sydeny Uni! Being called 'docta' must be edigyfying. I might study Fizziks or Pornographic Symbolzm. Several unis are fightin to get me. It's called presstig.

Aisle keep in touch. Up your nostril.

Darrell!

David G,
yeah, cobber !

It's hard to know to what extent we have a literacy problem, because records from the far distant past are not adequate to make comparisons with today. People left school much earlier back then and many went into jobs that didn't require strong literacy and verbal communication skills.

Anecdotally speaking, my mother was a stenographer and secretary pre-1970. I can recall her complaining frequently and loudly that over the course of her working life, she had to fix the lousy grammar, punctuation and spelling problems of her male bosses. Before the rise of the desktop PC, secretaries and stenographers, all female, covered up a lot of poor literacy skills in the workforce. Also, the rapid decline of Australian manufacturing has meant that many men who would once have gone into blue-collar jobs, requiring only limited literacy, now have to work in service-based professions that require strong literacy and verbal communication skills.

I doubt that literacy standards pers se have declined over the last 30 years. It's more that the wider workforce has changed in such a way as to demand more literacy-based skill sets.

My perception as to why literacy has become such a problem among young people in Australia is based upon my reading of socialist ideology.

Socialists teachers developed this "whole language" approach to literacy because they had an aversion to the idea that children should compete with each other. "Competition" was linked to "capitalism" and that was an ideological no-no. In addition, their idea that "all are equal" could be disproved by the simple expedient of fair examination. It was obvious that fair examinations would reveal that some races and ethnicities were smarter than others. That was anathema.

So socialist baby boomer teachers demanded that examinations must never be held. It did not matter if the taxpayers who's children they taught, and who paid their wages, wanted fair examinations to find out how their children were doing academically. The Socialist teachers stubbornly refused to consider the validity of examinations because they most earnestly did not want to contemplate what the examination results would reveal.

Today, the sundry teachers federations in our states are doing their utmost to sabotage any attempt by the Federal government to hold nation wide examinations which would reveal where the real problems of literacy and numeracy would lie. And they do not want to admit that their ideology has failed. Instead, in true Socialist style, they are demanding that the Federal government keep pouring more Gonski money into their department to reinforce failure. But their stubborn refusal to ever admit that they were wrong all along is being revealed by the fact that it seems that no amount of money can solve a problem that is fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

One can only hope that there are intelligent young teachers who are utterly fed up of the baby boomer socialists who are now ruining their once respected profession, and who will eventually replace them. Like it or not, the world is a competitive place and unless we compete we will be left at the post. I have talked to Asian parents about NSW education and they think our teachers are crazy.

Ponder and Qurhops,

Not the “split infinitives” rule again! The idea that one may not split an infinitive is a myth that comes from Latin, in which the infinitive is a single word. It is two words in English and to boldly split infinitives is permitted. (See Fowler’s Modern English, as far back as 1964 edition).

its global[google]..dumbing down american education
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

ALL..HOLY TEXTS..have been..subsumed
Compressed.into..obscure academical-abstraction
eg..im..unwinding..acim[a-course-in-miracles]..by jesus[himself]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

<<..the instructions..that Jesus..gave
for..the editing.were as follows:

* If..what..you write..is so personal
that it..cannot benefit others,..take it out.
* If you take..down scribal errors,..correct them.

key-source/text
http://www.circleofa.org/library/acim-history-issues/copyright/earlier-versions/

The editing..results in fewer..and fewer words.
[bigger and bigger destractions]..We go..from..68 words..(Urtext) to 47 (HLC)..to 34 (standard Course).

The/same ideas..get compressed..into a smaller..and smaller space.

One unfortunate..result of this..is that,./quite often,
ideas which you originally..had time..to digest,.now come too fast for..you to..adequately take in.

[EN-VISION}

More formal,..less conversational..and plainspoken.
Overall,..the editing..seems designed..to make the early Course sound less informal..and..less/conversational...If you read the first and last versions..of our passage above,..you can feel the difference.

For..another example,..a line that originally read,
"You and Bill..have been afraid of God,..of me,..of yourselves, and of practically..everyone you know..at one time or another"30

becomes simply,.."You have been fearful.of everyone and everything." (T-2.VII.3:4)

The..early Course..now reads..less/like..someone talking..and more, in fact,..like..the loftiness..of the..*later Course...The question is,..which is better?

There are times..when I prefer..the edited passages,
but most..of the time I prefer..the plainspoken original.

ME TOO..
http://miraclevision.com/acim/urtext/acim-urtext-2003-upe-ready-edition.pdf

I like being spoken..to in a clear,..down-to-earth way
in the early chapters,..before the Course lifts off into the stratospheric..tone of the later material.

Mostly unnecessary...If you will,
go back..and read the first version..of our passage.

Then ask yourself,..what is wrong with it?
How much editing..does it really need?..Does it need any?

I personally don't think..it needs much editing,..if any.
In fact,..I prefer it..to either of the edited versions.

Now this is not true..of all the Urtext passages./Many of them are very rough and..obviously need cleaning up...However, my opinion is that most..of the line-by-line editing..was unnecessary.

Think about Jesus' instructions.

He said remove personal/material..and correct scribal errors.
Does the editing..in our passage fit either of..those rules?

Editing..to make content..Course-consistent
(in the opinion of..the editors)

Editing errors

It would be hard..to do so much
line-by-line editing..and not make an occasional mistake.

Indeed, a number..of unambiguous errors—changes..in the meaning of the original—have crept..into the material..(I count 27..in the first two chapters).

Here are..a few examples:[see link]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0
and..what im doing..about it
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15542&page=0

The problem is very simple gentlemen. Money.
English teachers (and all other teachers) have more concern for their income than they do for their teaching.
I suggest an annual audit of individual teaching capacities and if they don't measure up sack them.

left-field..diss-cuss_point/thesis

ALL_mind-educated..CREATIONS..are.significant..in a..PERSONAL/historical/progressive..sense
[extracted..from.]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

They are..the very..first..sysytemised/reference...to
the idea..of OUR-reality..versus..illusion..[of-mind].,..
*the notion..that..THE-reality..can be..affected..BY IMAGINED-FEARS.

IF..only..the..SPIRIT/eternity..is real..and
space..mortal/MATTER/time/place..is potent-illusion.

(The lines.."Nothing real..can be..threatened.
Nothing..unreal..exists"..were..actually..dictated later...for clarity)

How..different would..our day..be..if
we could..establish..and maintain..that..consistent-awareness!..

Imagine..being able..to pass..through_situations..
*fully-aware..that what..you see..is not..really..able..to hurt/you....
that the..illusory/fear-forms..in/front..of mind..perception's.. of you..are just..emotive-baggage[shadows],..

that..you are..literally..walking/through..a dream..
of..your own..miss-perceived..[OTHERS-conceptions].?

You..might think..you..would/stop..caring altogether..about this shadow-play...and..the way..that..*you walked..upon..*its stage.

Yet..that is-not..what this..sentence says...
It seems..to/be..saying,.."While..you are..*in the dream,..why not.*take ACTIVE-part.*in it..constructively?"

What..an interesting/question!

Try..asking yourself..that question..and see.how your mind reacts. Ask..yourself,.."Since/only..eternity..is real,..why_not?..use..the illusion_of..time/constructively?"

The..sense I get..is..The/power..is_not..*in..*its hands;..
the power..is in..my hands...Therefore,..I am free..to use..time however*..I want.

Second,..if..I can/use..time how..I want,
then..why wouldn't..*I use it..constructively..to-do..better?..After all,..I'm here..for now;.I'm in..this/living..live time-moment..in-time.

Why/not..do something_positive..with it?

This contrast..between..the healing-unity/reality
and..the..hurtful/injurious/material..full..of illusion,..
so..of-course,..fearless emoted/motivated/love..[works]..would..become..the..philosophical/backbone..of..the-Course.

Before..this point,..the closest/references..we had
were..two mentions.of.."lower-order/reality,"..which..referred to.the physical level...

Yet..obviously,..even a..lower-order/reality..still
has_been..made real..[accorded/reality]...by..our delusional..fears alone.

whole/purpose..of coming..this far
is..to decide..WHICH BRANCH..YOU WILL*..TO.TAKE..FROM/HERE-ON.

The way..you came..no_longer-matters.
IT..CAN NO..LONGER SERVE.

No-one..who reaches this far..CAN make.the wrong decision.
But..he CAN..INITIATE/delay..And/there..is no par/of..the journey that..seems..more hopeless..and futile..than standing/where
the..road/branches,..*and not..deciding..which_way..to go.

It-is..only the..first/few steps..along/the
NARROW-right/way..that seem hard,..because..you HAVE
chosen,..but you still..think you/can go..back..and make..the other choice.

This..is not/so.. A choice made..with
the..power-of/Heaven..to uphold it..cannot BE..undone.
Your way..IS decided...There will-be..nothing you-will/NOT..be told, if..you acknowledge/this.

For..good..reason,..then,..these references
were/changed..by the editors..to..the "material-bodily/level."

Jesus..starts off..using..a typical,..throwaway comment
that.we make..to each-other..all..the time...

We offhandedly..tell people..to.."have..a good_day,"..
with only.the vaguest-idea..of what/w.. mean..to communicate..unto other..by that...word-choice.

We probably mean ..something like,.."Have..a day..you find enjoyable," or,.."Have..a day..with agreeable..rather than difficult/circumstances."

And we..probably have..no particular..thought
about how..they*..can have..[or..will/chose]..
to live-out..that..good GOD-day...

It's not,,just/a..pleasant-thing..to say...and
good=god..thus..good brings..good..of god..into..live-time/present recall..

plus..the many..other..good-days..comforts
gifted..of..the comforter..within..us-all.

but...You..aren't supposed..to think/about..it..too much...
[the/past-life..whether..for/good or ill..is part..of the past..thus..illusion..

when..we are..trying to.minimize,..illusion/...to..maximize..this present..living..moment..in/time..into..a loving-eternal/aware moment..

Jesus,..however,..has thought..through..
exactly what..he means..by."Have..a god day."..

He..ends-up filling-out..our rather vacant/conventional..saying
with..his own..rather profound..spiritual teaching.

As..a result,..the kind-of day..jesus is..calling.."good"..is *significantly-different..than..our usual..bland-conceptions...recalls.and false memories...

Further.. he has in..aware-mind..a specific way..
to have..that good day...[by loving/other as..the..*way
to..love*our..father]

[love creator..by constantly/CONSISTENTLY...trying..to love-other creations]

This..is so characteristic..of the Course,..to take..some familiar cultural/container,..like.."have a good day,"..and..fill it*.with totally..unfamiliar content,*..which..has both..spiritual-depth

and..specific..injunctions..
for how/to..experience..that depth.
http://miraclevision.com/acim/urtext/acim-urtext-2003-upe-ready-edition.pdf