Hey guys and gals, don't get too serious about all this.

Whilst we may anguish over split infinitives and such, very literate people sit around board rooms working out how best to exploit people at the bottom. Being literate doesn't make us moral, or better human beings.

And some of the most decent people out there can't read or write.

And the people of Tuvalu - it matters not whether they split their infinitives or not - will soon have no country.

And my dog recognizes but a handful of words, yet is as loyal and friendly as can be.

Being a creature of habit, and an older one at that, the rapidly changing languagescape is a trifle irksome. But its somewhere at the bottom of my priorities. I simply don't care if my happy neighbour can't spell for nuts, the potatoes he gives me taste the same regardless.

There's much more to life than a split infinitive.

Cheryl, think your position through logically.

Why do you want employers and parents to know that “that the kinds of 'stuff' being taught in Goondawindi is what is being taught in Albany”?

Consider:

(a) Education should be in the interest of the child not the employer or the parent. Moreover, there are countless and diverse employers and ever more diverse parents, so what do we do with the inevitable conflict of opinion about what should be taught? Whose views should prevail? If some employers had their way, we wouldn’t teach children to think – some bosses want compliant workers who shut up and do what they’re told. I don’t want my children’s education being directed by them, do you?

(b) You say: “Some things are too important to be left for the states. Look at the bun fight over the Murray.” (Incidentally, the Commonwealth has now revoked the centralist position on the Murray.) This centralist position is obviously, in logic, capable of being extended. We already take most of our popular culture from the USA and our education systems are largely derived from the UK. So why not have one common curriculum for the whole of the English-speaking world? It make sense – employers and parents would know that the kind of ‘stuff’ being taught in Worcester is being taught in Washington and Wagga Wagga.

(c) If, as you say, “Some things are too important to be left for the states”, why aren’t they too important to be left to the Commonwealth? To be consistent, a centralist position would warrant a United Nations curriculum.

(d) You say, with good warrant, “Kids take from school what they want and reject or forget much”. Thank goodness for diverse humanity! The brainwashers of the world – and their apparatchiks in the education systems gnash their teeth in frustration when people develop minds of their own.

(e) Finally, tell me about the curriculum of the central curriculum makers. What did they learn that the rest of us didn't?

Henry V111 says: “We need to return to the old style of education because, having brought up three children and having come across assorted articles indicating that all is not well in standards of numeracy and literacy, the old style of education produced better results.

I reply: We need to move forward to a contemporary and futuristic education because, having brought up four children and having come across assorted articles indicating that all is not well in standards of numeracy and literacy, the old style of education has not produced the required results.

If it's failed us in the past why go backwards?

It will not be an exagerration to say that the "SMS"culture has caused no small contribution to the ruining of English.This is a world in hurry. In the process language , culture and good human qualities are given a big go-bye.Let adults be good role models for the youth and let us shun cinema which takes people away from reality.

FrankGol-We cannot move forward to a contemporary style of education. Contemporary is now. Make our education futuristic! A meaningful learning experience! Give over-we need to make sure that basic English grammar is known and these days it is not known and for the last 20 years it has not been known. Likewise basic maths and basic science. My son is far brighter than I, but stuffed without a calculator when it comes to using numbers, particularly in dealing with multiplication of numbers greater than ten, or fractions, and he hasn't a clue as to how English is structured, even though he is fully and fluently bi-lingual in two radically different languages. We need to enhance language teaching so that once again modern languages are taught properly, not 6 months of this here and bit of that there. It would indeed be futuristic to teach a tonal Asian language right through the primary level, and to start children at primary school at 3 or 4 rather than 6.

Let's quantify my "old", even though gentlemen should be reticent about their age. I'm talking about 40-50 years ago, when by an early age kids actually knew that Spain was not part of Scandinavia. And they/we could do "mental arithmetic" without calculators. HOW you teach them I don't care, as long as the basics are taught thoroughly and so that they stick for a lifetime.

The English language is evolving so fast that Marcel Proust's famous work ," In Search of Lost Time"; earlier translated as "Remembrance of Things Past" has had to be translated 3 times since it was written in 1913-1923 to keep pace with the changes in English usage.

Henry VIII - I don't think schools spend enough time teaching science students how to write essays or reports. Inevitably university tutors and teachers have to provide remedial English instruction to native English speakers.

I am pleased that English expression used in business writing has become more direct over the past century, although many proponents of business writing have never read a style guide.

Without a grounding in linguistics, I think I am widely read enough to apply gerunds appropriately in English even though I just discovered its meaning.