Grim harvest of poor spelling

THE fact that half the parents surveyed think teachers' literacy skills are substandard shouldn't surprise. And it's not the fault of classroom teachers.

The reality is that those controlling how English is taught in our schools, teacher training institutes and universities have dumbed down the subject across many years by jettisoning more traditional approaches.

No wonder most of our universities have remedial classes in essay writing, or that beginning teachers lack the confidence, skills and knowledge to teach grammar, and that schools have to pay outside consultants to proof-read student report cards for mistakes made by teachers writing the reports.

It also shouldn't surprise that in most schools across Australia the only time students learn about the more formal conventions of language use is when they study a foreign language such as French or German.

During the 1970s and 80s, progressive theorists argued that there was nothing superior about standard English, as it was simply one dialect among many.

Instead of correcting migrant or working-class children, teachers were urged to celebrate their unique ways of communicating. At the same time, because of the introduction of process writing and the personal growth model, teachers were urged to allow children to be creative by freeing them to focus on meaning when writing instead of the formal aspects of language use, such as grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax.

As noted by Kevin Piper in his analysis of curriculum documents, published during the late 80s, there was "a move away from traditional conceptions of language education based on grammar, spelling, composition exercises, and 'correct usage' in favour of a view of language as personal growth".

Evidence of what became the new orthodoxy is found in a teacher guide produced by the Education Department of Victoria during the same period.

It stated: "The practice of correction is not in harmony with the approach to writing outlined in this chapter. By 'correction', we mean going through a student's writing with a red biro in search of errors."

Whereas literacy once referred to the ability to read and write to an acceptable standard, during the 90s the definition was exploded to include and focus on critical literacy.

Drawing on the writings of Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire, critical literacy argues that literacy involves deconstructing texts in terms of power relationships and empowering individuals to change the world.

Being literate no longer implies the ability to use language conventions correctly. This is best illustrated by the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment tests where "errors in spelling and grammar were not penalised".

One of the remedies to raise literacy standards among teachers, which is being championed by federal School Education Minister Peter Garrett, is to raise entry requirements. The assumption is that restricting entry to more academically capable students will lead to improved standards.

That is not the case. The sad fact is that even our more able students know little about correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, as proven by a 2005 survey of undergraduates at the Australian Defence Force Academy carried out by Fiona Mueller, Melinda Grose and Elizabeth Grant.

The more traditional approach has not been taught in schools for years and those teachers who might be capable of undertaking the task, if they were allowed by the language police, are few and far between as most have retired.

It's also the case that those in our tertiary institutes responsible for teaching teachers have very little expertise in the area or are more concerned with imposing politically correct, cultural-left approaches to literacy and learning.

Kevin Donnelly is director of Education Standards Institute and author of Educating Your Child: It's Not Rocket Science.