English grandma (;-)

I can rightly be accused of focussing my criticism of the national curriculum somewhat narrowly on employability, but I was citing my personal experience as a potential employer in a field where communication skills were a prequisite of any employee's brief.
Our generation was fortunate indeed to have had the opportunity to receive a rounded education where letter writing and similar skills were occasionally included in the timetable. We were thus prepared to make our way in the world, whatever that 'way' might be.

I don't dispute that a good education should enable its beneficiaries to apply for and get a job. I remember that we were taught to write letters of application at school but we also had a 'broad and balanced' education. As a school governor I read some semi-literate letters of application for teaching jobs which immediately ruled the writers out of the short list. I believe that the national curriculum does tackle some of these deficiencies but hope that it doesn't become too narrowly focused on employability.

re "violent agreement"
It often happens but is rarely recognised.

mudskipper First of all an apology. I read your post too quickly and missed the "many", although I would still query even that. My query all along was the suggestion that education's priority should be obtaining a job, but I have never suggested that this is an unimportant or minor aspect. So actually, I think we are having a violent agreement.

Since as you say, education confers skills, annodomini is it unreasonable to propose that just one of those skills could be the ability to write an interesting, succinct and effective letter to someone who could possibly help one achieve an aim? And could not 'training the brain to adapt to life's challenges' even be applied to the challenge of finding employment, the rewards of which might pay for food and a roof over one's head? I'm sure signing on the dole could equally be described as 'terribly dull'.

Quote Absent "the rest is up to parents mudskipper – or have I misunderstood your post? I do hope so.
I find the assumption that parents are ineffective rather odd. Is that all parents?"

I said "many", not "all". My choice of qualifier is based on the youthful activity I see through my window, particularly during school hours.

No, I do not think that school has no function other than to train for work, any more than that all parents should teach is housework. But if school does not teach the skills required for work then where will they be learned?

What made homo sapiens the sole survivor of the humanoid species was our ability to adapt to varying conditions and to make the right choices - do I go out and wrestle that buffalo or do I find a suitable stone and make a spear? Nowadays education confers skills and trains the brain to adapt to whatever conditions and challenges one meets in life. A major factor is choosing an occupation/career but this is not the only challenge in life. If schools and universities were all about finding and keeping work, they'd be terribly dull places.

Primary aim and correlation are not the same thing.

Now I am lost. Since a human being's primary instinct is to survive and the ability to survive depends, for most individuals, upon being able to earn one's living, why is it sub-Marxist to see a direct correlation between education and employability?

Yes, absent been here before. The Oldie thread is usually slightly behind us...And possibly a little out of date. Sorry, but it's true.

My excellent education gave me the ability and tools to make choices. Some of these choices were vocational - to teach in Africa and later to work in adult education.

We have been here before – twice I think. Educate – to lead out. Yes, of course employability is a consideration but not, I think, and nor, as I recall, do a lot of former teachers on Gransnet, its primary purpose.

I am horrified that you have this sub-Marxist thought that all education should do is train children to work and the rest is up to parents mudskipper – or have I misunderstood your post? I do hope so.

I find the assumption that parents are ineffective rather odd. Is that all parents?

Pretty useless if it doesn't. The rest is for parents, ineffective though many may be.

I think it will be a sad day – and I suspect it is fast coming – when the primary aim of education is to make young people fit for employment.

Reflecting on Burgundygran's post. When I was an employer, I often received letters asking for work. My heart would sink as I opened a scruffy brown envelope, incorrectly addressed and often without a postcode, to find inside a torn off sheet of lined paper. The letter would invariably be undated and would begin "Dear Madame", (no I didn't run a brothel!); the writing barely legible, often on the slant and would be signed "yours truly". The content would be minimal. They would be filed in the wastebin, I'm sorry to say.
My question is - why is there not a module in this much feted school curriculum, which helps youngsters approach potential employers in a way that would inspire confidence in their abilities? Surely the primary aim of education is to make young people fit for employment?

Well that's good....I'm not as thick as I thought!!

Thanks absent

Ella46 There is no difference between them. They are both used as the past tense and the past participle of the verb to learn. So it's okay to say I learned French at school or I learnt French at school. Learnt is mainly used in British English and not elsewhere.

Can some kind person please explain the difference between learnt and learned? I'm never sure which to use.
I don't mean as in " a learned old man"

There is certainly no shortage of cringe-making confusion on most forums but none more than my own use of 'prostrate' when I meant 'prostate'.

I suppose we are old enough to have -recieved- received enough English in our schooldays to be able to pick what seems most right from all the words in our heads.

I think the point is that speaking and listening comes first, reading is built on that and then writing is built on reading. Obviously you still need to develop and teach all three at the same time, but children who come into school without the foundations of good speaking and listening are much more likely to struggle.

There's nothing like reading the classics to get an ingrained feel of the English language. The time to do it is when you are young and at school. Grammar is taught in schools but not backed up by talking at home. Listening to people speaking well, using correct grammatical structures is a huge advantage for the children growing up in these homes.
An education system can't even out the advantage that this kind of background gives to its offspring.
Nowadays it would help if families talked at all - and turned the TV off.

It sticks best when those who are being taught want to know! I learned a lot of grammar in secondary school and my elder daughters appear to have been taught/learned good grammar at their state comprehensive in the nineties. DD3 appears to be being taught grammar. She also reads a lot and probably picks up good sentence construction that way too. I'm sure reading helps.

It sticks better when it's learnt in primary school. One of our teachers read us a story book called 'the Grammatical Kittens'. I can't remember the details, but I learnt all about parts of speech! It was in primary school that I learnt how to construct - and analyse - a sentence. I know that my elder GD was taught punctuation in primary school and my younger one, aged 9, recently sent me a story beautifully punctuated (by herself) and including at least one semi-colon - a rarity nowadays, but I find it useful.

CF pedants' corner!

It's odd; I taught English for many years, and always kept grammar and spelling to the fore, as did my colleagues. (State sector, comprehensive schools) so how come so many younger people claim not to have been taught them? Perhaps they weren't listening? Perhaps we didn't make it stick? Who knows.

Perhaps (seriously) they don't read? I think grammar, spelling etc are absorbed by a sort of literary osmosis while you read.

Plus ca change...