top of page
Search

What happened to English Grammar?

Updated: Mar 16

My school days were long past when I discovered that my knowledge of English grammar was lacking. If you had asked me to teach you the rules of my native language, I would likely have told you that a noun is a thing and a verb is a doing word, but that would have been the end of a very short lesson. I knew implicitly how to create a sentence and what sounded right and wrong, but would have struggled to explain why.

 

It was only when I first made a serious attempt to learn a second language that it became clear how little I knew of a world where prepositions, conjunctions, and conjugations were common knowledge. A creeping sense of educational inferiority came over me and I became curious. Why did it take learning a foreign language to understand my own language? It was clear something had gone wrong, so I decided to investigate the mystery of my missing education and answer the question: what happened to English grammar?

 

What happened to English Grammar

At first, it seemed to me as though someone had ripped entire chapters out of my school textbooks, and it turns out this is not far from the truth. In the late 1960s, there was a bit of a revolution in the school English curriculum. Grammar had fallen out of favour with students and educators alike, and was an easy target for those who sought to modernise an approach to teaching that could be traced back to the time of ancient Greece and Rome (Crystal, 1985). Learning grammar had involved ‘parsing’[1] sentences, memorising concepts, and was often a standalone subject taught as an end, rather than a means. It was widely considered rigid, boring, prescriptive, and, ultimately, unnecessary - in the spirit of all good revolutions, it was decided that, rather than reform the teaching of grammar, it was better to abandon it altogether. Students from then on were to focus on more practical applications of the language and the development of communication skills they would need in the real world; the language ‘in use’ as much as its structure.

 

These events were confirmed for me when I attended a short course on English grammar at a local university taught by an older gentleman who knew the subject inside out. I was suitably impressed, and asked him how he knew all this stuff – surely, he must have a degree in English literature? He did, but he explained that his knowledge of grammar came from primary and secondary school in the 1960s and 70s. It was then clear to me that my generation had missed out on a key part of our education due to shenanigans that had taken place with the school curriculum while my parents were still in the classroom. Recent articles discussing curriculum changes seemed to come to the same conclusions:

 

“You would have to go back to the 1960s to find syllabus documents where grammar was taught in a prescriptive way…there was a reaction against the prescriptiveness of the old syllabus, so that grammar was seen to be almost anti-English” (Carroll, 2022)

 

David Crystal, well-known British linguist, describes the disappearance of grammar from the British curriculum as ‘remarkably sudden’ and part of a change in philosophy from prescriptivism to descriptivism (Crystal, 1985); instead of prescribing how language should be used, it would largely be described as it is used, regardless of whether said usage violated the sensitivities of stuffy grammarians. It was to be a new era for English.

 

“If you’re over the age of 40, you’ll remember parsing well. You may even be able to show admirers your scars.” (Crystal, 1985)

 

A well-known saying involving babies and bathwater came to my mind when reviewing the recent history of the English curriculum, and perhaps also to Mr Crystal’s:

 

“Then, one October…one student timidly put up her hand and asked, ‘Please, what’s a preposition?’ I asked the rest of the class if they too did not know. I got a forest of hands. The result: I had to put on a special class in order to tell the students about traditional grammar in the first place, so that they would make sense of my linguistics lectures which told them what was wrong with it!” (Crystal, 1985)

 

Ideas are contagious, and the new philosophy spread quickly around the world. As an example, Susan Butler, former long-term editor of the Macquarie Dictionary in Australia, describes the publication as a sort of bellwether for social change while discussing the dictionary’s inclusion of colloquialisms (Parkhill, 2014). She dismisses the influence of the ‘authoritarian’ Académie française (the French Academy), an institution founded in 1635 whose mission, even today, includes the ‘defense of the French language’. The Academy, on its website, states that ‘the main function of the Academie will be to work with all possible care and diligence to give certain rules to our language and to make it pure, eloquent and capable of dealing with the arts and sciences.’ This seemingly noble goal is evidently at odds with the approach taken by the Australian authorities, who in their own somewhat ironic words ‘set the standards for English in Australia’ (Macquarie Dictionary, 2024). The Academy was, interestingly, suppressed in 1793 during the French Revolution but later restored under Napoleon.

 

So, it’s clear what happened. Things have, however, changed again recently and declining literacy among school students has prompted the return of grammar to the curriculum (albeit in a somewhat less intimidating form).

 

Case Study: Australia

What were the effects of curriculum changes in practice?


Australia has a relatively well-educated population, and is above average according to the OECD metrics (OECD, 2024), but it seems that there has been a long-term trend of declining educational outcomes, including in reading and writing (OECD, 2024; PISA, 2022).

 

Statistics on literacy levels among the adult population (15-74 years of age) show that almost half of adults read at a high school grade 10 level or below[2], though this seems reasonable on a global scale. Because of this, the Australian Government Style Manual recommends publications write for an audience at an ‘Australian Year 7 level’.

 

How about school students? A NSW Curriculum Review from 2020 reported that performances for students in the country’s largest state declined significantly between 2000 and 2018 in OECD PISA standard testing for reading, mathematics, and science:

 

“…the proportion of NSW 15 year olds meeting minimally acceptable standards of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy has been in steady decline.”

(NSW Curriculum Review, 2020)

 

Here’s what this looks like in pictures for those at the lower end of the literacy scale:

(OECD, PISA 2022 Database)


The curriculum review identified a need to return to the basics of education in school - including grammar - as noted by the state’s former premier Dominic Perrottet:

 

“If our NAPLAN results have shown us anything, it’s that we need to focus on the explicit teaching of grammar, sentence structure and punctuation in high school. Focusing on those foundational skills is key to success.” (Carroll, 2022)

 

One factor contributing to falling literacy results might be that the responsibility for teaching English and writing has been ‘shared across disciplines’ rather than falling solely to English teachers. Former NESA chairman Tom Alegounarias stated:

 

“the chief responsibility for teaching writing skills in high schools should also be returned to English teachers…when it was made everyone's business, it then became nobody's business…without English teachers being responsible for teaching writing as a foundation, no one is actually accountable for the teaching of writing.” (Baker, 2020)

 

Another problem cited in several media articles is the differing ‘philosophies’ regarding the teaching of writing in schools. Peter Knapp, an educational consultant in NSW, noted:

 

“Our national and state curriculum documents lack any real precision on how writing should be taught. They constantly seem to be under review to change, re-orient and re-direct so that teachers, in all honesty, will have difficulty knowing what needs to be done and there is a view that the changes will make no substantive difference.” (Knapp, 2020)

 

Finally, an article published by the University of Melbourne (Hall & Cassidy, 2018) examining why the teaching of grammar was re-structured in the 1960s begins by describing English as a ‘colonial’ language ‘imposed’ upon the population. Does this notion, from a top university, reflect a preference for directing literary studies towards non-literary disciplines such as politics and cultural studies, or an ambivalence towards the deterioration of its use and teaching?

 

“Metalinguistic awareness is about having the tools to deconstruct language. But, it also opens up a deeper understanding of the way that things like power, gender and objectification appear structurally within a language.” (Hall & Cassidy, 2018)

 

It seems that the role of grammar in education is still somewhat contentious among educators, and that both students and teachers are worse off for a lack of clarity and consistency.

 

The NSW ‘Curriculum Reform Review’ was launched in 2018. As a result of the review, new syllabuses are set to be introduced until 2027 which include a focus on ‘essential content’, ‘core skills’, and the ‘explicit inclusion of writing’. The fundamentals of grammar and punctuation - such as word classes, types of sentences, and subject-verb agreement - are included in the writing component of the new syllabuses at each learning stage. The early stages of the English syllabus include phonic knowledge, vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, spelling, while there is an emphasis on understanding works of literature and composition at later stages.

 

What about engagement with literature? In my own experience, high-school set texts were not particularly engaging, and, in hindsight, were chosen as much for their cultural and political messages as for their literary merit or historical importance. The type of literature I did engage with was that which I stumbled upon through playing computer games (such as Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series). How does the NSW syllabus do on this front? The text requirements for years 3 to 6 and 7 to 10 include:


  • classic and contemporary literature that represents diverse experiences (may include literature by authors with diverse backgrounds and experiences, including authors with disability)

  • texts chosen by students for personal interest and enjoyment

  • a range of fiction and non-fiction texts that are widely regarded as quality literature

  • a range of texts by Australian authors

  • a range of texts by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander authors

  • a range of cultural, social and gender perspectives, including from popular and youth cultures

(NSW Curriculum, 2024)

 

There is certainly something for everyone in this list. But what ties the text selections together? The Western canon (such as it can be defined) is not prioritised, and it seems that selections, as I experienced in my own schooling, are largely at the discretion of individual schools and teachers.

 

What I learned

I had come to the end of my investigation and found the answers I needed. Given the curriculum-fiddling that had taken place, my ignorance of the ins-and-outs of grammar were understandable and, perhaps, forgivable. And this ignorance had spurred me to learn grammar as well, or better, than I would have through the school system. But this is clearly not the ideal way to learn a foundational part of our education.

 

The evidence suggests that the explicit teaching of grammar improves educational outcomes for students, though is more useful when combined with writing practice and an understanding and appreciation of well-written texts. Students who come to enjoy reading good books and do so regularly will be at an advantage. The example of the NSW curriculum reforms is a positive sign that past mistakes are being recognised and addressed. We will have to wait and see if it is enough to improve results, or proves to be more tinkering around the edges of a larger underlying problem. Unfortunately for those who missed out on grammar in school, you’ll have to use your own initiative to catch up.


[1] A word that evokes mild trauma in older generations who were taught how to break sentences and texts into ‘parts of speech’, subjects and predicates, and so on.

[2] On a scale of 1 to 5, 44% of adults read at level two or below, 38% at level 3, and 15% at levels 4 and 5 (ABS, 2013).  Level 1 is equivalent to Australian primary school years 1 to 6, level 2 to high school Year 7 to 10, level 3 to years 11 and 12, levels 4 and 5 to a tertiary level. Below level 1 is equivalent to pre-primary (Australian Government, 2024).


Reference List

Harris, 2023, Teachers weren’t taught grammar in school. Now they’re rushing to brush up, www.smh.com.au, March 2024

 

Adoniou, 2014, Grammar matters and should be taught – differently, https://theconversation.com/, March 2024

 

Hall & Cassidy, 2018, Why are Australians Linguistically Lost?, https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/, March 2024

 

Carroll, 2022, Reading standards for year 9 boys at record low, NAPLAN results show, www.smh.com.au, March 2024

 

Carroll, 2022, Grammar is back: Sweeping overhaul of English syllabus for years 3-10, www.smh.com.au, March 2024

 

NSW Government, NESA, 2024, Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion, March 2024

 

NSW Government, NESA, 2024, NSW Curriculum, March 2024 https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/about-the-curriculum/introduction

 

 

ABS, 2024, Schools: Data on government and non-government students, staff and schools, March 2024 https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release#staff

 

Baker, 2020, Students struggle as review finds writing skills neglected in NSW high schools, www.smh.com.au, March 2024

 

Baker, 2020, Half of NSW teachers say they were poorly trained to teach writing, www.smh.com.au, March 2024

 

Knapp, 2020, Stop blaming NAPLAN and start doing something to help students excel in writing, www.smh.com.au, March 2024

 

David Crystal, 1985, page 1, The Past, Present and Future of English Parsing, www.davidcrystal.com, March 2024,

 

Parkhill, 2014, https://www.junkee.com, What Even Is Australian English? An Interview With The Editor Of The Macquarie Dictionary, March 2024,

 

Australian Government Style Manual: Literacy and access

 

ABS, 2024, Australian Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, abs.gov.au, March 2024

 

 

OECD, 2024, PISA 2022 results, www.oecd.org, March 2024,

 

Académie française, 2024, Missions, www.academie-francaise.fr, March 2024,

 

Macquarie Dictionary, 2024, About, www.macquariedictionary.com.au, March 2024,

 

OECD, PISA 2022 Database, 2022, PISA 2022 results, https://www.oecd.org/publication, March 2024,

 

NESA, 2022, Literacy learning in early years report, March 2024,

Comentarios

Mens-School_1_v2.png
bottom of page