Don't know about the promotion bit, claire but I agree with the rest of your comments. In the sixties there were a couple of french pedagogues, Bordieu and Passeron, if I remember correctly, who talked of "intellectual capital," which began at home, continued in the street and in the classroom; and just like, say, a bankbook, everyone can make "deposits" or "withdrawals." In many, poorly educated families, it's more likely the child's capital to suffer withdrawals than deposits. So it also with the street and with the school. Imagine a wonderful school that teaches that the Earth is round and a home where, for some reason or other, the adults believe that the Earth is flat. A deposit is made on the child's capital at school but a withdrawal is made at home. The reverse is, of course, also true. A good home, full of intellectual capital can send a child to a school that, instead of adding to that capital, it withdraws: confidence, knowledge, esteem, etc, etc. The pedagogues came to the sensible conclusion that we're all partly responsible for the education of youth; in intellect, knowledge, wisdom as well as morals. There might well be families the adults of whom have really no interest in their child's intellectual development but there are also children who have no adults around at all, or adults who are too ill and too distressed to help their children. Schools must check this out and supply the extra help the child needs to develop. So, if the family background lacks the English skills an the "street" is lacking in them also, if additionally, the school is not sufficiently resourced with equipment, libraries, smaller classrooms, etc, then the children will come out less able in all spheres than their counterparts in other families, streets and schools.
Teachers can be overly pedantic about the subject they teach. Maths teachers might know a great deal of maths but they just can't put it across to the students in ways the students can understand them. Often the problem comes down to overteaching, which, like overacting, overdirecting, overproducing, floods the student or the audience with superfluous matter which, in the end obscures the main intent of the lesson. English is more vulnerable than all he other subjects when it comes to overteaching. The English teacher needs to teach "correct" english first by instilling a love for the language. An enthusiastic and competent read of a master's work will do wonders to the teaching of grammar and syntax. Study what the master has done, what words he used, what emotions these words create, what other effects are caused by his turn of phrase, etc. Teaching endless periods of The Parts Of Speech, of Parsing, of conjugating verbs and declining nouns and pronouns is concentrating too much on the mechanism of language rather than its use. Imagine always: In one hand you hold the key to a brilliant new car and on the other the manual (really engineer's instructions) and as you're about to hand the keys to the car to someone, you say to them, "you're only allowed to drive this car after you've passed an exam on this thousand-page manual!" No one would be driving! Yes, some grammar should be looked at but, according to my experience, only obliquely and as a supplement to the reading of a good piece of literature -which, of course, includes articles in newspapers and magazines, as well as poetry, drama, novels and the oral language in films. Do it gently and do it for a specific purpose rather than organised pulpit services called "Grammar Classes." The parishioners will not only love you but they will also learn grammar, syntax and the use of polite and impolite terms!
Sorry for the sermon. May Shakespeare be with you!
