the part where even though it's not his problem he still requires one or two papers to be grammatically correct or be counted down. That doesn't seem like someone ready to give up, just someone noticing reality.

Terribly sorry, but it doesn't matter. If communication only counts when proper grammar is used, then entire groups of people of all ages are going to be discounted, and that's no good. Read my signature to better understand my opinion on this.

school. I have 2 grandchildren and their mother and I have been diligent in listening to them speak and have (since baby-talk) helped them learn how important it is to speak correctly. I had very good teachers all through grammar school. That is where it should be taught. I am not an old fuddy-duddy about this even though I am old.

to at least have a standardized written language regardless of how it's spoken. To do that, agreement on the rules of grammar and writing mechanics are required. Spoken language evolves of course and will eventually impact written language regardless of rules. This is not a problem so long as both serve as means of universal communication and literate people remain able to read Shakespeare a thousand years from now.

Just what we need - ignorance at the front of the classroom. There are clear differences to casual social conversation styles, classroom (academic) discourse, and the conventions needed in writing. This moron is handicapping his students if he does not have high expectations for his students to be writing with clarity and proper form. If one of the teachers I work with said anything like that I'd be on him in a hot minute - and for a looooooong time.

In a science class he has other content, vocabulary, and processes to teach and assess. So spelling and grammar could be a secondary concern. But why would you not expect your 7th grader (or whichever grader) to be communicating in a manner that is at their grade level. Would this not be the standard that all students in the class are expected to work toward? This type of attitude is why so many students find themselves in college unprepared for the level of work. The STANDARD of English is represented in the manner in which our president speaks and in which the media commmunicates (speaking and writing). THAT is the standard for successful people in our society. Any teacher who does not have those standards for his/her students is not preparing them for their future properly and should not be in the field. Our kids can't afford to get less than that. It sounds to me like this teacher needs some continuing education. (Actually he sounds like a teacher making excuses for his laziness.) I would not want him in my kid's class.

If you read entirely you'll see he is a SCIENCE teacher, not an ENGLISH teacher. AND he is doing his part by requiring at least some of the students papers be grammatically correct. What the fuck more do you want from a Science teacher?

That's why I said it would be secondary. But speaking, reading, and writing correctly in any subject area is in fact the standard. Kids learn to do those FLUENTLY by doing it a lot - not just in English class. It's quite easy to include the expectation for proper usage of language in any class grading rubric. And that's what good teachers in any field do. If you expect less, you get less.

somewhat in the body. I just feel you should be called on that. Most science teachers wouldn't care or even notice and might have poor grammar themselves as many analytical folks seem to lack writing skills. I guess in my family the engineers, computer geeks, and mechinists came to us more verbal folks for proofreading, we didn't ever think of them as stupid or less, just as we didn't consider ourselves less because when designing something we had them proof our plans.

If proper grammar is or ever was important to communication on the general level, (yes in some arenas very important, but in general living...) we'd be in pretty sorry shape these days after centuries of communication without regard to grammar for 80-90% of the global population. I mean, yeah, it's sorry shape, but it'd be so much worse. Literacy and knowledge and communication can and does, thank goodness, occur without proper grammar.

I don't see that really changing.

...his training is subpar and I find it subpar that an educator would not have a full understanding of the importance of clear communication in speaking, reading, and writing. To me that's irresponsible. I know exactly what you mean about many of those analytical types not having the "best" skills. However, when preparing young people to go into their future (which will likely include post high school work), not only an engineers or his standard, the job of teachers is to prepare students for their advanced potentials.

Grammar is not important in many types of social conversation. And "poor" grammar is not a reflection of stupidity. My best example is two guys talking about, "Did you see movie X?" I've witnessed it where a wide array of ideas was communicated with grunts, shrugs, uh-huhs, and "ya knows." That is passable in that situation, all fine. Not important. But to say that we do not need to expect proper language in learning and academics is wrong. The highest possible level of literacy is what we need to aim for. In my book, "educators" are not allowed to misunderstand that mission. Good science teachers and all teachers MUST CARE. Who knows who will be the next Carl Sagan?

their class assignments. And it needs to be graded on both content and form. However, teachers other than English teachers are not expected to teach grammar, if I recall correctly.

very few people read past the first dozen words anyway anymore, so how important can grammar be?

Grammar is something we study and come to understand. "Proper" grammar are guidelines used to communicate to as many people as possible, easily interpreted (as a text can get) and easily accessible. "Proper" grammar, which really should be called "good" grammar, although even that may be a bit much, involves writing clearly, concisely and logically.

The reason we teach grammar is that the students, despite speaking English, are speaking foreign languages to each other. Deciding on a "proper" grammar gives a foothold to a standardized language that we (should) all have access to, so that miscommunication can be avoided as much as possible.

One could argue a credibility issue. If a person uses semi-colons where a comma should be placed, every time, and if that person writes a good amount, say for research or a business, then what does it say about that person? To write so much and not be familiar as to the difference between a semi-colon and comma? Not only would it be a basic observation (if you write a lot, you do read a good deal, enough to come across the difference) but it would call into question the person's research skills.

Whether or not the above is my argument is not something I care to consider right now. But it is an illustration, one that could be fleshed out better.

Considering grammar and science come from the same parent, shouldn’t there be an appreciation on the teacher’s part for grammar? One could say that the movement to grade twice a year is proof of an appreciation; but if that were true, why utter such a question as “Why do we need to teach grammar?”

He asked if it was becoming useless. That's a whole different question.

One can totally understand the need to undertake something and yet see that it's undertaking will likely either be useless or the success rate will be so minimal as to not be worthy of the energy and time spent. If today's gadgets are the beginning of a new type of American language, (which seems likely since I know lots my age even that resort to IIRC, LOL, WTF, and other new-age short-hand indicating an agreeableness to give way from proper communication, so I don't see anything stopping the tide) then continuing to teach it could be seen as a useless struggle against the tides, even as the perceived need would still be evident.

Yes, it was a subtle change, but a change indeed that does make a difference, which I note you don't address at all.

I chatter on sometimes, then I have an AHA! as to how to say something succinctly... My observance is..

Grammar has never really mattered in the past, so I seriously doubt it will matter in the future.

edit or write reports for you - or if you want to read a coherent piece of writing.

It does seem to matter when determining certain things about another person.

Proper grammar may well end up to be some secondary ability we can use if we wish.

If I was an employer, instead of a dirty taker, I might use one applicant's grammar abilities as a deciding factor.

I don't think it matters beyond some external judgement.

It would be nice, though, if people could give their readers or listeners the time to actually compose a decent sentence.

I guess it is a matter of courtesy. A series of sounds and grunts may well serve as communication. It would be nice, at least for now, if people treated semi-formal communication settings as those where a small effort is called for.

Someone who wants to get into a good college had better know the old standards, though.

That's how I understand it, anyway. Waiting for a cunning linguist to weigh in here.

.... mandates , etc. etc. etc. gushing down from our imponderably oversized education bureaucracy ( and trying to comply with same) that he hasn't fully thought through his position on grammar.

Seems to me, teaching grammar is important. Ideally, teacher should be correcting grammar *all* the time, but it's quite possible he's not permitted to do so. ( See "crazy-ass directives", etc. above). Or he can only do it in ink of a particular color. Or only on stickies affixed to the paper, and not on the work itself. Or only if the corrections are phrased in a *positive*, not *negative* way.

When you let bureaucracy grow to the extent to which we've let ed bureaucracy grow, no question ( I repeat: *no* question) is simple.

So, short answer: teach proper grammar. It facilitates communication. This is .... inarguably... a net plus.

I'd be careful of dismissing all of those people on on Craigslist, however. We're a nation of English Language Learners. Most of us WERE and many of us ARE in that category. Failure to absorb the language instantly... in all of its complexity... doesn't imply lack of intelligence, motivation or any kind of moral failing.

Off topic but not really: does anyone know where/how/if the Common Core comes down on this question? ( i.e. teaching grammar.)

Speaking of "crazy-ass", and "oversized bureaucracy."

and it does not come from being swamped. In this school, there is quite a bit of freedom, due to it being small, at least in this case.
It just seems to be his preference.

My feeling is that we need to make sure that kids CAN speak and write well. This takes practice, at least for many, so it must be necessary highlight this often.

Not sure about Common Core--

...and the way it is taught is via English studies. Sure, people have faster, easier ways of communicating these days, but humans always have. However, those who can also communicate using so-called "proper English" are afforded with additional opportunities and respect from others. What harm is there in simply trying to help kids open more doors for themselves by teaching them how to commicate using academic English?