It appears that grammar isn't inclusive enough especially concerning the non-English speaking people and those who don't know any better. According to some Language is one of those things that are constantly evolving and so far grammar and spelling have been keeping things restrained. (Now if you'd excuse me to take their POV) in an age of information, these restrictions are just too much!

All our technology products have an English language interface and learning English has become a barrier for technology adoption in the developing world. The teachers of these countries put special emphasis on grammar and spelling rather than the communication aspects of English language turning off the interest and enthusiasm of students creating an unreasonable barrier.

If u've been using Instagram and other cool apps unlike Facebok thats used by old people, you'll see th true efeects of the evolution of english language. Now we have so many websites like Urbandictiornary keeping people in touch with the latets developments in the language and we do't need the shackles of slow evolving strictness that restric the expressions of all loving human councoious.

Grammer Rulz as an Immigration Barrier

Global travel has improved greatly and yet those who come into the lands where English is the primaary language face some levels of unspoken discrimination for all those tiny mistakes which has tramatized many. It's not their fault that they don't know the language that well. But the strict adhereance to a certain code of the bygone era has put extra preassure on those who are trying to fit in. These are hte problems of the 21st century that we have to solve.

We have to increase our inclusivity to accept other languages. We still use latin phrases even in court and as legal terms. That's a good start. We need more of that. Unlike Math, language is negotiable.

---

I'm going to stop there because you can probably realize how this madness plays out. How far the society has fallen, right? There is another important thing I must add.

At least that's what I thought this would be

When I started writing, I wanted to make sort of a parody post. I wanted to write some fake news and see if you'd believe it. I though I got it right. My intention was to show that in the current times it is plausible to say something like the above section be reported as truth. Then I wanted to to make people introspect about the state of the world where such a ridiculous piece of stupidity can be taken as journalism and a serious movement. After the second paragraph I even ditched the grammer myself and if you've checked some social media (for research purposes) you'd even realize than I was almost a grammer gód Grammar Nazi in those paragraphs.

A duckduckgo.com Search

After writing my parody fake news I just thought of typing "Grammar is not inclusive" into the search engine and came up with few articles with barely any scrolling down. Please not that the search term I searched isn't a very specific keyword based one. Most of the results were just gramer education. The rest were something like this:

We can honor good grammar and societal change together

The concept of inclusive legal writing is an opportunity for lawyers to be at the forefront of balancing grammatical correctness and cultivation of gender inclusiveness.

This one is real. It's not made up at all.

The esteemed Académie Française—the highest authority on matters pertaining to the French language—is not yet so sure about this “inclusive writing” idea. In French grammar, nouns are deemed either masculine or feminine. A well- entrenched grammar rule grants the masculine dominance over the feminine. In other words, when describing a collection of professionals—one male and 500 female—a writer would reference the group using the male plural version of the word. French language activists have advocated for more inclusive usage, removing gender stereotypes and bias when feasible. For example, a writer might indicate inclusion of both the female and male versions of the foregoing plural noun by inserting a feminine “(e)” before the plural “s.” However, the Académie Française has declared the French language in “mortal peril” from this inclusive writing campaign._

There was more but I don't want to bother you with them.

Do grammars breed social segregation?

One of the criticisms grammar schools face is that they favour the better off because of their reliance on entrance examinations such as the 11-plus to select pupils

“By definition the grammar school system is designed to select a group of students by a test,” said Vignoles. “It’s extremely elitist at the moment because there are not many grammar schools. If you increase the number of grammar schools dramatically, you would reduce some of the pressure and you would expect to see some improvements in the social representation of people going to grammar schools.

So do they just want to increase the number of grammar schools? I mean that's a good initiative. Knowledge is good when it is spreading fast. But unfortunately the answer is a "not really".

“By dramatically, I mean if you put a grammar school in every town and district, then you might be taking the top 20% of pupils on the basis of the test, whereas at the moment you are taking the top 1-3% in some areas. So it’s certainly true there will be less pressure on individual schools.” But, she says, we still end up with a system which separates the top fifth from the rest. “I don’t know how you define that as inclusive.”

As for the “tutor-proof” 11-plus, judging by the booming private tuition industry, on Thursday, it would suggest that parents still feel it’s worth forking out to give their child the best possible advantage. “I imagine it would be quite hard to come up with a test that was tutor proof,” says Vignoles.

More sensibility from comment section

It's a disgusting and appalling article with some really good comments. The worst part is that it is all more than 4 years old. The article was written 29 May 2014

This research is utter nonsense. Nineteenth century progressives thought that education would produce clones of themselves, peaceful, cultured and amiable. When we see the actual products, as for example in the recent outbreaks of looting in our cities, we can only conclude that the experiment with compulsory secondary state education has been expensive and counter productive. The only solution is to make post-literacy (or post pubertal, whichever comes first) education voluntary, to be taken, if at all, at a time, and in an institution, chosen by the individual concerned.

• Mousemaster

Amen! As a person who think going to school was the worst thing that happened tin my life I can apreciate ore sensible comments like this.

My state education was at a comprehensive and the first day of term a fight with another pupil was arranged for me, I refused. It never really got any better. The problem with state sector is that you do not know what you are really getting - whereas grammar and indy schools that select have a much better atmosphere of learning. For bright students from poor backgrounds we need to create much more scholarship programmes that include student grants.There is no fair educational system only the provision of many different types of opportunities.

• Brian

Civitas Monthly Review May 2014:"The legacy of trendy teaching in British schools"I challenge anyone not to burn with anger reading Robert Peal's damning [and] brilliant history of progressive education" - Graham Stuart MP, chairman of the Commons Education CommitteeWhy has there been barely any improvement in literacy and numeracy among school leavers in the past 60 years - despite a nine-fold real-terms increase in education spending?In this scathing survey of post-war British education, teacher and writer Robert Peal traces the legacy of so-called "progressive education", which took hold in the 1960s and the influence of which can still be felt today. This is the trendy teaching philosophy that promotes the canard that children are innately good and natural learners who should be freed from the guidance and direct instruction of the teacher.Local authorities, school inspectors and teacher training centres all signed up to this idealistic but damaging system, which undermined the importance of rigour, knowledge, discipline and competition in our schools.But now it is coming under renewed scrutiny as empirical data lays bare its lack of success in the classroom and cognitive science exposes its misconceptions about how children learn. If Britain is to have a world-class education system in the 21st century, abandoning the burden of bad ideas it has inherited from the 20th is the surest route to success."Maybe Grammar schools were less affected by trendy ideas. I'd wager trendy teachers shunned grammar school jobs.

• TomNightingale

Whatever system is in place now, the end result is that standards of academic achievement are lower than 30 years ago. Just give some O or A level JCB or AEB exam papers from the 70's to modern day students,and see the difference in grades.This follows years of dumbing down standards so that people like Blair could brag about up to 50% of students going to university, when in the 70's, it was around 10%, as it still should be.Then, a degree was worth something, not anymore.

• davet2

I can fully agree with this comment. I'v seen massive differences in standards over just few years. The tests that I faced at 5th grade now looks like the tests I faced while in 3rd or 4th grade. Even some of my teachers have explained how certain portions of the curriculum were removed due to them being too difficult for the students.

I have first hand experiences seeing governments bringing down standards to pass a larger quota of students and make it look like the education system is getting better while in reality it was getting worse.