Why Grammar Works

It seems to be a trend in current classics teaching to provide as little grammar instruction as possible, on the grounds that it supposedly detracts from students` enjoyment of the subject.

This philosophy has perhaps arisen due to the quite understandable desire shared by many teachers to shed all connotations of an old-fashioned and tired subject which has unfairly undermined the public perception of Classics since its abolition as an Oxbridge entrance requirement in 1960.

Teachers, in a desperate desire to `sell` the subject to their pupils as new and fresh, have wildly over-compensated by removing the single element for which the subject has been historically famed: rote-learning and thorough exposition of grammar.

But they seem to be missing two major points, in my view. First of all, there is a reason why the subject has, for centuries, been taught using a grammatical approach. Grammar is the bones of a language, without which the flesh flops around aimlessly, falling to the floor in an unsatisfying clump. The assumption that a language can be magically picked up without any kind of structural support is a fallacy which is entirely unsupported by linguistic research: only first languages are `osmosed`.

But more importantly, it is ludicrous, in my view, to suppose that adequate grammar instruction need preclude enjoyment of the subject. We all enjoyed the subjects at school in which we thrived and flourished. Pupils enjoy getting things right, and there is an immeasurable amount of satisfaction to be derived from cracking the code of a rare and beautiful language such as Latin. It doesn`t need to be approached in a dry way: a good teacher can make anything fun. A proper understanding of the workings of a language is the key to unlocking a wealth of treasure, and an inspiring teacher can show the pupils the value of this.

Many classicists mistakenly assume that students will resent them for the difficulty of their subject, and strive to counteract this at every stage in a misguided attempt to improve accessibility. But it`s the fundamental philosophy of any good teacher to suppose that every student at some level wants to succeed. A few may push against the system, but deep down nobody really comes to school actively hoping to fail. They may whinge a bit at first, when they realise that there are high expectations of them. But ultimately, in my experience, students don`t resent being told things. They resent NOT being told things.

When the crunch time comes and GCSE is knocking at the door, the information is no enemy to them: on the contrary, I find my private tutees bewildered and utterly floored as to why they weren`t taught it. If the subject is to survive, we need to stop this practice immediately. However well-meaning it may be, depriving students of crucial information is making the subject less accessible, not more.