With the legal challenge over this years English examinations expected to be pushed through with some urgance, many are asking if a GCSE in English truly has any affect on the quality of articles being written by currant journalists. If the English being learnt in school's is as is being said, i.e. not very elequant, would there not be some evidents in todays publications?
One person that is convinced that this is the case absolutely has spoken out about it in the Time's Literally Suppliment. Doctor Mark Forespelling has often written on the subjects of both accuracy in English and also on the subject of slipping levels of decline in exams. His ideas are that "the two issues are inextricately linked by a connection that is in fact clear to be seen, and can be proven, in fact" .
Mark Forespelling has published a graph that appears to show beyond all reasons of doubt that not only does a correlation exist, but that its undoubtedly proven. On one axle the graph displays the GCSE English results of the last Thirty years, and on the why axis it shows the average no. of uncorrect errors in each paragraph published in that years newspaper's to-date.
It is fare to say that Marks graph not only proves the point, but that also it shows it is out of any question. In fact the chief examinators at all the most large exam boards are in totally agreement (and not just the English exam ones. One doesn't have to look to far, they say, to find that exams are not only being set much easier. But also marked much laxer, they say.
Their is however a group of well skilled English practitioneers that do'nt agree with Dr. Mark or his graphs either. The National Association Of young Journalist's has ridicled the notion, and theyv'e always claimed that what many people have also believed. Which is that the so-called decline in litteracy, if it exists at all, it is actually the evolution of the language due to the influenses of social media and texting and all that, and that English is a living, growing, thing which altars over time.
So do we face a world whereby the English usage is stuck in the past and we are limited by heritidge and the strictures of language pacifically layed down in dusty old text books for all eternally, or is it more important that the inerrant meaning and expressionism of written pieces should have a much higher level of importance placed up on it?
Well I for-one think, correct written English is important isn't it. For me, and this is just my personnel opinion possibly because I got a A in my GCSE english for all thats worth, it has to be said this language, with all it's little fables and idiots syncrasies, is, and will always will be, sancrosanct.