How schol shoudd be done

Yes. This is different situation though. By analogy it's a drug that's already in circulation(and mandatory for everyone to use), is very expensive, has a horrible method of use and we have no idea if it works, what the side effects are and whether there's even a condition that needs treating. Also, the drug has a little theoretical grounding, but it's shaky. We might want to find out the answers to these questions rather than blindly continuing to use the drug.

It's primary research: I spent over a decade going to several schools and observing English lessons by various teachers.

If anyone wanted a drug to be taken off the market then they would research reasons why it should be done.

Coming back to education, the consensus of qualified professionals and likely the majority of the population is that English should remain as a vital subject in both primary and secondary education. Making such a change would be, in the opinion of most professionals, catastrophic. It would be expensive.

The onus is on anyone wishing to make such a drastic change to demonstrate why it would benefit pupils, firstly through theory and then through trials.

Out of curiosity, by this are you referring to your own education? Or time spend in classrooms after leaving school?

Maybe they would. They wouldn't have to though since all drugs go through testing before being put on the market. The government wouldn't dream of making a drug or treatment mandatory, especially if it's untested and there's no definite reason for use; even vaccines aren't mandatory.

Yes, that's why trials would need to be done. The risk is too great to change the whole system without the required evidence.
It wouldn't be very expensive. The cheapest way would be to fire the English teachers, pay them their redundancy and rearrange the timetable so that the school day is shorter. The school has MADE the teachers' salaries minus the redundancy pay. There are of course other reasonable implementations(including for example optional English classes or classes in other subjects), the most expensive of which would have about the same cost as the English lessons, not taking into account the redundancy pay(which is insignificant in the long term).

Speaking anecdotally, English teachers seem to take a lot of years off due to pregnancies and illnesses, so the school often has to pay double their salary to pay both them and the huge number of supply teachers to cover their lessons. If this is statistically significant across the country, it would mean that the change will make a lot of money.

It's not too hard to demonstrate the theory. If someone already knows something, telling them again doesn't teach them it, since they already know it. If someone is fluent in both spoken and written English(which you'd expect from most secondary school students in a primarily English speaking part of the world) they don't need to be taught it anymore.

It depends how you define education.

Yes, so like I say, I look forward to seeing research done on the proposal to ditch English from the secondary curriculum.

Again, look forward to seeing the research.

The way the world works is that any concept that goes against what is the generally accepted view would have to carry a certain amount of weight behind it. Usually the person making the proposal would be someone (or usually a number if people) with an established reputation, background in the area and expertise. Also put forward in a rigorous way. Again, look forward to seeing something like that.

I'm asking a simple question, that you can choose to answer or not. Were the years spent in English classes in a variety of schools that you referred to meaning ones spent as a pupil?

Me too!

Me too!

Indeed. That is why research needs to be done in this area.
You can't expect true rigour outside of mathematics, particularly in an area such as this.
Me too!

Again it depends on how you define pupil. If you go by this definition: "a person who is taught by another, especially a schoolchild or student in relation to a teacher.", then I spent 5 years as a pupil and a further 7 years and 3 months not as a pupil.

So why were you in the classroom for those 7 years and 3 months?

Mandatory "education".


Sorry am I, youmseem not toa cohesive question forming ability.

Big fingers, small keypad

Don't get me wrong, you clearly speak English eloquently and perhaps you had substandard English teachers. But you had someone well-qualified in English in some way or another in front of you for years and didn't feel that they could enhance your command of the language or expertise in literature?

what about crushing children's creativity by not encouraging any arts or humanties at a younger age? Just teaching science, maths, english would take the joy out of learning and put so many kids off school, and it helps brain development to learn about subjects like that when you're young! I don't even know what kind of school you want but it sounds like soul-crushing one to me. sorry.

what about crushing children's creativity by not encouraging any arts or humanties at a younger age? Just teaching science, maths, english would take the joy out of learning and put so many kids off school, and it helps brain development to learn about subjects like that when you're young! I don't even know what kind of school you want but it sounds like soul-crushing one to me. sorry.

Personally, I love maths in primary school and hated art.

I don't think most people would agree. Primary school maths was the most depressing thing ever, I left primary school thinking I was a failure.

I think you are right.

But does that mean it's good to go from one extreme to the other? Would you be happy if people like me will now leave primary school with this kind of mentality?