Conclusion
In conclusion let me say two things. First, in criticizing text-books and teaching of the subject, I am not necessarily criticizing teachers of English. They are faithful, talented, often overworked and unable to do more than is now done. My implied criticism of present methods is really prompted by the hope that, in the near future, English will be placed on a better footing in all our schools, will be reckoned, as it certainly is not today, with foreign languages, ancient and modern, dead and living, with mathematics which has long had such a firm hold, and with the sciences which have assumed so important a place. And yet let us not lay flattering unction to our souls. I know of no subject which so urgently needs teachers of special rather than general education, teachers who are alive to the newest advances in linguistic science, teachers who, in special training as well as in special adaptability, deserve to rank with their coworkers in Greek and Latin, German and French. The great cry of secondary school teachers is for more methods. After some experience in schools of all grades, I am more and more inclined to believe that more special knowledge is the principal need. At least if this be true of any subject in the curriculum, it is true of English.
Secondly, it has been my purpose to speak from the standpoint, not so much of the secondary teacher, as of the specialist in English, so far as I may be permitted to represent him. If the specialist wishes to correct or modify what has been said, both you and I must hear him gladly. But if the suggestions as to treatment are based on fundamental principles of the science, then teachers in the secondary schools, as in all others, must follow them essentially. The cry “It is not practical,” which is too often raised, ought never to be sufficient answer to what is accepted as sound and important. Sound learning is not incompatible with the practical in any department of knowledge.
Let me correct one misapprehension that may arise from some of my last words. When I spoke of the standpoint of the secondary teacher and the specialist, it may have occurred to you that I wished to mark a great gulf. I had no such intentions. There ought to be no such gulf; there must be none. The teacher of English in secondary schools must have the thorough training of the specialist, must be a scholar and an investigator. Then the time will come when, as suggested in a recent article by a professor of this University, the secondary school teacher will attend such a convention as this, not to discuss methods alone, but to bring his offering to the treasures of sound learning by widening, in however small a degree, the boundaries of knowledge.
Ought I to answer another question? Someone may ask “How can a man make a twenty-minute paper on English grammar and not mention the diagram?” I have mentioned the diagram and all other devices. You will find them between the lines.
"The Teaching of English Grammar" by Oliver Farrar Emerson was originally published in The School Review: A Journal of Secondary Education, March 1897.
