In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.

Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
enough through teacher feedback."

I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.

Is Muphry's law at play here?

P.S. On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
under criticism is in English or Welsh.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <cQ%VM.14845$E005.276@fx07.ams1> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023
01:04:23, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>
>Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>enough through teacher feedback."
>
>I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
>doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.

I agree. No obvious error is evident, but the complete lack of
punctuation in the last quite a lot of words means you have to read the
whole thing, and then think about it, to see what it means, and that IMO
is never a good example. I think "do not write at length frequently
enough" is the core of the badness: I would certainly attempt to recast
that, though can't immediately think of how.
>
>Is Muphry's law at play here?
>
>P.S. On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
>under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>
>
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

On 13/10/2023 04:24, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <cQ%VM.14845$E005.276@fx07.ams1> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023
> 01:04:23, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>>
>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>> enough through teacher feedback."
>>
>> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
>> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>
> I agree. No obvious error is evident, but the complete lack of
> punctuation in the last quite a lot of words means you have to read the
> whole thing, and then think about it, to see what it means, and that IMO
> is never a good example. I think "do not write at length frequently
> enough" is the core of the badness: I would certainly attempt to recast
> that, though can't immediately think of how.
>>

The parenthesised (by commas) "in too many schools" should not be as it
is a necessary qualifier to the pupils.

I would keep "do not write at length frequently enough" or perhaps
change "at length" to "long pieces". I would split the sentence in two,
recasting the second part to emphasise the core problem, the lack of
feedback:

As was found last year in too many schools pupils do not write long
pieces of work often enough. There is thus insufficient opportunity for
teacher feedback to address basic errors in grammar and punctuation.

john

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>
> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
> enough through teacher feedback."
>
> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>
> Is Muphry's law at play here?
>
> P.S. On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
> under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>
>

If Welsh, perhaps they need to take Dragonian measures.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>
> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
> enough through teacher feedback."
>
> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>
> Is Muphry's law at play here?
>
> P.S. On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
> under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>
>

Perhaps:

Looking at primary schools, it said: "As last year, in many schools, pupils
frequently did not write at length, they made basic errors in grammar and
punctuation which were not well addressed via feedback from teachers."

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 13/10/2023 01:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>
> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
> enough through teacher feedback."
>
> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>
> Is Muphry's law at play here?
>
> P.S.  On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
> under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>
>
It probably lost something in translation.

I think that what they are saying is that pupils do not make enough
errors that teachers fail to correct. Therefore pupils and/or teachers
are doing well as few errors go uncorrected. I don't think that is what
they meant to say, and if it is then it could have been phrased better.

At least they didn't say they wanted less errors made.

--
Ric

In message <ugb43k$33ts4$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:53:56,
Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>>
>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>> enough through teacher feedback."
>>
>> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
>> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>>
>> Is Muphry's law at play here?
>>
>> P.S. On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
>> under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>>
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps:
>
>Looking at primary schools, it said: "As last year, in many schools, pupils
>frequently did not write at length, they made basic errors in grammar and
>punctuation which were not well addressed via feedback from teachers."
>
Unfortunately, that leads to the ambiguity of whether "As" means
"because". (It becomes evident that it doesn't, but only some way into
the sentence.)

OK, I've got to have a go, haven't I.

Original:
>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>> enough through teacher feedback."

I think a lot of the problem is trying to get too much into the one
sentence, which thus _becomes_ long and hard to follow (especially with
such little punctuation).

How about:
"In too many schools, pupils rarely write at length. They make basic
errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well enough
through teacher feedback. Both were also the case last year."
(Still far from perfect.)

[I'd be happier with something like "long pieces" rather than "at
length", but tried to keep the original wording as much as possible.]

It's also not clear whether the uncorrectedness is being considered
something exacerbated by the lack of long work, though it obviously has
some connection; if the author had meant to imply that, then rather than
"enough and make", should have said something like "enough, and thus
make" (addition of comma _and_ "thus").
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing one's
mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on
the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

In message <ugbgka$36sbj$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:27:37,
Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> writes
[]
>At least they didn't say they wanted less errors made.
>
As Marjorie said here 2014-1-28 (nearly ten years ago!):

Less rules means fewer grammar?

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing one's
mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on
the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Joe Kerr wrote:

>On 13/10/2023 01:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>>
>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>> enough through teacher feedback."
>>
>> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
>> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>>
>> Is Muphry's law at play here?
>>
>> P.S.  On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
>> under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>>
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>>
>>
>It probably lost something in translation.
>
>I think that what they are saying is that pupils do not make enough
>errors that teachers fail to correct. Therefore pupils and/or teachers
>are doing well as few errors go uncorrected. I don't think that is what
>they meant to say, and if it is then it could have been phrased better.

I think that they meant (and indeed wrote):

1. ...in too many schools, pupils do not write at length
frequently enough...

2. ... [they] make basic errors in grammar and punctuation that
are not addressed well enough through teacher feedback.

but combined it all in one sentence, which sounds clumsy.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 01:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>>
>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>> enough through teacher feedback."
>>
>> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
>> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>>
>> Is Muphry's law at play here?
>>
>> P.S.  On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
>> under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>>
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>>
>>
> It probably lost something in translation.
>
> I think that what they are saying is that pupils do not make enough
> errors that teachers fail to correct. Therefore pupils and/or teachers
> are doing well as few errors go uncorrected. I don't think that is what
> they meant to say, and if it is then it could have been phrased better.
>
> At least they didn't say they wanted less errors made.
>

I suppose if pupils wrote nothing at all, they could all be awarded 100%
for error free work!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 13/10/2023 01:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>
> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
> enough through teacher feedback."

It doesn't surprise me at all that teachers are not correcting bad
grammar - they probably don't recognise bad grammar when they hear/see
it. I am forever screeching at the radio when I heard people say
something like "myself and my friend are ..." or read "I should of been
...." to give but 2 examples. And (1) "less than/fewer than" is long
past being a hopeless case.

(1) Yes, I KNOW you shouldn't start a sentence with "And" - but how many
teachers do?

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

On 13-Oct-23 14:27, Joe Kerr wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 01:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>>
>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>> enough through teacher feedback."
>>
>> I can't put my finger on quite what it is about that quote, but it
>> doesn't seem to me to be a good example of well constructed English.
>>
>> Is Muphry's law at play here?
>>
>> P.S.  On re-reading the article, I can't tell if the language teaching
>> under criticism is in English or Welsh.
>>
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67088667
>>
>>
> It probably lost something in translation.

Since the BBC chose to pick it out, and place it within inverted commas,
I'm fairly sure it isn't a translation. (If it were, they certainly
should have said so.)

I think it is far from coincidental that the BBC chose to pick out this
part of the report - since it shows Estyn are badly afflicted by their
own petard.
>
> I think that what they are saying is that pupils do not make enough
> errors that teachers fail to correct. Therefore pupils and/or teachers
> are doing well as few errors go uncorrected. I don't think that is what
> they meant to say, and if it is then it could have been phrased better.
>
> At least they didn't say they wanted less errors made.
>

--
Sam Plusnet

On 13/10/2023 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 01:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>>
>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>> enough through teacher feedback."
>
> It doesn't surprise me at all that teachers are not correcting bad
> grammar - they probably don't recognise bad grammar when they hear/see
> it.  I am forever screeching at the radio when I heard people say
> something like "myself and my friend are ..." or read "I should of been
> ..." to give but 2 examples.  And (1) "less than/fewer than" is long
> past being a hopeless case.
>

The problem with less/fewer is that there are vanishingly few cases
where the distinction makes a difference. And if language is about
conveying meaning then which is chosen doesn't matter.

Alternate/alternative, on the other hand, is a hill on rhich I will
gladly die.

> (1) Yes, I KNOW you shouldn't start a sentence with "And" - but how many
> teachers do?
>

Currently reading a novel1[] which starts with "Or". A stylish choice.

john

[1] Babel Tower by AS Byatt

On 13.10.23 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> I should of been

How does one advise a close relation of a mistake of that nature on
Facebook when spotted knowing that umbrage will be taken?

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:24:51 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On 13.10.23 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> I should of been
>
>How does one advise a close relation of a mistake of that nature on
>Facebook when spotted knowing that umbrage will be taken?

I think the answer is, one doesn't. Yesterday's Facebook posting is
tomorrow's fish-and-chip papers, or something like that. Family
umbrage can endure for generations.

Nick

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:47:05 +0100, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 13/10/2023 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 01:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> In a BBC report, Estyn "the education and training inspectorate for
>>> Wales" has criticised standards in some primary schools.
>>>
>>> Looking at primary schools, it said: "Similarly to last year, in too
>>> many schools, pupils do not write at length frequently enough and make
>>> basic errors in grammar and punctuation that are not addressed well
>>> enough through teacher feedback."
>>
>> It doesn't surprise me at all that teachers are not correcting bad
>> grammar - they probably don't recognise bad grammar when they hear/see
>> it.  I am forever screeching at the radio when I heard people say
>> something like "myself and my friend are ..." or read "I should of been
>> ..." to give but 2 examples.  And (1) "less than/fewer than" is long
>> past being a hopeless case.
>>
>
>The problem with less/fewer is that there are vanishingly few cases
>where the distinction makes a difference. And if language is about
>conveying meaning then which is chosen doesn't matter.
>
>Alternate/alternative, on the other hand, is a hill on rhich I will
>gladly die.
>
>> (1) Yes, I KNOW you shouldn't start a sentence with "And" - but how many
>> teachers do?
>>
>
>Currently reading a novel1[] which starts with "Or". A stylish choice.
>
>john
>
>[1] Babel Tower by AS Byatt

Recently read a novel that started with
So.
(New paragraph.)[2]

Nick
[2]Eyrie by Tim Winton

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 13.10.23 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> I should of been
>
> How does one advise a close relation of a mistake of that nature on
> Facebook when spotted knowing that umbrage will be taken?
>

Don’t go there. Flame wars have broken out for less than that.

Mrs McT

On 20/10/2023 00:24, krw wrote:
> On 13.10.23 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> I should of been
>
> How does one advise a close relation of a mistake of that nature on
> Facebook when spotted knowing that umbrage will be taken?
>
For Facebook read WhatsApp and I got severely told off!
--
Jenny M Benson

On 20.10.23 12:11, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 20/10/2023 00:24, krw wrote:
>> On 13.10.23 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>> I should of been
>>
>> How does one advise a close relation of a mistake of that nature on
>> Facebook when spotted knowing that umbrage will be taken?
>>
> For Facebook read WhatsApp and I got severely told off!

I will hope the good lady wife is not reading this then.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

In message <c844ji9hak4fkbfvus0keh7e5333ftcdeg@4ax.com> at Fri, 20 Oct
2023 06:34:47, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:24:51 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 13.10.23 16:50, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>> I should of been
>>
>>How does one advise a close relation of a mistake of that nature on
>>Facebook when spotted knowing that umbrage will be taken?
>
>I think the answer is, one doesn't. Yesterday's Facebook posting is
>tomorrow's fish-and-chip papers, or something like that. Family
>umbrage can endure for generations.
>
>Nick

That's true; however, if one is fond of the offender, one is concerned
that they will repeat the error for ever, possibly sometime in a
situation where it _does_ matter.

I'd be interested to hear any constructive answer. Sometimes one can
gently mock by pretending to take what is said as what was intended -
for example, if someone says "your mad", I could reply "my mad what?";
however, you can't do that (at least, I can't see how - if anyone can,
please share!) with the of/have error.

The long-term answer - not going to help the offender - is to change
attitudes/teaching/whatever, such that umbrage _isn't_ taken; however, I
can't see how that can ever be achieved )-:.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

In message <ee44ji96ljtg7rpru54haqa1u5aljifmls@4ax.com> at Fri, 20 Oct
2023 06:41:58, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:47:05 +0100, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
[]
>>The problem with less/fewer is that there are vanishingly few cases
>>where the distinction makes a difference. And if language is about
>>conveying meaning then which is chosen doesn't matter.

I do love "Less rules means fewer grammar?" - Marjorie in UMRA,
2014-1-28 13:14, though.
>>
>>Alternate/alternative, on the other hand, is a hill on rhich I will
>>gladly die.

I'll join you on that hill. Though I think it may also be a US/UK thing:
certainly, I've heard alternate where I'd have used alternative rather
more from USians, I think. Another one - "myriad" does _not_ take either
"a" "of" (they're thinking of "multitude". And the old
"consist/comprise" - the former does take of, the latter doesn't.
>>
>>> (1) Yes, I KNOW you shouldn't start a sentence with "And" - but how many
>>> teachers do?
>>>
>>
>>Currently reading a novel1[] which starts with "Or". A stylish choice.
>>
>>john
>>
>>[1] Babel Tower by AS Byatt
>
>Recently read a novel that started with
>So.
>(New paragraph.)[2]
>
>Nick
>[2]Eyrie by Tim Winton

I think "Don't start a sentence with a preposition" is a guide, rather
than a rule; if followed by inexperienced writers, it can avoid sloppy
writing, but when done sparingly, it can be effective. Like the one
about infinitives - DNA: "to boldly split infinitives that have never
been split before". And "I before E except after C, when the sound is
'EE'" - again not _always_ true, but can eliminate a _lot_ of errors.
(Though most people don't seem to know the second part, and then trot
out lots of examples that don't obey it, but would if they knew the
whole.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:40:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>And "I before E except after C, when the sound is
>'EE'" - again not _always_ true, but can eliminate a _lot_ of errors.
>(Though most people don't seem to know the second part, and then trot
>out lots of examples that don't obey it, but would if they knew the
>whole.)

Seize the wierd ;)
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:28:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>Sometimes one can
>gently mock by pretending to take what is said as what was intended -
>for example, if someone says "your mad", I could reply "my mad what?";
>however, you can't do that (at least, I can't see how - if anyone can,
>please share!) with the of/have error.

You've of-ed when you should have haven?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:50:52 PM UTC+1, Jenny M Benson wrote:

> It doesn't surprise me at all that teachers are not correcting bad
> grammar - they probably don't recognise bad grammar when they hear/see
> it. I am forever screeching at the radio when I heard people say
> something like "myself and my friend are ..." or read "I should of been
> ..." to give but 2 examples. And (1) "less than/fewer than" is long
> past being a hopeless case.
>
> (1) Yes, I KNOW you shouldn't start a sentence with "And" - but how many
> teachers do?

I believe that a part of the problem is that there is a whole generation who were not taught grammar at school. Those people are now teachers. We're seeing the effect of a terrible education policy of the ~1980s (now corrected, I'm told).

On 21/10/2023 10:40, Ben Blaney wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:50:52 PM UTC+1, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>
>> It doesn't surprise me at all that teachers are not correcting bad
>> grammar - they probably don't recognise bad grammar when they hear/see
>> it. I am forever screeching at the radio when I heard people say
>> something like "myself and my friend are ..." or read "I should of been
>> ..." to give but 2 examples. And (1) "less than/fewer than" is long
>> past being a hopeless case.
>>
>> (1) Yes, I KNOW you shouldn't start a sentence with "And" - but how many
>> teachers do?
>
> I believe that a part of the problem is that there is a whole generation who were not taught grammar at school. Those people are now teachers. We're seeing the effect of a terrible education policy of the ~1980s (now corrected, I'm told).
>

In part over-corrected. Fronted adverbials anyone?

john