Andrew Keller

The big problem with Latin and classic Greek is that they are taught to people that don't need them and like a dead language, so we arrive to ridicule as the best minds after 5 years of study, manage them much less well than their waitress, arrived from six months, manage the local language.

To fix this let teach ancient languages only to those wishing a future career on archeology already when young and as living languages to be spoken currently. I still remember a teacher of Roman hereditary right who had to interpolate the false corrections made by middle age monks when copying classic texts, a never ending Carthusian job, requiring such sensibility he was one of the last ones in the World who could understand, soon will remain no other. The main, and perhaps most controversial, question in curriculum development is not “what should we teach?” but “what should we not teach?” Many articles extol the virtues of all manner of new topics or extensions of existing ones (Oriental and Middle Eastern languages, astronomy, personal financial planning, philosophy, valid interpretation of statistics, sex education, how to start a business and many more). Curricula are heavily overcrowded; brutal choices have to be made.

The key point is that Latin must compete for a place with the excising subjects plus the numerous proposals for new ones. Even if extra time could be found, either by lengthening the school day or by dropping existing topics, Latin would have many rivals for those precious classroom hours.

I do not believe that the case for Latin is sufficiently strong to warrant its status as a compulsory module. Its best hope is as an option for post-sixteen pupils who have enjoyed learning a modern language and would like to understand about word origins and for potential historians who are curious about earlier civilisations.… (més)