HOW many heads were nodding in agreement as a rather formidable-looking teacher bemoaned the demise of basic English grammar on the school curriculum on Channel 4's programme 'That'll Teach 'Em'.

For those who have missed the series, a class of pupils from a combination of state, grammar and independent schools who have just sat their GCSE exams are exposed to the teaching methods and harsh discipline of a 1950s boarding school. Trivial rules, draconian discipline, hideous meals and strict lessons are a real shock to the 16-year-olds.

The pupils, who all seem to be predicted to gain A or A* in their GCSEs, flounder horribly when confronted with an 11-plus exam of the Fifties. And when asked to underline the qualitative adjective in a sentence written out on the chalkboard, the star pupil homes in on the adverb. And as for use of the apostrophe!

It all makes for good television, except that the effect strikes home here on the Herald. As an employer who uses the English language as a key tool, it is somewhat irritating to have to give basic lessons in English grammar to school leavers. Why haven't our schools taught pupils what an apostrophe is and where it is used (the current method of thinking seems to be whenever there's a plural as in video's or hundred's)?

Yet readers brought up when such matters were basic skills bristle when they spot grammatical errors in the Herald. They are right to complain, but it's not that we seek out people with a poor grasp of the English language, it's more a reflection of what our schools are producing.

The teacher from the television programme assured that modern teachers were not to blame, it was a system which, from the 1970s (no apostrophe), has deemed grammar to be of little value.

For those who attach great importance to the English language, the bad news is that things can only get worse, as computers and mobile phone text messages have produced a new "language" in which punctuation, grammar, spelling and syntax are mangled. If, in later years, the Craven Herald was written like this, it would be shorter - or, in "text language", if in l8r yrs t ch ws ritn lk ths it wd b thnr.

But will it all matter, as long as society is able to communicate? Language constantly evolves; our standard spellings are much changed from the era of Chaucer or Pepys. Our youngsters seem to cope quite adequately not giving two hoots about an apostrophe. The great defenders of proper English grammar are doomed to defeat in the long run.