In defense of teaching "correctness" in grammar: My list
It is both well (prudent) and good (worthy of respect) to educate the rising generation in the ability to say something clever in a clever way: to entertain and to titillate a sense of surprise or fascination. For these purposes, a bending of long-established patterns of morphology and syntax seems quite acceptable, even rhetorically effective at times. But who will educate those in the rising generation who do or will one day aspire to be the lawyers who defend our laws and the assistants who help to prepare their briefs; the judges who determine the consequences of disobedience to those laws and the clerks who record the proceedings; the elected representatives who initiate and promote or change the rules which govern our society and the staffs who do much of the drafting of those rules; the researchers who write the medical treatises that justify procedures that promote health and treat disease and the lab assistants who record and tabulate the data; the doctors who read and interpret those works and apply their principles in their practices and the nurses who carry out their directives; the ambassadors who represent our nation and its democratic principles to other nations and the staffs who prepare their communications; the entrepreneurs who create the businesses and jobs that employ the vast majority of citizens; and, indeed, the teachers who train up the next generation? Is there, in these considerations, not a profound need for accuracy, correctness, and consistency in the patterns of our language? Let us make no small preparations.