Worst idea Ever.
This is about a push for simplified spelling of the English language.
Now, on the surface, reducing the difficulties students have in learning to read is great. English has few concrete rules on spelling, and there are many words that are hard to spell. In sixth grade, we even had a huge list of them printed on the inside of a folder our teacher handed out. It was very handy for learning, and I actually still have the folder after fifteen years.
BUT! Changing the standard spelling of the English language is going to create more problems than solve them.
The simplified spelling would be phonetic. Okay, well and good. But not everyone pronounces things the same. So whose accent will be the base? If you choose one, you are essentially telling the rest of the country that they are wrong and ignorant. You have offended everyone except a tiny part of the country. Haven't we had enough of that? Haven't we learned that it's wrong to discriminate against someone because of their accent? Not everyone from the ghetto goes on Jerry Springer. Not everyone from the South is a hick. Not everyone from Boston is a Kennedy.
Not only would this alienate different sectors of the country, but if regional variations were integrated in the system, no one would be able to communicate with each other anymore. Think about it phonetically. People from certain area speak very differently, and pronounce often very common words completely separately from other areas. Speaking, we may have a chance to understand because we could simply ask what they mean. As embarassing as that may be, it is a viable option for cummunication. But in a written item, we would often find ourselves answering questions about what a simple WORD is, when we could be discussing deeper things.
If this system were to be implemented in America, it would effectively alienate us from the rest of the English-speaking world. We would no longer be able to communicate with countries who had not adopted the reformed spelling because we wouldn't recognize the words, and they would think we are stupid. Because face it, English spelling phonetically looks fundamentally unintelligent. It removes all the roots of words, the "ph" from Greek-based, the "-ed" suffix that denotes past tense. In effect, phonetic spelling would remove what few conjugational rules we still have.
Also, to reform spelling would force everyone to learn a new system, and from examples given, this reformed spelling resembles the worst kind of lazy, ignorant chatspeak. People who have already completed their education will have to go to school over again to learn it, because frankly, it gave me a throbbing headache after two paragraphs. Without the aid of someone who already knows this spelling, I don't think I could read an entire article, never mind a book! And I am far from unintelligent (I may not be a genius, but I am well educated, and pride myself on my reading comprehension- and spelling). Can we really spend all that time and money to re-educate the country when ACTUALLY TEACHING OUR CHILDREN IN GRADE SCHOOL will have a greater effect?
"Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler."
Above is an excerpt of the article writer's examples of reformed spelling. The line is in reference to people who are picketing spelling bees, and says, "They say the bee celebrates the ability of a few students to master a difficult system that stumps many others who could do just as well if spelling were simpler." This is just a sympton of America's disease of self-esteem.
You see, we are trying to raise children's self-esteem by bringing everyone else DOWN to a lower level. If one child does badly, it's because the system is too hard, or "He must have a disability! I have to get him on medication." No, it's not. Did you talk to him about it? Sure, sometimes people have more trouble with one subject, such as reading or math. But perhaps it's not a disability. Perhaps they are merely uninterested, or they need it explained differently. Not every child is going to respond to one teaching method; it's important that teachers recognize this and know other ways of going about things, to aid every student in their classrooms.
And if one student is learning faster than the others? We no longer celebrate that child's aptitude for the subject. They need to slow down, restrain themselves so that the other students don't feel bad. I read something where one girl was remembering her experience in grade school. She used to finish her reading assignments and homework early, but was FORBIDDEN from reading her own books because it made the other students feel less intelligent. They shouldn't be looking at another student in the first place, if their own work is not done! When I was in grade school, I always finished my work early. We were encouraged to read a book from the class shelf if we did, and all of us were bright, intelligent students. Not because I was in a higher aptitude class, but because we were encouraged to complete our work in a timely manner, and then to keep using our brains, even if it was on fiction (I read "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" in that class. The next year, I was reading The Dark is Rising and JRR Tolkien for amusement).
What it boils down to is that now, students are not encouraged to go beyond the expectations because the other students will be jealous. And this spelling reformation is a symptom of that. What these people who support changing the spelling are doing is supporting linguistic isolationism and the Dumbing Down of America.
And for those who tout the system's advocates, like Mark Twain, George Bernard Shaw, and Benjamin Franklin, may I remind them that Benjamin Franklin, brilliant as he was, also put forward the turkey as candidate for the national bird. Just because someone is scientifically and otherwise gifted doesn't mean that everything he ever said was a good idea.
Frankly, I don't want to be known as a nation of turkeys.
Chatboard (0)