Improving education - in the long run

[Mashabell]

I am a mother and grandmother, with children who did and are doing fine. But I used to teach some that had severe problems with reading and writing. Since having to stop teaching on health grounds in 1995, I have been researching the problem and found that all English-speaking countries have more children and adults with such difficulties than countries that have better spelling systems.

If u think about how we use letters (And - any, apron, father or On - once, only, other), it?s really not difficult to understand why many English-speaking children have trouble learning to read, and even more learning to spell words like ?bed ? said, head, friend?.

So while I realise that most of u are naturally enough interested mainly just in how to help your own children, I would like as many people as possible to think about making things better for all children in the long run. I realise that English spelling won?t be improved overnight, although we really would not have so many children with reading and writing problems if ?said, head? and ?friend? were spelt ?sed, hed, frend?.

Last November I started to explain at blogspot.com, as clearly as I can manage, how current English spelling conventions make the lives of children who are not super-bright and free all learning difficulties much harder than need be. Some of u might like to look at it.

But mainly I would just like to know how u feel about the idea of improving English spelling.

they've tried that before though. wasn't it the international phonetic alphabet or something? total disaster.

English is the way it is, bloody hard work to learn but it's beautiful, all the etymology... it's so rich in history.

My personal view, as someone who was taught English as a foreign language and in later life, is that it is perfectly possible to learn this beautiful language with relative ease - if I could do it and make very few spelling mistakes, then anyone can!

It's all down to "education, education, education". Italian (my native language), is easy phonetically but I am afraid that the poorly educated in our society still cannot spell/make loads of mistakes.

So I don't think that making the language slightly easier to spell would solve the basic lack of education tbh.
Sorry to be so blunt and probably not what you wanted to hear!

My first thought is that your post would be easier to read if you had written "you" instead of "u" throughout it. For someone concerned about spelling to use text-speak doesn't really convince me that you have thought through your argument very carefully. If pronounced phonetically, "u" does not come anywhere close to "you" or even "yoo".

I believe it is true that English-speaking countries have a higher level of diagnosis of dyslexia, but it is not clear (from anything I have seen at any rate) whether that genuinely means more children have probelems with the language, or is down to diagnosis rates.

I find it strange that whilst in most other counties they wait until their children's brains are ready for the challenge of learning to read and spell, the British with it's phonically inconsistent language, starts it's children off at age four. Maybe, as it's so hard, we believe have no time to waste!!

Mathsmadmummy,
What they tried before was i.t.a. (Initial Teaching Alphabet) which I happened to discuss on my latest blog on englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com It was used to avoid spelling reform and was disastrous for the weakest pupils.

Emy,
As someone who taught English and foreign languages to both native and non-native speakers, I can assure u that u need to be brighter to learn to read and write English than u need to be for other alphabetic languages. U get some literacy failure in other languages too, but a much smaller percentage than in English.

The English language is exceptionally simple, because lowly folk simplified its grammar during the 3 centuries of Norman French rule, when the upper classes stopped speaking it. (U can learn more about it on the History page at www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk).

English spelling was last improved during the English Civil War of 1642-9, when lots of words were shorn of surplus letters, such as ?inne olde shoppe?. If we just finished that job, we could already make many children?s lives more successful, e.g. hav ? save, giv ? drive, send ? frend, Wensday.

AmuminScotland,
I am using ?u? for ?you? on the model of I, but the shock of the new upsets quite a few people on first seeing it. U is pronounced like you in many words: use, unit, union, tube, cube... Children would certainly find reading and writing u instead of you much easier.

Jackstarbright,
The reason why we start teaching our children to read and write much earlier than in other countries is indeed because ours have so much more to learn. The European average for basic literacy learning is 1 year. In Finnish it?s just 6 months. Average English-speaking children take at least 3 years. Finnish has 38 sounds and uses just 38 spellings, which all have just one sound, for them. English has 44 sounds but uses 185 spellings, 69 of which have more than one sound (great, treat, threat; petty, pretty; won, woman, women...).

That?s why English-speaking children have to start learning to read and write early, but the early start is problematic for children who mature more slowly, i.e. boys. It explains why boys generally do worse in English than English.
My blogs deal with all of those points.

Mashabell thanks for your post. I will take a look at your blog. Out of interest - have you looked into literacy rates for other English speaking countries? Many don't start formal education until later than us - does this have a positive or negative impact on eventual literacy rates?

I have just had a look at Masha's Blog. Definitely worth a read - thanks Masha!

English is probably doing this just fine all by itself if it's necessary. Why hasten the evolution of a language?

Jackstarbright
All English-speaking countries have much the same rate of functional illiteracy of roughly 20%. Only Canada does slightly better (18%), but it?s not entirely English-speaking.

Frankinnuts
I am not suggesting changing the language, just improving its spelling - to make learning to read and write easier.

Some of u might find my piece in today?s Independent of interest:
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/masha-bell-a-longstanding-but-curable-p roblem-with-our-education-system-1937458.html

A long-standing but curable problem with our education system

Er, changing the spelling is changing the language. It is giving precedence to spoken forms and transcribing them into the written language. It's well documented that spoken English differs from written - this is true in many languages. I think to say that changing the spelling of words will simplify the language is a very narrow view to take and destroys linguistic clues about word origin. These phonetic imperfections are also handles to other languages.

Yes, it might make it difficult to learn to read and write but even as a teacher I'd take spelling mistakes any day! Most people do pick up the correct spellings as they go through life.

IMO a lot of problems stem from reading and writing being introduced too early, insufficient groundwork and inadequate grammar teaching. Plus there's a lot to be said for spelling tests!

The argument that children have more to learn is completely knocked on the head by bilingual education, or those who speak a dialect but learn to read and write a standard version. There is not more to learn, it's not being taught very efectively. We are making huge strides in literacy education but simplifying spelling shouldn't be a forced one. Languages evolve, English may 'correct' its spellings to simpler ones over time but forcing that process is like genetically engineering the language.

Masha - Congratulations on the article. You make a good points re: the size of recent education spend failing to deal with illiteracy levels.

Have you any costs estimates for your proposals? It appears, to me, a huge task. Teacher re-training - and other adults(?) Re-printing books?

Regarding other English speaking countries and later formal education start dates - if their literacy levels are the same as ours despite them starting later, then surely we could delay here too?

My dd is at a selective private school and her teacher has said that while the children's decoding and spelling are very advanced, their comprehension skills and creative writing skills require significant support in years 3-6. My friends dd, in a US school, spent her early years (age 5-7) building up story telling and listening skills and, has only recently moved onto intensive reading and spelling. Even if they both end up the with similar literacy levels as adults - the US model just seems more fun when they are little and less likely to put them off education!!

FWIW, I do think you make a valid point but just cannot bear to think of the language/spelling being changed. it's beautiful in all its variation.

there are so many problems with British education, they need to be fixed first.

jackstarbright, just wondering is your name inspired by the dyslexia treatment thing called starbright?

MMM My nickname is from an Anthony Horowitz character in the Alex Rider books. I was reading it to ds when I needed a name change!!

Masha I found your blog very interesting. I think your research and your ideas are fascinating. Maybe you could also post a link in the primary education section on here.

The changes in written Swedish since the 18th century means that hardly anyone can read literature older than the 19th century without previous training and/or serious difficulties. Even late 19th century literature is quite difficult to read except for people specially trained- which means hardly anybody reads it.

Compare the situation with that in England, where teens can enjoy Jane Austen. I don't think we want to give this up. If we changed the spelling drastically, that would be all literature pre-the changeover just gone or having to be re-translated.

My suggestions to add to this debate are:-

1 Speech must be developed before children begin to read. I'm not just talking about words either, but a love of expression & sharing as well. I believe that children should be talking in small groups from a very early age (with or without an adult)

2 Singing- there is a reason we have nursery rhymes. That is because they are rhythmic & can be said and sung with a great deal of expression. I think many nurseries include a good amount of singing, but this is often lost once the national curriculum takes over. I boring hymn each day in assembly is nowhere near enough & it needs to be part of the learning process.

3 Phonics- I taught my DD phonics before she started school using a combination of letterland & 'teach your child to read with CAT'. She then spent her first year at school learning 'key words' which I think hindered because many followed no set rules. At 7, she has caught up (reading age of 12) and loves language in all its forms. Because she learn't the rules first I believe!

4 Music- teaching ocarina or recorder helps their listening skills & if taught notation at the same time their reading skills are improved dramatically. I cannot believe how many 8 year olds I know who still struggle with the concept of left to right, but after a few weeks of reading/playing music it all makes sense to them!

I am a mum of three and a mature student researching education studies. I feel that abstract concepts such as spelling should revert to the traditional method of rote learning , especially at primary level. I understand this will not suit all - nothing does. However, your examples perfectly illustrate the fact that there is no logic to our alphabet.

I work in a secondary school and can tell you that primary education and foundation learning is crucial. It is extremely difficult to teach these concepts at secondary level due to the changing function of the brain.

Jakcstarbright,
I am pleased u enjoyed my blog, but I don?t know how to post the link in primary education which u suggested.
Besides, primary teachers are mostly so overworked and stressed-out nowadays that they tend to be interested only in what helps them cope here and now. Getting them interested in making things better in the long run is asking for more than most can deal with.

Cory,
It may be true that,
?If we changed the spelling drastically, that would be all literature pre-the changeover just gone or having to be re-translated.?
But we don?t need drastic change ? just amending clearly stupid spellings would help young children enormously with learning to read and write, such as ?have, give, friend? to ?hav, giv, frend? - to differentiate them from ?save, drive, fiend?.
Most of what we read is only a few years old. During my research into the development of English spelling I had to read a lot of older texts. The 16th century ones had very different spellings and often different ones for an identical word on the same page. I was amazed how easily I managed to get used to them.
Anyone who became an avid reader in improved English spelling, would have little trouble coping with older texts too. During the experimentation with i.t.a. (which I have explained in a recent blog on englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com) the best readers had least trouble switching from i.t.a. to normal spelling. And only the best readers would want to read old texts.
But improvements to English spelling would mean that we get far more good readers than we have now. In Finland u get only a tiny fraction of adults with literacy problems, hugely less than the 21% in the UK. I believe in Sweden it?s 8 %. Swedish spelling is not as simple as Finnish, but much better than English.

Pugsandseals
I agree about the paramount importance of speech, but better spellings help children with speech development too, unlike horrors like ?plough, through, rough, cough, though? or ?so to do? or ?only, once, other?.
Such spellings show u that learning to read and write English involves much more than just phonics, but any child who is given as much help as u clearly give yours, will cope with it all.
If we improved English spelling, even children whose parents can?t help them much, would have better educational prospects.

Nelleh
Beyond a very basic level, learning to spell English is simply rote-learning.
Children begin with the regular patterns (bed, fed, led) and then spend the rest of their schooldays learning when to break them (make, cake, bake ? break, ache; bed, bend, send ? said, head, friend, Wednesday).

Looked at objectively, this is simply pointless educational water-treading. Around 1 in 2 manage to learn to read and write remarkably well, despite all the impediments. They manage to get at least a C grade in English at GCSE.
The rest find it very difficult and the bottom 20% so impossible that they don?t learn much of anything during the whole of their 11 years at school. Being able to read and write is essential for other learning. Make that easy, and u improve children?s educational prospects. Keep it as hard as in English now, and u keep getting lots of failure.

This really is not rocket science. An irregular spelling system like the English one makes learning to read and write much harder than need be. Doing nothing about it entails huge educational, social and economic costs.

Doesn't Finnish have 14 cases? Whereas we don't have any. To my mind Finnish would be harder to learn than English!

A lot of people have tried to reform English spelling (didn't Bernard Shaw have a go?) but I think too many people, having learnt the language, like it the way it is.

I would rather put the money into tutoring struggling children than reprinting everything.

Peabody,
Finnish grammar is more complex, but Finnish children cope with it just as easily as ours do with nearly 200 irregular verbs (e.g. do ? did ? done). To native speakers grammar is never a problem, only to foreigners. A bad spelling system makes learning to read and write harder for all.

As for reprinting costs, we read mostly newly bought books. Even libraries replace theirs regularly. So reprinting is not a big issue, and with the sort of modest changes I am suggesting, not at all. And ebooks will allow people to switch between new and old, if they wish.

Remedial tuition helps, but incurs costs year after year, and it can?t reduce learning time, or the demotivation which the long struggle with English literacy produces in many children, with many ending up hating all forms of reading and learning.

The main obstacle to reform is that it really has be brought about by those who can cope with the current system for the benefit of those who can?t - putting themselves out a bit for the sake of the less fortunate.

But altruism tends to benefit the giver too.
Nobody likes having to pay high taxes. Remedial education costs tax money, as does lack of literacy and unemployability, and the many problems which stem from that. Having more well-educated people is better for everyone. Britain has proportionately far more people in jail than any other European country. The US locks up even more. How much is that due to the rottenness of English spelling?

And even for people who can spell quite well, it?s distracting when the spellchecker underlines a word because u picked the wrong -ent or ?ant, or doubled a letter when u shouldn?t hav (ommitted) or failed to double ?correctly? (comitted). Those hassles are totally unnecessary.

"To native speakers grammar is never a problem, only to foreigners."

Ahem...

Should of, would of?! The number of people who say 'doned' instead of did? 'It's the first time I see' and not the first time I've seen? Those are pretty hideous mistakes made by native speakers on a regular basis.

I also find it really sad that you think only the best readers will want to read old texts. We'll lose a huge amount of wordplay too. And what about words that will still never follow any rules?

A huge number of people would have to relearn spellings too. Please correct my version of the post using 'simplified spelling' because I'm pretty sure we'll have different views on how things 'should' be spelt.

We don't need to change things - we can either become more tolerant of bad or 'creative' spelling or we can improve teaching. I don't think we had this problem when spelling was taught differently in school.

........................

"To nativ speekers grammar is never a problem, only to forunners."

Ahem...

Shood of, wood of?! The number of peeple who say 'doned' insted of did? Those r pritty hideeus mistakes made by nativ speekers on a regular baysiss.

I also find it reelly sad that u think only the best reeders will want to reed old texts. We'll loose a huge amount of wordplay too. And wat abowt words that will still never follow any rools?

A hewge number of peeple woold hav to relurn spellings too.

We don't need to chaynge things - we can iyther becum moor tolerunt of bad or 'creativ' spelling or we can improov teeching. I don't think we had this problem wen spelling was tort diffrently in skool.

..................

There are several words in there which have different meanings in their new 'simplified' spelling. Surely that's going to create other problems? But you know what? If you'd written that post with alternative spellings I would have understood you and I wouldn't have criticised you because in the wider world there are jobs where spelling matters, so you'll learn what you need to, and jobs where it doesn't as long as you can make yourself understood. Learners are no longer given the tools to deduce the meaning of a word from its context, we don't learn the irregular verbs by rote and overall less emphasis is placed on reading/written production because we have new, exciting, interactive methods.