WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO EDUCATION Since 1895 ?

David - I took to "take the piss out of someone" to mean that if someone is full of piss and vinegar - sure of himself- a little cocky even-you're taking some of that away. I'm not sure about mickey - but that would work with rise too- you know, bringing them down a notch.
I don't think it has to do with making someone piss their pants in distress.
I'll tell you what the situation was - I was trying to teach this person about adjectives and I wrote on the board, "________is wearing a blue sweatshirt." and asked him to indicate which word was the adjective in that sentence.
He said, "Are you tryin' to take the piss out of me, Miss?" (they call all the women teachers Miss where I teach). I said, "No, why would you think that?" He said, "You're makin' fun of my shirt. I didn't want to wear this shirt today, but I didn't have anything else clean." He was a very meticulous young man who felt underdressed that day. I had no idea....
just so you know I wasn't intentionally emotionally abusing the poor guy.

LE - I know what you mean about bottle - isn't that called a "glottal stop"? I also hear spot pronounced as spo... and wall as wa..., so it varies. I think my view is skewed because I hang out with teachers who usually seem to enunciate very clearly - I feel like they put me to shame sometimes. But it's good, because it's made me more aware, and careful about my own pronunciation.
*I think the Geordie quote translated is: I warrant you think your clever. (I didn't look).

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Quote:

Cram rote into them at a young age, is what I say. They may not fully understand what it all means at that time, but they'll remember it all, sure enough, when they have cause to use it.
I include the multiplication of numbers in that line of thinking as well.

Again, I'm not really talking about what to memorize - I'm talking about teaching how to memorize - or use memory more effectively as a learning tool. Maybe one reason I feel that this is lacking in our current educational bag of tricks, is because I feel very weak in that area.
I think I know how to think - I'm not sure that I was taught that - but it's not an area I feel weak in. On the other hand, I know intellectually, I would feel more confident if I had some kind of repertoire of facts on subjects such as history or geography at my disposal. Even in terms of literature, which I loved studying and feel comfortable analyzing, I can't say I've memorized very much of it. It was never a requirement when I was in school. And I know it used to be.

I'm not totally disadvantaged, because I at least know how to use reference materials to find answers I need, but I admire those who are able to retain that information in their brain. And as I said, that's something that used to be required, so it was actively practiced and taught. Now it's not, and I think it's to the student's disadvantage, because developing that skill would only help in every subject area - especially science and math - which are the hotspots in American secondary education today.

As far as geography goes, there was very little of it taught in the highschool I worked at. Certainly there was not an entire course devoted to it. Interestingly enough though, whenever map work was included, in a history course for example, the kids seemed to really like it.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Setanta - I'm not advocating phonetic spelling- mostly because I think there could be no standard. Everyone, depending on where you live in the country, pronounces words differently. If we all spelled as we spoke, or pronounced words, it'd be very, very confusing. I was just telling you what a teacher I work with thinks is viable, especially for students who are just beginning to read or write- as a starting point.

No response of mine was predicated on anything you wrote. I was responding solely to David's nonsense. I almost never bother to read David's posts, because the bold-face and the colors are annoying and difficult to read. Additionally, my experience of the contents of David's posts suggests to me that he is a fanatic of the sort who is not ammenable to correction (such as gross historical misstatement which he makes, but which it is unlikely that he could be convinced that he is wrong). So, i only looked into this thread to see what the brouhaha was, and would have left without comment if he had not invited comment on the goofy way he spells.

I've not suggested that English orthography is without fault. I've already pointed out that Noah Webster made quite a few "corrections" in spelling, which are sensible. My point is that what David suggests is more sensible and efficient spelling is often not. I had to see his use of "cud" in print many, many times before i reached the point that i automatically understood it to mean "could"--it's not intuitive, and my response would be "oh yeah, that's how David misspells "could." What Webster did was to "rationalize" (in his own term) the spelling of words, and he accomplished this without obscuring the words or their pronunciation. David's claims about "phonetic" spelling are false, because the spellings he uses don't approximate the pronunciations of words, and ignore the many good reasons why there are different spellings in English.

David writes "rong" for wrong. That's well enough as it is, but what about wrung and rung? What does one do about wring and ring? David's orthography causes more problems that it "solves" (and i don't see that there are truly any "problems" which his orthographic method "solves").

Quote:

My only purpose was to point out the fact that I think David's reason for doing this is not that he can't spell conventionally - I think he can.

I have not stated or even suggested that he is incapable of using conventional orthography.

Quote:

I didn't comment on whether I thought his reasoning was ill-considered or not.

I did, and my comment is that i found his excuses ill-founded.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, his reasons are his reasons- and who am I to judge- as long as he's not teaching my child? I'd give you or anyone else on the forum the same consideration.

This seems to suggest that i've shown David a lack of consideration. I responded to his comment about his spelling, and would not have done had he not brought it up himself. On a purely rhetorical level, he has suggested that children in the future will appreciate the efforts of pioneers such as himself. Leaving aside the silly conceit, this implies that if he could, he would enforce his brand of orthography. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., also believed in a modified orthography (although i suspect that he would have found David's too extreme), and attempted to implement it by suasion while he was President. He failed miserably, and he eventually resigned himself to it.

David is, in my experience, a fanatic. People have pointed out to him time and again that his bold-faced colored text is difficult to read, never mind the goofy orthography. He makes no effort to accomodate. If he will ask for comment, than it is silly for him or anyone else to complain about the comment he gets, so long as it is not reflections on his person--and none of my comments have been reflections on his person--i know nothing of that, other than that i recall him making remarks which suggest that he is in late middle age, and perhaps retired.

I respect and like you, and so the detailed response. I don't believe i have anything to apologize for in responding to his own comment about his spelling.

0 Replies

LE's comments about regional dialects of English within England are all well taken. Within the United States, spoken versions of English can be almost incomprehensible from one region to another. Get a coastal South Carolinian speaking to a Downeaster from Maine, and you are guaranteed a passage of silly fun, but little in the way of mutual comprehension. I have lived much of my adult life in the American South, and yet there are people from South Carolina and Georgia whose speech is nearly incomprehensible to me. When i visited Maine, there were times when i just smiled and nodded, and pretended in understood.

If people did adopt the extreme standards by which David seeks to achieve phonetic spelling, the likelihood is that you'd have more confusing in reading English rather than less. Standard orthography makes it possible for us to understand one another, even when we might find it difficult or even impossible to understand one another's speech--those in the antipodes who speak "Strine" can communication in writing when other English speakers would be clueless as to what they were on about if they simply heard them speaking. (Strine refers to the thickest of Australian accents, and the word "Strine" is an nearly perfect phonetic spelling of the way those people pronounce the word "Australian.")

But the English language is the property of more people than simply those for whom it is the mother tongue. People who are native speakers of Hindi learn to speak English very fluently--but they don't even use the Roman alphabet, so there is no reason to assume that they would be able to understand what David calls phonetic spelling. There are, literally, more than a billion (nearer two billion) native speakers of Chinese on this planet, and their language doesn't even use an alphabet, never mind the Roman alphabet.

David fails to make his case, in my never humble opinion. Changing "through" to "thru" is not unreasonable, but using "n" for "and," or "r" for "are" is a prescription for confusion among the billions of people on this planet who use English on a daily basis.

0 Replies

Setanta - I was referring to OccomBill's post as to the possible reasons behind David's use of phonetic spelling.

In terms of apologies - I wouldn't begin to presume to suggest anyone owes an apology to anyone else. I only ask for apologies that I believe are owed to me- on occasion- when I feel comfortable enough with the person and justified in asking. I'm sorry if anything I said led you to believe I was implying that I believed you should do so. That wasn't my intention.

I wish you would stay around for this discussion. You do seem to be someone who was educated thoroughly in terms of history, and has retained a good bit of the information you learned. I'd be interested to know how the methods that were employed in your education might have been different than those employed in mine (not to rub it in - but I think you're a little older than I am Laughing

). Or am I assuming- maybe history is a passion of yours in which you are self-taught.

I don't know what to tell you in terms of your assessment of David. I disagree. I've found him to be a very intelligent, knowledgeable person and more than capable of interesting and reasonable discussion. Obviously our experiences have been different.
But I thank you in terms of your assessment of me. That was nice of you to say.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

LE - I know what you mean about bottle - isn't that called a "glottal stop"? I also hear spot pronounced as spo... and wall as wa..., so it varies.
I think I did call it a glottal stop, Aiden. As far as the words that end in L are concerned, you're right, in that quite a few are shortened to the point of almost losing the L sound. It's more of a closed sound than "wa" (wall) though, more a woa sound, really, but with a very slight hint of an L there somewhere. Again, hard to put into writing.

*I think the Geordie quote translated is: I warrant you think your clever. (I didn't look).
Yes! Not exactly word for word, but you're basically correct.

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Quote:
Cram rote into them at a young age, is what I say. They may not fully understand what it all means at that time, but they'll remember it all, sure enough, when they have cause to use it.
I include the multiplication of numbers in that line of thinking as well.

Again, I'm not really talking about what to memorize - I'm talking about teaching how to memorize - or use memory more effectively as a learning tool. Maybe one reason I feel that this is lacking in our current educational bag of tricks, is because I feel very weak in that area.

It must be very hard, trying to teach this stuff, Aiden. All I remember is that a fair portion of my early school years was spent repeating things in almost a sing song, parrot fashion. The explanation as to why it was so important that we should learn this stuff was not really forthcoming until later on in my schooling. "I before E except after C"....or "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" (colours of the rainbow).....singing endless hours of "Once two is two, two two's are four, three two's are six"....right up to the twelve times table. There's no doubt about it, I quite enjoyed joining in with all of this at the time, and it has certainly lodged all this stuff firmly in my brain, even though I hadn't a clue who this bloke "Richard of York" WAS at the time.

I think I know how to think - I'm not sure that I was taught that - but it's not an area I feel weak in. On the other hand, I know intellectually, I would feel more confident if I had some kind of repertoire of facts on subjects such as history or geography at my disposal. Even in terms of literature, which I loved studying and feel comfortable analyzing, I can't say I've memorized very much of it. It was never a requirement when I was in school. And I know it used to be.
]Aiden, why not try contacting one or two "old fashioned" retired teachers in your area, who taught that stuff, day in and day out. You may learn quite a few of the basics of how it was done, whilst possibly making a new friend or two.

I'm not totally disadvantaged, because I at least know how to use reference materials to find answers I need, but I admire those who are able to retain that information in their brain. And as I said, that's something that used to be required, so it was actively practiced and taught. Now it's not, and I think it's to the student's disadvantage, because developing that skill would only help in every subject area - especially science and math - which are the hotspots in American secondary education today.
]I agree. All this dissecting and analyzing is brilliant, but that part of learning should wait until the basic foundations are put in place, IMO.

0 Replies

There is an interesting note on the use of Strine. I have read (and cannot vouch for the truth of) that when Mad Max was prepared for release in the rest of the English-speaking world, the dialog for the people other than Mel Gibson (an American) had to be dubbed, because the Strine they spoke in the original version would have been incomprehensible for other English-speakers.

0 Replies

I can believe that, Set.

It's funny, but Australians and Londoners are always being mistaken for one another, primarily by Americans.
To me, there is a distinct difference between the two accents, but there must obviously be quite a few similarities, for so many cases of mistaken identity to take place.

(apologies by the way, for my gawd awful blue writing in previous posts. I was just trying to see if I could actually do it. A sort of training session, if you like. It won't happen again)

0 Replies

You're forgiven, LE . . . don't let it happen again.

There was a gentleman from South Africa whom i once knew, and i mistook his accent for Australian--not once, but twice! The first time i asked if he weren't Australian, he simply informed me that he was South African, and that he had met others who mistook his accent for Australian. The second time i encountered him (months later) and stupidly asked again if he weren't Australian, he was gracious, but obviously peeved. I don't blame him--he remembered me, i had failed to remember having met him before.

0 Replies

Set, in a way, I think this all boils down to the fact that we spend too much time in our own particular little back gardens (or yards, as you would say).
I remember, quite distinctly, the very first argument/discussion about this business of differing accents. I was about eight years old, and a new kid arrived at our school. He was from the North of England, and had yet to find his place in the pecking order within our group of boys.
On the very first day, he started to mock us because we pronounced "Path" as "Parth"(some even said Parf).

A heated argument ensued, as to who was right and who was wrong. Basically, Northerners are far more phonetic and accurate when it comes to this particular sound ( I rhyme grass with arse ) and so he should have won the argument, logically.
However, there were twenty or so in our group, and he was on his own.
In a short space of time, he was rhyming grass with arse like the rest of us.

We all need to get out and about a bit more, methinks.

0 Replies

A very good point, LE, and one i thought of, but refrained from making in the context of this argument.

Basically, David's belief that his version of orthography is phonetic is a glaring example of him displaying his parochialism. It assumes that all people will pronounce words as he does, or at least that they ought.

0 Replies

Not only his parochialism, but his notion of American triumphalism. David amusingly conflates his crazy ideas about phonetic spelling with his sense of what this country is all about: guns and ugly spelling.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Quote:
Cram rote into them at a young age,
is what I say. They may not fully understand what it all means at that time,
but they'll remember it all, sure enough, when they have cause to use it.

During most of my life,
I failed to turn my attention to children.

There did not appear to be a reason
to do otherwise, in the absence of
professional contact with them
( i.e., except when thay were involved in litigation;
[ usually personal injury litigation] )
tho I never made a conscious decision
to ignore them, as a group.

When I was their age,
thay were just other people by whom
I was surrounded, and by whom
I was not particularly impressed.

However, in the later part of my life,
I 've found that it can be fun
to be kind to children,
and to endeavor to make them happy
( e.g., slip one a $50 bill; thay seem to like that ).

So, to parafrase your dictum ( liberally )
I 'd offer:
" Cram CASH into them at a young age,
is what I say.
They may not fully understand what it all means at that time,
but they'll remember it all, sure enough, when they have cause to use it. "

( Nothing that I have said is intended to
deny the value of information which can be
offered to them, for future use. )

David

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

Not only his parochialism, but his notion of American triumphalism.
David amusingly conflates his crazy ideas about phonetic spelling
with his sense of what this country is all about: guns and ugly spelling.

U 'd not find fonetic spelling to be ugly,
if u 'd been raised with it.
That reminds me of how I feel
about the metric system
( ugly, but BETTER, since it is based upon 10 )

Almost ALL
of English words r already fonetic.
There r only a relative few
that r atavistic throwbacks.

After a period of transition,
subsequent generations will accept
fonetic spelling as naturally as breathing;
witness the experience of Spanish children.

Personal possession of guns
is filosofically pivotal to what kind
of society we will have:
one in which personal defense
is dependent upon the collective
( witness Kitty Genovese in NYC
and Reginald Denny in L.A. ),
or a society wherein the INDIVIDUAL citizen
retains this power in himself,
disdaining to confide it to the collective.
Its a question of retaining personal pride
and autonomy, or
of each citizen being DOCILE,
as tho trapped within infancy
from the cradle to the grave.

I support the Founders' filosofy in this matter,
which pervaded America until the early 1900s.
David

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Quote:

It must be very hard, trying to teach this stuff, Aiden. All I remember is that a fair portion of my early school years was spent repeating things in almost a sing song, parrot fashion. The explanation as to why it was so important that we should learn this stuff was not really forthcoming until later on in my schooling. "I before E except after C"....or "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" (colours of the rainbow).....singing endless hours of "Once two is two, two two's are four, three two's are six"....right up to the twelve times table. There's no doubt about it, I quite enjoyed joining in with all of this at the time, and it has certainly lodged all this stuff firmly in my brain, even though I hadn't a clue who this bloke "Richard of York" WAS at the time.

Yeah, it is hard, especially when you're trying to help adult men, who are ultra sensitive about the fact that they haven't yet been able to learn to read, and whose self-esteem is affected by that and other factors to the point where if you mention the color of their shirt- they think you are "taking the piss out of them".
I do appreciate your suggestions, except that I don't think songs are the way to go with the population I work with. There are methods that are commonly employed - and the motivation and commitment are usually much greater in adult students than in children, so I do tend to see quicker results which is gratifying.

I do, however, hope that some of that singing and memorization is going on in the nursery and primary grades, so that we can reduce the number of those who get all the way through school without having learned to read. Because the sad fact is that about sixteen percent of the adult population in this country (the UK) are functionally illiterate. I'm not sure what the percentage is in the US, as I didn't teach straight literacy there - but it's probably not a very different scenario.

Also, it's really nice of you to worry about me making friends. Luckily, I haven't had any problem with that here in England. I find British people lovely- to work and socialize with and just be around in general. I'll miss them when I go back to the states. (Did you read what Gwynneth Paltrow said about the difference between Brits and Americans? I honestly can't disagree with anything she said).

0 Replies

Sorry Aiden, on two points, really.

Firstly, I didn't mean to imply that you were in need of friends, just that it could make you a couple more, maybe.
Secondly, I'd totally missed the fact that you were teaching young adults. Ooops!

I haven't read the Gwyneth Paltrow article. I'll have to google it and have a look to see what she thinks of us.
She was taking a break from filming once, in a large staff and student canteen of a University.
I was there on a training course, and saw her get angry with her minders for trying to clear a large table so that she could sit down and eat in private.
She made a point of apologising to the young students, and spent the rest of her break laughing and joking with them.

She seemed to be the exact opposite of so many present day"celebrities", who for some strange reason, think that they are superior beings.

Good old Gwyn.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

A very good point, LE, and one i thought of, but refrained from making in the context of this argument.

Basically, David's belief that his version of orthography is phonetic is a glaring example of him displaying his parochialism. It assumes that all people will pronounce words as he does, or at least that they ought.

Yes.
I think thay WILL.
Yes; I think thay ought.
David

0 Replies

I do trust that you're not being serious, David.

0 Replies

I do not for a moment doubt that he is being serious--and that he has completely missed the point about parochialism. D'Art was right about the "triumphalism," as well, or so it seems.

0 Replies

Quote:

Firstly, I didn't mean to imply that you were in need of friends, just that it could make you a couple more, maybe.

I was just joking with you. But I did want to express how very welcoming and friendly I've found British people to be. Truly- you'd think that it'd be difficult being an American living abroad at this point in time, but I haven't found it to be difficult at all, and I think it is because British people are lovely- polite, interested, warm and accepting.

Quote:

Secondly, I'd totally missed the fact that you were teaching young adults. Ooops!

That's okay - how would you have known?

I do have several friends here who are retired English teachers - and they retired early, feeling fairly despairing about the whole situation. It's the same in the states. The majority of newly graduating education majors quit the profession within five years.

Something definitely needs to change.Noone- not the student, teachers or parents -are feeling that public education is successful or fulfilling for anybody.

0 Replies

Quote Aidan

Because the sad fact is that about sixteen percent of the adult population in this country (the UK) are functionally illiterate. I'm not sure what the percentage is in the US....

It's a bit higher here, the 20 - 25% range is what I see quoted most often. I've seen as high as 55 - 60% as a national average, but I find that hard to believe....23% sounds about right, that is if anything about adult illiteracy can be called right.

Mississippi, is often at the bottom....or top depending on who is making the list...of every "bad" statistic imaginable. If anyone desires to know the worst about America...begin there.

----

Back to the "L" thing for a sec....{in my dialect..region} I do know people that say Sal-mon, but most say Samon. Many pronounce the L in calm, palm, and balm...but never in could, would, or should, if you did it would sound like the actors name...Elliot Gould.

Davids use of Cud for Could, would make more sense as Cood...in keeping with the long O, and there is no longer any confusion with Cud, an already established word. But with that logic, would becomes wood, which brings us back to square one.

How much wood wood a woodchuck chuck,
If a woodchuck cood chuck wood
A woodchuck wood chuck as much wood
as a woodchuck cood chuck if a wood chuck cood chuck wood

0 Replies

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO EDUCATION Since 1895 ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know