User:Sandhuman66/sandbox6
Context to the i.t.a.
[edit]The i.t.a. was developed in the United Kingdom in the post World War II period. At this time, the Ministry of Education had just been formed (1944) along with the Central Advisory Council for Education (England). These government bodies had been aware from the war of the poor levels of literacy in the population from passing through the school system,[1] and so had started to take systematic 4-year surveys of fifteen year-olds to measure their literacy rates. The initial surveys showed that 30% of children were being measured as backward, semi-literate or completely literate at age 15. The surveys were in line with literacy levels across the English speaking world but worst then countries which had phonetically regular orthographies which suggested the phonetic irregularity of the English language as a major cause of the failure. Influential thinkers such as Daniel Jones, Walter Skeat, George Bernard Shaw and Robert Bridges, had called for orthographic reform of the English language and a group now formed inside parliament led by Dr Montefiore Follick (Labour MP) and Sir James Pitman (Conservative MP), which campaigned for this change.
| Category | 1948 | 1952 | 1956 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superior | 9% | 9% | 9% |
| Average (+) | 34% | 39% | 43% |
| Average (-) | 27% | 22% | 23% |
| Backward | 24% | 25% | 21% |
| Semi-Literate | 5% | 4% | 4% |
| Illiterate | 1% | 1% | 0% |
| TOTAL | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Origins of the i.t.a.
[edit]Parliamentary agitation
[edit]In 1949, Dr. Montefiore Follick (MP) with the backing of Sir James Pitman (MP), attempted to advance the cause of English orthographic reform in the UK Parliament. Their first private members bill sought to form a committee for spelling reform,[2] but it was defeated on 2nd reading[3]. This was followed in 1953, by a more restrained second bill to trial a simplified spelling system just for the early teaching of children, this won the vote for a 2nd reading and passed through the committee stage[4], which embarrassed the Winston Churchill government. Pitman subsequently negotiated with the Education minister (Miss Florence Horsbrugh MP) and it was agreed that Follick would withdraw the bill, in return the minister publicly stated the government would not stand in the way of a trial by local education authorities & research institutes, indeed the minister wished this endeavour her best wishes. This conceded blessing was the green light for the trial to take place albeit it would need to be self-funded and self-organised, which allowed Pitman rather than the government to shape the course of events because Pitman was both wealthy, influential and had ownership of the Pitman Printing Press[5] so he possessed the resources for an orthographic experiment which the government then lacked.
Protagonists
[edit]Follick and Pitman had won their political campaign against the odds by logically & factually criticizing the status quo but only providing general principles on an alternative, this prevented specific counter criticism on the detail and is a well renowned political tactic[6]. The duo formed a formidable political partnership as they were from opposite ends of the political spectrum (Follick was a socialist Labour MP & Pitman a wealthy Conservative MP) yet they were united in a common cause against the leadership in both parties and the establishment in general. They believed that their goals, to help children and place their needs as a priority, was morally and ethically righteous. Their natures also complimented each other in that Follick was a firebrand and leader of the cause whilst Pitman was a negotiator and pragmatist, it is clear they forged a strong friendship through their campaigns.
The trial needed a simplified English orthography but there were two options. The first was a phonetically pure and completely simplified orthography with no consideration for the transition of the children back to t.o. This option was favoured by Follick who was committed to the ultimate prize of orthographic reform, his position was to maximise the improvement in children's literacy which would provide the overwhelming evidence needed to initiate spelling reform. Pitman reasoned that the centuries old goal of spelling reform would likely remain out of reach no matter what the findings of the trial, but children's literacy outcomes could still be significantly improved by learning to read with a simplified orthography, this would only work if the child could effortlessly transition back to t.o. A substantial level of simplification was still possible within this design constraint. Both Pitman and Follick produced draft orthographies and a hiatus set in during the later half of the '50s whilst this debate occurred.
Citations
[edit]- ^ Pitman 1966, p. 3, Chapter 1 - Backward Readers, "It was the need for remedial classes among the Army intake in the 1939-45 war that first drew public attention to the problem."
- ^ Follick 1949.
- ^ "Spelling Reform Bill Volume 462: defeated on 2nd reading on Friday 11 March 1949". Hansard. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
- ^ "Simplified Spelling Bill - Friday 27 February 1953 - Hansard - UK Parliament". hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2021-07-08.
- ^ "Bath (aka Pitman) Printing Press". Heritage Gateway. Retrieved 8 July 2021.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Pitman's speech at the inaugral Mont Follick lecture at Manchester University in 1964
- ^ Downing, John (1967). "How i.t.a. became the 'System of Simplified Spelling' to be used in the experiment". Evaluating the initial teaching alphabet. Cassell. pp. 68–75.
References
[edit]HANSARD
- "Spelling Reform Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 460. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. 1949-01-28.
BOOKS
- Downing, John; Latham, William (1967). Evaluating the Initial Teaching Alphabet, A study of the influence of English Orthography on Learning to Read & Write. London: Cassell.
- Pitman, Sir James; St. John, John (1969). Alphabets and Reading, The Initial Teaching Alphabet. London: Pitman. ISBN 0273433431.