I cannot understand why Marc Lambert's essay on at what point we should teach literacy skills in the infant classroom does not take as much as a sideways glance at our chaotic spelling system (Essay of the week, April 1).
This persistent failure within academia to do so smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Certainly, timing is important but you can't ignore the nuts and bolts of English orthography. A root-and-branch overhaul is long overdue. That it has not happened is due mainly to a lack of political will. (Watch the politicians' eyes glaze over at the very mention of spelling reform. It's much more comfortable to throw money at it.)
It is only when we have passed the Janet and John stage that we start to realise we have been duped and begin to lose interest in the written word, marking the beginning of a downward spiral ending in alienation.
It was John Steinbeck who said: "Learning to read is perhaps the greatest single effort the human undertakes, and he must do it as a child." So why do we watch them floundering?
George B Anderson
Dunfermline
Marc Lambert writes an interesting essay. I take issue with his first third, which is extremely negative and quite often accusatory. We traditionalists were not the ones who said literacy and grammar were bad 30 years ago, and when Lambert gets round to telling us what ought to be happening we find that we are in fact doing what he is suggesting under different headings.
I observe from taking a three and a four-year-old to school every day that their ability to articulate with their peers is sometimes advanced by comparison. They are encouraged to experiment with alphabet and writing but not coerced. Above all, they are talked to by adults.
Is this the preparation alongside creative playing which Lambert says is happening so usefully in Scandinavia?
Neil McKie
Dingwall
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article