The Washington herald., 1912-04-28
THE Iosr ARr OF spELI1Ne.
OLD spelling Books. Now Discarded
HAD value ThrouEh Good sy.tem.

l.
Old Spelling Books, New Discarded
Had vaIue ThrouEh Good system.
The rising and even the risen genera,
tons cannot spell. says Mary Eleanor
Roberts, in Lfppincott's. Our schoo
children cannot SPELL our college grad
yates cannot spell The dean Of a post.
4 graduR.s department OF one Of our uni
versities complained a few years age
that the men who came before him tc
qualify TO study a profession could moi
SPELL The trustees Of one Of our large
institutions. which by its charter re-
quires all its1 1ofhcers to possess the de-
gree OF bachelor % arts (even that OF
B, s. not being accepted find that the
aforesaid B. AS, when confronted by
the severe mental effort OF writing
necessary reports, cannot spell. So In
surmountable is the dificulty that the
advocates of simpllfied spelling join
forces with the advertisers in search Of
a Trademark, and both Of them affront
our eyes and insult our intelligence with
their horrfd makeshifts.
The fault cannot be entirely that Of
the English language. Fifty years ago
the case was different. as is proved by
the survivors from that primitive
period, Your grandmother-if you are
lucky enough TO have one-may not
know the difference between the sub
jective and the objective. but she can
spell. Let us see II we can md the rea-
son.
GRANDMOTHER, when she was a girl,
may have lived in the country II so,
she went to spelling-bees. II she was
educated in city schools. she took part
in monthly spelling contests, in which
team contended against team. class
against class, the teachers joining in
the game. In those benighted days,
even the boarders in summer hotels
played spelling games, and are said to
have enjoyed them. There was system
attic drill in what was recognized as a
difficult and valuable art.
In the memory OF some Of US who are
not graudmothers. spelling was taught
by a graduated system beginning with
the phonetic value Of the letters. The
spelling books-we recognize II now
were designed to make learning easy.
Long lists Of words OF similar sound
but with different initial letters were
given. and possibly with one or two ex-
ceptions or variations sandwiched In.
The ear and the mind. from frequent re-
petition, grew accustomed to a certain
combination, and. once learned. it was
never forgotten.
To-day take up the spelling book OF a
child just out of the kindergarten and
attempt to hear him his lesson. What
do I see? A list Of Things TO Use on
the Table" He spells bread" salt"
and plates correctly, and sticks at
knives" He goes back. studies II
again. and again sticks al "knives."
Why should knives be spell as 1t is? He
cannot understand. The fact that II is
something to use on the table does not
help him. I turn 10 the preface OF the
book to see IL I can find what Rosetti
would call the fundamental brainwork"
underlying the system, and learn that
spelling, forsooth, should be taught by
.''associatiOn of ideaa." Now spelling Is
not an association OF ideas. 1t is an
association OF sounds. II you teach 1t by
association OF the idea OF sounds, well
and good. Why should the child be
robbed OF the help which association Of
sounds would give him? Why should
each word be made an exception and
have to be learned by a distinct mental
Why are the theories of Pes
talozzi and Froebel thus clumsily mis-
applied!
The trainers of the old-fashioned mem
ory systems depended on the association
OF ideas. and justly so, for they taught
lists OF unrelated words. They would
have been the last to depend on It for
the teaching Of English spelling They |
would have been the first to claim the |
help of the linked chain OF similar
sounds.
Let US thank our lucky stars that We |
were educated before there was an effort |
TO make learning picturesque. Those OF /
US who wept over Reading without |
Tears have reaped one advantage-we |
can at least write a letter without look
Ing in the dictionary.