According to The Age online, "In the unit ... students are asked to discuss issues associated with the growing practice of text messaging, develop a glossary of SMS (Short Messaging Service) abbreviations and translate and write SMS texts."
It's a cheap and easy headline for Bishop: "Schools abandon English for text messaging!!!" and almost painfully predictable. But typically, I suspect there has been little, if any examination of what the subject purports to teach, or even an attempt to find out more about it. After her ridiculously shrill denunciation of school boards setting curriculum "straight from Chairman Mao" (which has since been retracted), there is perhaps no great surprise about this.
Quoth she:
"It is unacceptable for students in English classes to be learning SMS, which is a travesty of English, studying television chat shows such as Jerry Springer, and other topics that are a distraction from their need to learn communications skills that will support them in a job and in further education and training"
To be honest, Bishop's response is barely worth consideration given the ideology so blatantly behind it, but it has made me consider my own initial, almost pavlovian, response when I heard that schools kids were "learning SMS" in their English classes. I got all huffy and thought, "how dare they do such a thing". But then I stopped for a moment, put on my I-refuse-to-be-an-areshole hat and gave it a bit of thought like the rational human being that I like to think I am and to be honest, I think it is a perfectly acceptable thing for these kids to study.
First of all, let's just consider exactly who is being "taught" here. The kids this is aimed at are years 8 through 10, in other words, 13 - 16 year-olds. Australia has one of the highest rates of mobile phone usage in the world and the figures of use in that age bracket are widely known to be enormous. These kids don't need to be taught how to use SMS - they freakin invented the language! I'm tipping your average 15 year-old is far more adept at texting and use of SMS abbreviation than, let's say, Julie Bishop.
What exactly is being taught? You can have a look for yourself if you're interested (PDF), but there are a number of different facets. Essentially, the subject is designed to break down the construction of SMS 'language' and examine how it is used, how it reflects 'plain English' and how it has developed, seeking to give students a deeper understanding of how language is built and is affected by those who use it and the circumstances in which it is found.
Language is a constantly evolving part of human life. SMS abbreviation is simply a further evolution in a time of extraordinarily rapid technological change. Anyone who tries to argue that somehow SMS is "a travesty of English" has not really thought about it very hard.
The English language comes in all manner of forms: scientific, Shakespearean, management, sports-speak, all of which have developed out of their own particular circumstances. SMS is no less valid simply because Julie Bishop doesn't understand it herself.
I'm not suggesting that it's acceptable for an English essay to be written in TXT (unless it's been specifically requested), but it is arguably the most dynamic dialect in the English language at present and therefore is worthy of examination, if for no other reason than to make it explicit as to why it's use outside SMSing is innapropriate. By including it as part of formal English classes, it both recognises and validates the part these kids play in the evolution of the English language. Just because they're kids, doesn't mean they haven't had a (significant) hand in the most dramatic changes to the language seen in a considerable time.
I guess we can just chalk this up to yet another ideologically driven political stunt designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator with little if any intention of addressing the relevant issues at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment