[bluefish]

But fixing our spelling will increase literacy, lift many families out of poverty by their own efforts, and cause practically no inconvenience to the majority.

The problem Spellfix is that you have failed to convince me of your overall basic premise. To suggest that Sweden fixed their illiteracy b/c they changed their spelling is ludicrous. There is a lot more different between our two countries and cultures than the spelling system.

You haven't addressed my primary point:

Illiteracy is not a function of our spelling system. It is not a result of our spelling system being too difficult.

Illiteracy is a cultural problem. It is a function of children not willing to learn - the casue of which is highly complicated and contentious. Changing WHAT they learn doesn't change this underlying problem.

Again, you have failed to convince me of anything, simply because I recognize the problem is not nearly as simple as you have made it out to be. Chaning how we spell does not correct the fundamental problems afflicting those who will not (not can not) learn.

[Spellfix]

The problem Spellfix is that you have failed to convince me of your overall basic premise. To suggest that Sweden fixed their illiteracy b/c they changed their spelling is ludicrous. There is a lot more different between our two countries and cultures than the spelling system.

You haven't addressed my primary point:

Illiteracy is not a function of our spelling system. It is not a result of our spelling system being too difficult.

Illiteracy is a cultural problem. It is a function of children not willing to learn - the casue of which is highly complicated and contentious. Changing WHAT they learn doesn't change this underlying problem.

Again, you have failed to convince me of anything, simply because I recognize the problem is not nearly as simple as you have made it out to be. Chaning how we spell does not correct the fundamental problems afflicting those who will not (not can not) learn.

Besides the fact that English speaking countries all have high illiteracy and equally-advanced countries with self-consistent spelling have lower rates, there is the paper in Science.
, "Dyslexia, Cultural Diversity and Biological Unity", Issue 29 2001/1, Paulesu et al.

The researchers found many dyslexics with trouble reading in English Universities. In Italy they had trouble finding dyslexics at all at the university level. But by giving tests of reading speed and phonological processing they finally found some. They also did PET tests (positron Emission Tomography) which can see which parts of the brain are active while reading. Dyslexics use different parts of their brains than normal readers. They found from that Italy has the same percentage of dyslexia as England. But Italy has relatively few people who can't read. Dyslexics have trouble in English but not Italian. Some quotes:
"In languages with transparent or shallow orthography (e.g. Italian), the letters of the alphabet, alone or in combination, are in most cases uniquely mapped to each of the speech sounds occurring in the language. Learning to read in such languages is easier than in languages with deep orthography (E.g. English and French), where the mapping between letters, speech sounds, and whole words is ofter highly ambiguous. Adult skilled readers show a speed advantage in shallow orthographies."

...Dyslexia has a universal basis in the brain and can be characterized by the same neurocognitive deficit. Clearly the manifestation in reading behavior is less severe in shallow orthography." ... "Although Italian dyslexics read more accurately than French or English dyslexics, they showed the same degree of impairment on reading latencies and reading-related phonological tasks relative to their controls. We conclude that a phonological processing deficit is a universal problem in dyslexia and causes literacy problems in both shallow and deep orthographies. However, in languages with shallow orthography, such as Italian, the impact is less, and dyslexia has a more hidden existence. By contrast, deep orthographies such as English and French may aggravate the literacy impairments of otherwise mild cases of dyslexia."

The whole paper makes similar points.

Science is a peer reviewed journal, perhaps the most respected scientific publication in the world. This paper makes it very clear that a transparent orthography allows most dyslexics to read, albeit a little more slowly than others, while a murky orthography leads to lots of people with trouble reading. (Personally I prefer "A consistent spelling makes learning to read easier" but I guess that's how you have to write for Science.)

Publication of these views in Science means they are accepted by most of the researchers in the area. I cannot think of any stronger source.

If this does not convince you please tell me what strong source refutes this conclusion. Or what *would* convince you.

Of course I agree that motivation and discipline and a will to learn are important, and I'm not trying to be a wise guy here, or overwhelm the discussion with one strong card. But there *is* strong evidence that our inconsistent orthography is linked to our illiteracy rate, and it isn't just different rates in English/non-English countries, it's this Science paper too.