OK. What results? Like I said, that article was six years ago, and I'm not seeing any results from it. Blaming a little bad English (mistakes) in ads on "text speak" (which is a sort of shorthand in a way) being accepted on papers in school seems a stretch, don't you think?
Not at all.
The people who have gone through this broken system of education, never knowing how to communicate properly, are now the ones being hired to write these ads, and the mistakes, which they are being paid money not to make, are being shown to very wide audiences. Guess where they learned (or didn't learn, as the case may be) to communicate in that fashion?
What you're really doing is looking at some things that have bad English, then looking at something completely unrelated that you don't like from the education system some time ago and blaming that. It seems to me that both of the English mistakes in ads that have been mentioned are the result of one simple fact: humans are fallible and make mistakes occasionally. Even with an extreme reviewing and editing process, some errors are liable to get through eventually.
What you're doing is making assumptions because you appear to think that you know everything.
These are not "occasional" mistakes - they do very much appear to have risen in tandem with falling standards in British education. You appear to think that I'm arguing that humans are infallible and do not make mistakes occasionally, but that is not the case - what I'm saying is that it's a bit sad that people who are being paid large sums to write copy in a professional capacity, are making themselves look foolish by frequently writing poorly in a VERY public fashion. There's a big difference.
I strongly suggest that you read the book "
It's Your Time You're Wasting - A Teacher's Tales of Classroom Hell", by the pseudonymous teacher, Frank Chalk, and its Kindle-only follow-up "
Education: My Part in Its Downfall" (or even just have a look through his
blog archives ), as well as the myriad of comments and reviews relating to them. The first book was revised last year just prior to the release of the follow-up, and it's well worth the purchase (that goes for all of you - although, be warned, it's equal parts hilarious and depressing).
Some apologists claim that the book is skewed because of the sort of schools it covers, but the same sort of things occur in "good" schools, as well, mainly because schools here are now ranked by largely-massaged "league tables", where the results are derived solely from pupils being instructed how to pass tests.
Additionally, I must apologise, as I missed something on the previous page which warranted a response;
Seriously, how is making a small mistake in a stupid diaper commercial that no one cares about worse (especially on the scale of plane crash vs. buggy crash) than making a very similar small mistake in one of the greatest games of all time, which clearly has a lot of hard work behind it?
Because the nappy advertisement almost certainly reached a much wider audience in the few broadcasts before it was pulled off the air due to the glaring screen-filling typo, "PROFFESIONAL", than Super Metroid ever did. Moreover, the market for child-rearing goods is MUCH bigger than the number of people who ever bought, played, or heard of Super Metroid.
I'm afraid you've been affected by the Internet Echo Chamber Effect, here. Super Metroid was not a big seller compared to other games of the same era (1.42 million is not bad by any means, but it was thoroughly dwarfed by Donkey Kong Country which was released a month or two later and which sold 9.30 million, or even the then-highly-experimental Star Fox from the previous year which sold a bit over 4 million). Being a good game unfortunately does not necessarily mean that it will reach a particularly wide audience, as it is in Super Metroid's case. It's highly likely that far less people have ever played or ever even heard of Super Metroid, than saw the ad with the glaring typo that was broadcast via a mainstream medium.