To summarize Richard Sproat's main point - changes to script by itself is not likely to improve learning outcomes. I emailed Sproat because he is one of the people who has argued AGAINST improvements, or changes if you will, to orthography by itself improving learning outcomes. Our proposal seeks to make curriculum only one of the components in the integrated solution (details of the overall solution may be seen in my letter to Richard Sproat - see link above - that post should provide you all the details you need to see where we are going). In the end, Sproat said, IIRC, that it "sounds like we have a plan". That is good to know. I am happy.
To conclude this thread, here is my response email to Sproat.
-+-
<stuff deleted>
Three comments on this:
1. We have both a curriculum and a process for teaching. One cannot view these in isolation.
2. The orthography itself also has a process involved which I did not talk about sufficiently. The idea is to teach the new orthography to Heritage Speakers of the language (http://heritagespeaker.wordpress.com). The new orthography is simpler for that population P1 to retain (and so it stands to reason that it would be simpler for the other populaton P2 - the set of all children in India - as well since P1 has generally speaking, higher IQ than P2 and more resources, but we don't have to argue about that population P2 since that population is so diverse - all sorts of issues like caste and level of incomes become factors). The Heritage Speakers would learn it as part of programs such as Teach for India (which is similar to Teach for America) and then teach that to the children.
I have tried out [the proposal on "users"] a number of times already. The learning curve for learning this system is about 5 minutes. It is entirely understandable even to somebody who does not even know that such a system is being used.
3. In addition to this, we can also do marketing around an idea such as this. This would be relatively cheap marketing
<stuff deleted>
-+-
