ATEG Archives

February 2006

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:42:02 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (273 lines)
Phil,
   I think it would be wonderful to take on NCTE directly.  I also think
we shouldn't allow them to frame the debate.  So much energy has been
expended trying to argue FOR grammar and not enough just going ahead
and doing it.  We can go ahead and create a sensible set of
recomendations. As it stands now, those who agree with us have nowhere
to turn for sensible approaches to grammar and sensible statements
about its value.
   What you seem to be saying, and I would hardily agree, is that there is
serious evidence that IGNORANCE about grammar is deeply harmful.  The
real target audience may not be NCTE, but fellow teachers, many of whom
are reluctant to go back to older practices and unaware of
alternatives.  We have to be careful.  Mulroy, much as I like his book,
seems unaware of newer possibilities.  Composition teachers (my field)
will resist anything that sounds to them like concentrating more on
error than on real writing. They are also unhappy with the new focus on
standardized tests. We should try to frame our suggestions in ways that
work in harmony with the goals of progressive educators.  That's a
quick summary of a complex issue.  When you advocate "grammar"
instruction, most people think they know what you mean, and they may
have good reasons for not liking that.
    Grammar was first reinstituted in England by the conservatives
(Thatcher) over the objections of linguists, some of who had been
working on some remarkable curriculums. (Halliday retreated to
Australia, where he has been allowed great influence.) Over a few
decades, though, official British recomendations and curriculums have
become more and more thoughtful.  In Australia, the mediating focus
has been on genre, on the forms that have evolved to carry out the
work of writing.
    I don't worry too much about offending NCTE.  We should just have a
more thoughtful OFFICIAL position of our own.  We should also be
careful to win over thoughtful teachers who may be open to new ways of
understanding grammar, which are now readily available.
    I don't think I'm advocating a wimpy position, but I would like to
take the politics out of it, build a better mousetrap, and then let
other people react to us.

Craig


One request and Two Points:
>
> Request: I would like to get Tim Hadley's dissertation, is it available on
> the web?
>
> Point 1.  A must read for this project is David Mulroy's, _The War on
> Grammar_.  If it were not cited and summarized appropriately ATEG would
> look like it wasn't doing its homework.  The facts and figures he brings
> to bear on the downturn of FL skills, literacy skills and so on coupled
> with deeply insightful, relevant, and pithy insights into the source of
> the problem and its effects are too important to ignore and we must give
> credit to his being there first of course.
>
> Point 2.  The SAT now requires 45 Grammar questions based on spelling,
> punctuation, subj. verb agreement and so forth, all the things that
> require teaching the full range of parts of speech, parts of the sentene
> and sentences types as well as punctuation and spelling.  I am sure that
> pressure from parents, government, and school administrators is building
> already on secondary school educators to get this taught and I am sure the
> secondary schools will soon be putting pressure on the elementary schools
> as well.  So, from this point of view we have (finally) a downhill slope
> and an easy battle.
>
> A properly written letter to the Deparment of Education, accrediting
> authorities of all levels, teachers unions (from the point of view of jobs
> and work lost), and so forth would be effective.  This should be done
> before any direct approach is made to appropriate NCTE board so that they
> can be copied on the letter that gets sent to the NCTE and the NCTE
> response duly noted to these authorites.  Sympathetic authors, editors,
> and publishers can also be included.  There may also be individual
> Congressmen, Senators, and DOE officials who would like to comment.  It
> would also be possible to use the same letter to seek support from groups
> like TESOL, LSA, ISLS, ACTFL, NAFSA, and so on.  TESOL may actually back
> the NCTE position as may some of the others, but if the request was made
> based on a letter to DOE, and on the realities of the new SAT, there may
> be a de rigeur sort of support coming from them.  For all of them, the
> anti-grammar attitude has not produced more students or more programs --
> though it has produced a political position and jobs for those who just
> don't their grammar.
>
> We have to admit though that medical programs no longer have language
> requirements, many Ph.D. programs no longer require two langauges, and on
> and on -- ESL, FL, traditional grammar and so on should all be working
> together to perserve the entire basis of intellectual flexibility and
> cultural sensitivity in those grammar based fields.  I am convinced that
> the reason we lost those programs and the reason the NCTE position is as
> it is, is because there is a large contigent people of people who did not
> want to get the FL training or get the grammar training but they had some
> political skills and made a movement of scapegoating the better qualifed
> and the more patient grammar FL group.  I remember in the 70's and 80s,
> there was lots of impatience to get graduate degrees and get "out there"
> and make a mark.  They were the advocates for getting rid of FL programs,
> grammar and so forth.  Those same people later played a big role in the
> development of stricter writing requirements and remedial programs.
> Programs that Mulroy seems to argue would not have been necessary if
> grammar had been correctly taught earlier.  There is no reason to think
> that a literature teacher who does not know grammar is in any way better
> than one who does -- in fact it is far more reasonable to conclude the
> opposite.  David Mulroy's arguments on the sort of sloppy thinking that
> accrues among those who do not know grammar must be reviewed for this
> discussion and cited in any letters or proposals although he is classicist
> enough not to call it sloppy thinking.  He addresses it in a discussion of
> the differences between Kant's reflective judgments and determinate
> judgments -- what Mulroy discusses as a distinction between the ability to
> make free associations vs the ability to find literal meanings.  (p. 15)
>
> From your response I am not entirely clear of the goal of the Scope and
> Sequence committee.  It sounds like it is designed to discuss grammar
> curriculum in general and that the discussion and search for the removal
> of the NCTE position is incidental.  Would it be appropriate for the Scope
> and Sequence group to make a subcommittee or a spin off that was
> specifically for the purpose of addressing and motivating change in the
> 1985 NCTE position? I think to be effective it might need that sort of
> effort.  Planning, research, and then the approach which may actually be a
> bit of a battle.
>
> Finally, we should require that ANYONE who wants to weigh in on this
> discussion should first give us their official SAT score on that grammar
> test.
>
> Phil Bralich
> Assistant Professor
> Defense Language Institute
> Foreign Language Center
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Feb 3, 2006 5:51 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: That Reprehensible NCTE Position Statement
>>
>>Phil,
>>    I want to echo Paul's points and give more info on Scope and
>>Sequence.>The project is an attempt to give thoughtful, professional
>>advice about the teaching of grammar for anyone looking for an
>>alternative to minimalist approaches.  We were given a large part of
>>the ATEG conference last summer and at that point approached the task
>>on a more general level, coming to a consensus of what the advice
>>should entail. Tim Hadley, whose dissertation has focused on the NCTE
>>position, gave us a fine talk on its shortcomings, and he has agreed
>>to be the point person for our own official response.  I suspect he
>>would be very happy to have you involved.  My own sense is that we
>>should put most of our energy on our own recommendations, that we
>>should stop arguing for the need for a grammar and simply advocate a
>>sensible one.  But it's clear that people will bring up the supposedly
>>conclusive NCTE position, and we should have a direct response to it.
>>    Once again, we have been given substantial time at the ATEG
>> conference
>>for this project.  My hope is that we can roll up our sleeves and fill
>>in the details, not just take positions on the kind of grammar that
>>should be taught, but make recommendations about the SCOPE (what
>>should be covered) and SEQUENCE (when), teacher training, more
>>reasonable assessment practices, and so on.  We have proposed a panel
>>for next year's NCTE (without using grammar in the title, but focused
>>on these issues from the perspective of state standards, assessments,
>>teacher training, and the disjunction among them. Martha Kolln and I
>>are listed as presenters of the Scope and Sequence report, and it
>>would be nice to have a fait accompli to present.  If not, we can talk
>>about current state of the project.)
>>    Paul is more optimistic than I am about progress through NCTE.  I
>>think they deeply believe that direct instruction in grammar is
>>harmful, and anyone who advocates otherwise is a threat to progressive
>>education. Most English teachers are trained to teach literature.
>>It's hard to talk about grammar with people who have very little
>>background in it. But I agree very much with what i take to be your
>>position, that we should present a clear and thoughtful alternative.
>>If a school system in Ohio wants to change, they will have a
>>professional position statement to help them out and a recommended
>>program.  If we wait for the blessing of NCTE, it will probably never
>>happen. But the time is right.  There's a grassroots interest in this,
>>in part because NCTE hasn't adequately responded to the challenge of
>>No child Left Behind.
>>    The big plan is to get lots of people involved and to delegate
>>drafting of the big parts of it.  You are most welcome.
>>
>>Craig
>>Phil,
>>>
>>>   We've been working on this issue for some time and have made a good
>>> deal
>>> of progress. There is still a long way to go, and that's part of what
>>> ATEG is all about. We did get NCTE to publish our book, Grammar Alive:
>>> A
>>> Guide for Teachers, a couple of years ago. We've been gradually
>>> improving our posture at the NCTE Conventions, too.
>>>
>>>   A few years back, NCTE began to backpeddle a bit on their 1985
>>> position
>>> by including our "Questions and Answers" page on it's website; you
>>> might
>>> want ot check it out:
>>> http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/gram/107646.htm.
>>>
>>>   Perhaps you'd like to participate in the Scope and Sequence group
>>> that
>>> Craig Hancock started; we could definitely use more assistance.
>>>
>>>   Welcome into the fray,
>>>
>>>   Paul D.
>>>
>>> Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>   As everyone here is aware, the NCTE 1985 Position Statement about
>>> teaching
>>> grammar advocates against it to the detrimant of all language training
>>> native or foreign. While it seems to couch its criticism in the form of
>>> the supposed lack of benefit that grammar study has on writing alone,
>>> it
>>> seems to presuppose that there would be no other sufficiently useful
>>> reason for teaching grammar. The position thereby has the effect of
>>> shutting down all grammar teaching.
>>>
>>> It strikes me that of all the groups that exist in academe today, the
>>> one
>>> most appropriate to address this embarassment to American education is
>>> ATEG. Is there currently a working group within ATEG which specifically
>>> addresses this issue with the goal of getting NCTE to renege and
>>> replace
>>> this statement with something more accurate and more consonant with the
>>> wishes of parents and many, many educators, business men and
>>> politicians?
>>>
>>> If there is such a group, I would like to participate. If there is no
>>> current group, I would be happy to take responsibility for setting one
>>> up,
>>> chairing, and spearheading such a group. If there is no current
>>> provision
>>> within ATEG for this sort of a group, perhaps interested parties could
>>> form an informal, ad hoc group, put together some joint research and
>>> positions papers, and offer this to ATEG/NCTE at a later point.
>>>
>>> Phil Bralich
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface
>>> at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface
>>> at:
>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>
>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at:
>>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2