This message  was originally submitted  by [log in to unmask]  to the ATEG
 
     This is in response to what Martha wrote. (It is
down below.) I am, as I have been for ages, really
upset. There has again been a string of messages on
NCTE-Talk related to grammar, many repeating the
old anti-grammar stuff. I tried to reply, but from what I
can tell, my replies have not made it to the list. (Are
they being blocked?) I have also posted my 35-page
summary of NCTE on Grammar (1982-85) on my web
pages (www.sunlink.net/rpp). I did this in response to
discussion of the research on NCTE-Talk. NCTE
probably won't like my posting it, but NCTE isn't doing
much to change the situation with grammar.
     I also continue to be frustrated by the lack of growth
of ATEG. We should have more members, and we
should all be speaking up. There is, however, not
much more that I can do to increase the size of the
group.
     I'm coming to the conclusion that, because I have
my own ideas about what should be taught, and
because I have started a small company to sell some
stuff related to it, that perhaps I should focus my
efforts there. I'm thinking of developing a "Parents'
Section" on my Rose Parisella web site. In that
section, I will explain what I think should be taught and
why. I'm also thinking of running ads in newspapers,
etc., across the country. The ads would be small and
read something such as:
 
Parents! What are your children being taught about
grammar? http://www.sunlink.net/rpp or send $2 to
Rose Parisella Productions.
 
In effect, I'm wondering if I can end-run NCTE.  As
some of you know, I have put the free Directions for
the Quick version of the KISS grammar game on that
site. I'll also be putting a web version of my
psycholinguistic model of how the brain processes
language there. And, I'll be adding a lot of free
instructional material.
 
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone on this list has
any reactions/suggestions/objections  to these ideas.
As Martha says, "We have a long way to go."
Personally, I feel I should be moving faster and further
than I am. Hence the possible new direction.
Thanks for listening and for your comments,
Ed V.
 
-----------------------------------------
Martha wrote:
 
 
Amen, Johanna.  Thanks.   That's a terrific sermon.
But how do we get the
congregation to listen and heed?
 
The powers that be are really afraid that any return to
the notion of
teaching grammar will end up with the work sheets
and fill-in-the-blanks of
yesteryear.  Here, for example, is this year's report
from NCTE's
Commission on Language--the four issues that they
identified and discussed
at their November 1996 meeting.  (This is part of a
publication that just
arrived:  "NCTE Annual Reports, 1997.")
 
The Commission's issues are listed as four
"concerns":
 
1.  Concern:  recent legal mandates regarding
teaching methodology.  We
urge support for teachers' professional autonomy in
the face of intrusive
legal mandates.
2.  Concern: increasing pressure on teachers to
exclude controversial
issues from classroom debate.  We urge inclusion of
controversial issues in
oral and written discourse.
(And here is #3!)
3.  Concern:  current calls for more grammar in
classrooms.  We urge richer
language study in classrooms--going beyond
grammar to also include study of
language variation, critical reading, power, and equity
issues.
 4.  Undermining of students' right to their own
languages.  We urge that
students have the freedom to think about, read, speak,
write, and listen to
voices from a variety of sources, including their own
languages and
cultural perspectives.
(End of quote)
 
This meeting took place at last year's NCTE--the
same month that the
grammar issue of English Journal was published.  I
think that #3 shows that
ATEG has made inroads into their thinking--and that
they are worried that
the bad old formal grammar class is coming back.
And that bad old
prescriptive grammar means that there's only one
acceptable standard--and
that the other "languages" (see #4) will not be
tolerated.
 
The Commission's report begins with this sentence:
"The commission's
continuing commitment to language for social justice
runs through the work
we have completed this past year, and the work
currently underway,
including"--(and here the four concerns are listed).  At
the end of the
report, after listing the four concerns, there's a list of
three convention
sessions, which they sponsored last year, and three
for this year--all six
of which have to do with social issues, including two
on "English Only."
These lists are followed by another:  Writing projects
in progress (NCTE).
There are four--more of the same--nothing  connected
to language structure
or linguistics.
 
Please note carefully:  These "concerns" are the
threats to the status
quo--threats to be dealt with.  They see these four
issues (including "more
grammar instruction in classrooms") as threats to
social justice. We have a
long way to go.
 
Martha Kolln