Ed,
   You may be right. The Scope and Sequence I would like to help work on,
the one endorsed by the ATEG conference, takes "knowledge of grammar"
as a prime goal. Once that is set in motion, then anyone who believes
that conscious knowledge is not important or that traditional gramamr
already solves all our needs should simply work on a different set of
goals or get out of the way.
   Many people on list believe that we should aim at a minimum
understanding. I'm not even sure what that is, but I'm not one of them.
   Preparation for the SAT, or any error or behavior centered test,  just
seems a different kind of gaol than KISS or any knowledge centered
approach would take. As with the KISS system, I think an outcome ought
to be an ability to explain the elements of the sentences that show up
in routine discourse, whether the students' writing or the texts we
value as "literature." Grammar is there when writing is working well,
in ways that error centered attention will never notice.
   Of course, these higher goals would fold in error as a matter of
course. I don't think you can get there without a base of knowledge
that goes well beyond error and well beyond the typical handbook.
   We need to be able to ask whether a prepositional phrase is important
to language, not whether it shows up as a typical error. It's a whole
different set of goals and assumptions. Whether it's adverbial or
adjectival is a question about basic, everyday meaning, not about
error, and those are the observations I think a meaning-centered,
knowledge focused grammar ought to make. If we accept those goals, then
we will have terminology questions to work on, but I think we can do
that with some grace and collegiality. If someone interupts to say that
this is not important to them, so it shouldn't be important to us, or
that traditional grammar never included it, then the work can't get
done.
   The differences between a knowledge focused scope and sequence and KISS
will not be so substantial as to render either unintelligible to the
other. KISS tries to be both sequential and comprehensive, as a scope
and sequence ought to.
   If what you are asking for is a clear articulation of the underlying
principles, I have absolutely no argument.


Craig


Craig,
>     Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am, of course, taking a
> "wait and see" approach, and I do care about the group because I think
> it has the potential to do a great deal of good. I'm happy to see that
> you appear to agree with me when I argue that ATEG cannot arrive at a
> single, meaningful "scope and sequence." My frustration derives entirely
> from the fact that the group as a whole will not face that fact. I would
> be perfectly happy supporting and working with the group if the group
> made clear that it has several distinct sub-groups, each developing a
> different approach to scope and sequence. As you suggested, when the
> group attempts to develop a single plan, various members have reasons,
> often unstated, for undermining it. Thus no plan gets very far.
>    As one member of the list recently suggested, "Let's stop arguing,
> and start working on what we think should be taught." The group is not
> going to do that until it recognizes distinct divisions within itself.
> Thanks again,
> Ed
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 8/3/2006 10:08:00 AM >>>
>
> Ed,
>   I want to thank you for the lengthy reply to our conversation and
> say
> briefly that I share your frustration for the moment about ATEG being
> able to agree on an approach to grammar and still be ATEG, a group
> that
> is open to all interested parties, not just those from a certain
> school.
> New Public Grammar, on the other hand, is a group that has enough in
> common to maybe work out a consistent approach that ATEG could then
> endorse, perhaps simply applaud, or distance itself from--whatever.
> The
> prelimiinary conversation seems to show that some people on the list
> will derail the whole process if it doesn't go their way, which would
> tend to back up your point, that perhaps we need different groups
> working on it. I'm not the right person to work on a traditional
> grammar
> with no changes approach or a let's give them what they need to
> correct
> the errors and nothing more approach. Or even the current progressive
> approach, error in context with a minimalist metalanguage, under the
> understanding (misunderstanding) that the teaching of grammar has been
> "proven" to be harmful. To me, this is more the issue than whether or
> not we espouse a structural grammar or a transformational grammar or
> cognitive gramamr or systemic functional grammar and so on.
>    The consensus to this point has been that we would work out a
> knowledge
> based (not error based) approach to grammar and that we would want our
> terminology to accurately describe the language, to be both clear and
> useful. I don't think that can happen in a free wheeling discussion on
> this list. People will constantly jump in to say that a knowledge
> based
> approach is wrong.
>    I must have started attending ATEG conferences about the time you
> stopped. I can understand your frustration. To me, it was a delight to
> find a group of people interested in grammar, and I have made
> wonderful
> connections and wonderful working relationships as a result of my
> interactions with the group. I don't think you or I should condemn it
> for not just having people who think like ourselves. Its strengths and
> its weaknesses come from the same thing, that it's a big tent, a place
> where people who share nothing but an interest in grammar can
> interact.
>    My understanding is that the last Scope and Sequence project
> morphed
> into Grammar Alive, and that the scope and sequence part of it was at
> that time unacceptable to NCTE. So this current project started off as
> an ATEG project, not dependent on NCTE approval. It wouldn't be a
> "mandated" scope and sequence any more than KISS is; just a
> recommended
> scope and sequence for any interested parties.
>    I think we can come up with something more than just a hodgepodge
> of
> conflicting philosophies and terms. Has there ever been a universal
> consensus about grammar? But I think you're right; we can't do that if
> we need to keep answering objections about changing traditional terms
> or going beyond the goal of error reduction.
>    Maybe the SAT's and "No Child Left Behind" have brought grammar
> back,
> but they do not ask for or expect explicit knowledge about language.
> They are narrowly focused on behavior. Your KISS program, of course,
> is
> a knowledge based system. Many people on ATEG don't want that. (They
> tend to be on opposite sides politically, which is an interesting
> sidenote. Neither the right nor the left seem to want a conscious
> understanding of grammar being taught.) They are welcome in ATEG, but
> that creates a problem when devising a scope and sequence, by its
> nature a knowledge based project.
>    Why don't you take more of a wait and see approach? Since you keep
> coming back to the talk, I know you're not lost to us. If what we
> propose is a mix of conflicting philosophies, point that out. We
> welcome that kind of scrutiny. What hurts me most at this time is the
> argument that any such project is foolish, doomed to failure,
> condemned
> before it starts.
>    I tilt at windmills, I suppose, but so does KISS.
>
> Craig
>
> 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/