Three years ago an individual wrote in a book the following words 
about the ATEG forum:

"As previously mentioned, there is a group within the NCTE, the 
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar, or ATEG, that advocates 
greater emphasis on grammar in the language arts. The group is small, 
but gradually growing in numbers and influence. As more and more 
state standards prescribe the teaching of grammar, its stock is 
destined to rise. In my opinion, however, the ATEG's efficacy at the 
present time is limited by its own members' negative view of 
traditional instruction in grammar. As a general rule, they take it 
for granted that the traditional teaching of grammar was radically 
flawed and that what is needed is not just a restoration of grammar 
but the discovery of some new way to teach it. There is little 
agreement on what this new approach should be. As in Erasmus' time, 
there are as many grammars as grammarians."

Some other constructive criticism which would prove extremely useful 
for this group was presented in the same book. Any idea who the 
author is and how his perspective and experience would help move this 
forum forward? 


Eduard



On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Tim Hadley wrote...

>I must add my agreement to the statements of Craig and Paul 
regarding =
>the wonderful conference that we just concluded. It was filled with =
>terrific presentations, stimulating discussions, and also 
disagreement =
>(yet at all times cordial) over concepts, purposes, =
>and--yes--terminology. It was a fabulous experience in every respect.
>=20
>Also, I am not in agreement with those who feel that they are not =
>welcome to post comments on this listserv, or with those who fear 
that =
>others might "violently" respond to what they have to say. It is 
true =
>that online forums occasionally render written words into tones and =
>implied meanings that are unintentionally harsh, beyond what the 
writer =
>wanted to convey, and people sometimes get their feelings hurt =
>unnecessarily. But in comparison to other professional groups I have 
=
>regular contact with, even within the English field, I have found 
ATEG =
>to be a remarkably cordial and welcoming group. No one should feel =
>unwelcome, and if you could have attended our most recent 
conference, =
>you would have seen that demonstrated in a much more personal way.
>=20
>As Paul said, in our efforts to reinvigorate grammar instruction in 
both =
>the public schools and in the colleges, there will certainly and =
>unavoidably be some disagreement among us as to methods, strategies, 
=
>terminologies, and all sorts of other things. In some of these areas 
we =
>are just in the beginning stages of formulating action plans and 
formal =
>documents. Disagreements should not disturb us; they are the grist 
in =
>the mill of progress, the motivation to press on, the impetus for 
more =
>and better ideas, the stimulus that keeps us alert and thinking. 
(How's =
>that for a good Christensen sentence, eh, Don Stewart?)
>=20
>So, as Craig, in his usual eloquent and gentle way, said, let's not 
be =
>sidetracked simply because we are not at this point in 100% 
agreement =
>about everything, especially terminology. This year's conference 
made =
>amazing progress toward some very worthy goals. Let's build on that =
>foundation and move forward.
>=20
>Tim
>=20
>Tim Hadley
>Research Assistant, The Graduate School
>Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
>Texas Tech University
>Editor, ATEG Journal
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Paul 
E. =
>Doniger
>Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 12:52 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: ATEG conference, Scope and Sequence project
>
>
>If anyone thinks we are "drifting back to the NCTE perspective on =
>grammar," perhaps it would have been a good idea to attend the 
recentl =
>ATEG Conference and listen to Martha Kolln's eloquent keynote 
speech. =
>Such an experience would have disabused you of this very wrong 
notion. =
>We agree to disagree about terminology and perhaps methodology, but 
we =
>very much are making strong efforts to reinvigorate grammar 
instruction =
>in both the public schools and in teacher education.
>=20
>Paul E. Doniger
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Eduard C. Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:04:30 AM
>Subject: Re: ATEG conference, Scope and Sequence project
>
>
>Ed,
>
>I have to agree with you. It seems that this group has lost its 
focus=20
>and is drifting back to the NCTE perspective on grammar. There is 
an=20
>amazing confusion concerning the metalanguage of grammar, or what 
you=20
>call a " specific set of defined terms." Grammar perspectives are 
all=20
>mixed-up into a hodge-podge of traditional, structural, 
generative,=20
>cognitive and anti-grammatical dogmas. A forum participant even 
wrote=20
>in a post that he did not know what grammar was.=20
>
>What is worse, I believe, is that there is no discussion openness 
in=20
>the forum. People sent messages to me stating that they were 
afraid=20
>to post on the forum because they were afraid of the violent 
reaction=20
>they would get from a few individuals who believe that they have a=20
>monopoly on the exchange of ideas.=20
>
>Quite often discussions drift into linguistic diatribes which I 
don't=20
>believe benefit in any way those who struggle to put together a=20
>coherent approach to teaching grammar in public school. I wonder=20
>sometimes what are the "experts" in Linguistics doing on this 
forum=20
>which is dedicated to the "good old grammar." If they want to 
engage=20
>in deep linguistic discussions, why don't they post on the 
Linguist=20
>List, or some other specilized linguistic forums? I am a member of=20
>the Linguist List, and I go there for linguistics. On the other 
hand,=20
>I come here for practical suggestions teachers and instructors 
need=20
>when they teach English Composition.
>
>I recognize that some messages I posted on the forum have not been=20
>very friendly, but the vicious reaction to them and the fact that=20
>from that moment I became a persona non grata is evidence to me 
that=20
>the forum has lost its fundamental scientific characteristic - the=20
>free circulation of ideas, and open participation and coooperation=20
>among its members.=20
>
>If 20 years of existence and activity of this forum has had so 
little=20
>effect on the grammar education of teachers and instructors, what 
is=20
>that we should expect from the future when there appears to be 
less=20
>and less consensus about the major objectives and approaches to 
the=20
>goal of changes the current anti-grammarian perspective in the 
NCTE=20
>and in the American education in general?
>
>Eduard =20
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Edward Vavra wrote...
>
>>     I basically lost interest in this group (even though I'm=20
>primarily the one who started it), at the first Seattle conference 
*=20
>when there was the first serious discussion of scope and sequence. 
At=20
>that conference I suggested that ATEG establish three, perhaps 
four=20
>distinct groups, each of which could develop a named scope and=20
>sequence, based on a specific set of defined terms. It does not 
make=20
>any sense to have one group that considers infinitives to be 
clauses=20
>and another that considers them to be phrases, both working within=20
>the same scope and sequence, and both claiming that they are=20
>teaching "grammar." Most members of this list realize that there 
are=20
>fundamental differences among traditional, structural,=20
>transformational, etc. grammars. Put them all in one "grammar" pot=20
>and the public has an indigestible mess--the current state of 
affairs.
>>     Let me note here that I would have been (and to a certain=20
>extent still am) open to changes in KISS terminology, but none of 
the=20
>members of ATEG has shown any specific interest in working with 
me.=20
>Indeed, I started the newsletter and the first conferences with 
the=20
>idea of getting suggestions and improvements for KISS.
>>    As long as this group refuses to make such distinctions, it 
will=20
>fail. In effect, it is speaking and writing nonsense (as I 
understand=20
>Hobbes to call it), since different members use the same terms to=20
>refer to different constructions, and different terms to refer to 
the=20
>same constructions. Clear definitions are first principles of=20
>philosophy and of the natural sciences. It amazes me that this 
group=20
>cannot understand that.
>>Ed
>
>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"=20
>
>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/