Paul hit the nail squarely on the head. (Forgive the cliche, but I'm working on five hours of sleep.)  I appreciate Robert Einarsson's and Paul Doniger's nice comments about my site, and I certainly would like to have more people involved in commenting on it (and thus improving not only the site, but the contents as well. Paul states that he's not sure that "it is possible to absolutely codify what should follow what (which CAN be done with mathematics)." That is, to a large part, what I have tried to do, but Paul may be right ― and I may be wrong. But the only way we will find out is if more challenges are thrown against my ideas/theories.

     But Paul is even more on the point when he notes that:

"Unless we have a complete K-12 program within a school system - whether Ed's or another good program - the material will not be learned."
AND THAT:
"It is practically useless for a single teacher to develop or use a curriculum and write lesson plans if the work is not continued in some sort of logical and sequential manner in the years that follow. Certainly, instruction should be
well advanced before the upper grades of high school, but usually students are taught nothing, very little, or the same few repeated error-based topics (run-on sentences, parts of speech, etc.);  and they rarely learn any of it
for longer than it takes to pass a quiz. The sixth grade teacher has no clue what went on in fifth grade, even within a single school system."

AND THAT:
One thing is certain:
Those few school systems with a K-12 Language Arts Coordinator (and they are getting fewer every year) are not focusing on the issue; it's still literature and composition focused.
We can only make change by a large group effort, with at least some measure of agreement as to what should be done. Isn't that why ATEG got started?"

I hear a lot of complaining among ATEG members about textbooks such as Warriner's, but from what I understand, Warriner's ― and its competitors --were meant to be essentially reference/resource texts ― they do not pretend to suggest a coordinated sequence of instruction for K-12. That is why items are repeated, year after year.

Those of you who were at the Seattle conference may remember that I argued for two, three, or even four committees, each of which would develop its own sequence/curriculum. ATEG would then have, ideally, two or more internally coherent "grammar programs" to offer to schools, and the schools could use whichever they thought would work best for them.
     As Paul, again nicely put it, "... this problem is a large part of what Ed is frustrated about." I would, however, go further. As far as ATEG is concerned, this is the MAIN thing that Ed is frustrated about. I would certainly appreciate help in developing my KISS approach, but I certainly understand that many ATEG members may disagree with KISS. The question is What are they offering as alternatives? More and more I hear that school systems are looking for answers to this problem, but I don't see many ATEG members working on answers for them. And, if not to ATEG, to whom can they turn? As Paul (Thank you, Paul.) stated, "Isn't that why ATEG got started?"





>>> "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> 11/24 12:06 AM >>>
Robert Einarsson wrote:

"Any k to 12 teacher who needs grammar curriculum can simply
plug into this web site [Ed Vavra's]  and there it is, ready to go.  It is
undoubtedly an effective and self-explanatory program, and it
bespeaks dedicated labour (something we on this list are all
familiar with)."

Yes, it's a great resource, and Ed should be commended highly (and often)
for all he has done.

The problem doesn't lie so much with what is available in teaching resources
(though there is always room for more), but rather with the lack of
implementation in primary and secondary education. Asking "any K-12 teacher"
to implement a program is like asking someone to breath in a vacuum. It is
practically useless for a single teacher to develop or use a curriculum and
write lesson plans if the work is not continued in some sort of logical and
sequential manner in the years that follow. Certainly, instruction should be
well advanced before the upper grades of high school, but usually students
are taught nothing, very little, or the same few repeated error-based topics
(run-on sentences, parts of speech, etc.);  and they rarely learn any of it
for longer than it takes to pass a quiz. The sixth grade teacher has no clue
what went on in fifth grade, even within a single school system.

I think this problem is a large part of what Ed is frustrated about.

Unless we have a complete K-12 program within a school system - whether Ed's
or another good program - the material will not be learned.

One big question that remains unanswered (unanswerable?) is whether or not
there is a "proper sequence" of content matter in the world of grammar.
Personally, I don't think it is possible to absolutely codify what should
follow what (which CAN be done with mathematics). One thing is certain:
Those few school systems with a K-12 Language Arts Coordinator (and they are
getting fewer every year) are not focusing on the issue; it's still
literature and composition focused.

We can only make change by a large group effort, with at least some measure
of agreement as to what should be done. Isn't that why ATEG got started?

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School
"Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her." - G.
B. Shaw