Phil,
   I just want to echo Paul, and to do so especially for the Scope and
Sequence Project, which is an official endorsement of a scope for the
teaching of grammar (what should be included) and sequence, how it
should be portioned out. Just for a reminder, here's our opening
statement, as agreed upon in the conference.

     Students should have explicit knowledge of the nature and structure
of language.  In addition to its value for understanding what it
means to be human, this knowledge is a powerful tool that helps
students to develop critical thinking, to explore cultural diversity,
and to strengthen reading and writing.
	Accordingly, as educators, we propose a systematic framework for the
teaching of grammar.


   I think some people are a little worried about "traditional grammar"
precisely because it can mean so many things and has meant much less
than the critical thinking rationale you provide. (For many, it's the
grill and drill "error of the day" approach, not a systematic
understanding of the way that language works, of the way language makes
meaning possible.)
   It was a delight to hear the Maryland teachers at our conference, to
see what can happen when a ninth grade teacher gives background that
later teachers can build on and apply.
   I agree with a great deal of what you say. In other subjects, we don't
shy away from terminlology, and there's no reason we should do so in
grammar. It certainly isn't more difficult than geometry and calculus
and physics, history, even "literature" as it's taught in many high
school classes. Students can and do learn it.
   One problem with teaching grammar "as needed" is that it just doesn't
happen. Children leave the public schools with no knowledge of grammar
and often with deep misunderstandings. Scope and Sequence is our
attempt to rectify that, to give good professional advice about what a
much more sensible (systematic, knowledge based) approach would be
like.
   It would be good to have a passionate advocate like yourself on board
for the project. If we get too complicated or seem to avoid the
prescriptive when you feel we shouldn't, then say so. Be part of the
conversation. I think we have much more in common than you realize.

Craig>


Phil,
>
> Although I may not agree with all of it, a lot of what you write here
> makes sense to me, but I am confused about what seems to be an odd
> assumption in your posting. Are you of the belief that we (the ATEG
> membership) are opposed to the teaching of grammar?  It seems as though
> you are defending a position -- seemingly in opposition to your
> understanding of ATEG's position --  that we have already taken: That
> grammar should be taught. That is our most basic principle!
>
> Did I misunderstand you?
>
> Paul D.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:44:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>
>
> There are important points here that need to be addressed.
>>
>>To say the war against grammar is phenom[e]nally stupid is taking a huge
>>leap.  Because what happens when we teach the whole of traditional
>>grammar?  If we have an English teacher that understands it, and if
>> he/she
>>can convey what he/she knows to students, what have we accomplished?
>
> You would no more higher a grammar teacher who didn't know it then higher
> an algebra, geometry, history, or geography teacher who didn't know his
> field.  Grammar is much easier than any of those.
>
> Do
>>we make better communicators?  I doubt it.  Maybe.  But, those are two
>>tremendous if's.
>
>
> I think we do as well as those in the subjects just mentioned as well as
> elsewhere.  A student from a history class may forget the entirety of the
> class ten minutes after he picks up his C- minus and goes home.  It is no
> more appropriate to expect otherwise with him than it is for us to expect
> better communicators.  The only reason we do that is to excuse ourselves
> from the task.  Grammar is the only subject where this sort of talk is
> tolerated.  Everywhere else it is recognized as excuse making.
>
>
> Because as our language is, each of us comes away from
>>everything with a slightly different understanding than the rest of us.
>>What traditional grammar tries to do is defy that statement.  Even if,
>>though, we have a super-grammarian that understands all of traditional
>>grammar well enough to be able to teach it, he will spend his entire
>>school year trying to teach it to students.  Will he?
>
>
> Its honestly not that hard.  One chapter in an algebra book demands more
> numerous terminolgy, more subtle concepts, and far more boring exercises
> than an entire semester of traditional grammar.
>
> Possibly.  If he
>>does, however, what other things have been missed?  I've known students
>>who can ace every grammar test yet cannot string a sentence together
>>--myself included perhaps.
>
> I know students who can Ace a geography test who can't tell me where Iraq
> is.  This sort of anecdotal evidence is too charged and too personal to be
> counted on.
>
>>
>>To me, though, this is how we teach 'just what is necessary'.  We learn
>> to
>>walk by walking.  We learn to speak by speaking.  We learn to write by
>>writing.  When we learn to walk, sometimes we fall down and we learn how
>>to avoid it.  The same holds true with speaking and writing.  The problem
>>is that with speaking and writing we sometimes don't know when we fall.
>>That's where the English teacher fits in.
>
>
> We learn to think by studying grammar.  It helps us find our way through
> complex sentences.  It is not the sort of training that you can see an
> immediate and conscious result from.  When I produce a sentence
> spontaneousl and automatically I am using grammar.  That spontaneous and
> automatic production is improved through a better understanding of its
> parts.  Students and teachers alike may not notice the improvement because
> it happens on that level.  However, you would have to be a mad man to tell
> cooks not to bother with terms like grains and meat because they are mere
> abstractions.  You would have to be equally as mad to conclude that an
> understanding of grammar did not help writing.  Saying that noun and verb
> is too abstract denies the simpler abstractions of cooking and the more
> complex ones of algebra.  To think that students can't handle it or that
> it doesn't benefit them is just excuse making.  We can say along with the
> Algebra, History and Geography students that
>  with some students it goes in one ear and out the other but we have no
> right to generalize to the entire subject based on that any more than
> they do.  The fact that we allow this and indulge ourselves in it is an
> embarassment to the field and to all of American education.
>
> Teaching grammar is not merely to teach writing.  This is a huge mistake.
> Teaching grammar is teaching the basic organizational principles that
> underly all thinking: grammar, rhetoric, logic, composition, foreign
> language learning, critical thinking are all improved through the study of
> grammar.   Without the study of grammar you condemn students to an aimless
> wallowing through difficult text until they intuit it which they often
> never do.
>
>
>>Phil Bralich wrote:
>>> And this is the point that grammar advocates need to make.  You cannot
>>> do
>>> s/v agreement without being introduced to subjects and predicates,
>>> internal clauses (the man from whom mary got the books is/are here),
>>> person, number, (throw in gender), participles, gerunds, a little on
>>> tenses -- Each of these beg questions in other areas.  In short the
>>> whole
>>> of traditional grammar is required.  This is also true of parallel
>>> structure, the correct use of passive and so on.  The whole is
>>> hopelessly
>>> interlocked and when you are recommended to teach "just what is
>>> necessary"
>>> for anyone of these, that means the whole of traditional grammar.  This
>>> is
>>> why the NCTE position and the whole of the war against grammar so
>>> phenominally stupid.  Its as those the whole field were taken over by
>>> C-
>>> students looking to avoid work.
>>>
>>> Phil Bralich
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Fay Sweney <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Jul 24, 2006 8:22 PM
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>The SAT always includes subject-verb agreement problems, just as Nancy
>>>>Tuten's posting illustrates.  One type is like Nancy's example, with
>>>>prepositional phrases between the subject and verb which have have
>>>> objects
>>>>that are different in number than the subject.  In another type there
>>>> is
>>>> a
>>>>delayed subject, as in this practice question from "The Official SAT, a
>>>>Teacher's Guide" published by College Board:  "At the heart of the
>>>> program,
>>>>enthusiastically endorsed by the city's business association, is plans
>>>> for
>>>>refurbishing neighborhoods . . . ."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fay Sweney
>>>>701 Foster Ave.
>>>>Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
>>>>208-664-2274
>>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>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/
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by EduTech's MailScanner Vaccine1, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>James Bear
>>Destination:  Quietude
>>
>>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/