Craig,
Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for teachers and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree on the definition of a clause.)
I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost a decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference. (I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor instruction in grammar.
I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence" plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the competition that would result from several plans.
Ed V.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
Richard,
Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
that through ATEG.
My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
would then feel a vested interest in the project. There was resistance,
though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words, ATEG tried to
work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
effect, control our existence as an organization.
The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
shot) views. This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
older position.
This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
those approaches have probably already been written.
As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
pull people away from ATEG.
The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
I apologize if I have misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's
views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
of the project.
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/
|
