Peter,
   One thought for next year's conference, which is once again in 
Fairfield and once again in conjunction with the Connecticut Writing
Project, is that we would enhance the writing project connection and
try to address those "what can we do in the classroom" type issues. You
should think about writing up your own best advice on dealing with
these troubling demands. It reads as though you have given it much
thought and are working out an approach that doesn't ignore the
realities we face on the front lines.
   We have to be a little careful because minimalist approaches now have
the floor. Sometimes we are forced into them, but we don't want to fall
into the trap of saying this is the best way. I think we can do both;
advocate a robust scope and sequence and deal with "in the meantime"
contingencies as a different kind of challenge.
   As a matter of fact, as Bill points out, we may be being asked to do
the impossible. We can argue for Scope and Sequence as the only true
solution.

Craig


> In a message dated 7/31/06 1:51:46 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>> The problem with trying to design materials to get a student from zero
>> to
>> proficiency with standard English in fourteen weeks is that, in
>> practical
>> terms, it can’t be done. No one in math would expect a student to go
>> from basic
>> addition to algebra in fourteen weeks; you have to build a knowledge
>> base for
>> each step. The problem is not that teachers can’t lead students to
>> full
>> proficiency in one semester – it’s that school systems sometimes
>> really expect
>> this, or that a teacher faced with students who are far short of being
>> able to
>> perform according to a criterion that has to be met by the end of the
>> semester (because whoever is in charge of curriculum wrote that
>> criterion but didn’t
>> work on the ones for preceding grades) feels more responsibility than an
>> outside observer would weigh him/her down with.
>>
>
> Luckily, Bill, we are not starting at zero.   As the ATEG group points
> out,
> students have a great deal of unconscious knowledge about language, which
> I try
> to make use of . . . and even some conscious knowledge.   And given that
> these students, average age 28 at my school, have made it through a school
> system
> that did not provide the scope and sequence ATEG is working on, our
> choices
> would seem to be the following:
>
> 1) send them back for 12 years of education in language, which in reality
> wouldn't take 12 years but would take a lot more than 14 weeks.
>
> 2) write them off as a generation that just didn't go to school at the
> right
> time.
>
> 3) try to develop a brief grammar, what I have been calling a "writer's
> grammar, and through improved definitions of a short list of terms, some
> editing
> exercises, and lots of writing and revision of that writing, to improve
> their
> ability to edit their writing for the most common and most stigmatizing
> errors.
>
>
> Obviously, I'm opting for #3. Although I'd be the first to admit that
> complete competence may be an unrealistic goal, I am seeing considerable
> improvement
> in my students' ability to reduce error in their writing.
>
> And perhaps my definition of proficiency is considerably lower than yours.
> You point out the difficulty of explaining who/whom to someone who has no
> idea
> of what a subject or object is.   However, who/whom is a distinction I
> don't
> try to teach in my developmental writing classes.   My thinking is that
> plenty
> of people who are considered adequate writers still have trouble with
> who/whom.   So my "writer's grammar," perhaps "survival grammar" would be
> a better
> term, in its current incarnation, addresses subject-verb agreement,
> pronoun
> reference and agreement, the major punctuation problems like fragments,
> run-ons,
> and comma splices, and apostrophes, as well as a good dose of usage
> issues.
> That's it.   Never do all my students develop proficiency in all these
> topics,
> but about half of them do.   I wish I could do better, but I am proud of
> the
> half that succeed.   And each semester I hope to improve that percentage.
>
> As an example, think of trying to explain the usage of ‘whom’ in
> formal
> English to (a) a student who , and (b) one who already knows (and is
> comfortable
> with) those terms. In the first case, you’re in for a long (and probably
> pointless) afternoon of trying to get the point across.  In the second
> case, you don’
> t really have to spend much time explaining anything; you just have to
> emphasize the need for care when approaching sentences with multiple
> clause
> embedding, etc.
>
> And I look forward to the day in the future when my job is a whole lot
> easier
> because the K-12 school system, with the help of ATEG, produces students
> with
> a solid understanding of English grammar.
>
>
>
> Peter Adams
>
> 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/