At  3:47 PM 10/21/97 -0400, H Thomas McCracken wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>Sender:       Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>              <[log in to unmask]>
>Poster:       H Thomas McCracken <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      NCTE/NCATE Guidelines for Language
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thought the group might be interested in what guidelines for college Eng.
>and Eng. Ed programs were just passed by NCATE (Friday, October 17, 1997)
>in Wash. D.C. at the All-Boards meeting of NCATE.  This applies to
>approximately 550 of the 1300 colleges and universities who prepare
>teachers (that is the number affiliated with NCATE--The National Council
>for Accreditation of Teacher Education).  Please note that we have
>have all active verbs, so the "understands" will have to be changed and
>this will not become official until that is done and approved.
>
>3.1  the program prepares the preservice teacher with knowledge and
>understanding of the English language; as a result, the preservice teacher
>will
>        3.1.1  understand language acquisition and development;
>        3.1.2  demonstrate how reading, writing, speaking, listening,
>                viewing, and thinking are interrelated;
>        3.1.3  understand the impact of cultural, economic, political, and
>                social environments upon language;
>        3.1.4  understand and respect diversity in language use, patterns,
>                and dialects across cultures, ethnic groups, geographic
>regions, and
>                social roles;
>        3.1.5  understand the evolution of the English language and the
>                historical influences on its various forms;
>        3.1.6  understand English grammars;
>        3.1.7  understand semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology;
>        3.1.8  understand the various purposes for which language is used.
>
>I invite you to suggest ways to change those statements into performances
>that we might expect of teachers.
>                                        Tom McCracken
>                                        NCTE Representative to NCATE
>                                        Member of Executive Board, NCATE
 
Dear Tom:
 
As president of ATEG, I want to thank you for asking our opinion.  We're
glad to serve as a resource for questions like this--and I think that the
responses you've had demonstrate our common concern with the issues that
your committee is discussing.   Bill McCleary has brought up an important
"bottom-line" question--that of finding room in the English education
curriculum for courses to cover all of these topics.
 
I'd like to comment on one of those topics--and ask that you turn the
plural of "grammar" back into the singular--as it originally appears
(according to your description of the committee's work in the 1997 NCTE
Annual Report, which I just received):  i.e., "Understand English
grammar"--not "grammars."
 
It's not unusual to see that plural usage--although it's much less in vogue
than a few years, or decades, ago.  I think it got started back in the
1960s, when transformational and structural grammar began to appear in
textbooks as alternatives to traditional grammar.  Those three constitute
the "grammars"--and advice then was that future teachers should know at
least one of the "grammars."
 
I think that the linguists you've been hearing from--Johanna Rubba and Bob
Yates--would agree that the transformational grammar of the 60s--the first
or second generation of Chomsky--is no longer the stuff of linguistics.
Linguistics has gone far beyond that grammar, although elements of that
original transformational grammar certainly inform the study of modern
grammar.  Modern grammar courses today are more likely to be based on
structural grammar (the notion of the description of language structure and
language classes being based on English, rather than Latin; the recognition
of both form and function as necessary descriptors) than on traditional
Latin-based grammar--although the terminology of traditional grammar still
works for most categories.
 
I would like to see the singular "grammar" used with the meaning of "the
structure of English"--that's what I think students should understand.  And
I'd like to see reference to understanding the role of grammar knowledge in
the writing process--because it's that application that both writers and
teachers of writing should understand.  Bob Yates mentioned the importance
of the  "grammatical choices a writer has in expressing ideas."
Absolutely.
 
In reference to both Bob Yates and Bill McCleary's concerns about this
formidable list, I'd like to suggest a hierarchy--only because I don't
think most teacher-education programs are going to find room for all eight
"understandings":
 
3.1.1--language acquisition
3.1.4--diversity, dialects, social roles, etc.
3.1.6--Understand grammar--and the role of grammar knowledge in the writing
process.
3.1.7--Understand phonology, morphology, semantics (Note:  syntax is
covered under 3.1.6)
3.1.5--History of the language
 
As for the rest--#8 is surely related to #3, and including these as part of
the English curriculum (rather than, say, social studies) takes away from
what ought to be an otherwise fairly specific list.
 
When you invited us to suggest ways to change the statements into
"performances that we might expect of teachers," were you suggesting
something other than the "understand" statements?  Could you clarify that?
 
Again, thanks for asking.
 
Martha Kolln