John,
   What a wonderful assignment. I usually give a paper option to students
who want to bring up low quiz or test grades, but I have been thinking
about building a writing assignment into the full course. This would be
a natural one for future teachers.

Craig>

Craig,
>    I understand completely your points. The most difficult part of
> teaching
> language arts teachers-in-training is getting them all hyped to teach
> grammar only to disappoint them with the reality of support they'll likely
> receive from their administrators, fellow teachers, and textbooks. I try
> to
> equip them to handle that reality as best I can; I point them to resources
> like ATEG, I give them lists of great texts to use as supplements, and I
> point them to scope and sequence plans available like Ed Vavra's KISS (I
> may
> have issues with some aspects of it, but many kudos to him for its very
> existence!). The Grammar Alive! text isn't a solution in any way, but it's
> a
> wonderful tool. I've always found the three goals helpful when writing
> lesson plans; they articulate nicely the "big picture" of what I try to
> accomplish.
>
>    Also, to anyone who works with teachers-in-training, let me make a
> suggestion: consider as a final project the creation of a Scope and
> Sequence
> for grammar teaching. I've done this with darn good results. The students
> receive the assignment on Day 1 and have all semester to consider and
> construct as they go. In nearly all cases, my past students create a draft
> early on based on their prior knowledge of "grammar" and completely trash
> it
> and draw up a new one by finals time. Many of these teachers later tell me
> that they still use their S&S plan when they are unhappy with their
> textbooks.
>
> John Alexander
> Austin, Texas
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>   Those are worthy goals, and I echo your endorsement of the book.
>>   I wasn't part of the team that produced it, but from what I understand
>> it morphed from a scope and sequence project, and NCTE didn't want to
>> go along with endorsing an actual scope and sequence component within
>> the book. The most controversial of the three would be the second goal,
>> not currently part of most English curriculumms. Those of us who teach
>> semester long grammar courses at the college level know how amibitious
>> a goal it is. But there's no place in the book where it's stated, for
>> example, that a student should know determiners by ninth grade or modal
>> auxiliaries by 11th or even that a graduating student should be
>> familiar with those categories and able to apply them to a particular
>> text. I have yet to find a student coming out of high school who could
>> meet that second goal. Mostly their knowledge of grammar is limited to
>> prescriptive rules of the questionable variety we have been discussing.
>> Is that because I teach in New York State? I'm not sure.
>>   Part of our problem comes from the fact that we are an assembly of
>> NCTE. When scope and sequence came up again two ATEG conferences ago,
>> there was some concern that we should try to lobby NCTE for change
>> rather than develop an opposing program. Other people felt, perhaps
>> with some justification, that thoughful grammars are already available,
>> that we mainly need to endorse them rather than try to develop our own.
>> My own position was and has been very different from that, but I have
>> tried to be part of the loyal opposition.
>>   In New York state, there has been an affirmation of "literary
>> elements"
>> in the English curriculum. Metaphor is a literary element, but phrases
>> and clauses are not. I'm not quite sure who has decided where to draw
>> the line. I think much might be gained if we can get people to
>> recognize that most great literature is simply a highly effective use
>> of ordinary language. It's hard to make the point if the nature of
>> ordinary language is below conscious radar.
>>   It is also hard to be in favor of teaching grammar when the teaching
>> of
>> grammar can mean so many different things. As Susan pointed out, most
>> progressive teachers still think of it as harmful. That doesn't
>> necessarily mean that we should support ALL teaching of grammar in
>> opposition to that. It may mean admitting that some approaches can do
>> more harm than good.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>  In our most recent thread about sentence structure, variation in style,
>> > and
>> > composition, the fundamental intersection of grammar and instructional
>> > goals
>> > was mentioned. I want to take just a moment to post the "Three Goals
>> for
>> > Grammar Teaching" contained in one of my favorite texts, *Grammar
>> Alive!
>> A
>> > Guide for Teachers*, written by members of ATEG. This is just a very
>> basic
>> > overview; the actual text elaborates on these goals quite elegantly.
>> From
>> > page 4 of the text:
>> >
>> > "Goal A:
>> > Every student, from every background, will complete school with the
>> > ability
>> > to communicate comfortably and effectively in both spoken and written
>> > Standard English, with awareness of when use of Standard English is
>> > appropriate.
>> >
>> > Goal B:
>> > Every student will complete school with the ability to analyze the
>> > grammatical structure of sentences within English texts, using
>> grammatical
>> > terminology correctly and demonstrating knowledge of how
>> sentence-level
>> > grammatical structure contributes to the coherence of paragraphs and
>> > texts.
>> >
>> > Goal C:
>> > Every student will complete school with an understand of, and
>> appreciation
>> > for, the natural variation that occurs in language across time, social
>> > situation, and social group. While recognizing the need for mastering
>> > Standard English, students will also demonstrate the understanding of
>> the
>> > equality in the expressive capacity and linguistic structure among a
>> range
>> > of language varieties both vernacular and standard, as well as an
>> > understanding of language-based prejudice."
>> >
>> > These goals won't make everyone happy, but I find them to be succinct,
>> > cogent, and extremely effective when implemented. I believe that, when
>> > used
>> > together, these goals provide the context (the "why are we learning
>> this?"
>> > solution) and the mechanics of grammar instruction.
>> >
>> > I hope someone on the list who is not familiar with them finds them
>> > useful!
>> >
>> > John Alexander
>> > Austin, Texas
>> >
>> > 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/