Malcolm Kauffman, Johanna Rubba, and Amy Benjamin have done reviews of 
various components of the program in past issues of Syntax..., so 
perhaps they can help.  I keep seeing references to it, all of them to 
DFEE documents ( British Department for Education and Emloyment) but no 
mailing address.  I'm interested in the same information. (and whether 
or not there would be a routine fee.)
   The key references seem to be  to The National curriculum for England 
(2000),  The National Literacy Strategy (1997), and the National 
Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching (1998), all DFEE.  There may be 
others we should include.
     A friend has given me a number of official publications from 
Australia, and the best seem to be coming from the Department of 
Education in Queensland.
     I suspect these are widely and easily accessible overseas.  It 
would be good to get them circulating within our group.
     Does anyone know about price and address?
Craig

  
Gini Grossenbacher wrote:

> Do you know where I can access information about England's scope and 
> sequence for instruction? 
>  
>
>     -------------- Original message --------------
>     Ed,
>        From what I understand, England now has not only a scope and
>     sequence for school instruction, but an officially sanctioned
>     glossary to go with it.  This solves the problem, not just of
>     having terms in common, but of having a place you can go to see
>     what the consensus understanding is that fits with the terms.
>      Apparently, this was done in harmony with linguists, who had a
>     chance to suggest corrections and changes.  (Not to say there
>     weren't disappointments and compromises.)  I haven't had a good
>     look at it yet, but it might be an interesting place to start.
>          There seems to be some interest in putting together
>     thoughtful recommendations. I would assume that these questions
>     are in line with the scope and sequence project (ongoing.)  We
>     should add terminology to the mix.
>     !     The U.S. being what it is, we may have to deal directly with
>     individual states, but it may be nice to have "ideal"
>     recommendations to use as a lens.
>         I have my own problems with "gerundive", but that shouldn't
>     obscure the larger questions.
>
>     Craig  
>
>     Edward Vavra wrote:
>
>>     Craig,
>>         I have regularly stated that I have no problem with the
>>     discussions of terminology on this list. Even more than that, I
>>     would support any attempts to develop consistent, labeled,
>>     "grammars" other than KISS. What I see on this list, however, is
>>     almost only discussions of individual grammatical concepts with
>>     little discussion of how they would fit into a systematic,
>>     pedagogical grammar. I'm also totally dismayed by this group's
>>     inability to arrive at some basic standards. The following would
>>     be an example:
>>      
>>     1.) By the beginning of fourth grade, students should be able to
>>     identify the subjects and finite verbs in typical sentences
>>     written by third graders.
>>     2.) By the end of fourth grade, students should also be able to
>>     identify simple prepositional phrases in texts written by and for
>>     fourth graders. ("Simple" excludes phrases that have verbals or
>>     clauses as their objects.)
>>     3.) Students should at least begin to learn to identify clauses
>>     in the typical writing of seventh graders in seventh grade.
>>     4.) By the end of eigth grade, students should be able to
>>     identify subordinate clauses that function as nouns, adjectives,
>>     or adverbs in the typical writing of eighth graders.
>>      
>>     The preceding are very minimal standards, but they would mean
>>     that teachers would not have to start teaching formal grammar
>>     over and over and over again at every grade level. In response to
>>     a previous post in which I mentioned such standards, I received
>>     messages (interestingly off list) in support. I know that my
>>     colleagues in composition would be thrilled by these standards,
>>     as would my colleagues in literature.
>>          Am I saying that I only want to talk to people who see
>>     grammar as I do? Yes and No. The discussions of terminology on
>>     this list sometimes bore me, sometimes make me laugh. That they
>>     are on list does not bother me. But I do want to talk to people
>>     who want to overcome the major problem in the teaching of
>>     grammar. That problem is not just the terminology. It is the fact
>>     that, in part because of the terminology, teachers in K-12 can
>>     rarely, if ever, expect the students entering their classrooms to
>>     bring some useful knowledge of grammatical concepts with them.
>>     Ed
>>      
>>      
>>      
>>      
>>      
>>     >>> [log in to unmask] 9/28/2005 2:03:19 PM >>>
>>     Ed,
>>        It certainly would be problematic to change terms in the
>>     middle of a book or for students to learn a new set of terms
>>     every time they shifted grades or teachers.  I don't know that
>>     you can place the same constraints on professionals who get
>>     together collegially and come from very different backgrounds. I
>>     think sometimes we misread your complaint.  I don't think any of
>>     us advocate a curriculum that waffles on terms, and it may seem
>>     like we are defending that.
>>         I would use different terms (at times) than you use in KISS, 
>>     but I would love to have students trained in that program.  I'm
>>     sure they would adjust quickly, especially if the terminology is
>>     thoughtfully explained.  But if that happened between third and
>>     fourth grade, I would join in your criticism.
>>         Are you saying you only want to talk to people who see
>>     grammar as you do?  Isn't terminolgy an important part ! of those
>>     professional differences?
>>
>>     Craig
>>
>>
>>     Edward Vavra wrote:
>>
>>>     Craig,
>>>           I think I understand what you are saying, but I'd still
>>>     suggest that it sounds extremely fuzzy. Hence I do not see it
>>>     getting much support, even from the public. I still say that the
>>>     terminology problem is major. There is a major difference
>>>     between 1) discussing various functions of adverbs and 2) using
>>>     different terms to refer to the same thing -- Is a "subjunctive
>>>     complement" the same as a "predicate adjective" and "predicate
>>>     noun"? I may, of course, be stupid, but I simply do not
>>>     understand how instruction can be coordinated from year to year
>>>     if different terms are used. Not that you need my support, but
>>>     as long as you argue that confusing terminology is acceptable, I
>>>     can't support the project.
>>>         I had nothing to do (Thank heaven) with Grammar Alive. It
>>>     would indeed be interesting to know if NCTE forced the
>>>     elimination of any scope and sequence materials. I have at least
>>>     a year's worth of work to do on the KISS site, but when that is
>>>     basically established, I intend to write for the general
>>>     public. Actually I'm already starting with a monthly column in a
>>>     local publication. This month's column, on "Grammar Goblins and
>>>     Ghosts," basically explains to parents why their children (and
>>>     many teachers) may hate and fear grammar. Goblins include
>>>     definitions that do not define and also such things as the
>>>     confusion over "main" "subordinate," "independent" and
>>>     "dependent" clauses. Ghosts are things that students should be
>>>     taught -- but aren't -- such as the distinction between finite
>>>     verbs and verbals. Eventually, I'll be discussing both NCTE and
>>>     ATEG, so it would be very interesting to know the extent to
>>>     which NCTE forced the elimination o! f scope and sequence. Even
>>>     more interesting would be any scope and sequence materials that
>>>     were dropped from the text. It is precisely the lack of such
>>>     discussion that I continually complain about. If some was
>>>     written, I haven't seen it. Of course, I have stopped attending
>>>     the conferences and do not subscribe to the "journal," but if
>>>     such materials do exist, it still surprises me, in view of my
>>>     regular complaints, that no one has pointed me in their direction.
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>     >>> [log in to unmask] 9/27/2005 10:14 AM >>>
>>>     Ed,
>>>        When you go outside the usual list decorum, I chalk that up
>>>     to a great deal of passion about the subject.  I don't  think
>>>     it's personal, but I can see why people take it that way from
>>>     time to time.  
>>>         I helped start the New Public Grammar group in part because
>>>     ATEG needs to be a big tent and therefore needs to be a place
>>>     where interests can conflict. (Where conflicts can air.)  But
>>>     the scope and sequence project seemed (seems) an invitation to
>>>     get things done within the framework of a larger group.  I'm
>>>     still not sure of that.  If ATEG doesn't do it, I believe I am
>>>     one of many who would push ahead with the project.
>>>         The sense I got this summer is that the problem really is
>>>     with NCTE and not with ATEG.  The last scope and sequence
>>>     project morphed into Grammar Alive. My understanding--please
>>>     correct me if I'm wrong--is that NCTE asked for scope and seque!
>>>     nce material to be removed from that text.  In other words, NCTE
>>>     is not only officially against the systematic teaching of
>>>     grammar, but against officially publishing anything that
>>>     advocates systematic instruction.  They are, in effect,
>>>     simultaneously supporting and censoring us.  
>>>         My position has been--and I don't know how alone I am in
>>>     this--that we should simply go ahead and express the truth about
>>>     grammar as we see it, using our status as a professional
>>>     organization to help give advice and support to grassroots
>>>     projects looking for advice and support.  We would be running
>>>     counter to the official stance and position of NCTE and perhaps
>>>     we need to be braced for the consequences of that.  If they are
>>>     at all professional, of course, they will not deny us a
>>>     thoughtful voice.  
>>>         By truth about grammar, I mean the principles under which a
>>>     new kind of approach to grammar might be implemented and some
>>>     sense of how tha! t could work itself out at various grade
>>>     levels (scope and sequence.)  At this stage, we have  ongoing
>>>     projects in the rest of the English speaking world to draw on as
>>>     possible maps. It would mean an official statement, counter to
>>>     the NCTE official position (which they have resisted revisiting)
>>>     that accurate knowledge of grammar is both helpful and useful
>>>     and a welcome alternative to misunderstanding and ignorance
>>>     (badly conceived grammar or none at all.)  It would mean
>>>     acknowledging, in the words of Dick Hudson, that ignoring
>>>     grammar instruction has been adequately tested over the past few
>>>     decades and shown itself to be a "colossal failure."  
>>>          I don't see conflicting terminology as a problem,
>>>     especially when the arguments are not just about terms, but
>>>     about understandings.  If students are to look at the grammar in
>>>     their own writing, for example, they should be able to see the
>>>     different functions for what have been traditionally called
>>>     adverbs. Does that mean new categories?  Sub-categories! ?
>>>      Either would be an improvement. Herb suggested it, and I
>>>     thought it was a worthwhile distinction precisely because it
>>>     would bring our understanding of grammar closer to what actually
>>>     happens in the world. It would make it easier for student
>>>     writers to look at the grammar/meaning connection in their own
>>>     writing and the writing of their peers.
>>>         Even if ATEG doesn't want to do this as official work of the
>>>     group, it should promote and support that kind of 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/
>>>
>>
>>     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/
>


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/