This working at cross purposes may be what is bothering people, but as nothing seems to be gettind done right now it may be the best place to start.  The problem of reconciling the two once there were fully worked out draft proposals is unlikely to be that difficult.  Or sharing earlier drafts according to a schedule may be good too.
,
>two independent committees, which isn't precisely what you've advocated,
>would to easily work at cross purposes (is "cross purposes" an "ice
>cream" phrase?).  That there might be two groups working together and
>influencing each others work so as to arrive at a curriculum and
>certification standards seems reasonable.


Well read my review of the book in the last ATEG journal.  I pointed out the places where it varies.  


I've gone through the Houghton Mifflin web site for Honegger's book, and
>it looks pretty decent.  Given some of the things that he does with
>parts of speech, phrase structure, etc., I would not infer that it
>represents traditional grammar in the senses you have alluded to.  But
>in terms of presentation of structure it's not bad.


Phil Bralich

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bralich
>Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:55 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Grammar Certification vs. scope and sequence
>
>>
>>Perhaps I left a step out of the argument.  I agree with many on this
>>list that we need a new grammar curriculum.  You and I differ on that.
>
>
>You are really missing the whole discussion here.  Scope and sequence
>are a part of any field's curriculum design.  Certification or the
>offering of degrees is the result of a curriculum having been taught.
>The development of a final test for certification naturally must be
>based on the curriculum that is offered by the school offers the
>curriculum.  However, the issues that arise in the splitting of a fields
>body of knowledge into a series for scope and sequence are very
>different from the issues that arise in trying to test that field's body
>of knowledge all-of-a-peice as a certifcation exam.  The issues are
>sufficiently different that not only do they suggest two different
>committees to develop them, they more or less compell us to create two
>committees.  This is what you keep missing here.  
>
>
>
>>I'm not being intentionally dense when I say that I don't understand
>>what you mean by "... the entirety of traditional grammar is
>>inescapable."  Both "entirety" and "inescapable" are a little unclear
>to
>>me.  
>
>Take a look at my review of Mark Honegger's _Grammar for Writing_ in the
>last ATEG Journal.  I made a similar discussion and pointed this out
>with more examples when I explained why I believed his book was very
>complete and that he had, in spite of protests to the contrary, provided
>the entirety of traditional grammar.  
>
>
>Phil Bralich
>
>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/