> Craig,

I think we should challenge the very name that the progressives give
themselves, for I consider them extremely conservative.  It is a view
largely motivated by a neo-romantic ideology, that of believing that
acquainting students with how language works somehow rubs the bloom off
their 'natural' genius, ruining their spontaneity.  This is traceable to a
blind trust in the Pure Individual and a deep suspicion of all that
contributes to a healthy social cohesion.  One has only to look at romantic
poetry to see how often images and icons that show a resistance to rule and
social harmony are present:  for example, the Animal (supposedly free from
rule), the Child (ditto, innocent of the crime of the social), the Madman
(the only sane person in a mad society), the Traveller (who has upped and
left the evil world), the Poor (who have not succeeded in the dystopia), the
Countryman (still unaffected by the social taint), etc., etc.  The
progressives are still fantasizing about the Child.  I wonder how they think
Beethoven would have managed to write his symphonies without a knowledge of
harmony.

Let us share your hope that this ideology is losing its influence.  However,
in England this week we have learned that the government wants to turn the
primary school curriculum into a 'project-based' system, in which no one
will teach English at all, since it will not be necessary as language skills
(and numeracy) will be picked up intuitively while doing 'research' on such
things as (an example actually given on the BBC this week!) what the
nation's favourite foods are.

Edmond


Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England

Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256









Ed,
>    You were leaving ATEG just as I was arriving, so we never got to meet,
> though we have talked via email. I don't agree with some elements of
> KISS, but I think the world is better for it, and you have people who
> use it and find it very useful. I don't think it could have been done
> by committee, but you clearly listen to the feedback of people who use
> it.
>    I don't think ATEG is dangerous. The list even provides a useful
> function in allowing people to defend their particular approaches to
> grammar. I don't take back what I said, that I would love to see it
> open up a bit more, but that's a point I'm trying to make from within
> the organization. I think ATEG has to be a big tent.
>    To me, differences in terminology aren't the problem. It's not that
> schools are teaching the wrong terminology; they simply do not believe
> that knowledge about language is useful. All the standards are phrased
> in terms of behaviour, deliberatelty vaugue on what students need to
> know. Your KISS approach, on the other hand, is comprehensive and
> knowledge based. I think a student schooled in KISS would be able to
> adjust to different terminology very readily. Because of what they
> know, it would be easy to engage them in conversation.
>    My understanding--this is second hand because I wasn't part of the
> process--is that NCTE effectively diverted the scope and sequence
> project you are referring to. It became "Grammar Alive", which
> deliberately held back from advocating scope or sequence at NCTE
> request. Those involved compromised, but also got NCTE to publish a
> book giving advice about integrating grammar instruction. I don't want
> to second guess that choice.
>    The progressive view still continues to be that people can use language
> without reflecting much about it. They believe that systematic
> attention to grammar would pull valuable time away from reading and
> writing. They believe grammar should be taught in the context of need
> with as little metalanguage as possible. That view may be softening,
> but it still holds sway.
>    I think ATEG is in a difficult position as a subgroup of NCTE. It's
> hard to change the direction of the parent organization because you
> need their permission to do it.
> 
> Craig
> 
>  Craig,
>>     Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I would
>> say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when I'm
>> sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are good,
>> but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG
>> members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the
>> numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for
>> teachers and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar
>> is the confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even
>> divide into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence
>> designs. Nor it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade
>> level should be able to identify the clauses in typical writing by
>> students in their own grade level. (A major part of this problem is
>> that members cannot agree on the definition of a clause.)
>>      I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I
>> believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three
>> separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG
>> was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost
>> a decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the
>> conference. (I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a
>> decade's worth of students have gone through school with minimal, and
>> usually poor instruction in grammar.
>>     I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it claims
>> to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it really
>> does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my time
>> on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence" plan.
>> http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
>>     Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG
>> developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the
>> competition that would result from several plans.
>> 
>> Ed V.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>> 
>> Richard,
>>    Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
>> to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
>> that through ATEG.
>>    My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
>> we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
>> plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
>> break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
>> be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
>> Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
>> about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
>> would then feel a vested interest in  the project. There was resistance,
>> though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
>> a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
>> our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
>> issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
>> was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
>> asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
>> statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
>> simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words,  ATEG tried to
>> work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
>> by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
>> effect, control our existence as an organization.
>>    The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
>> leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
>> have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
>> ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
>> up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
>> shot) views.  This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
>> the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
>> new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
>>    But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
>> the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
>> that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
>> happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
>>    I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
>> on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
>> older position.
>>    This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
>> to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
>> those approaches have probably already been written.
>>    As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
>> sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
>> wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
>> point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
>> NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
>> public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
>> pull people away from ATEG.
>>    The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
>> forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
>> starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
>>    NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
>> contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
>>    It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
>> necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
>>    I apologize if I have  misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's
>> views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
>> being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
>> of the 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/