I'm not sure the question of "better than" is really legitimate--I think it
is more a question of who is and is not included.  In a similar debate,
people argue that teaching students to read via whole language has not
produced readers who are "better than" the readers raised on phonics, and
that's true, I'm sure.  However, statistics argue that, no matter how good
phonetic instruction is for some, about 25% of students will never "get"
phonics and thus will never attain reading skills, because their minds don't
work that way.  Even if the other 75% may just be going great guns, it
doesn't make that method effective for all.  My experience is that focusing
on traditional grammar and assuming you are teaching everyone to write works
the same way--it's great for some but means nothing to others.  The question
is, do you sacrifice the "25%" to "improve" the 75% when the 75% might be
fine either way? (disclaimer: I know that the statistics from phonetics
aren't the statistics that would apply directly to traditional grammar--it's
more the spirit of the trade off I'm trying to get at).

And, of course, I have no doubt that back in the days when only 20-35% of
the population went to college instead of the 50-60% we have today, the
college student writing skills might have been better.  But that's
statistics, too--not every perceived discrepancy in skill relates back to
the one "easy" answer of process vs. grammar.  It has to do with sociology,
multiple intelligences, and (most importantly, in my opinion) the distorting
effect of nostalgia.

Finally, of course, it is flawed to think that teaching must be either
grammar-focused OR process-focused--the whole reason I'm on this list is to
learn from people who successfully and creatively integrate both.

Maureen Fitzpatrick
Associate Professor, Johnson County Community College

        ----------
        From:  GORDON RIVES CARMICHAEL [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
        Sent:  Thursday, August 19, 1999 6:15 PM
        To:  [log in to unmask]
        Subject:  Re: How grammar is being taught in the classroom today
(k-12)

        RE: Cathy Holmes question on 1960s methodology and today's
        "process-driven" composition not producing any better writers than
those
        of her generation.
            I can only say that as a US Army colonel, and a part time ESL
        instructor with the University of Texas state system, I expect my
        officers and employees to produce grammatically correct products,
and I
        tell my students writers are going to be more and more judged on
their
        correct use of grammar and general writing skills in this global,
        internet-connected society. The days of face to face meetings and
        interviews seems to be slipping away, and one's writing and written
        grammar skills are going to be one's passport to employment,
acceptance,
        and a fair hearing of their products and ideas. Poor writing is
simply
        going to continue identifying the writer's education and ability
levels.
        All English speakers and writers must be even more on the alert for
        proper grammar as the English language increases its dominance in
        written and spoken  international communications. Few people realize
all
        aviation aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-ground communications
are
        in English world wide, and English on the internet seems standard. I
        urge teachers, employers, and all English writers and speakers to
hold
        to long established standards. Written communication has lost none
of
        its value and just seems to grow in importance. This is not the time
to
        slacken. Just my thoughts. Best wishes, Gordon Carmichael