John,
Many of us are working on reframing grammar instruction in the public
schools. The ATEG project that resulted in Grammar Alive! was, I
believe, a major first step; the book has a much more
scientifically-informed approach to grammar with some teaching tips. It
was snapped up at the first conference at which it was sold; I don't
know how sales have been since, but its popularity reflects teachers'
desperation for guidance in grammar instruction. Further steps are
needed, but this is not going to be an overnight enterprise. Many of us
are individually involved either at teacher ed level or in the schools
(Rebecca Wheeler and her students, for example).
State standards such as the ones for Washington are generally formulated
in the course of a very large state project involving commissions
comprising teachers and other experts, apppointed by the state's
department of education; unfortunately, where English is concerned, it
is rare that linguists are appointed to such commissions. Linguists just
do not have sufficient visibility at the level at which these projects
happen; since English teachers are already there and already have an
ideology about grammar, that's what gets into the standards. There is no
perceived gap or perceived problem.
Influencing these would take a lot more than messages to the contact
person for the website. What would be required is contact at the top
levels of such ed. depts., coming from authorities that they would take
seriously.
When California came out with its new language arts curriculum in the
mid-90's, I wrote a long letter to our state sec. of ed., and even
though I am a teacher trainer in the state college system, I heard
nothing back. I planned to contact the head of the commission that
formulated the standards, but, sadly, was distracted by the workload of
my relatively new teaching position at Cal Poly, and never got around to
it. The appropriate contact people are those: the ones who put the
commissions together, and the state officials whose final seal of
approval goes on the standards documents, and legislatures that
incorporate them into state law, in states where such things are done by
legislation.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that the standards name
particular skill objectives (e.g., "no double negatives"), but they do
not dictate HOW those are to be achieved. Certainly, we want kids to be
able to write academic prose without double negatives. It is unfortunate
that the standards state it so negatively, but the teacher is the one
who will present the lessons to the students, and the teacher is the one
who creates the in-classroom mindset. The kids rarely see the standards
themselves, I believe. So working with teachers through Grammar Alive!,
in language arts journals (where the Wheeler & Swords approach has been
published, and will be in more detail in a forthcoming book), and
presenting alternative mindsets and approaches in teacher ed (which is
going to happen in any class taught by a linguist) is absolutely
essential to changing the grammar mindset. A curriculum with materials
is needed, and, frankly, I have no doubt that one will eventually
emerge, whether ATEG does it, another group, or several individuals
working together. I am a member of a group with such a goal -- to
formulate a scientifically-based language arts curriculum for the
schools -- but it is in the very earliest stages and is working on
teacher ed. first.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/
|
