Everyone,
   We had a very rich and interesting conversation going on these issues
on the New Public Grammar list (very happy to disagree, but always with
some respect) before moving this over to ATEG. I might add that it
includes members who have already seen a successful reintegration of
grammar in England and have given us very thoughful advice. That may be
because NPG is a group already committed to two goals: 1) the
reintegration of grammar into the public curriculum in a very
substantial way; 2) a somewhat reformed approach to grammar that would
not be simply a return to older, somewhat discredited practices. We now
seem to be discussing these issues with a group that includes people
who do not want to see grammar at all reformed, but just a return to
"correcting errors" and not changing even "parts of speech" because
that will frighten the publishers and the great thinkers who believe
the old ways of doing things were just right.
   As a coordinator of the project, I would like to say first of all that
I have no interest in simply affirming the value of Warriner's, or even
of an approach that says once people fix all their errors, they can
learn something interesting about language. From the first, our
position has been that knowledge about language is the primary goal,
and that "error reduction" is something that will routinely fall into
place if we aim at this higher goal. (Not at all discrediting
"correctness," just believing that it doesn't happen with a shallow
knowledge base.)
   Warriner's already exists. We have plenty of dated handbooks. We can
dust off the old workbooks. If we can't agree on the usefulness of
rethinking grammar, then I propose that the scope and sequence project
move back to the new public grammar group. ATEG can then decide if it
wants to endorse the program once it's done, or even affirm its value
as a possbile alternative to older approaches or no grammar at all.
   Perhaps by it's very nature ATEG has to be a big tent organization that
can't endorse change without alienating its many highly conservative
members. If that's the case, then a rethinking of grammar has to happen
elsewhere.
   I want to say I'm very saddened by the prospect, but not at all about
to resign my role in ATEG or my committment to Scope and Sequence. At
the moment, I don't think they can be done together.

Craig
   >


 YEH!!!!!!
>
> Rebecca Watson
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Elizabeth Ward wrote:
>
>>  Level One–what students must learn to produce correct standard wri>
>> tten
>> English. Once they understand something structure and usage, they
>> can go > on
>> to your more advanced S&S’s in which you may describe the uncertain>
>> ties and
>> ambiguities of language.
>
>
> 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/