At  6:50 PM 10/27/97 -0800, Johanna Rubba wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>Sender:       Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>              <[log in to unmask]>
>Poster:       Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Re: NCTE/NCATE Guidelines for Language -Reply
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, EDWARD VAVRA wrote:
>
>> ... The first is that, although I recognize
>> the importance of grammar in writing, we are
>> overlooking the importance of comprehending
>> sentence structure in reading -- and thinking. I devote
>> a chapter to each of these in TGLA,  and it is difficult
>> for me to summarize here. Suffice it to say that this
>> plea is coming from someone who teaches five writing
>> courses per semester. We need to look at the whole
>> picture.
>>
>I agree completely here; in my new grammar class, I am having students
>look at already-existing texts (in all kinds of genres, not just
>literature) and using grammatical terminology to talk about what is going
>on in the texts, as well as what stylistic effects the writer's choices
>have -- for instance, in using subjects to create links between sentences,
>predicates to give new information, etc.
>
>We really have to find practical reasons for being able to use grammatical
>terminology and understanding the structure of the language. I believe
>that the sentence-level focus of most traditional grammar (and even
>linguistics) textbooks backgrounds the text-level needs that
>sentence-level choices serve.
>
>I also agree that understanding the structure of English and being able to
>use grammatical terminology to describe and analyze it is the core skill.
>As Ed says, this is the minimum we can expect in terms of teachers
>responding to student writing; and it is also the foundation for
>understanding all the other areas, such as lang. acquisition and dialect
>diversity.
>
>As to language acquisition:
>We should be doing more research on language development in the
>elementary and high school years. The biases of linguistic theory have
>kept research focused on early childhood. As a result, we have little
>knowledge on which to base things like grammar curricula in the schools.
>When is it appropriate to start asking children to use metalinguistic
>skills? The research I am reading suggests that middle school is the
>appropriate time for this. Also, it is clear that many children have
>trouble achieving sophistication in their writing, and that they are ready
>for different kinds of sophistication at different ages. We need to know
>more about this so it can be applied in the development of curricula and
>teaching materials. I think it is extremely important to have this kind of
>information. If your curricula are either too far below or too far above
>student readiness, they will fail many students. How long has grammar
>teaching essentially been failing now?? And with the present push for
>standards and standardized assessment, how many children will be
>disadvantaged by developmentally inappropriate standards and tests?
>
>> The next item on the hierarchy is "diversity, dialects,
>> social roles, etc." Are not most of these differences in
>> usage rather than in basic sentence structure?
>
>I think this begs the question. Of course they are matters of basic
>sentence structure, but the point of instruction about dialect diversity
>is not to get teachers understanding and using other dialects. It's to get
>them to understand the scientific wisdom on dialect diversity, and to
>achieve more equitable instruction in schools. Many children from
>nonstandard dialect-speaking backgrounds are still being turned off to
>language arts instruction because their teachers and/or materials are
>telling them that the language they bring from home is bad or wrong.
>Also, a good case can be made that some testing instruments disadvantage
>children from non-mainstream backgrounds. A lot of the students in my
>grammar class reported that, in their past education, grammar
>instruction made them feel inadequate and fearful, self-conscious, etc.
>The focus on correctness is the cause of this. An accurate portrayal of
>language, one that discusses the reasons why informal and formal language
>are different, why spoken and written language are different, why standard
>and nonstandard language are different, defuses the threat to students'
>self-image and helps them view language as a set of choices that they make
>based on communicative need and social situation. It also beefs up their
>confidence when they learn that they already are following very complex
>rules, and can learn new rules if they expose themselves to a lot of the
>kind of language they want to emulate. It's also important to make them
>realize that that's the only way they will learn it: you can't learn
>formal English by memorizing a set of rules. You have to read and write a
>lot, and internalize the rules.
>
>We have to enable teachers to distinguish among objections to language
>that are based on class or ethnic prejudice (the 'status-marking' errors),
>objections based on speech/writing differences (fragments, comma splices),
>and objections that are based on muddled thinking behind the language
>(dangling participles, for example). When teachers can distinguish these,
>students might learn to do so, and fix the problem appropriately.
>Students should change a double negative for very different reasons from
>why they would change a dangling participle, and they should be aware of
>those reasons.
>
>There's _my_ sermon!!
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
>San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
>Tel. (805)-756-2184  E-mail: [log in to unmask]      ~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Amen, Johanna.  Thanks.   That's a terrific sermon.  But how do we get the
congregation to listen and heed?
 
The powers that be are really afraid that any return to the notion of
teaching grammar will end up with the work sheets and fill-in-the-blanks of
yesteryear.  Here, for example, is this year's report from NCTE's
Commission on Language--the four issues that they identified and discussed
at their November 1996 meeting.  (This is part of a publication that just
arrived:  "NCTE Annual Reports, 1997.")
 
The Commission's issues are listed as four "concerns":
 
1.  Concern:  recent legal mandates regarding teaching methodology.  We
urge support for teachers' professional autonomy in the face of intrusive
legal mandates.
2.  Concern: increasing pressure on teachers to exclude controversial
issues from classroom debate.  We urge inclusion of controversial issues in
oral and written discourse.
(And here is #3!)
3.  Concern:  current calls for more grammar in classrooms.  We urge richer
language study in classrooms--going beyond grammar to also include study of
language variation, critical reading, power, and equity issues.
 4.  Undermining of students' right to their own languages.  We urge that
students have the freedom to think about, read, speak, write, and listen to
voices from a variety of sources, including their own languages and
cultural perspectives.
(End of quote)
 
This meeting took place at last year's NCTE--the same month that the
grammar issue of English Journal was published.  I think that #3 shows that
ATEG has made inroads into their thinking--and that they are worried that
the bad old formal grammar class is coming back.  And that bad old
prescriptive grammar means that there's only one acceptable standard--and
that the other "languages" (see #4) will not be tolerated.
 
The Commission's report begins with this sentence:  "The commission's
continuing commitment to language for social justice runs through the work
we have completed this past year, and the work currently underway,
including"--(and here the four concerns are listed).  At the end of the
report, after listing the four concerns, there's a list of three convention
sessions, which they sponsored last year, and three for this year--all six
of which have to do with social issues, including two on "English Only."
These lists are followed by another:  Writing projects in progress (NCTE).
There are four--more of the same--nothing  connected to language structure
or linguistics.
 
Please note carefully:  These "concerns" are the threats to the status
quo--threats to be dealt with.  They see these four issues (including "more
grammar instruction in classrooms") as threats to social justice. We have a
long way to go.
 
Martha Kolln