Phil,
    Again, I have nothing against a group that might take on NCTE
directly.  Our Scope and Sequence project will have an official
position very different from NCTE's.  >
    I have read David's book and take issue with his characterising of
linguistic grammars as simply theoretical.  Many linguists think of
themselves as functionalists, and many are hard at work on influencing
and shaping public grammar.  At the moment, this is bearing fruit in
England and Australia. A group of linguists have always been deeply
active in ATEG, at times against their own self-interest.
   One of the joys of my own public education was sentence diagramming,
which was given to me in what we used to call Junior High. I didn't
mean to discount the value of older approaches. But there is also a
rich tradition in teaching writing that has evolved since the sixties,
and it has to be respected in our attempts to reintegrate grammar into
the mainstream. Luckily, the understanding is now here to do just that.
It doesn't have to be an either/or choice, and an attack on modern
approaches may end up alienating potential allies.
    But lets agree to disagree when we need to.  I am advocating a very
rich exploration of language in the public schools.  There's much in
traditional grammar that we can preserve in the process.  It should be
a rich and open conversation. Everyone in ATEG who wants to should
have a look at the Scope and Sequence project while still in draft
form.  It should be something we are all proud of.

Craig

 Craig,
>
> I want to address some of what you said directly, but I want to couch in
> terms of: 1) considering the possiblity of a group specifically designed
> to address the NCTE position, and 2) using the new SAT grammar section and
> its popular support among policiy makers in government and educational
> institutes as the major focus rather than merely presenting an argument to
> NCTE about the 1985 policy.
>
>
>>   I think it would be wonderful to take on NCTE directly.  I also think
>>we shouldn't allow them to frame the debate.  So much energy has been
>>expended trying to argue FOR grammar and not enough just going ahead
>>and doing it.  We can go ahead and create a sensible set of
>>recomendations. As it stands now, those who agree with us have nowhere
>>to turn for sensible approaches to grammar and sensible statements
>>about its value.
>
> Here is what a subcommittee could do: 1) draft a letter to the DOE's of
> particular states and to the Secretary of the U.S. DOE, 2) include a copy
> of a separate letter to the NCTE addressing that policy statement, 3)
> elswehere, perhaps the ATEG website, there should be a position paper that
> reviews the relevant literature and the relevant arguments on both sides
> and concludes that the policy no only should be removed, but a stance
> should be taken by the NCTE against it.  This site should also include
> links to relevant sites.  The idea being to allow a lot of people to weigh
> the evidence but forcing them to come out in writing (perhaps against the
> DOE) on their position if they want to state it.  4) Develop a wide list
> of addresses to copy both letters -- professional organizations, teachers
> groups, etc.
>
>
>>   What you seem to be saying, and I would hardily agree, is that there
>> is
>>serious evidence that IGNORANCE about grammar is deeply harmful.
>
> Yes, but the discussion is best in the Mulroy book.
>
>
> The
>>real target audience may not be NCTE, but fellow teachers, many of whom
>>are reluctant to go back to older practices and unaware of
>>alternatives.  We have to be careful.
>
>
> I think the fear of older practices is a bugaboo.  I have actually seen
> repititive drills but that was almost 30 years ago.  People can't just say
> that all of grammar instruction is nothing other than repitive drills
> without being held to site the names of books that are currently
> available.  Current books are simply not like that and the grammar
> knowledge they impart significantly increases a students ability to
> understand questions.  And as a side note the idea that ANYTHING that
> improves your mind, even grammar, somehow distracts from your writing is
> ludicrous.  Your math classes contribute to a sharper mind so they
> contribute to your writing, your logic classes, grammar classes, history
> classes and so on all contribute to your writing.  There is absolutely no
> way that grammar knowledge could damage your writing.  There is no way
> that a focus on errors could damage your writing.  It may be temporarily
> damn up a creative flow, but secondary and post secondary institutions are
> not charged with the reponsibility of creating Stephen King's or
> Wordsworth's or Vonnegut's.  They are charged with the responsibility of
> creating competent writers for life, for jobs, and for history classes.
> The fear of creating someone too focused on errors is also a bugaboo.
> There might be the occasionaly neurotic student who gives up writing
> utterly because of an excess focus on errors, but overall after a while
> the student masters the errors and the creative flow returns within a more
> polished expression.
>
>
> Mulroy, much as I like his book,
>>seems unaware of newer possibilities.  Composition teachers (my field)
>>will resist anything that sounds to them like concentrating more on
>>error than on real writing. They are also unhappy with the new focus on
>>standardized tests. We should try to frame our suggestions in ways that
>>work in harmony with the goals of progressive educators.  That's a
>>quick summary of a complex issue.  When you advocate "grammar"
>>instruction, most people think they know what you mean, and they may
>>have good reasons for not liking that.
>
> If you're talking about the interactive classroom and more global rather
> than exclusively analytic classrooms, I think you are mistaken.  I think
> Mulroy is aware of them but doesn't agree on their value.  He sites the
> downturn in skills and in enrollment in FL classrooms.  I also think the
> jury is still out on all the game playing that's been passing itself off
> as education in the last few years.  I think the only think it has done is
> give 20-something's the ability to say "there should be more games" on
> teacher evals and then go snickering home dreaming of less homework and a
> free ipod.
>
>>    Grammar was first reinstituted in England by the conservatives
>>(Thatcher) over the objections of linguists, some of who had been
>>working on some remarkable curriculums. (Halliday retreated to
>>Australia, where he has been allowed great influence.) Over a few
>>decades, though, official British recomendations and curriculums have
>>become more and more thoughtful.  In Australia, the mediating focus
>>has been on genre, on the forms that have evolved to carry out the
>>work of writing.
>
> Traditional grammar and theoretical grammar are very different animals.
> The former is for molding young minds into good critical thinking
> apparatii and the latter is for a scientific investigation of cognition.
> Theoretical linguists have little or no business commenting on the
> traditional grammar classroom.
>
>>    I don't worry too much about offending NCTE.  We should just have a
>>more thoughtful OFFICIAL position of our own.  We should also be
>>careful to win over thoughtful teachers who may be open to new ways of
>>understanding grammar, which are now readily available.
>
> I am rather pessimistic about new ways of studying grammar.  There is not
> much there in the first place: parts of speech, parts of the sentence,
> sentence types, and spelling and punctutaion.  No offense to anyone in the
> field, but, this ain't math.  It also aint' algebra, trignometry,
> chemistry or even auto mechanics.  The whole thing is a big political
> bugaboo and the wind needs to be taken out of it sales.
>
> As to the problem in England -- give the classes on grammar to those who
> either know or are willing to learn and go on.  Teachers who want more
> work can make the effort to learn it.
>
>>    I don't think I'm advocating a wimpy position, but I would like to
>>take the politics out of it, build a better mousetrap, and then let
>>other people react to us.
>>
>
> I don't think it is possible to take the politics out of it as it
> primarily a political ploy in a political environ.  I don't think what
> your are advocating is wimpy, but I also think it may be ineffective as it
> ignores the political reality and motive of that 1985 statement.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> 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/