Phil,
>
Your statement that "nothing is getting done" angers me a great deal.
Even before you had any details about the program, you had very
negative and hostile things to say about it, and a good deal of energy
has been used up trying to reassure you that we are not the pack of
fools you have called us from time to time (with little curiosity about
what we are about, almost no history of interaction.) Look back at our
"word class" discussion and tell me you haven't derailed a consensus at
every major point. The same holds true of your stubborn insistence that
all nouns are "entities", to the point where some people came on list
to say please cease and desist from fruitless talk. Without that, we
could have made quick and rapid progress.
The project can go on if in fact we are not interrupted by someone
telling us the world will laugh at us if we try to change traditional
grammar in ways other than the changes he would make.
Personally, I think this goes beyond differences in philosophy and
approach and crosses over into a need on your part to own or control
whatever gets done.
I am certainly willing to take scope and sequence into committee. I can
bring it back to the New Public grammar group, which has already done
some thoughtful work. You can do the same for your own project, but
quite frankly, I will oppose any certification program that simply
seems like a hostile, confrontational approach to the profession and
not a reaching out. Whatever you come up with needs the support of ATEG
before it can be an ATEG program. Scope and Sequence was
enthusiastically endorsed at our last annual meeting (at the
conference.) We have a go ahead to proceed, and we would like to carry
out that mandate with the understanding that it will come back to
conference for future approval. You need to follow the same route if
you want to use ATEG as the umbrella.
Many of us are in public education, not working for the military. I
suspect our daily realities are very different. You may benefit from
seeing what we come up with and not assuming ahead of time that it will
be flawed.
I will try to keep an open mind on what you are doing, but please don't
slow down our progress and then criticize us for moving too slow.
Craig
This working at cross purposes may be what is bothering people, but as
> nothing seems to be gettind done right now it may be the best place to
> start. The problem of reconciling the two once there were fully worked
> out draft proposals is unlikely to be that difficult. Or sharing earlier
> drafts according to a schedule may be good too.
> ,
>>two independent committees, which isn't precisely what you've advocated,
>>would to easily work at cross purposes (is "cross purposes" an "ice
>>cream" phrase?). That there might be two groups working together and
>>influencing each others work so as to arrive at a curriculum and
>>certification standards seems reasonable.
>
>
> Well read my review of the book in the last ATEG journal. I pointed out
> the places where it varies.
>
>
> I've gone through the Houghton Mifflin web site for Honegger's book, and
>>it looks pretty decent. Given some of the things that he does with
>>parts of speech, phrase structure, etc., I would not infer that it
>>represents traditional grammar in the senses you have alluded to. But
>>in terms of presentation of structure it's not bad.
>
>
> Phil Bralich
>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bralich
>>Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:55 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Grammar Certification vs. scope and sequence
>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps I left a step out of the argument. I agree with many on this
>>>list that we need a new grammar curriculum. You and I differ on that.
>>
>>
>>You are really missing the whole discussion here. Scope and sequence
>>are a part of any field's curriculum design. Certification or the
>>offering of degrees is the result of a curriculum having been taught.
>>The development of a final test for certification naturally must be
>>based on the curriculum that is offered by the school offers the
>>curriculum. However, the issues that arise in the splitting of a fields
>>body of knowledge into a series for scope and sequence are very
>>different from the issues that arise in trying to test that field's body
>>of knowledge all-of-a-peice as a certifcation exam. The issues are
>>sufficiently different that not only do they suggest two different
>>committees to develop them, they more or less compell us to create two
>>committees. This is what you keep missing here.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm not being intentionally dense when I say that I don't understand
>>>what you mean by "... the entirety of traditional grammar is
>>>inescapable." Both "entirety" and "inescapable" are a little unclear
>>to
>>>me.
>>
>>Take a look at my review of Mark Honegger's _Grammar for Writing_ in the
>>last ATEG Journal. I made a similar discussion and pointed this out
>>with more examples when I explained why I believed his book was very
>>complete and that he had, in spite of protests to the contrary, provided
>>the entirety of traditional grammar.
>>
>>
>>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/
>
> 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/
|
