I think we should see grammar certification as part of much larger
scale initiative, the Scope and Sequence project. From the start, we
have seen teacher training as an important element. Amanda Godley gave
a thoughtful presentation on this at the conference. My sense is that
many linguistics departments, including her own, have lobbied hard for
more grammar in English and teacher training, but have, until now at
least, met with resistance. I think we should advocate these long-term
goals:
1) restoration of comprehensive exploration of language, including syntax,
in K-12. Once this happens, of course, future teachers will have a much
more solid foundation to build on in their teacher training classes.
2) routinely including at least three classes in language for English
teaching and elementary teaching majors. This would include an overview of
linguistics, a single course just on syntax, and a course exploring the
role of language in reading and writing and in reading and writing
instruction. I also like the idea that schools could/should have language
experts on staff, experts that other teachers could go to for advice and
assistance. This is happening in the Maryland project, with some success.
Such a person would have an even stronger background in language studies.
Given the nature of today's students, this would include ESL.
3) If a school system wanted to (or was forced to) reintegrate grammar
into the curriculum, we should have recommendations in place for training
of current teachers. The Maryland project is very handy precisely because
they have done exactly that, brining Martha in as a consultant and paying
for the training of their current staff.
4) ATEG has been offering in-service training for years as part of our
conference. I have never been part of it and don't know the details of
what is covered, but people who come through it seem very grateful and
satisfied. These, of course, are willing participants, not just teachers
who are being forced into it. Perhaps we need to expand that operation. It
doesn't do much good to have a certification program if there's no way to
meet those goals. I guess I'm suggesting more carrot than stick.

   Phil continues to speak about a grammar curriculum as if it already
exists, citing works like The Elements of Style, a book I like very
much but hardly think of as a comprehensive grammar. Certainly, E.B.
White never thought about it that way. The Chicago Manual of Style is a
very difficult book for anyone not well grounded in grammar already.
   We seem on our way toward a thoughtfully modified traditional grammar,
but I think we will hurt the project if we simply say that we want to
reinstate the old traditional grammar and teach it in the same old
ways. As someone trained and experienced in composition, fairly well
tuned in to the current talk in my field, I think an old unmodified
grammar won't sell. Conference presentations on rhetorically focused or
meaning-centered grammar seem to be enthusiastically attended and
received. We need to be more articulate about ways in which grammar
participates in the effectiveness of discourse, about ways in which it
is so much more than a set of constraints. If it's all about "error",
then people want to know why they need to know it if they already
behave properly.
   We have a chance to bring people together, and I worry that a
contentious commitment to certifying people will run counter to that.
   What do we tell someone who asks what we want people to teach? Why not
offer a scope and sequence, make recommendations for what teachers
should know, and then help make in-service classes available on a more
widespread basis? We could offer certificates of completion and make
sure they mean something.

Craig

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/