I suspect that we're dealing with at least four strands of motivation
for resistance to grammar-teaching, each of which calls for separate
measures (and yes, a lot of this is summary; I'm just trying to figure
out a
taxonomy of what I've been reading on the list):

(1)	Identification of "grammar" with failed skill-and-drill
composition 	practices. Craig's and Tim's postings provide a good
overview of the 	connection assumed by many, including many at
NCTE. This is a matter
	best dealt with by providing practical examples of what *we*
mean by
	grammar instruction, and demonstrating the results. More work
like
	Tim's, examining the problems with the research base, and more
	publicity for that work, is needed as well.

(2)	A potential mismatch between the cognitive style needed for
holistic
	analyses of literature and writing on the one hand, and that
needed 
	for grammatical/structural analysis on another. Students going
into
	English ed. have frequently either mastered the first style, or
are 
	in the process of doing so; their concept of "English" does not
	include the second. This renders discussion of grammar alien to
the
	rest of their experience. The only way to address this issue, I
think,
	is to establish that both styles are necessary for *all*
teachers of
	*all* subjects, and to do so in a way that ed. students
understand.

(3)	Related to (1), but slightly different: The identification of
grammar
	pedagogy with a rigidly elitist, gatekeeping approach to public
	education. The structure of "grammar" portions of standardized
	tests for admission to higher ed. has not helped at all. Since I
	hate fad terms, I would like to avoid using the word
"empowerment," 
	but what we have to do on this front is to establish a grammar
	pedagogy that clearly lets students examine their own
language(s) for
	their own practical purposes, as part of the process of
discovering
	the social world. NCTE supports that position in their Students'
Right
	to Their Own Language statement, but frequently does not extend
it to
	students' *knowing about* their own language.

(4)	Resistance to grammar is sometimes just resistance to *time*
spent on
	grammar, due to the simple fact that modern K-12 systems expect
	English teachers to do much of the most important work of the
system
	at once (receptive and active literacy *plus* cultural
knowledge).
	I would get nervous too, if someone told me I should start
	incorporating literary critical theory in the 75 minutes I have
for
	my grammar class. This can only be addressed by designing units
	that do multiple things at once.


An additional problem, of course, is that while most educators don't
like elitist gatekeeping as in (3), some administrations do. A point in
favor of
a program for teachers can be a point against it in the state
legislature.

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

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/