This is utter nonsense.  My statements are pertinent and relevant.  They need not be taken with such vitriol.  I have never called anyone a pack of fools.  I am merely commenting as an experienced professional who has been in this area for a long time.  Your characterization of my below is mistaken and is itself remarkably unprofessional.  What I have said has always been in bounds and continues to be so.  I'll thank you to return to a civilized tone and academic attitude that allows relevant and pertinent comment even if it disagrees even if it points up a probelme of excessive and childish exhuberance that is ignoring the realites of the world outside.  


Phil Bralich

> >
>   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/

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/