Dick,
   This is an enormously thoughtful post. I agree wholeheartedly that
these are very important concerns. I think you not only represent many
people who will approach our project with skepticism, but do so in a
very clear and articulate, open-minded way. If you didn't exist, we
would have to invent you.
   We are clearly going to have to come through in our Scope and Sequence
with details that carry these abstractions out. We can't just say
grammar is connected to rhetoric without some solid, hands-on advice.
We clearly need to point out mythrules as mythrules and offer far more
functional alternatives. For people who have tried grammar without
positive results, we need to make good on the promise of a useful
grammar.
   Keep on listening in. We need you.

Craig


> My response to the ATEG  Scope and Sequence project.  July  2006. Richard
> Betting, retired English teacher living south of Valley City, North
> Dakota.
>
>
>
>             The ATEG "Scope and Sequence Project on the Rationale for
> Teaching Grammar" sets as some of its goals, according to
> Craig's notes, "what should be taught K-12, why . . ., how . .
> ., how . . . assessed,  . . . and how teachers should be
> trained to carry all this out." Uffda, as we say around here.
> But I'm for it and wish I could attend the ATEG Summer
> Conference this week  and participate in the conference and in
> the discussion groups. Instead, I'll have to begin with a
> couple of comments on the draft document.
>
>             First, I have a question about definitions in the Rationale.
> While grammar is obviously the subject, no definitions of the
> term are provided nor are any called for, though "grammar can
> mean many things." Not explaining what some are means having
> to deal with many contradictory definitions everyone comes to
> class or this discussion with. For example, will we
> distinguish between grammar and usage? Between "avoidance of
> error" and "higher order concerns"? What are "errors"? "Higher
> order concerns"?
>
>             What we are confronted with is vague statements such as, in #
> 6, for instance, "looking at the work of grammar when grammar
> is working well, especially in contexts the student has yet to
> master." When we look at the "work of grammar," what are we
> looking at? Those who teach grammar should know. At least for
> themselves and for their students.
>
>             Discussion of definitions would be a great place to start. I
> have another questions, too, but the main one is what is the
> connection between students knowing information about grammar
> and their putting that knowledge to use in reading, writing,
> listening and speaking. In other words, how does information
> make their communication more effective. What techniques do
> teachers use to make grammar facts meaningful, functional?
> There is an implication in the Rationale that knowledge of
> grammar for its own sake is enough. Or that knowing grammar
> information will automatically improve one's ability to use
> it. Not for many ninth graders.
>
>             So I'm asking what my students used to: Why do I need to know
> this and how will my life be better because of this
> information?
>
>             And I'm serious. These are valid questions and conscientious
> teachers try to respond to them. Many of those secondary
> English teachers are still using "standardized contemporary
> traditional grammar textbooks," ones that still contain many
> of the mythical grammar rules that were recently passed
> around: don't begin sentences with and or because, sentences
> are complete thoughts, and so on and on. The disconnect
> between accurate linguistic study and those rules has already
> been pointed out, but methods of fixing it have not been
> addressed. Well, yes, in the goals listed above. Those are
> abstractions, however, not methods.
>
>             How do teachers get their students to make the connections
> between language information and use so that they are about to
> "try out the new rhetorical tools that a rich exploration of
> grammar brings to the fore"? What is the connection between
> grammar and rhetoric here, for example?
>
>             I am very interested in the results of your discussion of
> these and other aspects of the issues addressed in the
> Rationale. Please include me-and I'm assuming everyone on the
> ATEG list would be-among those who would like to see the next
> version.
>
>             Good luck with your group discussions.
>
>             Dick Betting
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Peter Adams
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>   Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:43 PM
>   Subject: Re: Scope and sequence, rationale
>
>
>   I understand that the ATEG position is that the teaching of grammar has
> wider goals than simply "the avoidance of error."  And over the years,
> thanks to this list and to presentations at conferences, I have come to
> embrace these wider goals.  However, the ATEG position sometimes sounds
> to me to suggest that any concern with the avoidance of error is
> misguided.  I would love to hear some ATEGers agree that reducing the
> frequency and seriousness of error in student writing is a worthwhile
> goal of grammar instruction, while recognizing that it should not be the
> only goal.
>
>
>
>   Peter Adams
>   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/