Ed,
  I want to thank you for the lengthy reply to our conversation and say
briefly that I share your frustration for the moment about ATEG being
able to agree on an approach to grammar and still be ATEG, a group that
is open to all interested parties, not just those from a certain school.
New Public Grammar, on the other hand, is a group that has enough in
common to maybe work out a consistent approach that ATEG could then
endorse, perhaps simply applaud, or distance itself from--whatever. The
prelimiinary conversation seems to show that some people on the list
will derail the whole process if it doesn't go their way, which would
tend to back up your point, that perhaps we need different groups
working on it. I'm not the right person to work on a traditional grammar
with no changes approach or a let's give them what they need to correct
the errors and nothing more approach. Or even the current progressive
approach, error in context with a minimalist metalanguage, under the
understanding (misunderstanding) that the teaching of grammar has been
"proven" to be harmful. To me, this is more the issue than whether or
not we espouse a structural grammar or a transformational grammar or
cognitive gramamr or systemic functional grammar and so on.
   The consensus to this point has been that we would work out a knowledge
based (not error based) approach to grammar and that we would want our
terminology to accurately describe the language, to be both clear and
useful. I don't think that can happen in a free wheeling discussion on
this list. People will constantly jump in to say that a knowledge based
approach is wrong.
   I must have started attending ATEG conferences about the time you
stopped. I can understand your frustration. To me, it was a delight to
find a group of people interested in grammar, and I have made wonderful
connections and wonderful working relationships as a result of my
interactions with the group. I don't think you or I should condemn it
for not just having people who think like ourselves. Its strengths and
its weaknesses come from the same thing, that it's a big tent, a place
where people who share nothing but an interest in grammar can interact.
   My understanding is that the last Scope and Sequence project morphed
into Grammar Alive, and that the scope and sequence part of it was at
that time unacceptable to NCTE. So this current project started off as
an ATEG project, not dependent on NCTE approval. It wouldn't be a
"mandated" scope and sequence any more than KISS is; just a recommended
scope and sequence for any interested parties.
   I think we can come up with something more than just a hodgepodge of
conflicting philosophies and terms. Has there ever been a universal
consensus about grammar? But I think you're right; we can't do that if
we need to keep answering objections about changing traditional terms
or going beyond the goal of error reduction.
   Maybe the SAT's and "No Child Left Behind" have brought grammar back,
but they do not ask for or expect explicit knowledge about language.
They are narrowly focused on behavior. Your KISS program, of course, is
a knowledge based system. Many people on ATEG don't want that. (They
tend to be on opposite sides politically, which is an interesting
sidenote. Neither the right nor the left seem to want a conscious
understanding of grammar being taught.) They are welcome in ATEG, but
that creates a problem when devising a scope and sequence, by its
nature a knowledge based project.
   Why don't you take more of a wait and see approach? Since you keep
coming back to the talk, I know you're not lost to us. If what we
propose is a mix of conflicting philosophies, point that out. We
welcome that kind of scrutiny. What hurts me most at this time is the
argument that any such project is foolish, doomed to failure, condemned
before it starts.
   I tilt at windmills, I suppose, but so does KISS.

Craig
    >

Paul,
>      I'm sorry. I probably did not make myself clear. I was aware of
> the reviews and of Dave's participation in the conferences, but this
> group could have done a lot more to promote the book. By God, the book
> practically makes the case for the current "scope and sequence"
> statement. What I had in mind is that Dave's ideas could have been
> discussed much more fully on this list, and, among other things, ATEG
> could have called for a letter writing campaign to promote the book. I
> don't remember these things happening. My guess is that they did not
> because the basic recommendation of the book is that we all go back to
> traditional sentence diagramming exercises. How many member of ATEG
> support that idea?
>    I never said that he referred to ATEG as "comical," but I would
> suggest that his description of the ATEG and NCTE conferences presented
> a David and Goliath image, an image in which David did not have a
> slingshot.
>
>      I replied to one of your messages earlier today, a reply that I
> hope you found acceptable, if not agreeable. Since then I have gone
> through the remaining 100+ messages. This group cannot even agree on the
> term "parts of speech." Once again, therefore, the only way in which I
> can see this group being truly productive is if it establishes distinct
> sub-groups for the development of scope and sequence statements. All the
> people who agree that "parts of speech" is fine can be in one (or more)
> group(s). Those who disagree can be in another. That will settle that
> point. Once general groups are formed, each with a common terminology,
> they can begin to address what concepts should be taught, when, how,
> why, etc. If ATEG's only objective is to promote the teaching of grammar
> (in some general sense), then it is already obsolete. The SAT and "No
> Child Left Behind" have already accomplished that objective.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ed
>
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 7/28/2006 12:52:35 AM >>>
>
> Ed,
>
> Where'd you get the notion that ATEG members are not enthusiastic about
> David's book? First of all, I (as I believe aome other members did as
> well) gave the book a favorable review in ATEG Journal (a.k.a., Syntax
> in the Schools); second, David was our keynote speaker a couple of years
> ago (after the book came out) and has been a regular attendee at our
> conferences (as I wish you would be); and third, I don't remember seeing
> a single negative comment on this forum about his book (correct me if
> I'm wrong). In spite of (and perhaps because of) his helpful criticisms
> of ATEG, he is a welcome, wanted voice in our group. So is your voice,
> Ed, even though you have lost faith with us.
>
> For the record, although I do not presume to speak for David, he did
> not refer to us a comical in his book. That is a gross exaggeration of
> what he wrote (partly quoted in Eduard's psting of a few weeks ago);
> ATEG is mentioned in two places: On pages 8-9, rather uncritically, and
> on page 88, the somewhat critical comment you seem to be referring to. I
> wish that you wouldn't let your feelings for ATEG cloud the accuracy of
> your comments. I also wish that you'd see how much progress we have made
> over the past few years: We have effectively changed NCTE's stance about
> grammar, having a page of principles on the teaching of grammar on their
> web site that we authored
> (http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/gram/107646.htm), and
> having had our introductory book on teaching grammar published by NCTE.
> If these are signs that we are doomed to failure, then what does a step
> toward success look like?
>
> Personally, I'm getting a little tired of all the predictions of the
> end of the world for ATEG. Either join the fight or don't, but don't
> cloud the argument with empty threats and negativity. Sorry if this
> sounds peevish, but it's late at night, I'm tired, and the useless ATEG
> bashing is just getting too annoying for me to ignore.
>
> Paul D.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Edward Vavra <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:16:40 PM
> Subject: The Question of Grammatical Errors
>
>      I expected to get some flak from my previous post, but I wasn't
> expecting over a hundred messages on the site. I read e-mail once a week
> from my office, and I do not have the time right now to go through all
> the messages. I would, however, like to respond to Peter's message
> regarding grammatical errors.
>     I do not regularly talk about the KISS Grammar site here, simply
> because I've been criticized for doing so. (Another reason for my
> looking for different audiences?) I will say, however, that KISS
> approaches grammatical errors by teaching students how sentences work.
> Most of the people on this list cannot approach the question this way
> because their grammars are primarily definitions of terms rather than a
> sequence for teaching students how to analyze sentences. For the KISS
> Approach to errors, see:
> http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/IM/Errors.htm
>
> The practical home page for KISS is now:
> http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
> This summer I have been revising the "Instructional Books" for the five
> KISS Levels. These are available, for free, as MS Word documents.
>
>      Although I have not been able to read all the messages, I would
> like to clarify the terminological problem as I see it. I have no
> problem with different grammarians using different terms. The problem
> arises when teachers and students are presented with "grammar" books
> that claim to be teaching the same thing ("grammar") but that use terms
> differently without clearly indicating that they are doing so. Thus
> teachers are confused, for example, about what a "clause" is because one
> book defines "clause" one way and another book does so in another.
>      I finally found the time to read David Mulroy's The War against
> Grammar, and I can see why ATEG members are not all that enthusiastic
> about it. He points out that ATEG is an extremely small group, almost
> comical when compared to NCTE. ATEG, I will suggest, will remain such a
> small, and ineffective group, until it resolves it terminological
> problem. Teachers (and professors) simply ignore ATEG because it
> produces primarily mumbo-jumbo terminology that is not internally
> consistent.
>     Once again, why can't ATEG support two, three, five named grammars?
> WIthin each of these grammars, terms would be defined and internally
> consistent. Once a grammar gets to that point, students and teachers can
> begin to apply it to questions of reading, writing, errors, style,
> logic, literature, etc. Once a grammar gets to that point, one can begin
> to consider what constructions should be taught first, etc. There is
> little discussion of the applications of grammar on the ATEG site,
> primarily because ATEG members cannot agree on which tools (terms) to
> use in such applications.
>     Although I will still, for obvious reasons, prefer KISS grammar, I
> would certainly support ATEG's proposals for distinct, named,
> pedagogical grammars. Unless that happens, however, ATEG will be a
> target of criticism.
>    I apologize again for not having yet read all the messages. I'll try
> to get to them on Monday.
> Ed
>
>
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 7/8/2006 7:43:47 PM >>>
>
> 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/
>

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/