John,
   Those are worthy goals, and I echo your endorsement of the book.
   I wasn't part of the team that produced it, but from what I understand
it morphed from a scope and sequence project, and NCTE didn't want to
go along with endorsing an actual scope and sequence component within
the book. The most controversial of the three would be the second goal,
not currently part of most English curriculumms. Those of us who teach
semester long grammar courses at the college level know how amibitious
a goal it is. But there's no place in the book where it's stated, for
example, that a student should know determiners by ninth grade or modal
auxiliaries by 11th or even that a graduating student should be
familiar with those categories and able to apply them to a particular
text. I have yet to find a student coming out of high school who could
meet that second goal. Mostly their knowledge of grammar is limited to
prescriptive rules of the questionable variety we have been discussing.
Is that because I teach in New York State? I'm not sure.
   Part of our problem comes from the fact that we are an assembly of
NCTE. When scope and sequence came up again two ATEG conferences ago,
there was some concern that we should try to lobby NCTE for change
rather than develop an opposing program. Other people felt, perhaps
with some justification, that thoughful grammars are already available,
that we mainly need to endorse them rather than try to develop our own.
My own position was and has been very different from that, but I have
tried to be part of the loyal opposition.
   In New York state, there has been an affirmation of "literary elements"
in the English curriculum. Metaphor is a literary element, but phrases
and clauses are not. I'm not quite sure who has decided where to draw
the line. I think much might be gained if we can get people to
recognize that most great literature is simply a highly effective use
of ordinary language. It's hard to make the point if the nature of
ordinary language is below conscious radar.
   It is also hard to be in favor of teaching grammar when the teaching of
grammar can mean so many different things. As Susan pointed out, most
progressive teachers still think of it as harmful. That doesn't
necessarily mean that we should support ALL teaching of grammar in
opposition to that. It may mean admitting that some approaches can do
more harm than good.

Craig

 In our most recent thread about sentence structure, variation in style,
> and
> composition, the fundamental intersection of grammar and instructional
> goals
> was mentioned. I want to take just a moment to post the "Three Goals for
> Grammar Teaching" contained in one of my favorite texts, *Grammar Alive! A
> Guide for Teachers*, written by members of ATEG. This is just a very basic
> overview; the actual text elaborates on these goals quite elegantly. From
> page 4 of the text:
>
> "Goal A:
> Every student, from every background, will complete school with the
> ability
> to communicate comfortably and effectively in both spoken and written
> Standard English, with awareness of when use of Standard English is
> appropriate.
>
> Goal B:
> Every student will complete school with the ability to analyze the
> grammatical structure of sentences within English texts, using grammatical
> terminology correctly and demonstrating knowledge of how sentence-level
> grammatical structure contributes to the coherence of paragraphs and
> texts.
>
> Goal C:
> Every student will complete school with an understand of, and appreciation
> for, the natural variation that occurs in language across time, social
> situation, and social group. While recognizing the need for mastering
> Standard English, students will also demonstrate the understanding of the
> equality in the expressive capacity and linguistic structure among a range
> of language varieties both vernacular and standard, as well as an
> understanding of language-based prejudice."
>
> These goals won't make everyone happy, but I find them to be succinct,
> cogent, and extremely effective when implemented. I believe that, when
> used
> together, these goals provide the context (the "why are we learning this?"
> solution) and the mechanics of grammar instruction.
>
> I hope someone on the list who is not familiar with them finds them
> useful!
>
> John Alexander
> Austin, Texas
>
> 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/