In our case, they didn't so much restrict initially.  Rather, they asked for
a huge volume of items, then eliminated anything that wasn't what they had
in mind in the first place.  So, in order to be politically correct, they
accepted a few mindless multicultural items along with the same items they
have had on the test for two or three generations.  I pulled a bit of
subterfuge to be invited to the committee.  I said I had Native American
blood (which I do, about 3%) so they put me on as their Native American
representative.  I soon found out that the only Indians they wanted to hear
about were akin to Hiawatha ("By the shores of Gitche Gumee . . .").
Actually, as I remember, Longfellow was also unfashionable at that moment;
but you get the idea.

Jeff Glauner
Park University

----- Original Message -----
From: "Connie Weaver" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Sixth-grade grammar


> Welcome to the club, Jeff.  I too found that the bottom line was that the
> publisher wanted to use my name.
>
> When you wrote that exam, did you find you had all kinds of other
guidelines to
> adhere to?  We "authors" (I use the term advisedly!) were given a list of
about
> 15 no-nos to keep in mind when writing grammar exercises.  I've forgotten
most
> of them, but basically the idea was not to offend anybody with anything
(so no
> mention of the Civil War, for instance).  What really got me, though, was
the
> prohibition against naming negative emotions.  I decided to try it anyway,
and
> sure enough, things like "Laura was sad" came back edited as "Laura was
happy."
>
> Connie Weaver
>
> JEFF GLAUNER wrote:
>
> > I think the problem is that NCTE has put grammar research on its
"blacklist"
> > for publication.  There is plenty of research going on.  It just isn't
> > published.  By extension, because it isn't publishable, it isn't written
up
> > by the researchers for publication.
> >
> > Another real problem that has become more evident lately is that
elementary
> > and secondary  and even college level achievement tests in language arts
are
> > largely based upon prescriptive traditional grammar.  They use a few
> > contemporary terms, but it is easy to see that the ACORN has not fallen
far
> > from the tree.
> >
> > I had a similar experience to Connie's when I was invited to write an
> > American Literature Advanced Placement Exam for the College Board.  I
> > discovered that our names were on the test as authors largely to give
the
> > publisher credibility, but the content was decided before we started
> > writing.  Any item that was at all challenging had to refer to a dead
white
> > guy.  I think, for the moment, we are going to have to do most of our
> > exchange of ideas about grammar along with reporting our research on the
> > internet.
> >
> > Jeff Glauner
> > Park University
> >
> > Connie wrote:
> >
> > > I'd also like to ask for help:  Do any of you know of recent (last
five
> > > years) experimental research on the teaching of grammar, either within
or
> > in
> > > isolation from context?  I'd trying to catch up, and it looks as if
the
> > ERIC
> > > system has virtually nothing.  A friend checked various other sources
in
> > > 1997, but didn't find a single thing that wasn't already included in
> > widely
> > > known summaries, such as that of Hillocks and Smith in 1991.
Sometimes
> > good
> > > research just doesn't make it into the readily accessible sources, so
I'd
> > > appreciate any help y'all can give.
> > >
> > > Connie Weaver
> > > Professor of English
> > > Western Michigan University
> > > Home:  (616) 372-7224
> > > Fax:  (616) 372-7225
> > >
> > > Johanna Rubba wrote:
> > >
> > > > Last fall I had the chance to take a close look at grammar materials
in
> > > > books for K-8, of about a 1997-1998 vintage. Major publishers such
as
> > > > Houghton-Mifflin, Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, etc. The material
is
> > > > quite generous in most cases, but it is also quite traditional. I
can't
> > > > be satisfied with these materials as long as they continue to use
> > > > definitions that are inaccurate ('pronouns take the place of
nouns' --
> > > > they take the place of noun phrases) or not particularly useful
('the
> > > > subject is what the sentence is about'; 'a sentence expresses a
complete
> > > > thought'). They confuse form with function: anything that modifies a
> > > > noun must be an adjective (but nouns can modify nouns in English).
Also,
> > > > I have found no book that tells the truth about dialect variation:
> > > > double negatives aren't wrong, they follow the rules of a different
> > > > dialect of English.
> > > >
> > > > Also, none of the materials related sentence grammar to text
functions
> > > > such as maintaining topic thread, achieving coherence, or
distinguishing
> > > > given from new information. This connection is what makes grammar
> > > > relevant to writing. I just demonstrated this for an hour to my
> > > > students, and several of them left remarking on how interesting and
> > > > useful this material is; one wants me to help her with her writing
> > > > because she has coherence problems.
> > > >
> > > > Simply resurrecting traditional grammar is no guarantee that
students
> > > > will be able to take advantage of knowledge of grammar in their
writing.
> > > > It's not even a guarantee that they will be able to pass the
> > > > standardized tests that a lot of the curriculum is teaching to.
> > > >
> > > > I also find most of these materials discriminatory. A lot of
exercises
> > > > and tests target nonstandard dialect grammar, such as 'he don't' and
> > > > double negation. A lot of these materials ask students to either
supply
> > > > the 'correct' form or choose between a 'correct' and 'incorrect'
form.
> > > > Some of these are multiple-choice items. Looking at such items from
the
> > > > point of view of children, some will intuitively know the 'right'
answer
> > > > simply because they grew up in a home in which the standard dialect
is
> > > > spoken. Others will have trouble choosing because both standard and
> > > > nonstandard forms will sound right. For yet others, the nonstandard
> > > > forms will sound most natural, and they will pick the wrong answer.
> > > > Isn't it obvious that such materials disadvantage children from
> > > > nonstandard-dialect backgrounds? Won't it be these children that
score
> > > > low on the standardized tests (not to mention their school tests)?
> > > >
> > > > The instruction itself sends these children the message that there
is
> > > > something wrong with _their_ English, while the children in their
school
> > > > from middle-class homes, and their teachers, already speak 'correct'
> > > > English. What are the children supposed to conclude from this? That
they
> > > > grew up in defective homes/communities? That they aren't smart
enough to
> > > > have learned 'correct' English, like their classmates?
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> > > > English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> > > > One Grand Avenue  . San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> > > > Tel. (805)-756-2184  .  Fax: (805)-756-6374 . Dept. Phone.  756-259
> > > > . E-mail: [log in to unmask] .  Home page:
> > http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
> > > >                                        **
> > > > "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> > > > but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank
> > Oppenheimer
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~