Actually, grammar ought simply be taught as a free standing subject for two years and made a mandatory requirement for graduation after passing a difficult test. The grammar that ought to be taught is the traditional grammar with the traditional nomenclature. It may not be the best possible explanation but it has the value of international acceptance and translanguage applicability within European languages.
You are quite correct that the works cited are disliked by me as a steady diet for students but not incompatible with the teacher of grammar.
Cheers,
R.Reis
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Veit, UNCW English Department
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:55 AM
Subject: grammar vs. literature (?)
At the risk of provoking further fulminations, I wonder why anyone should think that the study of To Kill a Mockingbird or The Diary of Anne Frank (this is how they are spelled, by the way) is incompatible with the teaching of grammar. Is the writer claiming that the study of literature itself hurts the study of grammar? If it is just that he does not like literature whose theme is the oppression of minority groups, that is his own private concern and no concern of this discussion list about the teaching of grammar.
Dick Veit
At 06:27 PM 11/28/2000 -0600, you wrote:
Subject: Re: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
To: [log in to unmask]
It is not a reactionary agenda. The abolition of grammar teaching is pure political correctness at work. Instead of teaching substantive material the English teacher gets to assign multicultural and alternative sexuality propaganda trash and condemn students who do not parrot the approved nonsense. At my high school students are condemned to repeated readings of "To Kill a Mocking Bird", the "Diary of Ann Frank" and Ebonic dialect novels along with pro-homosexuality tracts. Lot's more fun for English teachers with low I.Q.'s and axes to grind than teaching grammar, logical thinking, and classical literature.