John, Many of us are working on reframing grammar instruction in the public schools. The ATEG project that resulted in Grammar Alive! was, I believe, a major first step; the book has a much more scientifically-informed approach to grammar with some teaching tips. It was snapped up at the first conference at which it was sold; I don't know how sales have been since, but its popularity reflects teachers' desperation for guidance in grammar instruction. Further steps are needed, but this is not going to be an overnight enterprise. Many of us are individually involved either at teacher ed level or in the schools (Rebecca Wheeler and her students, for example). State standards such as the ones for Washington are generally formulated in the course of a very large state project involving commissions comprising teachers and other experts, apppointed by the state's department of education; unfortunately, where English is concerned, it is rare that linguists are appointed to such commissions. Linguists just do not have sufficient visibility at the level at which these projects happen; since English teachers are already there and already have an ideology about grammar, that's what gets into the standards. There is no perceived gap or perceived problem. Influencing these would take a lot more than messages to the contact person for the website. What would be required is contact at the top levels of such ed. depts., coming from authorities that they would take seriously. When California came out with its new language arts curriculum in the mid-90's, I wrote a long letter to our state sec. of ed., and even though I am a teacher trainer in the state college system, I heard nothing back. I planned to contact the head of the commission that formulated the standards, but, sadly, was distracted by the workload of my relatively new teaching position at Cal Poly, and never got around to it. The appropriate contact people are those: the ones who put the commissions together, and the state officials whose final seal of approval goes on the standards documents, and legislatures that incorporate them into state law, in states where such things are done by legislation. Another important thing to keep in mind is that the standards name particular skill objectives (e.g., "no double negatives"), but they do not dictate HOW those are to be achieved. Certainly, we want kids to be able to write academic prose without double negatives. It is unfortunate that the standards state it so negatively, but the teacher is the one who will present the lessons to the students, and the teacher is the one who creates the in-classroom mindset. The kids rarely see the standards themselves, I believe. So working with teachers through Grammar Alive!, in language arts journals (where the Wheeler & Swords approach has been published, and will be in more detail in a forthcoming book), and presenting alternative mindsets and approaches in teacher ed (which is going to happen in any class taught by a linguist) is absolutely essential to changing the grammar mindset. A curriculum with materials is needed, and, frankly, I have no doubt that one will eventually emerge, whether ATEG does it, another group, or several individuals working together. I am a member of a group with such a goal -- to formulate a scientifically-based language arts curriculum for the schools -- but it is in the very earliest stages and is working on teacher ed. first. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Associate 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. 756-2596 • E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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/