[log in to unmask] type="cite">Craig,I think I understand what you are saying, but I'd still suggest that it sounds extremely fuzzy. Hence I do not see it getting much support, even from the public. I still say that the terminology problem is major. There is a major difference between 1) discussing various functions of adverbs and 2) using different terms to refer to the same thing — Is a "subjunctive complement" the same as a "predicate adjective" and "predicate noun"? I may, of course, be stupid, but I simply do not understand how instruction can be coordinated from year to year if different terms are used. Not that you need my support, but as long as you argue that confusing terminology is acceptable, I can't support the project.I had nothing to do (Thank heaven) with Grammar Alive. It would indeed be interesting to know if NCTE forced the elimination of any scope and sequence materials. I have at least a year's worth of work to do on the KISS site, but when that is basically established, I intend to write for the general public. Actually I'm already starting with a monthly column in a local publication. This month's column, on "Grammar Goblins and Ghosts," basically explains to parents why their children (and many teachers) may hate and fear grammar. Goblins include definitions that do not define and also such things as the confusion over "main" "subordinate," "independent" and "dependent" clauses. Ghosts are things that students should be taught — but aren't — such as the distinction between finite verbs and verbals. Eventually, I'll be discussing both NCTE and ATEG, so it would be very interesting to know the extent to which NCTE forced the elimination of scope and sequence. Even more interesting would be any scope and sequence materials that were dropped from the text. It is precisely the lack of such discussion that I continually complain about. If some was written, I haven't seen it. Of course, I have stopped attending the conferences and do not subscribe to the "journal," but if such materials do exist, it still surprises me, in view of my regular complaints, that no one has pointed me in their direction.Thanks,EdEd,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"
When you go outside the usual list decorum, I chalk that up to a great deal of passion about the subject. I don't think it's personal, but I can see why people take it that way from time to time.
I helped start the New Public Grammar group in part because ATEG needs to be a big tent and therefore needs to be a place where interests can conflict. (Where conflicts can air.) But the scope and sequence project seemed (seems) an invitation to get things done within the framework of a larger group. I'm still not sure of that. If ATEG doesn't do it, I believe I am one of many who would push ahead with the project.
The sense I got this summer is that the problem really is with NCTE and not with ATEG. The last scope and sequence project morphed into Grammar Alive. My understanding--please correct me if I'm wrong--is that NCTE asked for scope and sequence material to be removed from that text. In other words, NCTE is not only officially against the systematic teaching of grammar, but against officially publishing anything that advocates systematic instruction. They are, in effect, simultaneously supporting and censoring us.
My position has been--and I don't know how alone I am in this--that we should simply go ahead and express the truth about grammar as we see it, using our status as a professional organization to help give advice and support to grassroots projects looking for advice and support. We would be running counter to the official stance and position of NCTE and perhaps we need to be braced for the consequences of that. If they are at all professional, of course, they will not deny us a thoughtful voice.
By truth about grammar, I mean the principles under which a new kind of approach to grammar might be implemented and some sense of how that could work itself out at various grade levels (scope and sequence.) At this stage, we have ongoing projects in the rest of the English speaking world to draw on as possible maps. It would mean an official statement, counter to the NCTE official position (which they have resisted revisiting) that accurate knowledge of grammar is both helpful and useful and a welcome alternative to misunderstanding and ignorance (badly conceived grammar or none at all.) It would mean acknowledging, in the words of Dick Hudson, that ignoring grammar instruction has been adequately tested over the past few decades and shown itself to be a "colossal failure."
I don't see conflicting terminology as a problem, especially when the arguments are not just about terms, but about understandings. If students are to look at the grammar in their own writing, for example, they should be able to see the different functions for what have been traditionally called adverbs. Does that mean new categories? Sub-categories? Either would be an improvement. Herb suggested it, and I thought it was a worthwhile distinction precisely because it would bring our understanding of grammar closer to what actually happens in the world. It would make it easier for student writers to look at the grammar/meaning connection in their own writing and the writing of their peers.
Even if ATEG doesn't want to do this as official work of the group, it should promote and support that kind of project.
CraigVisit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/