Re: That Reprehensible NCTE Position Statement

Thanks very much for this reply. This is very helpful. And I will be at ATEG in September. I am presenting there. I am also presenting at TESOL this year in March and perhaps if anyone is there we could meet there as well.

This history is extremely helpful and it underscores the belief that a light, slow approach is unlikely to yield results. However, the fact that the SAT scores on the new 45 question grammar section will be dramatically improved if students are taught the parts of speech, parts of the sentence, sentence types (including clauses and reduced clauses), and spelling and punctuation. I also suspect the DOE of most states and the Secretary of Education are unaware of the NCTE position and I suspect very strongly that they would take a very dim view of it in the light of the new SAT and what constitutes more standard (but not well-placed) views of grammar and its importance for teaching writing. I have taught a lot of grammar quite a bit of writing and can only say that it is either a seriously confused state or a political agenda that can view grammar as unhelpful to writing or to all language arts. There is no other field on this planet that could be daft enough to argue that the basic taxonomy of the field should not be taught. This is like learning the periodic table from experience in the chemistry lab or trying to cook while avoiding pesky abstractions such as meat, fish, baked goods, and so forth.

This position is odd enough that a working group specifically set up to develop a strategy and materials to address that position statement would not seem shocking to most people -- even those on the NCTE. Such a committee would need to develop a working paper (think of your C.V.s), letters to gov't offiicials, and some well written and pithy materials to describe the problem and make the argument at conferences and so on.

As to the ability to teach grammar to older students. That is specifically what I do hear at the Defense Language Institute and precisely what I am presenting at the ATEG conference. My abstract for that presentation follows my signature.

Nice to meet you all by the way.

Phil Bralich

SMART Grammar

This paper focuses on a discussion of the underlying pattern of grammar concepts in terms of the parts of speech and parts of sentence of the 20+ languages taught to military students at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC). The SMART Program is a two-week program which prepares military students for long-term, intensive programs in a wide variety of languages using short-term intensive training in English grammar, study skills, learning styles, group dynamics, and culture. In particular for this presentation, the SMART Program is charged with the responsibility to provide these students with a general introduction to grammar that will prepare them for as wide a variety of languages as possible. Given the tight time requirement allotted to create a fully prepared language learner, DLIFLC must provide direct experience of the relevant concepts and terminology as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Identifying and presenting the commonalties existing in the parts of speech, parts of the sentence, and sentence types of the world’s languages significantly eases this task. This language skeleton is both presented and its practical use described.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Feb 3, 2006 5:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: That Reprehensible NCTE Position Statement

Dear Phil,

You might be interested in the history of our response to the l985 anti-grammar resolution passed by NCTE. I apologize for this long posting. But we in ATEG do have a fairly long and active history.

Back in 1993 we decided, at our annual conference, to submit a pro-grammar resolution. We kept it simple:

"Be it resolved that the National Council of Teachers of English encourage and support research into various approaches to the teaching and learning of grammar and into the relationship that learning grammar has to the language arts."

We also submitted a long list of "whereas" statements, beginning with "WHEREAS the assessment requirements in many states, as well as college entrance and placement examinations, include tests of grammar, punctuation, and usage" and ending with "WHEREAS a conscious knowledge of grammar contributes to a writer's sense of control and empowerment."

I submitted this to Skip Nicholson, Chair of the NCTE Committee on Resolutions, following all of the rules about a cover letter of support signed by the requisite five NCTE members. I had no response from him. When Sandra Wyngaard and I arrived in Pittsburgh for the meeting of the Resolutions Committee, expecting to hear what they had to say about our resolution, we were surprised to learn that it was not on the agenda. Mr. Nicholson informed us that we should be talking to the research committee about getting funds. "And besides," he said (and here I'm quoting almost verbatim), " And besides, this resolution wouldn't pass."

Later in the day, I spoke with the NCTE president, who was old friend of mine, who made it clear that not only did he know about the resolution, but that he also knew it had been rejected-and he apparently approved of the rejection..

The following year, we submitted another resolution to the convention in Orlando, complete with a long background statement, two and a half pages. Here is the resolution we proposed:

RESOLVED, that the National Council of Teachers of English encourage teachers to explore effective ways of integrating the conscious understanding of language structure into the teaching of reading and writing; that the NCTE encourage teachers to share their experiences with one another through journal articles, convention programs, and workshop.

As you can see from, we had been cowed into eliminating the G-word.

We included that statement about sharing because at that time there was no sharing going on either in journals or at conventions. As I have mentioned in talks and articles, back in 1963 there were 50 papers on grammar at the NCTE convention; in 1993, the word was mentioned only once in a title, and that was to disparage it.

So in 1994, in Orlando, again I went to the Resolutions committee meeting with a fellow ATEGer, Irene Brosnahan. I was upset that the wording of our resolution had been changed. In fact, I hardly recognized it as ours:

RESOLVED, that the National Council of Teachers of English appoint a committee or task force to explore effective ways of integrating language awareness into classroom instruction and teacher preparation programs, review current practices and materials relating to language awareness, and prepare new materials for possible publication by NCTE. Language awareness includes examining how language varies in a range of social and cultural settings; examining how people's attitudes vary towards language across culture, class, gender, and generation; examining how oral and written language affects listeners and readers; examining how "correctness" in language reflects social-political-economic values; and examining how first and second languages are acquired.

You might have noticed that in our second try, we had avoided the G word. We had substituted "language structure." You'll notice, however, that the word "structure" is not included in the text of the resolution. Irene and I argue to have "language structure" added. I honestly believe that had it not been for the fact that Irene is Chinese (Brosnahan is her husband's name), it would not have been added. That "across culture" term was very important; so, luckily for us, they took Irene's word for it! Not mine. And they agreed to add a sentence: It's the penultimate -ing phrase in the resolution:

"examining how the structure of language works from a descriptive perspective"
The resolution passed-I think because it didn't come up until almost midnight-and everyone was exhausted. And-this is the real reason-no one noticed "structure."

You'll notice that the resolution calls for a "committee or task force . . ." Both Irene and I applied for that membership on that committee. We both sent in our credentials. (Irene, by the way, was a professor at Illinois State.) I heard nothing back. So two years later, in 1996, I wrote to Charles Suhor, Deputy Executive Director of NCTE, to learn about what progress had been made on the committee. As it turned out, according to Suhor, a committee wasn't necessary: All sorts of good grammar stuff had been published, including (and these are his words to me) "

Some SLATE Fact Sheets by C. Weaver are focusing on grammar. (We're distributing her recent Teaching Grammar in Context as well). The NCTE/IRA Standards attend to language throughout, of course, with the most explicit attention in #s 4, 6, 9, & 10.

So, Phil, we do have a history of trying.

You might also be interested in the article I wrote (with Craig Hancock) for the New Zealand journal mentioned recently in these ATEG postings, entitle "The Winds of Change." My working title was "The Perfect Storm." What happened in the 1960s and 1970s was a convergence of a great many pressures, which included the infamous "harmful effects" statement (NCTE's mantra these many decades), the sensitivity to the idea that standard English saw itself as the only "correct" English, the change to student-centered classrooms, the questions about "new grammar" and transformational grammar-even the introduction of "new math." Everything came together to force grammar out of the curriculum.

Recently Tim Hadley has uncovered some new writings that will make a difference, I think, in the way that the so-called research against the teaching of grammar is viewed. I look forward to his discussions.

And I'm very glad to have you aboard. Please do come to our ATEG conference in July.
We need all the voices we can get.

Best wishes,

Martha

One request and Two Points:

Request: I would like to get Tim Hadley's dissertation, is it available on the web?

Point 1. A must read for this project is David Mulroy's, _The War on Grammar_. If it were not cited and summarized appropriately ATEG would look like it wasn't doing its homework. The facts and figures he brings to bear on the downturn of FL skills, literacy skills and so on coupled with deeply insightful, relevant, and pithy insights into the source of the problem and its effects are too important to ignore and we must give credit to his being there first of course.

Point 2. The SAT now requires 45 Grammar questions based on spelling, punctuation, subj. verb agreement and so forth, all the things that require teaching the full range of parts of speech, parts of the sentene and sentences types as well as punctuation and spelling. I am sure that pressure from parents, government, and school administrators is building already on secondary school educators to get this taught and I am sure the secondary schools will soon be putting pressure on the elementary schools as well. So, from this point of view we have (finally) a downhill slope and an easy battle.

A properly written letter to the Deparment of Education, accrediting authorities of all levels, teachers unions (from the point of view of jobs and work lost), and so forth would be effective. This should be done before any direct approach is made to appropriate NCTE board so that they can be copied on the letter that gets sent to the NCTE and the NCTE response duly noted to these authorites. Sympathetic authors, editors, and publishers can also be included. There may also be individual Congressmen, Senators, and DOE officials who would like to comment. It would also be possible to use the same letter to seek support from groups like TESOL, LSA, ISLS, ACTFL, NAFSA, and so on. TESOL may actually back the NCTE position as may some of the others, but if the request was made based on a letter to DOE, and on the realities of the new SAT, there may be a de rigeur sort of support coming from them. For all of them, the anti-grammar attitude has not produced more students or more programs -- though it has produced a political position and jobs for those who just don't their grammar.

We have to admit though that medical programs no longer have language requirements, many Ph.D. programs no longer require two langauges, and on and on -- ESL, FL, traditional grammar and so on should all be working together to perserve the entire basis of intellectual flexibility and cultural sensitivity in those grammar based fields. I am convinced that the reason we lost those programs and the reason the NCTE position is as it is, is because there is a large contigent people of people who did not want to get the FL training or get the grammar training but they had some political skills and made a movement of scapegoating the better qualifed and the more patient grammar FL group. I remember in the 70's and 80s, there was lots of impatience to get graduate degrees and get "out there" and make a mark. They were the advocates for getting rid of FL programs, grammar and so forth. Those same people later played a big role in the development of stricter writing requirements and remedial programs. Programs that Mulroy seems to argue would not have been necessary if grammar had been correctly taught earlier. There is no reason to think that a literature teacher who does not know grammar is in any way better than one who does -- in fact it is far more reasonable to conclude the opposite. David Mulroy's arguments on the sort of sloppy thinking that accrues among those who do not know grammar must be reviewed for this discussion and cited in any letters or proposals although he is classicist enough not to call it sloppy thinking. He addresses it in a discussion of the differences between Kant's reflective judgments and determinate judgments -- what Mulroy discusses as a distinction between the ability to make free associations vs the ability to find literal meanings. (p. 15)

>From your response I am not entirely clear of the goal of the Scope and Sequence committee. It sounds like it is designed to discuss grammar curriculum in general and that the discussion and search for the removal of the NCTE position is incidental. Would it be appropriate for the Scope and Sequence group to make a subcommittee or a spin off that was specifically for the purpose of addressing and motivating change in the 1985 NCTE position? I think to be effective it might need that sort of effort. Planning, research, and then the approach which may actually be a bit of a battle.

Finally, we should require that ANYONE who wants to weigh in on this discussion should first give us their official SAT score on that grammar test.

Phil Bralich
Assistant Professor
Defense Language Institute
Foreign Language Center

-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Feb 3, 2006 5:51 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: That Reprehensible NCTE Position Statement
>
>Phil,
>    I want to echo Paul's points and give more info on Scope and
>Sequence.>The project is an attempt to give thoughtful, professional
>advice about the teaching of grammar for anyone looking for an
>alternative to minimalist approaches. We were given a large part of
>the ATEG conference last summer and at that point approached the task
>on a more general level, coming to a consensus of what the advice
>should entail. Tim Hadley, whose dissertation has focused on the NCTE
>position, gave us a fine talk on its shortcomings, and he has agreed
>to be the point person for our own official response. I suspect he
>would be very happy to have you involved. My own sense is that we
>should put most of our energy on our own recommendations, that we
>should stop arguing for the need for a grammar and simply advocate a
>sensible one. But it's clear that people will bring up the supposedly
>conclusive NCTE position, and we should have a direct response to it.
>    Once again, we have been given substantial time at the ATEG conference
>for this project. My hope is that we can roll up our sleeves and fill
>in the details, not just take positions on the kind of grammar that
>should be taught, but make recommendations about the SCOPE (what
>should be covered) and SEQUENCE (when), teacher training, more

>reasonable assessment practices, and so on. We have proposed a panel
>for next year's NCTE (without using grammar in the title, but focused
>on these issues from the perspective of state standards, assessments,
>teacher training, and the disjunction among them. Martha Kolln and I
>are listed as presenters of the Scope and Sequence report, and it
>would be nice to have a fait accompli to present. If not, we can talk
>about current state of the project.)
>    Paul is more optimistic than I am about progress through NCTE. I
>think they deeply believe that direct instruction in grammar is
>harmful, and anyone who advocates otherwise is a threat to progressive
>education. Most English teachers are trained to teach literature.
>It's hard to talk about grammar with people who have very little
>background in it. But I agree very much with what i take to be your
>position, that we should present a clear and thoughtful alternative.
>If a school system in Ohio wants to change, they will have a
>professional position statement to help them out and a recommended
>program. If we wait for the blessing of NCTE, it will probably never
>happen. But the time is right. There's a grassroots interest in this,
>in part because NCTE hasn't adequately responded to the challenge of
>No child Left Behind.
>    The big plan is to get lots of people involved and to delegate
>drafting of the big parts of it. You are most welcome.
>
>Craig
>Phil,
>>
>>   We've been working on this issue for some time and have made a good deal
>> of progress. There is still a long way to go, and that's part of what
>> ATEG is all about. We did get NCTE to publish our book, Grammar Alive: A
>> Guide for Teachers, a couple of years ago. We've been gradually
>> improving our posture at the NCTE Conventions, too.

>>
>>   A few years back, NCTE began to backpeddle a bit on their 1985 position
>> by including our "Questions and Answers" page on it's website; you might
>> want ot check it out:
>> http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/gram/107646.htm.
>>
>>   Perhaps you'd like to participate in the Scope and Sequence group that
>> Craig Hancock started; we could definitely use more assistance.
>>
>>   Welcome into the fray,
>>
>>   Paul D.
>>
>> Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>   As everyone here is aware, the NCTE 1985 Position Statement about
>> teaching
>> grammar advocates against it to the detrimant of all language training
>> native or foreign. While it seems to couch its criticism in the form of
>> the supposed lack of benefit that grammar study has on writing alone, it
>> seems to presuppose that there would be no other sufficiently useful
>> reason for teaching grammar. The position thereby has the effect of
>> shutting down all grammar teaching.
>>
>> It strikes me that of all the groups that exist in academe today, the one
>> most appropriate to address this embarassment to American education is
>> ATEG. Is there currently a working group within ATEG which specifically
>> addresses this issue with the goal of getting NCTE to renege and replace
>> this statement with something more accurate and more consonant with the
>> wishes of parents and many, many educators, business men and politicians?
>>
>> If there is such a group, I would like to participate. If there is no
>> current group, I would be happy to take responsibility for setting one up,
>> chairing, and spearheading such a group. If there is no current provision
>> within ATEG for this sort of a group, perhaps interested parties could
>> form an informal, ad hoc group, put together some joint research and
>> positions papers, and offer this to ATEG/NCTE at a later point.
>>
>> Phil Bralich
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
>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/

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/