Peter and others,

   I, too, am greatly enjoying the conversation here. I so greatly value Johanna's reminder that we cannot forget the social/sociolinguistic aspects of what we teach. Language is so closely bound up with issues of identity and power; I believe it can be empowering for us to recognize it and take steps to use it in our teaching. I believe it can be equally dangerous to charge forward with any grammar curriculum without thought to the social environment/culture in which it will be received by our students.

   I also value the manner in which this conversation is driving us as a group closer to a better understanding of this old "monster" (to some of us) called traditional grammar. It's interesting to conceptualize it in one way and then hear Phil speak about it and think, "Gee, that's not what I was thinking of at all." We are certainly victims at times of the same blurry terminology that haunts our students. Many of the aspects of "traditional grammar," as described by Phil and others, are highly valuable to me as a student and teacher of language. Yet, linguistics and certain aspects of other approaches of grammar have been incredibly eye-opening as well, allowing me to understand the way my language works in new ways.

   I suppose one thing that ATEG represents for me is a new creation -- not the resurrection of the "old grammar" (which for me, has long meant a Latin-based, highly prescriptive-without-justification grammar with the skill and drill methodologies that came along with it) and not the "disguising" of generative linguistics (or any other theoretical field) as language arts. ATEG seems to me to be headed in the direction of a truly new, innovative curriculum for teaching and experiencing grammar, one that blends the best of all traditions and is guided by experts (teachers and linguists and anyone else who has valid, student-focused insights). Some might think that the result will be some Frankensteinesque abomination, but I think that it will be solid practice that is comprehensive in scope and effective in sequence. If it comes together as many of the posts here indicate that it could, I think it will not fail to address all aspects of language education including language and variation awareness, metalanguage skills and cognition, explicit knowledge of language and language structure, a firm grasp on Standard Written English, an appreciation for how language is employed in the written word, and the social realities of power and powerlessness played out in language (among many others).

    Please, everyone, keep posting and discussing. Thank you for all your hard work on the Scope and Sequence project -- it's much needed. I don't care if I end up not liking the final product at all (highly unlikely) -- it's that you're engaging the issues and bringing people together to work on it in the first place that is important to me. Just wanted everyone to hear some praise and appreciation. Criticism, although much needed in any forum, can feel like such an enthusiasm killer.

   Already making careful plans to attend next year's conference,

          Jed