I think we should see grammar certification as part of much larger scale initiative, the Scope and Sequence project. From the start, we have seen teacher training as an important element. Amanda Godley gave a thoughtful presentation on this at the conference. My sense is that many linguistics departments, including her own, have lobbied hard for more grammar in English and teacher training, but have, until now at least, met with resistance. I think we should advocate these long-term goals: 1) restoration of comprehensive exploration of language, including syntax, in K-12. Once this happens, of course, future teachers will have a much more solid foundation to build on in their teacher training classes. 2) routinely including at least three classes in language for English teaching and elementary teaching majors. This would include an overview of linguistics, a single course just on syntax, and a course exploring the role of language in reading and writing and in reading and writing instruction. I also like the idea that schools could/should have language experts on staff, experts that other teachers could go to for advice and assistance. This is happening in the Maryland project, with some success. Such a person would have an even stronger background in language studies. Given the nature of today's students, this would include ESL. 3) If a school system wanted to (or was forced to) reintegrate grammar into the curriculum, we should have recommendations in place for training of current teachers. The Maryland project is very handy precisely because they have done exactly that, brining Martha in as a consultant and paying for the training of their current staff. 4) ATEG has been offering in-service training for years as part of our conference. I have never been part of it and don't know the details of what is covered, but people who come through it seem very grateful and satisfied. These, of course, are willing participants, not just teachers who are being forced into it. Perhaps we need to expand that operation. It doesn't do much good to have a certification program if there's no way to meet those goals. I guess I'm suggesting more carrot than stick. Phil continues to speak about a grammar curriculum as if it already exists, citing works like The Elements of Style, a book I like very much but hardly think of as a comprehensive grammar. Certainly, E.B. White never thought about it that way. The Chicago Manual of Style is a very difficult book for anyone not well grounded in grammar already. We seem on our way toward a thoughtfully modified traditional grammar, but I think we will hurt the project if we simply say that we want to reinstate the old traditional grammar and teach it in the same old ways. As someone trained and experienced in composition, fairly well tuned in to the current talk in my field, I think an old unmodified grammar won't sell. Conference presentations on rhetorically focused or meaning-centered grammar seem to be enthusiastically attended and received. We need to be more articulate about ways in which grammar participates in the effectiveness of discourse, about ways in which it is so much more than a set of constraints. If it's all about "error", then people want to know why they need to know it if they already behave properly. We have a chance to bring people together, and I worry that a contentious commitment to certifying people will run counter to that. What do we tell someone who asks what we want people to teach? Why not offer a scope and sequence, make recommendations for what teachers should know, and then help make in-service classes available on a more widespread basis? We could offer certificates of completion and make sure they mean something. Craig 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/