Craig,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am, of course, taking a "wait and see" approach, and I do care about the group because I think it has the potential to do a great deal of good. I'm happy to see that you appear to agree with me when I argue that ATEG cannot arrive at a single, meaningful "scope and sequence." My frustration derives entirely from the fact that the group as a whole will not face that fact. I would be perfectly happy supporting and working with the group if the group made clear that it has several distinct sub-groups, each developing a different approach to scope and sequence. As you suggested, when the group attempts to develop a single plan, various members have reasons, often unstated, for undermining it. Thus no plan gets very far.

   As one member of the list recently suggested, "Let's stop arguing, and start working on what we think should be taught." The group is not going to do that until it recognizes distinct divisions within itself.

Thanks again,

Ed

>>> [log in to unmask] 8/3/2006 10:08:00 AM >>>

Ed,
  I want to thank you for the lengthy reply to our conversation and say
briefly that I share your frustration for the moment about ATEG being
able to agree on an approach to grammar and still be ATEG, a group that
is open to all interested parties, not just those from a certain school.
New Public Grammar, on the other hand, is a group that has enough in
common to maybe work out a consistent approach that ATEG could then
endorse, perhaps simply applaud, or distance itself from--whatever. The
prelimiinary conversation seems to show that some people on the list
will derail the whole process if it doesn't go their way, which would
tend to back up your point, that perhaps we need different groups
working on it. I'm not the right person to work on a traditional grammar
with no changes approach or a let's give them what they need to correct
the errors and nothing more approach. Or even the current progressive
approach, error in context with a minimalist metalanguage, under the
understanding (misunderstanding) that the teaching of grammar has been
"proven" to be harmful. To me, this is more the issue than whether or
not we espouse a structural grammar or a transformational grammar or
cognitive gramamr or systemic functional grammar and so on.
   The consensus to this point has been that we would work out a knowledge
based (not error based) approach to grammar and that we would want our
terminology to accurately describe the language, to be both clear and
useful. I don't think that can happen in a free wheeling discussion on
this list. People will constantly jump in to say that a knowledge based
approach is wrong.
   I must have started attending ATEG conferences about the time you
stopped. I can understand your frustration. To me, it was a delight to
find a group of people interested in grammar, and I have made wonderful
connections and wonderful working relationships as a result of my
interactions with the group. I don't think you or I should condemn it
for not just having people who think like ourselves. Its strengths and
its weaknesses come from the same thing, that it's a big tent, a place
where people who share nothing but an interest in grammar can interact.
   My understanding is that the last Scope and Sequence project morphed
into Grammar Alive, and that the scope and sequence part of it was at
that time unacceptable to NCTE. So this current project started off as
an ATEG project, not dependent on NCTE approval. It wouldn't be a
"mandated" scope and sequence any more than KISS is; just a recommended
scope and sequence for any interested parties.
   I think we can come up with something more than just a hodgepodge of
conflicting philosophies and terms. Has there ever been a universal
consensus about grammar? But I think you're right; we can't do that if
we need to keep answering objections about changing traditional terms
or going beyond the goal of error reduction.
   Maybe the SAT's and "No Child Left Behind" have brought grammar back,
but they do not ask for or expect explicit knowledge about language.
They are narrowly focused on behavior. Your KISS program, of course, is
a knowledge based system. Many people on ATEG don't want that. (They
tend to be on opposite sides politically, which is an interesting
sidenote. Neither the right nor the left seem to want a conscious
understanding of grammar being taught.) They are welcome in ATEG, but
that creates a problem when devising a scope and sequence, by its
nature a knowledge based project.
   Why don't you take more of a wait and see approach? Since you keep
coming back to the talk, I know you're not lost to us. If what we
propose is a mix of conflicting philosophies, point that out. We
welcome that kind of scrutiny. What hurts me most at this time is the
argument that any such project is foolish, doomed to failure, condemned
before it starts.
   I tilt at windmills, I suppose, but so does KISS.

Craig