Phil, If there were a good grammar curriculum in place, I would agree that that was where we should start. Since there is not, although we evidently aren't in agreement on that, we are working on scope and sequence and should also be working on certification. Organizationally, two independent committees, which isn't precisely what you've advocated, would to easily work at cross purposes (is "cross purposes" an "ice cream" phrase?). That there might be two groups working together and influencing each others work so as to arrive at a curriculum and certification standards seems reasonable. I've gone through the Houghton Mifflin web site for Honegger's book, and it looks pretty decent. Given some of the things that he does with parts of speech, phrase structure, etc., I would not infer that it represents traditional grammar in the senses you have alluded to. But in terms of presentation of structure it's not bad. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bralich Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:55 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Grammar Certification vs. scope and sequence > >Perhaps I left a step out of the argument. I agree with many on this >list that we need a new grammar curriculum. You and I differ on that. You are really missing the whole discussion here. Scope and sequence are a part of any field's curriculum design. Certification or the offering of degrees is the result of a curriculum having been taught. The development of a final test for certification naturally must be based on the curriculum that is offered by the school offers the curriculum. However, the issues that arise in the splitting of a fields body of knowledge into a series for scope and sequence are very different from the issues that arise in trying to test that field's body of knowledge all-of-a-peice as a certifcation exam. The issues are sufficiently different that not only do they suggest two different committees to develop them, they more or less compell us to create two committees. This is what you keep missing here. >I'm not being intentionally dense when I say that I don't understand >what you mean by "... the entirety of traditional grammar is >inescapable." Both "entirety" and "inescapable" are a little unclear to >me. Take a look at my review of Mark Honegger's _Grammar for Writing_ in the last ATEG Journal. I made a similar discussion and pointed this out with more examples when I explained why I believed his book was very complete and that he had, in spite of protests to the contrary, provided the entirety of traditional grammar. 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/