Connie Weaver writes:

> What do you mean when you say that the death of "good writing" is
happening?

While I am at least 100% in agreement with her comments (below) regarding
the improvements in writing instruction, I must apologize for my
mis-statement regarding "the death of 'good writing'." I'm at a loss for why
I wrote that. I don't think I ever would say it, unless something terrible
happened to public education! Perhaps I was thinking of the complaints that
I hear outside the education community; or was I remebering my experiences
about a decade ago as a tutor in one of our state university writing labs,
watching high school graduates fumble desparately through their Freshman
composition papers with far less skill than their ESL counterparts?

I work with a staff of excellent English teachers in a public high school,
and we all emphasize writing, teach the process of writing, work with
students on improving their writing, and share our successes and failures in
a cooperative, nurturing atmosphere. It's wonderful, but we all seem to lack
time to teach our students the grammar skills that we believe they should
have arrived on our doorstep with, ready to apply them in a creative and
critically secure fashion.  Our tasks, both in the teaching of writing and
the teaching of literature are that much more difficult.

I believe that we need to develop a program that will prepare and encourage
lower grade teachers to prepare our students more consistantly and
accurately. Then we would have more time to spend helping them be better
readers, writers, listeners, speakers, and thinkers (there is an awful lot
of material under the English umbrella).

I hope that Connie will respond and accept my corrective action.

Paul D.

> All across the country, many teachers are teaching writing much better
than
> teachers used to a decade or two ago.  This is especially true at the
> elementary level.  I know this because most recently my field has been
English
> education, not linguistics, and I have kept reasonably well connected.
The
> National Writing Project sites, for instance, have promoted MUCH better
> teaching of writing.
>
> One of the reasons teachers have recoiled from grammar instruction is that
it
> used to take over most of the English language arts curriculum, crowding
> writing out.  Besides, relatively few teachers knew how to teach writing
> effectively.  Even now, there are all too few good writing teachers, but
the
> situation has improved.  What many teachers do NOT want to do is go back
to the
> days when they taught grammar, grammar, and more grammar, but they
scarcely
> taught writing at all.
>
> More research on helping teachers integrate the teaching of key aspects of
> grammar with the teaching of writing would be very useful.
>
> Connie Weaver
> Western Michigan University
>
> "Paul E. Doniger" wrote:
>
> > This is only my personal bit of conjecture, but I worry that it was just
> > such "quantitative research" (and much mis-reading of it) that got us
into
> > this mess in the first place. Wouldn't it be better to get the
universities
> > out of their ivory towers and into the k-12 classrooms, in an
inter-active,
> > dynamic way, where real life (and the death of "good writing") is
happening?
> > How do we re-write curriculum and re-train teachers if we're
disconnected?
> >
> > I don't mean to sound "anti-research" or anti-university -- far from it.
I
> > only want to find a way to make the educational thread more continuous
and
> > more successful.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: William J. McCleary <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:17 AM
> > Subject: Putting grammar back into the curriculum
> >
> > > >Paul,
> > > >
> > > >I know exactly where you are coming from.  I was there.  I taught
high
> > > >school grammar for 8 years, and I had the same frustrations that you
are
> > > >voicing.  You are exactly right about the solution: a simplified,
> > > >comprehensive, systematic grammar that starts at the beginning of the
> > > >student's formal education.  That is exactly what has been rejected
by
> > the
> > > >contemporary language arts "establishment," chanting the worn-out
mantra,
> > > >"It doesn't improve writing."  We insist on students learning math in
a
> > > >systematic way.  We could all just count on our fingers instead of
> > learning
> > > >terms such as add, subtract, multiply, and divide.  But it wouldn't
make
> > > >sense and many students would never get past 10 (or 20 in tropical
> > > >climates).  By denying students the study of systematic grammar, we
are
> > > >abandoning them at 20.
> > > >
> > > >In regard to the "simplicity" of the verb, that is relative to the
> > > >complexity of the verb as it was taught in traditional grammar.  It
is
> > > >little wonder that only a few came away from those lessons with
> > > >understanding.  With a more descriptive approach, using fewer terms
and
> > > >whatever knowledge the students bring with them, added to an early
start
> > to
> > > >the process and a continuous cycling of the material from level to
level,
> > it
> > > >doesn't have to be difficult.  I'm sending new teachers into the
> > elementary
> > > >schools who are armed and indoctrinated to do just that.  I hope a
lot of
> > > >other colleges will do the same.  Perhaps, we can turn this difficult
> > > >situation around.
> > >
> > >
> > > Grammar was bounced out of the curriculum because of abundant research
> > > showing that the study of grammar had no useful effect on writing
skills.
> > > To put grammar back into the curriculum will require not only
developing a
> > > more accurate, teachable and learnable system of simplified grammar
but
> > > also conducting research showing that the new grammar does something
> > useful
> > > for students. The research will have to be quantitative and of
sufficient
> > > validity to be published in refereed journals.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, nothing less will do the trick. It's too bad that we
don't
> > > seem to have ATEG members from research universities who might have
the
> > > time, money, and necessity for doing the needed research.
> > >
> > > Even in the unlikely eventuality that these conditions could be met,
> > > grammar would still have to fight its way into the curriculum against
a
> > > tide of new material being added because of the new standards and
tests.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > William J. McCleary
> > > 3247 Bronson Hill Road
> > > Livonia, NY 14487
> > > 716-346-6859
> > >
>