Nicely expressed, Bill.  I'm so glad that you and some others are emphasizing
putting LANGUAGE back into the curriculum, not grammar as the schools have
traditionally known it, or even syntax alone, explained by any one or more
modern theories.  I also must thank those of you who are sharing materials and
teaching ideas, some of which I already use, and others of which I may want to
try.  (I'm enjoying your online grammar course, too, Jeff.)

Alas, the lessons we are learning about putting phonics "back" into the
curriculum (in most cases/places it never left) is that in many places,
phonics is crowding out virtually everything else in the primary grades--math,
science, recess, as well as actual reading and writing.  The latter is
happening because of districts' mistaken belief in the alleged results of one
research study and the inaccurate claims made about one program and approach,
plus the false claims that are made in and/or about one alleged research
summary, done by an author of one of these lockstep programs.   In some
places, this phonics take-over is the result of legislation, though surely
many (most?) legislators would not have anticipated the results of what
they've done.  I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.  Sad stories arrive
almost weekly via some of the listservs I'm on.

This should help explain my deepest fear about the cry for putting grammar
back into the curriculum, namely the fear of the indirect but negative effects
it may have on children's learning.  In this climate of back to basics and
phonics uber alles, it's a very real possibility that what some of us want to
do in teaching grammar could mushroom all out of proportion in the hands of
publishers, demagoges, and politicians.  It could get away from us, in other
words, and do far more harm to children's development of literacy than you may
ever have dreamed, simply by joining with phonics and other skiills work to
drown out virtually everything else.  Language scholars need to be careful
that they are not used as instruments of those who want a narrow educational
agenda and approach to literacy.  There are actually some proponents of
phonics who feel they have been used by publishers, demagogues, and
politicians, and we could all too easily join their ranks.   I've kept up
sufficiently with the politics of reading instruction to know that such
co-opting is a very real possibility.  That's why I hope we can work together
to restore language study to the curriculum WITHOUT ENCOURAGING A GRAMMAR AND
SKILLS TAKEOVER.

Connie Weaver
Western Michigan University



"William J. McCleary" wrote:

> Getting grammar back into the curriculum is going to be a big job. One of
> the problems has already been noted--that grammar is too much associated
> with teaching correctness in writing. In fact, for many people that's what
> they think of when they hear the word "grammar." They don't think of
> subjects and predicates at all.
>
> I would suggest that instead of seeking to put grammar back into the
> curriculum, we seek to put "language" back into the curriculum. Language
> always has been one leg of the traditional English tripod of literature,
> language, and composition.
>
> To understand the dilemma of the English curriculum, one must take a hard
> look at what happened to it. The main thing was that literature virtually
> took over the English curriclum, making for an awfully lopsided curriculum.
> This is not surprising, since most of us became English teachers because of
> our fondness for literature, not to teach grammar and composition, which
> are essentially fruitless (grammar) and a huge pile of work (composition).
>
> It has taken legislation establishing state-mandated competency exams to
> put composition into the English curriclum and to force school districts to
> educate teachers in how to teach composition. Certainly, few college
> English departments, given their obsession with literature, have been much
> help. And the composition/grammar textbooks that we are criticizing, such
> as Warriner's, have been little help either. Their version of composition
> has been as unenlightened as their adherence to traditional grammar. (Just
> as with grammar, the sections on composition are usually written by
> freelancers, not by the person whose name is on the cover.)
>
> I don't think we are going to get legislation putting language back into
> the curriclum. Nor are we going to attract anyone even with a "good"
> grammar curriclum, whatever that might mean. We need an effort to continue
> putting language back into the curriculum. I say "continue," because
> putting language back into the curriculum has already begun with the move
> to put phonics back. (I hope that the whole-language emphasis on literature
> and other good reading will not be lost during this return to phonics. Most
> advocates of phonics say it should not be.) Phonics is an aspect of
> phonemics, and we certainly need to put phonemics into the curriclum. It's
> at least as interesting as grammar and has other practical uses besides
> phonics. There is also an interest in putting more vocabulary back into the
> curriculum. Vocabulary is an aspect of morphemics, which is also
> interesting in its own right as well has having its practical side. Then
> comes syntax, and let's call it syntax and not grammar. There are also
> other language subjects--semantics, lexicography, history of English,
> dialects--that also deserve their place in the English curriculum.
>
> All of these aspects of language work together. You cannot fully understand
> syntax without a decent foundation from morphemics, phonemics, the history
> of English, and other aspects of language. It could be that one of the
> reasons we fail to teach syntax to so many students is that we try to teach
> it in isolation.
>
> Bill
>
> William J. McCleary
> 3247 Bronson Hill Road
> Livonia, NY 14487
> 716-346-6859