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