Susan,
    I am very much aware of the history of grammar in US schools. For a
fuller version of my views, see "Blowing in the Wind: English Grammar
in United States Schools" (co-written with Martha Kolln) in "Beyond
the Grammar Wars" (Ed. Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010.) It's a
substantial rewrite of an article in English Teaching: Practice and
Critique (Dec., 2005), which you can access electronically. I also
address "How Linguistics Can Inform the Teaching of Writing" in "The
Sage Handbook of Writing Devlopment" (Sage, 2009) and have presented
on the topic a number of times at NCTE and 4C's. My recent talk at LSA
was a call for linguists to take more interest in literacy. Martha
Kolln (my co-author)calls the demise of grammar a "perfect storm," a
confluence of a number of factors in the early to mid 60's. Among
composition people (my major training), I would say thinking of
grammar primarily as error is a major factor. If, in fact, grammar is
all about error, then it makes sense to minimize its role within the
writing curriculum. That has been a mainstream position for some time.
   I think even the most progressive of writing teachers are in favor of
avoiding error, though some would limit attention to the most
stigmatizing errors and many are interested in how to do it with as
little terminology as possible.
    One reason I selected prepositional phrase is because a recent thread
on list ended up being resolved once it was understood that the
introductory word group in question was an adverbial prepositional
phrase and thus not a dangling modifier. We also talked about why a
writer might be motivated to do that--as given information, for
example, or as part of the continuing discourse structure of a text.
   You can make the case that there is no value in knowing what a
prepositional phrase is, but I would call that an anti-grammar
position. Prepositional phrases are so basic to language that it could
almost serve as a litmus test.
   Among educators, you are more in the mainstream than I am. I am hearing
an opposition to teaching about grammar in your posts. You see, in
fact, to feel strongly about it.>

Craig
>  I am always surprised
>> when people express anti-grammar sentiment on a list for teaching
>> grammar.
>
>
> But, Craig, you mistake me.  I am not expressing anti-grammar sentiment.
> I was merely reminding you of the history that caused grammar's banishment
> from H.S. classrooms.  Disagree with my understanding of history or with
> the probability of history repeating itself if you and others repeat the
> same mistakes.  Do not, however, confuse my concern with an anti-grammar
> sentiment.  We need to work together to figure out what should be taught
> and tested.  If grammar is experiencing an upswing, I am only the voice
> reminding you and others not to make the same mistake.  Grammar
> instruction has to be relevant and testable.  Perhaps your "wide
> understanding of language" is best reserved for college-level instruction,
> but don't kill this upswing in H.S. grammar instruction with a myopic
> disregard for history.  After all, what is fueling this recent interest in
> returning to grammar instruction?
> Susan
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>> Susan,
>>    If correctness is your issue, then we can test knowledge about
>> language related to correctness. "Which of the following is a run-on
>> sentence?" "Which of the following has a verb that does not agree with
>> its subject?" "Which of the following seems unnecessarily wordy?"
>>    I think correctness is much easier to deal with if there is a wide
>> understanding of language shared by teacher and student. I also
>> believe that wider understanding has other huge benefits. We have
>> limited grammar instruction to error and then tried to make that as
>> minimally intrusive as possible, and the results have been terrible.
>> Knowledge about language has seriously diminished, even among teachers
>> of English.  >
>>   We can agree to disagree on this one, although I am always surprised
>> when people express anti-grammar sentiment on a list for teaching
>> grammar.
>>
>> Craig,
>>>
>>> This is the kind of question that got grammar kicked out of high school
>>> in
>>> the first place.  If we want to get grammar back into the high school
>>> classroom, we need to be able to design real-world test questions.
>>> That's
>>> why the SAT addresses correctness.   Like it or not, in the real world
>>> many college admissions officers, prospective employers, and even one's
>>> acquaintances use grammatical errors as a measure of intelligence.
>>> When
>>> a student asks, "I did good on that test, didn't I?", I only correct
>>> him
>>> because I want him to know that he may be stereotyped as ignorant by
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Your question is hopelessly easy to create, but it hopelessly does
>>> nothing
>>> to reveal eloquence nor correctness.
>>>
>>> It is impossible to objectively test for eloquence and beauty.  So we
>>> are
>>> stuck with the SAT's current attempt at correctness.  I don't always
>>> like
>>> their questions, but I like your question even less.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>
>>>> Susan,
>>>>   I have no problem at all with an objective test. My sense is that
>>>> the
>>>> SAT does not ask for explicit knowledge precisely because it is not
>>>> taught.
>>>> Here's a kind of question you might ask in a multiple choice format:
>>>> "Which of the following include an adverbial prepositional phrase as
>>>> sentence opener?"
>>>> a) At home, I could always find a caring parent.
>>>> b) I could always find a caring parent when I got home.
>>>> c) When I got home, I could always find a caring parent.
>>>> d) A caring parent was there whenever I got home.
>>>>
>>>>   The answer, of course, would be a.
>>>>  Objective tests of this nature are easy to design. You decide what it
>>>> is important to know and then design questions that measure it
>>>> directly.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig and others who dislike the SAT test,
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the kinds of things high school students should know about
>>>>> grammar that could be tested in an objective, pre-college test?  Can
>>>>> you
>>>>> give some examples of good multiple choice question that would
>>>>> measure
>>>>> explicit grammar knowledge that you think is important and relevant?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is the very idea of an objective test the problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Karl,
>>>>>>  It's interesting that they still equate grammar with "conventions"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> with error, though they open up with more sophisticated terminology.
>>>>>> The SAT test doesn't measure explicit knowledge about language; it
>>>>>> simply asks you to find (or intuit) the best choice among options.
>>>>>> There isn't, for example, a need to identify a structure as a
>>>>>> prepositional phrase or modal auxiliary. No need to handle the "in
>>>>>> early morning dawn" type of question we have been discussing other
>>>>>> than to choose it as an alternative. It's interesting that they also
>>>>>> separate proofreading and grammar from "more conceptual" skills,
>>>>>> clearly not even aware that other views of grammar are possible.
>>>>>> (One
>>>>>> core concept of cognitive grammar--grammar is
>>>>>> conceptualization.)They
>>>>>> still don't seem to be making the judgment that knowledge about
>>>>>> language is valuable in itself.
>>>>>> This is pretty much true of the National Governor's Standards as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> They are a bit better, but still old school in their construal of
>>>>>> grammar. Whether you are for it or against it, it still seems to be
>>>>>> focused on correctness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm surprised that no one has brought this up. It appears Texas
>>>>>> schools
>>>>>>> are going to get a lot more explicit grammatical instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-grammar_15met.ART.State.Edition1.14a5f2e.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Texas was arguing about new curriculum standards, I heard a
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>> about the fight over the science standards, but nothing at all
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> English standards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any Texas educators on the list who would care to comment
>>>>>>> about what difference these changes are making in the trenches?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>
>>> 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/
>
> 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/