Sixteen years ago, I began a newsletter, Syntax in the Schools, because it was impossible to get articles published about how to teach grammar, and I wanted feedback on the approach I had developed. The newsletter led to a conference, and the conference led to the formation of ATEG. But I'm still waiting for constructive feedback.
     Kathleen Ward's question (below) brings me back to my frustration: 

"Why CAN'T most students learn basic grammatical terms?  If you start them young and keep building, in a consistent way, from, say, grade two up, it seems to me that, by the time they are high school seniors, they will be able to identify sentences, phrases, and clauses."

This question should be the PRIMARY focus of ATEG, but it isn't. The problem that we have is that too few of us are looking at that bigger picture, and too few of us are willing to invest the time, either to critique a suggested curriculum such as mine, or to develop an alternative. My challenge for competition has been on the ATEG website for over a year, but I have received no responses, even though I offer assistance in turning text into web documents. (See
http://www2.pct.edu/courses/evavra/ATEG/GrCurr.htm.)
       I realize, of course, that a different perspective (such as mine) is not easy to comprehend, and Audrey Cauldwell was certainly on point when she noted that my Teaching Grammar as a Liberating Art could use more examples. Since then, however, I have turned to the web, placing a large amount of material there for anyone to see. (An overview is at:
http://www2.pct.edu/courses/evavra/indexGR.htm
     I particularly ask people to examine the Self-Paced "course" at:
http://www2.pct.edu/courses/evavra/ED498/SP/index.htm
Among other things, it demonstrates how a limited number of grammatical term/concepts can explain how any word in any sentence syntactically connects to a main subject/verb pattern. It does this through five "Levels," (six if we count adjectives and adverbs).  The "course" is currently based on the texts of nine jokes, six fables, and the opening passages of six famous novels. The answer keys for the levels show how, level by level, each word is eventually accounted for. These "levels" parallel the sequence of the KISS Approach explained in my suggestions for grammar in the curriculum, starting in grade three. See: http://www.sunlink.net/rpp/GC.htm
     Part of ATEG's problem is the unwillingness to address fundamental issues. For example, at the last conference I distributed a questionnaire, the results of which I promised to report on. I have not done so because I was so disillusioned with the results. When asked to write the words that are in the main clause in the sentence:
"He thought she would make a good president."
approximately half of the responses were "He thought" and the other half were "He thought she would make a good president." There is, in other words, fundamental disagreement within ATEG about some BASIC grammatical distinctions. (For the results of the survey, see:
http://www2.pct.edu/courses/evavra/ATEG/P10N02R00.htm. I have not linked this page to the ATEG site because I am not happy with it.)
     Many of our members apparently feel that such disagreements are not a problem. What these members don't realize is that they LIKE grammar and they LIKE playing with grammatical concepts. But most teachers in our schools DO NOT. They DO NOT because they find grammar confusing ― and ambivalent concepts of "main clause" only add to the confusion. Until ATEG is ready to focus on such basic problems, not much progress will be made. I had hoped, from the beginning, that Syntax in the Schools, would include articles that argued for, for example, one or another concept of the main clause. Which concept is PEDAGOGICALLY better ― and why. But few such articles were submitted.
     It has been interesting, in reading this thread, to see how many people claim to be self-taught when it comes to grammar. They have gravitated to ATEG because of their interests. But that means that most teachers HAVE NOT BEEN TAUGHT. They cannot identify subjects and verbs; they cannot identify clauses. Does this not mean that they cannot appreciate the logical and stylistic implications of "formal"grammar? If they cannot recognize subordinate clauses, they cannot appreciate how subordinate clauses affect the meaning of a sentence. Nor can they even begin to see the stylistic implications of absolutes or the restrictive/non-restrictive distinctions that are often discussed on this list. The only way in which ATEGers will stop preaching to the choir and start addressing the general public is by addressing these fundamental problems: What (exactly) NEEDS to be taught, when, why, and how?
     I might note that one reason for my stepping down as editor and treasurer is that the web has provided access to teachers, parents, and other educators who want answers to these questions. As they e-mail me in response to my site, I am attempting to respond ― on the site ―  in as much detail as I can, particularly because they are giving me the constructive criticism that I originally ― and still ― want. I would like to add "Guestbooks" to the site so that visitors can discuss the various parts of it, but I have not been able to find a simple CGI based guestbook that works. If anyone can direct me to one, I will appreciate it.
Thanks for listening,
Ed V.




>>> "Kathleen M. Ward" <[log in to unmask]> 11/18 7:14 PM >>>
I've read this over a couple of times and I guess I am missing something.

Why CAN'T most students learn basic grammatical terms?  If you start
them young and keep building, in a consistent way, from, say, grade
two up, it seems to me that, by the time they are high school
seniors, they will be able to identify sentences, phrases, and
clauses.

It's scarcely rocket science.  I'd also like to point out that all
kids are regularly expected to be able to do much more difficult
things than pick out a pronoun.  I'd submit long division as one
example.

And I must say we did expect all students to know something about
grammar, for years and years, until the sixties and seventies and
"language arts should be creative and fun every minute." Has
something changed in students that now they can't learn grammatical
rules now, when they did up to the mid-sixties?

What am I missing?

Kathleen Ward