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
>