Thanks for the explanatory apology, Paul.  I'm relieved, to say the least!

You know, I'm not surprised that you and the high school teachers don't manage
to teach the students the grammar skills they lack.  First, it seems fairly
clear that more students apply these skills when they're taught as part of the
editing process, which helps them become part of the composing process over
time.  But I confess that as a teacher educator, I seldom insist on working
with students to re-edit their work.  I consider myself lucky just to find time
to respond to the ideas and organization of their papers, which I do quite
thoroughly.  I think that the same thing often happens with teachers at ALL
levels, especially if they're not teaching writing per se.  We may fervently
believe one thing, but our practice doesn't necessarily follow.  I agree that
we need to teach elementary teachers to teach editing skills, but just teaching
them grammar, and having them teach grammar to kids, is not enough for most
teachers, much less their students.  It takes a lot more skill to guide
students in editing writing, but that's what I think is needed.  But who am I
to talk, given what I've just confessed?

Also, I find that even some of my students in the Grammar for Teachers course
don't care much about their editing, though I DO emphasize it and help them
edit, in that particular course.  I could tell you an especially disturbing
story, but I expect most of you have your own similar stories to tell.

Connie Weaver
Westerrn Michigan University





"Paul E. Doniger" wrote:

> Connie Weaver writes:
>
> > What do you mean when you say that the death of "good writing" is
> happening?
>
> While I am at least 100% in agreement with her comments (below) regarding
> the improvements in writing instruction, I must apologize for my
> mis-statement regarding "the death of 'good writing'." I'm at a loss for why
> I wrote that. I don't think I ever would say it, unless something terrible
> happened to public education! Perhaps I was thinking of the complaints that
> I hear outside the education community; or was I remebering my experiences
> about a decade ago as a tutor in one of our state university writing labs,
> watching high school graduates fumble desparately through their Freshman
> composition papers with far less skill than their ESL counterparts?
>
> I work with a staff of excellent English teachers in a public high school,
> and we all emphasize writing, teach the process of writing, work with
> students on improving their writing, and share our successes and failures in
> a cooperative, nurturing atmosphere. It's wonderful, but we all seem to lack
> time to teach our students the grammar skills that we believe they should
> have arrived on our doorstep with, ready to apply them in a creative and
> critically secure fashion.  Our tasks, both in the teaching of writing and
> the teaching of literature are that much more difficult.
>
> I believe that we need to develop a program that will prepare and encourage
> lower grade teachers to prepare our students more consistantly and
> accurately. Then we would have more time to spend helping them be better
> readers, writers, listeners, speakers, and thinkers (there is an awful lot
> of material under the English umbrella).
>
> I hope that Connie will respond and accept my corrective action.
>
> Paul D.
>
> > 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
> > > >
> >