I don't know it from personal experience, but I have heard of schools where
composition, too, has taken over the curriculum, at least for several
months. According to my informants, some districts have teachers whose
students will be taking the fourth grade writing exam here in New York work
on nothing else for about three months before the exam. As a person whose
main interest is comp/rhet, I am in favor of more composition instruction,
but I certainly wouldn't advocate any approach like that.

Incidently, I also wrote a critique of the exam for its emphasis on writing
skills at the expense of rhetoric (writing to be read). My critique was
published in the state AFT newspaper. That certainly turned out to be a
waste of newsprint.

Bill


>Nicely expressed, Bill.  I'm so glad that you and some others are emphasizing
>putting LANGUAGE back into the curriculum, not grammar as the schools have
>traditionally known it, or even syntax alone, explained by any one or more
>modern theories.  I also must thank those of you who are sharing materials and
>teaching ideas, some of which I already use, and others of which I may want to
>try.  (I'm enjoying your online grammar course, too, Jeff.)
>
>Alas, the lessons we are learning about putting phonics "back" into the
>curriculum (in most cases/places it never left) is that in many places,
>phonics is crowding out virtually everything else in the primary grades--math,
>science, recess, as well as actual reading and writing.  The latter is
>happening because of districts' mistaken belief in the alleged results of one
>research study and the inaccurate claims made about one program and approach,
>plus the false claims that are made in and/or about one alleged research
>summary, done by an author of one of these lockstep programs.   In some
>places, this phonics take-over is the result of legislation, though surely
>many (most?) legislators would not have anticipated the results of what
>they've done.  I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.  Sad stories arrive
>almost weekly via some of the listservs I'm on.
>
>This should help explain my deepest fear about the cry for putting grammar
>back into the curriculum, namely the fear of the indirect but negative effects
>it may have on children's learning.  In this climate of back to basics and
>phonics uber alles, it's a very real possibility that what some of us want to
>do in teaching grammar could mushroom all out of proportion in the hands of
>publishers, demagoges, and politicians.  It could get away from us, in other
>words, and do far more harm to children's development of literacy than you may
>ever have dreamed, simply by joining with phonics and other skiills work to
>drown out virtually everything else.  Language scholars need to be careful
>that they are not used as instruments of those who want a narrow educational
>agenda and approach to literacy.  There are actually some proponents of
>phonics who feel they have been used by publishers, demagogues, and
>politicians, and we could all too easily join their ranks.   I've kept up
>sufficiently with the politics of reading instruction to know that such
>co-opting is a very real possibility.  That's why I hope we can work together
>to restore language study to the curriculum WITHOUT ENCOURAGING A GRAMMAR AND
>SKILLS TAKEOVER.
>
>Connie Weaver
>Western Michigan University
>
>
>

William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859