Ed,

I feel saddened that your "quest" has left you so disillusioned and
(apparently) despondent. It seems to me that the search for answers is far
more valuable than any "results" you may get.

I don't really believe that there IS a simple, straightforward answer to
your "Primary Question." The nature of grammar study is such that it cannot
be ultimately pinned down to any logical sequence (I repeat, this is only my
belief system - others may disagree). I have likened it to music theory,
which is also a dynamic system. There's a legend that Beethoven was once
accused by a dilettante of writing "parallel fifths" in one of his string
quartets (something in his day which would have been akin to, say, splitting
an infinitive in English 25 years ago). He asked to be shown where he did
this; the dilettante produced the score and pointed out the offending notes.
Beethoven examined them and replied, "Oh, well, I allowed these parallel
fifths."

I think grammar is something like this. Full of explanations of practices
and breakable " rules" which aren't really rules, but descriptions. As such,
they are subject to beautiful violations by skilled writers and speakers. If
this is so, how can we pin down any set plan of instruction? Aren't we
better off just teaching grammar through the written and spoken words of the
"experts" and through the attempts at speech and writing by our students?

It's true that music students are taught music theory, but there is much
controversy over the methods, over the various theories to be taught, and
even the value in relation to musical performance (you might have guessed
that I am in favor of musicians learning as much music theory as they can).
So there we are.

Regarding your frustration over a lack of response to your challenge, I have
a question. Isn't what the 3S committee is supposed to be doing an attempt
to deal with the very challenge you started with? I don't understand why you
brought this question up again unless you feel that the committee is not
doing the right thing. Isn't the standards, scope, and sequence really what
you're talking about?

Also, would you feel disappointed if the committee resolved that there is no
one best way to teach grammar?

I remain ever curious and ever hopeful,

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School

"Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her." - G.
B. Shaw

-----Original Message-----
From: EDWARD VAVRA <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 4:18 PM
Subject: Grammar in the Curriculum


     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