Phew. I'm not sure where to start. I've been following this whole
discussion, with no time to reply because of work; but it's been good to
wait, because the discussion has brought up many issues for me to mull
over. I'll mention a few things and then come back, I suppose, with the
things I later realize I left out. This is going to be a long message,
so prepare yourself.

(1) PR: I don't know about other states, but interest in grammar is
rising among teachers in CA. That's probably because our state-imposed
academic standards include very specific benchmarks in grammar from
kindergarten (children must 'speak in complete sentences') to the later
grades (children must 'identify and correctly use' various grammar
points such as subject/verb agreement, appositives, and so on). The
benchmarks are extremely ambitious. I doubt many schools will meet them.
Also, grammar points are appearing on the standardized tests. Many
school districts in CA are working to coordinate their curricula with
the standards and the tests. Savvy teachers think this is awful, and I
think they are in large measure right; but this state imposition has
provided a window of opportunity for those of us interested in grammar
instruction. I am trying to take advantage of that window. For the last
two years, I have taught a grammar workshop for teachers at a statewide
teachers' conference. The conference attracts about 600 teachers from
all around the state, and each teacher takes a workshop for seven hours
on one topic. My grammar session filled to capacity and overflow both
times. _Some_ teachers desperately want grammar methods that work. THey
aren't always open to a new approach (especially one that questions the
definitions and methods of the tradition), but few teachers have dropped
out of my sessions, and most have found the material very interesting
and useful. They are usually hoping for much more than I can deliver.
One of the obstacles we face is that teachers want things to be simple
and easy to teach. Grammar will never be that, because language is not
simple. But many teachers in my groups express interest and willingness
to look at a new way, especially if it contextualizes grammar, connects
it to writing, and allows for creativity. I am developing some teaching
materials that do these things.

I have been trying to develop other contacts as well. One is with the
Berkeley Writing Project; one of their participants is very interested
in what I'm doing. I also now have a contact with a local charter school
which is interested in field-testing my approach in middle school
grades. The middle school teacher I will work with finds her kids very
interested in grammar. One of their favorite activities is a short
passage she gives them every week in which they find examples of various
parts of speech -- she says the kids love this exercise and can't get
enough of it!

So, I would encourage those who have an interest in reviving and/or
reforming grammar instruction to 'think globally, act locally'. Look for
small ways you can connect with local or state-level projects that might
have a spot for grammar instruction. Check your state standards and
standardized tests to see if grammar is included. The grassroots
approach may pay off well. If, say, a local charter school adopts a
grammar curriculum for middle school, and those kids do well on grammar
and writing measures, word might just get out.

(2) Basic issues: As many of you know, I am also the coordinator of
ATEG's Scope, Sequence, and Standards (3S) project. Regrettably, I have
had no time this term to work with the committee, and I apologize
sincerely to the members who have been looking for direction and working
away on their own bits. I am up for tenure next year, and my dept. is
not happy with the amount of energy I spend on prof. development, and is
watching me closely for improvements in my teaching (sadly, my dept. is
extremely hung up on student evaluations, and I teach linguistics, the
most hated subject in any liberal arts major. It's hard for me to match
the ratings that the creative writing and Shaekespeare teachers get, who
also inflate their grades shamelessly). BUT! I have not abandoned the
project and will be spending time on it during the Christmas break.

Working on my own teaching grammar is helping me think about those basic
issues such as 'what should be taught first'? I think these decisions
CAN be made. I think there is a core of concepts that students can learn
as a foundation for further grammar instruction or even self-study. I
will eventually make these known to the 3S committee and get input from
them. I also see a lot of good work out there by people such as Pam
Dykstra and others whose names don't pop into my head right now, and we
can synthesize the work of these contributors. But it's not a short-term
project. The foundations of grammar instruction DO have to be laid anew.
Fortunately, we now have enough linguistic knowledge in many areas
(especially discourse analysis) that can help us form a solid foundation
and relate grammar directly to language use in all contexts. This core I
am working on will also be expressed in my book, which may well be
coming out soon through Kendall Hunt (in a year or so).

I don't recall whether it was Bill MacCleary or Paul Doniger or someone
else who said that we need people with knowledge from across fields --
linguistics, pedagogy, sociolinguistics, etc. -- to try to tie threads
together. I'm trying to be one of those people. My book is an effort to
introduce linguistics-based grammar while sticking as close as possible
to what is familiar in traditional grammar, and building a bridge
between the two by explicitly talking about the similarities and
differences. This may sound very complex, but my students are telling me
the book is user-friendly. Of course, the 3S committee is just such an
attempt as well, in that we are dividing up the work among fields such
as language acquisition, what is happening in schools now, what teachers
want/need, what the core content should be, etc. This could be an
extremely fruitful project, but we have a problem:

(3) Our own constraints. All of us have very demanding jobs. I work way
more than a 40-hr week, as do we all, I'm sure. Unfortunately, I am not
at a research institution, which would pay me for doing pure research
half of the time. None of my salary is rewarded for research; it's just
an extra, and pretty minimal, requirement. You all have similar stories,
I'm sure. If some of us could get support to take time off to work on
all this, it would be extremely helpful. It would take a large grant. A
few 3S people are looking into NCTE grants. I hope to recruit someone
who will be a grant-writer for the project.

The fact that we all face time constraints limits our imagination about
what can and can't be done. If your job doesn't allow you time to study
discourse analysis and how grammar relates to discourse structure, you
won't be able to see that that is the 'missing link' between grammar
instruction and writing instruction (this is the major insight I have
gained in the past two years). If your college won't let you teach a
grammar course because it's viewed as 'remedial', you won't get a chance
to experiment with better teaching techniques. If your school doesn't
support you with money for travel, you can't meet with teachers and
professors who are interested in this work. The obstacle I can't seem to
get past is that granting institutions want you to do most of the work
in the grant proposal itself!! If you don't supply them with a
fully-worked out program, they won't fund you. Catch-22!

(4) The past: I don't think it's hard to see why grammar instruction has
been unpopular and ineffective. It lies in the hit-or-miss nature of
instruction, as so many on this list attest to personally; but it also
is due to the curriculum itself. It's difficult to learn grammatical
concepts when the definitions are incomplete, vague, or outright wrong.
It's difficult to relate grammar to writing when they are taught as
separate subjects, and grammar is viewed merely as a part of the
'cleanup' editing procedure, to fix mistakes, rather than being viewed
as essential principles for structuring information.

I am learning a few things from my grammar teaching. One is that
students _can_ learn grammar. The other day, I had 50 students locating
direct and indirect objects in a list of simple sentences, using two
simple definitions based on meaning. Another is that they need ALOT of
practice with analysis. I can't give them this in a ten-week quarter
with other content to cover (and when I get bashed on evaluations for
giving more than three short homework exercises per week). Another is
that we DO have to start with simple structures and build up from them.
I have had to adapt virtually every real text I tried to include in an
exercise. Language as it occurs in real contexts of use is very complex.
As with other, similar subjects, such as math or music, we have to start
with basics, give them a lot of practice, and keep moving on and 'up' to
higher levels of complexity.

Grammar teaching has to be
-sustained
-filled with many opportunities for practice
-based on accurate definitions
-connected to texts, not focused on individual sentences, FROM DAY ONE.
-started on a simple level, gradually increasing in complexity.

I'm sure there are other principles. Anyone want to add to this list?

'Til next time -- wishing everyone a peaceful holiday season --

Johanna