Bill,
    I suspect we may be tilting at windmills, but perhaps a number of us
should say that the standards should talk much more explicitly about
"knowledge about language" and that we should find ways to measure it
beyond the obvious fact that students become more mature as language
users when they get older.
   Even in multiple choice, we can ask "which of the following includes a
well motivated passive," which would include the assumption that a
student should be able to understand/identify passive voice and
understand that it can we well motivated in some discourse contexts,
awkward in others.
    If you don't measure it, they will never be motivated to teach it. The
standards will remain empty hopes.

Craig >

 Craig and Herb:
>
> What I think I'm seeing with the Standards is the "expectation" effect
> Herb mentions, but writ very large; it's not filtering how the standards
> would be applied, but rather what they are. It looks as though they're
> driven by the necessity to reflect topics in traditional K-12 grammar
> texts. I think this is what's going on with the lack of distinction
> between using a form and consciously analyzing it (first-graders don't
> talk about the future? Geez. Kids these days. When I was a kid, we could
> all talk about the future when we whined), and the relative prominence of
> some items and absence of others (How often modern speakers use the
> exclamatory!).
>
>
> Of course, you can't write standards from scratch, without any consensus,
> and the traditional texts, and their use in the classroom, create a kind
> of consensus. But you'd get the same *kind* of consensus if you used
> Galen's medieval medical texts as the basis for modern biology textbooks.
> The public would believe a lot of claims about the way the body works that
> would be easy to contradict factually, and not know anything at all about
> what the brain's for, or the pancreas. Linguists, despite appearances,
> agree about an awful lot, and those consensus points, at least, aren't
> immediately contradicted by easily-available evidence. If they were, we'd
> already have gleefully torn in to each other over them. If there's a
> modern linguist who thinks native-speaker students don't use the
> progressive until you talk about it in class, it's someone who either went
> off needed medication or who needs a lot more of it (although I suppose if
> you get to view students' use of the progressive as evidence that you've
> taught it effectively, that kind of standard makes you look great!), Is
> grammar the only subject area where it's okay to completely ignore
> anything that's been learned since 1875? Did the process include the LSA
> or AAAL at any point?
>
>
> I realize that the definition of politics as "the art of the possible"
> applies to education whether we like it or not, and I realize that these
> kinds of standards might be best of the set of feasible options. The team
> writing them is doubtless working in the fact of enormous institutional
> pressures, and even shifting "future tense" to "talking about the future"
> probably represents the outcome of a lot of argumentation. Having seen
> similar processes at much more local levels, I know that sometimes you end
> up hoping that someone will complain about a point so you can use the
> complaint to bolster your case, but sometimes the people complaining are
> simply clueless about the pragmatic envelope everything has to stay in. As
> an academic, my automatic reaction is to ignore practicality and go
> overboard on principle. I doubt a Lewis Black imitation would be good
> feedback, however cathartic it might be. I'm planning on sending in a
> point-by-point argument for feedback, but it'd be nice to know how heavily
> the school-textbook tradition is going to constrain things.
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE,
> HERBERT F
> Sent: Thu 3/11/2010 9:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: National Core Standards
>
> About eight years ago I did a detailed study of linguistic assumptions
> embedded in the Indiana Language Arts Standards, which aren't bad as state
> standards go.  For the content to be taught simply as detailed in the
> standards teachers would have to have much more sophisticated knowledge of
> grammar and of language than they get in any undergrad teacher ed. program
> that I've seen.  Teachers, as Dave and others have mentioned, are expected
> understand and teach the nature and consequences of language variation.
> The most they get of this in Indiana is a course in language and culture
> that is partly devoted to variation.  And our English Ed. staff have
> fought to have that course dropped from the English Ed. requirements.
> Indiana teachers in general cannot teach to the standards because they
> haven't themselves been taught the content.
>
> But there is a deeper problem.  I first saw this made explicit in the
> research presentation of a candidate for a faculty position in linguistics
> and TESOL.  She did her dissertation on cultural interpretation of
> government educational standards in Japan.  What she demonstrated was that
> the consumers of those standards, teachers, teacher trainers, school
> administrators and board members, and parents, simply didn't see standards
> that went counter to their expectations and understanding of that content
> area.  They understood the standards in terms of what they knew and
> expected, and any content that varied from these two conditions was simply
> not there for them.
>
> I fear that the same is true in Indiana of the grammatical and linguistic
> content of the language arts standards. It's hard to make an argument when
> people simply don't acknowledge the existence or relevance of a certain
> body of knowledge.
>
> But you know all this or you wouldn't have started the New Public Grammar
> list.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: National Core Standards
>
> Bill,
>     I would be very surprised if grade schoolers are being taught to
> recognize present progressive. "Question words" might fit. Those
> involved in the standards might be able to clarify this for us.
>    NCTE, it seems to me, has always resisted accountabilty for
> metalinguitic knowledge. It's OK for terms to be used when adjusting
> behavior "in context", just as it's OK to use fuzzy concepts, like
> "complete thought" and "put commas where you hear the pauses," since
> the goal is behavior, not a deeper knowledge. And since "in context" or
> "at point of need" might differ from student to student, class to
> class, they have always resisted the idea that all students at a
> certain grade level would be getting the same instruction. It goes
> back, I think, to the notion that formal grammar instruction (or
> instruction in formal grammar) does not demonstrably create better
> writers, at least as measured in the controlled studies.
>    When students come to my college in New York state, they do not know
> what a phrase is or clause. It may come up for some teachers with some
> students, but it is not a central goal of the curriculum for students
> to develop that knowledge before they graduate. Many, on the other
> hand, can give you a definition for "simile" or "hyperbole."
>    If the national standards simply choose between or among the existant
> state standards, then I suspect they are continuing this pattern.
> Making knowledge about language a central goal would markedly change
> the curriculum.
>
> Craig>
>
> Craig et al.:
>>
>>
>>
>> Quite a few of the points in the Standards require that students be able
>> to do something that almost all native-speaking students are already
>> doing well before the specified grade, but don't necessarily do
>> metalinguistically consciously. For example, a native-English-speaking
>> student in first grade who isn't able to use question words would be a
>> cause for major worry, as would any native-English-speaking first grader
>> who doesn't use the present progressive.  If those points are being
>> included for their relevance to ESL students, I think they'd benefit
>> from having that specified. If that's not why they're there, then the
>> Standards aren't exactly asking for what they say they're asking for -
>> they don't want to know whether students use these expressions, they
>> want to know if the students can talk about using them, which is a
>> different thing entirely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Spruiell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:09 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: National Core Standards
>>
>>
>>
>>     When I researched state standards a few years back, I found that
>> most standards related to grammar were oriented toward behavior, not
>> toward knowledge, with little or no attention to the kinds of knowledge
>> about language that might be useful.
>>    A state might say, for example, that students should "master"
>> punctuation in 7th and 8th grades. They might also say they should use
>> punctuation effectively within their writing. But they never say that
>> they should understand or be able to explain prototypical ways in which
>> punctuation is used. There is no clear consensus about what kinds of
>> knowledge about language might be useful in doing the things we want
>> them to do. This is consistent with tests like the College Board test in
>> writing, even the grammar section, which asks students to choose the
>> most effective among offered choices, but never asks them to explain (or
>> choose between explanations) what is going on. There is no standard that
>> I have seen like "students should be able to identify subordinate
>> clauses and their role within a sentence." I'm not saying offhand that
>> everyone needs to know this, but I am saying that current standards
>> don't address this as a knowledge about language question.
>>    For reading standards in New York (a few years back), students are
>> supposed to be able to identify "literary elements" in a text. But they
>> are not asked to identify "nonliterary elements" in language, though
>> those are certainly the backbone of language. Literature is treated
>> almost like a specialized language.
>>    The supposition seems to be--has been for awhile--that language is
>> acquired within the context of use with little or no need to talk about
>> it or know about it beyond the goal of shaping behavior.
>>     I still see this as an anti-grammar position if grammar is thought
>> of as "knowledge about language" or--better yet--a body of knowledge
>> about language being constructed by those who have an interest in
>> understanding it.
>>    We teach English, but we don't teach about English, and nothing about
>> that seems to be changing.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> MARLOW, DAVID wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Herb,
>>
>> Many thanks for initiating this thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> The top several links didn't yield the whole of your article for me...
>> Here's one that did:
>> http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/03/20schuster.h29.html?tkn=VVU
>> F40LiIuuL%2F6wLH63OSlQ%2BSgpl7AdY8spb&print=1
>>
>>
>>
>> Amanda,
>>
>> Your inclusion in any facet of the development of core standards is
>> wonderful. As you were too modest to mention it, I'll refer interested
>> readers to:
>>
>> 	A. Godley, J. Sweetland, R. Wheeler,A. Minnici, and B.
>> Carpenter, "Preparing teachers for dialectically diverse classrooms."
>> Educational Researcher, 35, pp. 30-37. 2006.
>>
>> Is there any way you could slip in an extra standard based on NCTE's
>> call for "knowledge of how and why language varies and change in
>> different regions, across different cultural groups and across different
>> time periods...[in order to] show respect for language" (NCTE/NCATE,
>> 2003; Standard 3.2.4)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps Writing 8a.
>> Demonstrate understanding of, and respect for, language of different
>> cultural groups and across different time periods.
>>
>>
>>
>> & something similar as Reading 15a
>>
>> & as Speaking & Listening 1a or 4a
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> David W. Marlow, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor of Linguistics and ESOL
>> Vice President/President Elect - Carolina TESOL
>>
>> South Carolina Language & Life Project (www.upstate.edu/SCLLP)
>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface
>> at:
>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/