There are many interesting ideas in Johanna Rubba's post.

I agree with her that instruction in grammar does nothing to improve
fluency in writing.  I am not quite sure that fluency in writing is the
goal of ATEG although some fluency in writing is expected of every
educated person.  Fluency in writing comes from many sources.  As in
most things in life (an exception might be golf), the more one practices
a particular skill the better one gets at it.

Her observations about the inadequacies of the grammar curriculum are
very good.

>                         But the grammar curriculum
> currently being used is not workable, for reasons so many have cited on
> this list:
> -its definitions and rules are not accurate enough;
> -its methodology is negative and discouraging rather than positive and
> rewarding;
> -it is not coordinated with children's cognitive readiness;
> -the relation between grammar, meaning, and coherent information flow is
> not included;
> -it perpetuates misunderstanding of variation in language, thereby
> perpetuating language-based prejudice and children's profound
> misunderstanding of their own linguistic abilities. (This last isn't
> fluff -- these misunderstandings lead to significant motivation blocks
> in reading and writing, lowered teacher expectations, incorrect
> diagnosis of needs for special education, etc.)

Her last point is very well taken.  The debate several years ago about
the non-standard dialects was very good evidence of the lack of
knowledge in the culture at large about language variation.  A lot of
intelligent people said a lot of very stupid things about the Oakland
School Board resolution.

I wonder if the following statement might reinforce prejudices against
language variation.

> I also advocate [grammar teaching] because I believe that people need to
> understand how language works as an aspect of the basic science of human
> behavior and human social interaction -- language is the medium through
> which virtually ALL human interaction is mediated, and profoundly
> reflects thought and culture.

If we take seriously the notion that language "profoundly reflects
thought and culture," then what is the implication for non-standard
dialects?  Do people who speak non-standard dialects think differently?
How are such people's cultures profoundly different?

If we take seriously that notion as a reason to teach grammar, I think
we will not be basing our teaching on methodology that is positive and
rewarding.  One of the strongest beliefs of iron-fisted prescriptivists,
who take seriously this relationship, is that variation from the
standard demonstrates laziness, ignorance, and/or stupidity.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University