doconent resume ed 130,333 national council of teachers of ... · ed 130,333. doconent resume. cs...

ED 130,333

DOcONENT RESUME

cs 203 053

TITLE SLATE (Support for Learning and Teaching of English).Volume 1.,

INSTITUTION National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana,Mal.

PUB DATE 76NOTE 19p.; Newsletter Nos. 1 through 8

EDRS PRICE 1,MR-$0.83 lic-$1.67 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS 4Basic Skills; *Censorship; *Composition (Literary);

Elementary Secondary-Education; *English Instruction;Grammar; Language Usage; *Literacy; Newsletters;*Reading Instruction; Spelling

aABSTRACT

These newsletters, produced during the first year ofactivity of a special committee of the National Council Of Teachersof English, focus on the back-to-the-basics movement as it affectsthe teaching of English..The first newsletter describes theestablishment of SLATE as an action wing of the council. The otherseven deal in turn with specific issues: literacy, grammar and usage,composition, censorship of instructional materials, language anddialect, spelling, and reading. Each begins with a statement of theissues, continues vith a summary of professional viewpoints, suggestsstrategies for action, and includes a brief list of furtherresources. (AA)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished *

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort *i to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of-marginal *.* -reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality ** of the-microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available ** via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. ************************************************************************

U.S OEPARTMENTOF HEALTHE DUC AT ION & WEL FARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

1 THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINI"I' I! ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS,,$4fr STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-

..T SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFI

I EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

wing,n las a

One impàrtirreversible-ytomade. Theipport

tATE and consuin-bureaucrats.,ôliày:

-- ards-tosfrom -

. thetate an.:Com ..

Board -..could furthwith localeffective,-thnational: foiand

. ment-of-EiIL IS

definition othe -.aiId: -

. If the Counto - -it must de- :

voice of-.thc

d

NC!L.

ttee.. commented ai follows in aDirectors:

:

iseems steady, grin and -

where policy, decisions ared more from the practitionersrs and stu'deits, to managers,the shift is from local schobi

ial education agencies and tos. Fifty years ago'th Councilmembers objectives to workups; - today,. to be equallyconfront me vigorously ins as censorship, the measure-and learning, and even the

in this changing environment,gies and new resources. Thesto be stronger on issues ofalternative is to settle for -

patching up damage already!9' aiiticipatóry efforts.

MEMBERS ELECT SLATESTEERING COMMITTEEFollowing the -Annual Business Meeting at the NCTE con-vention in San Diego, Council members .elected five of tennominees for the SLATE Steering Commiitee. Those electedwere Richard Adler, University of Montana; Elisabeth Mc-Pherson, Forest Park Community College, St. Louis, Mo.; JessePerry, San Diego City Schools; Virginia P. Redd, University ofMaryland, Baltimore County; and Charles Suhor, New Orleans

. Public Schools. Members of the committee met January 23-25to review the results of soliciting funds for SLATE at theconvention, to discuss new ways of developing funding, and, inlight of that discussion, to set priorities for SLATE andcourses of action for 1976. The Steering Committee chairedby Virginia Redd, will serve until the 1976 convention, afterwhich SLATE, if it emerges as a separate entity within theCouncil, will have its own governing board.

CHARTER CONTRIBUTORS TO SLATEHere is the list of charter contributors to SLATE as of

February 1, 1976. If we unintentionally missed your name,please let us know. But if your name is absent and there hasbeen no oversight, please join the list of charter contributorsby sending a donation today. See the enclosed form fordetails.

Adam, Barbara. Minot, NDAdler, Richard. Missoula, MTAllen, Harold B. Minneapolis, MN .

Anderson, Marjorie M. Huntington Valley, PAAppleby, Bruce. Carbondale, ILBarchek, James. Kent, WABeck, Robert E. El Cerrito, CABishop, Carlyne. Dallas, TXBishop, Marilyn R. Tallahassee, FLBlow, Barb. Waterloo, IABradley, Yetive. Oakland., CABrooks, Charlotte. Washington, DCBrown, Jessie L. Hampton, VABurgess, Elizabeth. Nashville, TNByrd, Charlene H. Nitro, WVCarson, Diane E. Kirkwood, MOCarter, Candy. Menlo Park, CACassell, Hugh B. Louisville, KYCatmull, Joan. Cheyenne, WYChristenson, Bernice. La Canada, CAClapp, Ouida H. Buffalo, NYCline, Ruth. Boulder, COCoats, Lowell S. Fort Wayne, INCollins, Joan. Willard, MOConyers, Charline H. WesY Chester, PACook, Dixie Lee. Jackson, MOCook, Leni. Redondo Beach, CACooley, Stella V. Anchorage, AKCorbett, Edward P.J. Columbus, OHDavis, James E. Athens, OHDew, Ozella. Tyler, TXDodd, James. Brunswick, MEDonelson, Ken. Tempe, AZDougherty, Mildred. Louisville, KYDunning, Stephen. Ann Arbor, MIEarlyMargaret. Syracuse, NY 2

Edwards, Papicia M.,Midvale, UTEnglish Association of OhioEnglish Association of Northwestern OhioFarmer, Marjorie. Philadelphia, PAFarrell, Edmund J. Urbana, ILFox, Eugene L. Northfield, MNFrazier, Virginia F. St. Joseph, MOFriedrich,-Dick. St. Louis, MOGebhardt, Richard. Findlay, OHGeisler, Lawrence J. Marshalltown, IAGerber, John C. Iowa City, IAGere, Anne R. Seattle, WAGilbert, Ralph W. Longview, TXGlass, Mary Lee. Palo Alto, CAGottesman, Julia M. Santa Monica, CAGreen, Jerome. New York, NYGriese, Arnold A. Fairbanks, AKGrindstaff, Faye L. Chatsworth, CAGulick, Mrs. Delmar. Baton Rouge, LAHadley, Carolyn. Jacksonville,'FLHannagan, Angela M. Gary; INHaugh, Oscar M. Lawrence, KSHemmens, Tom. Pittsburgh, KSHerber, Harold. Homer, NYHogan, William T. Reno, NVHooker, Joe. Beverly I fills, CAHopkins, Mrs. Artis. Hayward, CAHorst, Bill. Richmond, VAHosey, Josephine. Jackson, MSHuck, Charlotte. Columbus, OHIdaho Council of Teachers of EnglishJames, Max H. Flagstaff, AZJames, S.M. Atlanta, GAJarrett, Hobart. New York, NYJohnson, Barbah Lea. Carmel, CAJohnson, Robert S. Glen Cove,-NYJones, Ellie L. Bethany, OKJones, lone V. Kansas City, MOJones, Druscilla. Lexington, KYKarolides, Nicholas J. River Falls, WIKauffman, Donald G. Laurel, MDKauffman, Susan H. Laurel, MDKean, John M. Madison, WIKelley, Marie:Lincoln, NBKing, Martha 1L.: Columb 01-1

King, Roger E. Corvallis, ORKuester, Angela H. St. Louis, MOLa Pota, Margherite. Tulsa, OKLane, Douglas. Florissant, MO__Lin SaSu C. Baton Rouge, LALitsey, David M. Maple Plain, MNLloyd-Jones, Richard. Iowa City, IALundsteen, Sara W. Long Beach, CALupton, Myra Clark. Mercer Island, WALurk, William, Camden. NJMaddox, Alberta. Kingsville, TXMaloney, Henry B. Grosse Pointe Woods, MIMangioni!, A.R. Flushing, NYMcBrian, Donna J. Fridley, MNMcDonnell, I ielen. Neptune, NJMcPherson, Elisabeth. St. Louis, MOMinnesota Council of Teachers or EnglishMonore, Betty J. New Orleans, LAMoss, Margaret. Visalia, CAMurphy, John M. Oklahoma City, OKMurphy, Lila B. St. Louis, MOMyers, Miles. Oakland, CA

Nardin, James T. Baton Rouge, LABen F. Columbia, MO',

O'Brien, James T. Springfield, MAOhmann, Richard. Middletown, CTOrmsby, Duncan. Spokane, WAParker, Gloria. Norman, OKPatterson, Ona 13. Salt Lake City, UTPurves, Alan C. Urbana, ILQuackenbush, Robert. Evanston, ILRandolph, Huberta V. Salt Lake City, UTRashkis, Zora M. Chapel Hill, NCRatliff, Frank. Palo Alto, CARedd, Virginia. Baltimore, MDReid, Virginia M. Oakland, CARodrigues, Raymond J. Bountiful, UTRoth, Audrey. Miami, FLRucker, Alvin. Greenwood, SCSasse, Mary. Carbondale, ILSharp, Lionel R. Manlius, NYSherwin, J. Stephen. Amherst, NYShoemate, Thomas E. Atlanta, GASmith, Jane. Cary, NCSmith, Jayne R. Port Arthur, TXSmith, Nancy. Gallup, NMSoules, Eugene. Santa Rosa, CASpann, Sylvia. Mobile, ALSparkman, Margaret W. Broomfield, COSpringer, Imogene. Denvet, COSquire, James R. Lincoln, MASquires, Robert. Oneonta, NYStem, Janice. Kapaa, HIStern, Adele. Paramus, NJStewart, Barbara. Long Beach, CASuhor, Charles. New Orleans, LASwift, Jonathan. Birmingham, MIThompson, Paul. Dos Palos, CATignor, Marian P. Washington, DCTurner, Darwin T. Iowa City, IATway, Eileen. Oxford, OHVeal, Ramon. Athens, GAVeidemanis, Gladys V. Oshkosh, WIWeber, Fern L. Tonkawa, OKWeygant, Peter S. Teaneck, NJYesner, Seymour. Minneapolis, MNZollars, Eldon. Kansas City, KS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO ASSESSCOUNCIL'S TAX-EXEMPT STATUSIn recognition that NCTE may have to modify its presenttax-exempt status if itor through it, SLATEbegins to exertgreater influence in shaping legislation, NCTE members attend-ing the Annual Business Meeting in San Diego resolved "thatthe Executive Committee carefully, and with expert legaladvice, assess the balance of privilege and constraint under theCouncil's present tax-exempt status; that the Committeeresponsibly assess the advantages and the losses involved inchanging the Council or one or more of its entities to anothertax-exempt status; that the Committee be empowered tomodify the tax-exempt status if it is clearly in the best interestof the Coutioil;- and that the Committee report back to themembers at the 1976 annual meeting the results of itsassessment and action."

Since 1940, NCTE has been tax-exempt under provisionswhich apply to charitable, religious, educational, and scientific

organizations and foundations. As a consequence, apart froigeneral tax exemption, the Council has enjoyed a number cprivileges, among them reduced postal rates and t" assurancfor donors that their contributions and beque 'ere ta)deductible. At the same time, the Council hw barrefrom any "substantial" involvement ["substanti., ss newbeen officially defined] in activities permitted to other kincof tax-exempt organizations. Two such activities are "gra;roots lobbying" (alerting members to the consequences cproposed legislation at state and federal levels and suggestinappropriate courses of action) and direct efforts by NCTE oits own initiative to influence legislation. Because of the steadshift in the arenas of decision-making that affect the teachinof English, NCTE members in recent years have urged that thCouncil become more active in shaping legislation and,necessary, modify its present tax-exempt status.

SLATE NOMINATING COMMITTEE ELECTEDUnder the election procedures adopted at the SLATE organzational meeting in San Diego, Miles Myers, Castlemont HigSchool, Oakland, Calif.; Frederick Koury, City-As-SchooBrooklyn, N.Y.; and Sandra Clark, Sammamish High SchouBellevue, Washington, were elected to serve as the first SLAT.Nominating Cdmmittee. Persons wishing to suggest candidatefor leadership in SLATE should write to members of thNominating Committee or to SLATE, c/o NCTE, 111Kenyon Road, Urbana, Ill. 61801.

NCTE SUPPORTS NATIONALAD HOC COMMITTEE 'AGAINST CENSORSHIPSince its inception following recent attempts by the UnitelStates Supreme Court to clarify standards for censorinobscenity, the National Ad Hoc Committee Against Censolship, an alliance of national organizations, has been supportelby NCTE. The Council is represented at meetings of thcommittee by Robert Spencer Johnson, Long Island Counaof Teachers of English.

In 1973 and 1974 the Supreme Court issued a number odeCisions which many peopleincluding four of the ninjusticesfeared would lead to serious attacks on freedom oexpression. In the past 30 months, over 250 'bills have beeiintroduced in more than 40 state legislatures in an attempt ticomply with the Court's standards. At best, most of the billare unclear and contradictory. To clarify legislation and tlprotect rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, ihe Aifloc Committee provides information to state and localegislatures, including on occasion the testimony of experwitnesses. In addition, it helps its participating organizationeducate their own members to the dangers of censorship amto ways of opposing it.

As part of its program, the Ad floc Committee has issued"Statement of Concern," which the NCTE Executive Committee haS"endorsed. The statement follows:

The steady erosion of First Amendment rights, stem-ming from the Supreme Court's 1973-74 obscenityholdings, menaces ever more critically the freedom o fcommunication that is the indispensable condition of ahealthy democracy. In a pluralistic society it would beimpossible for all people at all times to agree on thevalue of all ideas; and fatal to moral, artistic and

3 intellectual growth if they did.

Some of the undersigned organizations reject all barriersabridging access to any material, however controversialor even abhorrent to_ some. Others reject barriers foradults, so long as their individual right of choice is notinfringed. All of us are united in the conviction thatcensorship of what we see and hear and read constitutesan unacceptable dictatorship over our minds and adangerous opening to religious, political, artistic andintellectual repression.

At a meeting on December 9, 1975;in New York City, theCommittee presented a program focused on three threats tothe First Amendment : the censorship of obscenity; thecensorship of textbooks; and governmental censorship ofinformation. Franklyn ,S. Hayman', professor, CommunicationsStudies, Northwestern University, provided a historical reviewof court decisions related to censorship of obscenity. In amock case of textbook censorship, -those attending theconference role-played the parts of parents, students, teachers.ahd school board members at an open meeting of the board.Diverse attitudes toward secrecy in government were offeredby Morton H. Halperin, former senior staff member of theNational Security and Civil Liberties Project, and Frank N.Trager, professor of international affairs and director, NationalSecurity Program, New York University.

In .addition to NCTE, organizations endorsing the Ad HocCommittee's tatement of Concern include the American CivilLiberties Union, American Jewish Committee, American Li-brary Association, American Orthopsychiatric Association,Associated Council of the Arts, Authors League of America,Child Study Association;Directors Guild of America, NationalCouncil of Churches of Christ, National Council of JewishWomen, National Education Association, Speech Communica-tion Association, The Newspaper Guild, Union of AmericanHebrew Congregations, U.S. National Student Association, andWriters Guild of America, East, Inc.

For more information, write National Ad Hoc CommitteeAgainst Censorship, 22 East 40th Street, New York, New York10016, or phone (212) 686-7098.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VOICESCONCERNS TO COLLEGE ENTRANCEEXAMINATION BOARDIn recent letter to the College Entrance Examination Board(CEEB), Robert F. Hogan, NCTE executive secretary, ex-pressed the concern of the Executive Committee "over usingtests of English either to determine whether students are to beadmitted to college or to place them in particular classes oncethey are admitted." Mr. Hogan also reported the strongobjection expressed by members of the committee to CEEBsponsorship "of tests of composition that do not requirestudents to write." Mr. Hogan advised CEEB that if it doescontinue to administer the English Composition Test (ECT) inthe Admissions Testing Program, "then the NCTE ExecutiveCommittee believes that the Board must supplement thepresent objective test with an adequate examination ofwritingcertainly more than a twenty-minute sample." Fi-nally, Mr. Hogan cautioned the board that even if it does addan examination of writing to the present ECT, "the additionof that examination should in no way be interpreted as NCTEendorsement of either objective or subjective tests of writingsponsored by the Board." 5

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ENDORSESSTATEMENTS ON STANDARDIZEDACHIEVEMENT TESTSAt its meeting on November 23 in San Diego, the Execut:Committee endorsed a series of statements on standardizachievement tests. The statements were drafted at a ccference convened earlier in November by the National Assoction of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and the NoiDakota Study Group on Evaluation. NCTE was among itwenty-five groups represented at the conference.

Among the statements endorsed by the Executive Comittee were these:

1. The profession needs to place a high prioritydeveloping and putting into wiCle use new processesassessment that are more fair and effective than thecurrently in use and that more adequately consider Idiverse talents, abilities, and cultural backgroundschildren.

2. Parents and educators need to be much more activiinvolved in the planning and processes of assessment.

3. Any assessment results reported to the public miinclude explanatory material that details the limitaticinherent in the assessment instruments used.

4. Educational achievement must be reported in terbroader than single-score national norms, which canmisleading.

5. Information about assessment processes shouldshared among the relevant professions, policy makeand the public so that appropriate improvements areform can be discussed by all parties.

6. Every standardized test administered to a child shoibe returned to the school for analysis by the teacheparents, and child.

7. Further, the standardized tests used in any ghcommunity should be made publicly available to ticommunity to give citizens an opportunity to undstand and review the tests in use.

Groups attending the conference will convene again inmonths to discuss what further concerted actions are necess;in response to widespread use and misuse of standardi2achievement tests in the nation's schools.

COUNCIL REPRESENTED AT AAP MEETINGAs a consequence of a meeting attended by Stephen Dunniimmediate past president of NCTE, the American Associat,of Publishers (AAP) Freedom to Read Committee has bialerted to the Council's interest in collaborating with the Acommittee in resolving issues related to intellectual z.

educational freedom. At the meeting, held in New York Clast summer, Mr. Dunning spoke briefly on the common aiand "shared agenda" of NCTE and AAP in protectfreedoms established by the First Amendement. He uripublishers to speak out publicly on issues of academic freed,and to keep NCTE informed of their activities on freedoibehalf.

SLATE Newsletter will be published periodically by the NationalCouncil of Teachers of English and is directed to NCTE memberswho contribute $I 0 or more to support SLATE. Contributionsshould be sent to SLATE, NCTE Headquarters, 1111 KenyonRd:, Urbana IL 61801.

Support for Learning and Teaching of English

WHAT ARE THE "BASICS" IN ENGLISH?

The Issues

The current "back to the basics" slogan is symbolic of anationwide concern and belief that the schools have failed intheir major mission, which is to develop literate human beings.To laypersons and educators alike, literacy means the ability toread and write. Parents, legislators, and citizens' groupsdemand that the schools get back to the basics, especially inthe teaching of English. They want teachers to return topractices that prove that reading, spelling, punctuation, gram-mar and usage still are respectable parts of the Englishcurriculum. English/Language Arts teachers accept responsi-bility for teaching reading and writing. There is no immediatehostility toward the parent who azks:, Why can't my Johnnyread better? or. Why can't my eighth grader write a decentsentence? or Why aren't they (you) teaching the basics anymore? Part of the misunderstanding between English teachersand their critics stems from a need to define the "basics."

-Tarents and legislators want,Stlidents Who-score Well on testsand schools that score above the norms on state and nationalassessments. For them, the surest evidence for teaching basicliteracy skills comes when teachers isolate aspects of skills.(punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) and drill them.

Nik.English teachers recognize that aspects of skills areimportant parts of language learning, but we suspect that trueliteracy is not just the command of isolated skills. We knowthat language is a communication process, and that the wholeof communication is much greater than the sum of its parts.We know that "good" scores on quantitative tests can beachieved in one of two ways: by teaching for the tests withoutworrying about the whole communication process, or byfocusing On whole's 15T1èicliing the skills necessary for use. Weknow that test scores may not necessarily measure literacy,but we fmd that parents, school administrators, and othercitizens lose patience when we try to develop literacy byputting skills into a functional perspective with less emphasison isolated drill. Everyone agrees that basic skills should betaught. The conflict between teacher and parent concerns notonly how the teaching of basic skills should be accomplished,but also what those basic skills are or should be. The crueialissue which must be made clear if true literacy is to bedeveloped is: What are the "basics" in English?

1

Professional Viewpoints: NCTE/Research

In 1952, The NCTE Commission on English published The

6

English Language Arts (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts,1952). In it, they identified the basic interrelated skills ofreading, writing, speaking, and listening. Other succeedingNCTE publications identified the total language processesinvolved with and revolving around the skills required forEnglish proficiency: The movement has been decidedly awayfrom the teaching of skills in isolation and the traditionalemphasis upon grammar exercises, sentence parsing, and otherdrillwork. Instead, NCTE advocates the importance of lan-guage arts skills being used to reinforce each other. In thisprocess of reinforcement, students explore a wide range ofreading interests, get involved in a variety of related learningactivities, and thereby develop a firmer grasp of all of thenecessary language competencies.

Available research in the teaching of language, coMposition,and literature suggests that isolated teaching of skills cannot bejustified. The fmdings suggest that, like synergit, the whole(language acquisition and development) is greater than the sumof its parts (unrelated drill teaching of grammar and spellingmechanics). Several studies underscore the interrelated natureof language. Frogner (1933), McCarthy (1954), and Diederich(1957) suggest that maturity and stage of intellectual develop-ment [not grammar and sentence parsing] are closely relatedto composition skill.' Composition and reading are assumed tobe closely related, this assumption based upon the obviousinterrelationships between the writer's message, the chosenmedium, and the reader's skill in interpreting the message.Good measures of reading ability have turned out to be themost trustworthy indices of writing ability.

Searles and Carlson suggest the uselessness of teachinggrammar and usage in isolation from composition.2 Cookcritized the isolated teaching of grammar, syntax, and punc-tuation and stressed the fact that if language is to be viewed asan instrument of communication, grammar should be taughtnot as a set of rules but as a factor in comprehendingmeaning.3 Similar viewpoints have been expressed bjr McKeeand Ebbit.4 NCTE strongly criticized the methods whiehinvolved devoting separate time periods to separate skillswithout relating those skills. A 1958 study by Meckel, Squire,.and Leonard stressed the importance of reading as a source ofideas, and writing as a. means of clarifying, organizing, andapplying ideas from reading and discussion.

The result of these highly influential studies in English asbeen a definition of "basics" that treats the discipline' as aninterrelated whole, and not only avoids, but also disavows thekind of "basic" content now being defined by tests and calledfor loudly in the "Back to Basics" issue.

What we have learned from examining the viewpoints andresearch of authorities in the profession is that languagedevelopment is a process deserving of a broad approach.Emphasis in teaching should be placed upon the the ability to

use skill elements (grammar, usage, vocabulary, spelling, etc.)in relevant language processes, and to keep those elements inperspective as supportive to the larger processes.

In summary, researCh ,and practical experience have re-vealed a number of "knowns" about English teaching: Weknow

that there is little transfer value in isolated oral drill onusage for promoting changes in speech.

that varieties of oral language exist, and that differentforms are acceptable and useful in different contexts.

that it has not worked to teach formal grammar inisolation as a means of improving writing.

that the content of many language tests provides reasonsfor deep reservations: Can a child's writing skill bemeaamed on a test that requires no writing?

i.t drill on phonics has not proved a sure path toreading. ,

that most students learn to write and read by performingreal tasks: writing stories, notices, letters, and reports forclassroom "audience"; reading factual articles, advertise-ments, stories, and other real messages.

that spelling and vocabulary are best learned in context;that sentence building is more productive than eithersentence-analysis or labeling.

that drillson parts m'ay be useful for students whendiagnosis shows weaknesses in specific areas, but thatdrill on parts is not a good substitute for whole readingand writing tasks.

that for some ,capable students, school loses credibilitywhen work is mainly, busywork drill; many "average"studentsneed help during the process of reading andwriting far more than they need isolated drill on parts;and some less able students are turned off from readingand writing (and sometimes from school) when exerciseson parts of reading and writing don't lead to skill asreaders and writers.

Strategies for Action

What society wants is clear: literacy. Reading and writing,its basic components, traditionally and appropriately are theconcern of the English/language arts teacher. It is how toachieve literacy (and what kind of literacy is needed) thatseparates teachers from parents. The first step is to dilute thehostility that grows between "us and them" by acknowledgingthe literacy message. We inust hear it and know that it is real;but we must not offer quick answers on how to accomplish it.We are obligated not to' mislead. parents into thinking thatdrills on parts or the learning of grammar or phonics (thoughquick and easy to do) will lead to better reading or writing. Wecannot fall back on the dishonest practice of "teaching to thetest."

Since we recognize the limitations of teaching isolatedskills, our second need 'is to .dcfine what i-eally is "basic" in .

English -teaching. Authorities suggest that the real basics arelanguage processes. A way to focus in on language processes isto use what we have learned about language acquisition anddevelopment to derive a set that can be applied to all humanlanguage activities. Three basic levels of language processes canbe identified in ascending order: 1) imitative processes relatedto basic literacy at the recognition and recall levels, 2)organizing processes related to fluency in the use of basiclanguage tools,. and 3) critical, creative, and evaluativeprocesses involving originality and conscious choice of lan-guage alternatives. These processes require the use of parts, butin a context rather than in isolation. A grid like the followingcould help to explain the relationships to parents:

Levels ofProcesses

LANGUAGE SKILLS

Reading Oral Language Writing

Imitative Recognition and recallof ideas

i.Basic auditory perception,discriminatory reproduction(in any dialect)

Basic literacy in manipulatingsymbols

.

Organizing.

Organizing and interpretingideas

Ease and fluency of oralcommunicmi,m

Organizing and producingmessages in sentences, para-graphs, etc.

Critical/CreativeEvaluation

Reading critically andselectively

Conscious choiz,e oflanguage alt(Irrialivt:s

Conscious choice of patternsto suit purpose (originality,style)

7

Parents and 'others can be helped to understand that the"basics" being called for really represent only the lowest levelsof skillsthe isolated parts. By locusinron wholes at theorganizing and critical levels, we help students better tounderstand why the imitative skills are necessary and howthese skills fit into the whole picture.

A third step is to seek serious talk with parents aboutsocietal problems affecting literacy. Do parents sense, as wedo, the decline in re ading in the home? Have they noticed,with us, the conspicuous decline in writing? Are parentsconcerned, as we are, with the scarcity of role models foryoung readers and writers? (The facts are: Fewer than 2% ofadult Americans buy over 90% of all hardcover books;television is a frequent substitute for reading, and thetelephone is a frequent substitute for writing.) Are parentscommunicating to their children negative values regarding theskills theYlare asking the schools to teach?

As part of the societal discussions, we need to work towarddeveloping enlightened attitudes about what constitutes "cor-rect" speech. Awareness of the concept of appropriateness isbest developed by an examination of one's own range oflanguage usage, from highly formal to informal. Your col-leagues in the profession can join forces with you in efforts togain recognition of the existence of varied dialect forms for allspeakers. Efforts can be made to challenge the assumption (byemployers, for example) that the existence of a "different"speecth dialect automatically implies defects in the ability toread, to write effectively, or to think logically.

A fourth and most crucial step is to engage in economicdiscussions with parents and the community. Concede, forexample, that not enough attention is given to the teaching ofwriting; and note that not enough well-trained teachers andother professionals are available to give students individualhelp and encouragement. Inservice training to develop teach-ers' skills requires the allocation of sufficient resources.Adequate allocations of funds are necessary to provideclassroom environments conducive to learning basic skills:classroom libraries full of books, magazines, and othermaterials appealing to a variety of tastes; and comfortableplaces to look, skim, and read. Some special programs may benecessary where students, for whatever reasons, have beenfound to be operating at a deficit for long periods of time.Perhaps the time and money invested by state legislatures,school systems, and boards of education in mandating testingprograms (a hazardoL.s and unknown quantity) could be betterinvested in providing adequate resources for supporting themany known quantities upon which educational programscould and should be operating.

Finally, our dialogues with parents, school boards, legisla-tors, and other citizens should include honest self-criticism ofareas where we have not done as well as we should,enlightened discussion of the problems they can and must helpsolve, and mutual recognition of the need for societal support(in attituch3 as well as resources) so that English/language artsteachers can, appropriately enough, deal with the basics ofreading and writing.

Stephen DunningVirginia Redd(For the SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE)

E. Frogner, "Problems of- Sentence Structure in Pupils'Themes," in English Journal 22 (1933): 742-749; D.McCarthy, "Language Development in Children," in L.Carmichael, ed., Alanual of Child Psychology (New York:Wiley, 1954), 492-630; and P. Diederich, "The Problem ofGrading Essays." (Princeton, N.J.: Educational TestingService, 1957), mimeographed,

2 J. Searles and G. Carlsen, "English Language, Grammar, andComposition." In C.W. Harris, ed., Encyclopedia of Educa-tional Research, 3rd ed. (New York: MacMillian Company,1960), 454-470.

3. L. Cook, "Language Factors Involved in Interpretation,"Reading Teacher 12 (1959): 152-157..

4 P. McKee, The Teaching of Reading in the ElementarySchool (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1948); and W. Ebbit,"Problems Caused by the Grammatical, Logical, and Rhe-torical Structure of What is Read," cited in N.L. Gage, ed.,Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago: RankMcNally, 1963), p. 896.

8

Resources

"An Articulated English Program: A Hypothesis to Test."Modern Language A ssociation of America 74 (1959):13-19.

Artley, A.S.; Hildreth, Gertrude; Townsend, A.; Berry, A.:. and Dawson, M. Interrelations A Thong the Language Arts.

Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1954.

Boraas, J. "Formal English Grammar and the Practical Maaeryof English." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UniveisitYof Minnesota, 1917. Cited in Handbook of Research onTeaching edited by N.L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally,19-63.

Botel, M. "We Need a Total Approach to Reading." ReadingTeacher 13 (1960): 254-257.

Braddock, Richard; Lloyd-Jones, Richard; and Schoer, Lowell.Remarch. in Wiitten Composition. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE,1963.

Carlesen, G. Robert. "Some Random ObservationsAbout theEnglish Curriculum." English Journal 61 (October 1972):1004-1009.

Davis, A.L., ed. Culture, Class, and Language Variety. Urbana,NCTE, 1972. (Accompanied by a cassette tape record-

ing of dialect speakers).

Fishman, JoshuaLanguage in Socio-Cultural Change. PaloAlto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1972.

Maloney, Henry B., ed. Accountability and the Teaching ofEnglish. Urbana, NCTE, 1972.

Zuck, Louis V. and Yetta Goodmp. "On Dialects andReading."Journal of Reading 15 (April 1972): 5007503.

.

The SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE offers the Starter Sheetsas resources for dealing with currentiNsues affecting the teacifingof English. Reproduce these sheets and use them in any waysthat might help to promote better understanding of the goals ofEnglish teaching.

Members of the Steering Committee for SLATE (Supportfor Learning and Teaching of English) have published a seriesof §tarter SReets on the relationship between curricularcomponents of English and the "back to the basics" move-ment in American education. Each of the pamphlets isintended to help initiate ("start") discussion about an area ofLoncern to teachers of English, and each follows a similarformat: first, pertinent issues are summarized; relevantresearch is cited; fmally, strategies for action are suggested.Steering committee members are: Virginia Redd, CharlesSuhor, Richard Adler, Jesse Perry, and Elisabeth McPherson.

To date, six of the pamphlets have been prepared: BACKTO THE BASICS: LITERACY; BACK TO THE BASICS:GRAMMAR AND USAGE; BACK TO THE BASICS: COMPO-SITION; CENSORSHLP OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS;BACK TO THE BASICS: LANGUAGE AND DIALECT;BACK TO THE BASICS: SPELLING; and BACK TO THEBASICS: READING.

Won't you help the SLATE Steering_Committee allocatesufficient money to do something about important issues bymaking your tax-deductible contribution to SLATE ;oday?*

Name

AddressNumber Street

City State Zip

*Yes, I want to be a charter contributor. Enclosed is mydonation of $10.00 ; $15.00 ; $20.00 ____;$25 00 ; Other Already contributed ---..Make checks payable to:

NCTE/SLATE, 1111 Kenyon Rd., Urbana, 111. 61801

Vol. 1, No. 3August 1976


BACK TOIHE BASICS: GRAMMAR AND USAGE

The Issues

The widespread public concern for a return to the "basics"in English has included a call for increased study of grammarand usage. Critics point to the frequent use of bad grammar bycontemporary students, and even by community leaders andpublic officials. The presumed decline in language standards isoften attributed to poor language models provided by tele-vision, radio, popular music, and other sources that reinforceexamples of poor speaking habits. Advocates of "back to thebasics" believe that English teachers have abandoned instruc-tion in fundamentals of grammar like parts of speech, sentencediagraming, and subject-verb agreement. Critics also complainthat teachers permit students to use poor grammar in theclassroom. Students are allowed to "do their own thing," theysay, and the result is the sloppy and ineffective speechrampant in today's society.


It is true that many English teachers no longer see grammarinstruction as a series of rules distinguishing "right" forms ofspeech from "wrong" forms. A distinction should be madebetween grammar and usage. The former refers to a study ofthe principles underlying language, the latter to the kind oflanguage called for in particular social situations. Since allnormal children adequately learn the basic grammar of theirnative dialects (for example, the native speaker never makes amistake like saying "am going I not" for "I am not going"),the public clamor actually focuses on dialect-related usagedifferences, (as in the use of "I ain't goin" for "I am notgoing"), which are not grammar problems at all.

Usage differences were once popularly believed to reflectdifferences in intellectual ability. However, linguistic researchhas demonstrated that all dialects of English are complete,valid language systems. Moreover, people can do abstractthinking and can talk intelligently in any dialect. There are no"smart dialects" or "ignorant dialects."

The NCTE Commission on Composition has recognized theimportance of "the study of the structure;... of language,including English grammar," as a "valuable -asset to a liberaleducation." But,warns the commission, grammar should betaught "for its own sake, not as a substitute for composition,"and it should not be an instrument for presenting the grammarof a particular dialect "as 'right' or 'pure' or 'logical' or betterthan others."

Society's demand for use of standard English in certain_

formai, situations (especially hi certain jobs) can be viewed inseveral ways. From a strictly objective viewpoint, suchdemands are arbitrary, because dialect differences in Americaare seldom so great as to hinder communication amongspeakers of different dialects..-The insistence on standardEnglish speech as a job qualification is therefore seen by manyas a way of reinforcing class differences, of making sure thatthe dominant culture is -not -invaded by talented people ofminority cultures. NCTE's Conference on College Compositionand Communication forthrightly affirmed "the students' rightto their own patterns and varieties of languagethe dialect oftheir nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their ownidentity and style."

From a practical standpoint, the English teacher knows thatnonstandard dialects are one kind of barrier to social.rnobillty,so the teaching of English as a second dialectwithoutdenigrating the students' native dialectis a way of providingstudents with skills for coping with and surviving in oursociety. At the same time, it is reasonable to ask the businesscommunity and society at large to tolerate a wider range ofdialects and language styles, as long as the basic end ofcommunication is being served.

Many English teachers, then, feel a responsibility to rejectapproacbc.s to grammar and usage study that support thelinguistic imperialism of prescriptive "school grammars." Theyalso feel responsible for selecting approaches to language studythat (a) actually increase the effectiveness of the students'language performance and (b) describe language structure in anaccurate way. The traditional grammar study recommended by"back to basics" advocates meets neither of these qualifica-tions. Research indicates that students' language performanceis affected not by formal grammar study but by direct,nonanalytical techniques like the audiolingual method andsentence-combining. And the most accurate descriptions ofgrammatical structureif, indeed, abstract knowledge ofgram-mar is to be emphasizedare found in generative grammarand generative semantics.

Increasingly, English teachers are moving away from teach-ing labels and definitions and towards the things that make adifference in _their students' lives: promoting fluency andrichness of expression; reducing instances of cliches andjargon; creating an awareness of manipulative language inadvertising and politics; and promoting logical exchange ofideas in open discussion.

The impact of the new approaches to language instructionhas not yet been felt. At this point, teachers are lookingforward to the basics, and many years are likely to pass beforethe ill effects of entrenched, unproductive approaches aremodified by the "new fundamentals" of language instruction.In the meantime, the general public must be given a clear.picture of the real nature of language problems in our societyand the 'classroom practices best suited to solving those

oproblems.

1.


Reproduce this Starter Sheet freely, in whole or inpart.... Distribute it to faculty members, principals,textbook committees, parents' groups, curriculum direc-tors, Boards of Education, husinesspeople, and otherinterested parties.

Keep an eye out for commentaries on language orlanguage teaching in local newspapers. (Syndicatedcolumnists and letters to the editor fton include suchcommentaries.)

Respond with your own letter, explaining the problemfrom the English teachers' perspective.

Try to influence English program development in yourschool along the lines suggested by current research vditheory, utilizing informatiOn in this Starter Sheet r.o.dsome of the materials cited below.

ResourcesAarons, Arad, ed. "Issues in the Teaching of Standard English."

Special issue o f The Florida FL Reporter, Spring-Fall 1974.

Butler, Melvin, et al. "Students' Right tb Their Own Language." S2acialissue of College Composition and Communication, Fall 1974.

Hess, Karen, and Mikwell, John C. What to Do about NonstandardDialects: A Review of the Literature. Minneapolis, Minn.: UpperMidwest Regional Laboratory, Inc., 1969. (ED 041 027)

Horn, Thomas D., ed. Research Bases for Oral Language Instruction.Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1971.

Strong, William. "Sentence-Combining: Back to Basics and Beyond."English Journal 65 (February 1976): 56, 60-64.

Williams, Frederick, ed. Language and Poverty. Chicago. III.: MarkhamPublishing Co., 1970.

Stewart, William, advisor. "The Dialect of the Black American."Recording. Chicago, Ill.: Western Electric Company, 1971.

Charles Suhor(For the SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE)

The SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE offers the Starter Sheetsas resources for dealing with current issues affecting the teachinnof English. Rer roduce these sheets and use them in any waysthat might help to promote better understanding of the goals ofEnglish teaching.


BACK TO ME BASICS: COMPOSITION

The Issues

The National Assessment of Educational Progress reportshows that essays of 13- and 17-year olds appear to bedeteriorating when compared to the essays of thosetested in 1969.

The Scholastic Aptitude Test scores in 1975 showed thegreatest decline inNerbal skills in two decades.

"Anyone who reads student writing 'today knows thatstudents can't write.... the causes are rooted deeplyin a society which rears its children on sentimental andshoddy reading material, which bathes them in thelinguistic sludge of television, and which debases theEnglish language in the place where all learning begins:

--- at home.... The problem, in other words, belongs to usall. So does the solution." (Editor, "The Writing Gap,"in rose Alumni News, p. 16.)

In response to the apparent decline in writing skills,parents and businessPeople and some educators are en-couraging the schools to go "back to the basics." Whatdo they mean by this stateinent? More grammar? Morevocabulary drills? More recitation? More writing? MoreLatin?


[Research quoted in this seetion can be found in J. StephenSherwin's Four Problems in Teaching English: A Critique ofResearch (Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1969)]

Does the study of Latin help students master English?"There is no Via Latina to English mastery.... The wayto master English is the same as the way to master Latin:attend to it diligently and, if possible, with the help of agood teacher. Any benefit transferable from the study ofone to the study of the other is likely to be a meager andinsufficient, reward for one's efforts. Until the wide-spread notion that Latin is the handmaiden of English isdispelled, both Latin and English instruction will suf-fer... ." (p. 28)Does the study of grammar increase skill in writing?Hoyt (1900 found "... there is about the same relation-ship existing between grammar and composition andgrammar and interpretation as exists between any twototally different subjects, as grammar and geography."(p. 28)

Booms (1917) found a correlation of .25 between"attainment in formal English grammar" and "ability towrite a composition, write a letter, capitalize -andpunctuate a paragraph, and correct the language errors insentences and.paragraphs...." (p. 119) 12

Ash (1935) determined the "contribution ... of techni-cal grtnunar to correctness in writing and to stylisticmerit...." Style meant "paragraph building, unity,cohere nce, emphasis, and avoidance of monotony." Hisconclu don. was that an "emphasis upon style andconten t improved a student's writing faf more than anemphuis on grammar." (p. 123)

Harris (1962) concluded that "... the study of Englishgrammatical temilryMgy hasa negligible or even arelatively harmful effect upon the correctness of chil-dren's writing." (p. 132)Does writing teach writing?Buxton (1958) concluded that "... regular writingassignments alone will not result in significantly im-proved essay writing, but that regular writing assign-ments accompanied by discussion, criticism and revisionwill improve essay writing." (p. 160)

Studies by Heys (1962), McColly (1963), Burton andArnold (1963), and Christiansen (1965) have shownsimilar results.Con clusions:Writing alone does not teach -writing to any significantextent. However, writing in conjunstinn with goodteaching "will obtain measurably superior results. Moti-vation, selective criticism, discussion, practical explora-tion, and revision are the important features of instruc-tion." (p. 168)The Nc'TE Commission on Composition published"Teacning Composition: A Position Statement" in Col-lege English, October 1974, pp. 219-220. The positionstatement is prefaced with this quote: "The followingare general principles which many members of the NCTECommission on Composition believe should guide teach-ers in planning curricula and teaching writing. They areissued as an official position of the Commission." Someexcerpts from the Position Statement:3. Positive Instruction. Students should be encouragedto use language clearly, vividly, and honestly; theyshould not be discouraged by (excessive) negativecorrection and prescription.

4. Learning by Writing. Learning to write requireswriting: writing practice should be. a major emphasis ofthe course. Workbook exercises, drill on usage, andanalysis of existing prose are not adequate substitutesfor writing.

11. Dialects. No dialect should be presented as "right"or "pure" or "logical" or better than others. The studentshould be given an opportunity to learn a standardwritten English, but the teacher, must resist the tempta-tion to allow the cultivation 0f a standard writtenEnglish to stifle self-expression or to overshadow em-,

phàsis on clear, forceful, interesting writing.

12. Grammar. The study of the structure and history oflanguage, including English grammar, is a valuable assetto a liberal .education and an important part of theEnglish program. It should, however, be taught fer itsown sake, not as a substitute for composition, and notwith the pretense that- it is taught only to improvewriting.

15. Audience. Writing implies an audience. Students'should be helped to use a voice appn5priaie to theInterests, maturity, and ability of their audience. Fur-thermore, since young writers are especially concernedabout response, their writing should be read by class-mates as well as the teacher.16. 'Grading. The mere assipment of grades is rarely anadequate way of encouraging and improving writing;whenever possible. grades should be replaced by criti-cism or detailed evaluation.17. Class Size. Classes in writing should be limited to nomore than twenty to facilitate frequent writing, readingof papers, and discussion of written work.

About Testing. An excerpt from a letter written byRobert F. Hogan, Executive Secretary of NCTE, toAlbert Sims, Vice President of the College EntranceExamination Board, elaborates an NCTE Position:

"At its recent meeting in San Diego, the ExecutiveCommittee of the National Council of Teachers ofEnglish (NCTE) discussed at some length issuessurrounding present uses of standardized tests inthe nation's schools and colleges. During thatdiscussion members of the committee voiced graveconcern over using tests of English either todetermine whether students are to be admitted tocollege or ic r!ne them in particular classes oncethey are admitted. Further, members of thecommittee expressed strong objection to CEEBsponsorship of tests of composition that do notrequire students to write. If CEEB does continueto administer the English Composition Test (ECT)in the Admissions Testing Program, then theNCTE Executive Committee believes that theBoard must supplement the present-objective testwith an adequate examination of writingcertainly more than a twenty-minute sample.Members of the committee believe that to ad-vertise ECT as a test of composition is to misleadstudents, teachers, and the public at large."(December 8, 1975)

The National Assessment of Educational Progress invitedtwo nationally recognized experts on writing and languageto speculate on the results of their study that showed adecline in writing among 13-year olds and 17-year olds. Dr.Richard Lloyd-Jones, University of Iowa, incoming chair ofthe Conference on College Composition and Communica-tion, and Dr. Ross Winterowd, University of SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles, chair of the NCTE Committee onComposition, visited with the staff of NAEP and includedthese remarks in the NABP final report- NAEPAssessmentof Writing: Mechanics. 1969-74 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1975), pp. 43-45.

.There is no evidence here that the schools must "go backto basics"; indeed, the basics seem to be well in hand.

Writing is inextricably tied to reading: good readers arevery often good writers and vice versa. If 1974's average13- or 17-year old has done less reading than 1969's sheor he could be expected to be a somewhat poorer writer.

What are the "payoffs" for being a good writer in this

, .

132

society? A college education no longer guaranteesgreater lifetime earnings, there are fewer magazines andnewspapers than ever,business and personal communica-tion depend primarily on the telephone, and professionsthat do call for writing skill do not hold much socialstatus. Perhaps motivation to write is on the wane.As classroom size increases, it becomes increasinglydifficult for teachers to read essays so they tend toassign fewer and fewer of them. The less writing studentsdo, the poorer they will be at written expression.

. Recent research in writing has demonstrated that there isa gap between textbooks about writing and the practiceof professional writers.... Regardless of what kinds ofwriting one examines, one is hard pressed to findorganizational strategies resembling those that appear inthe traditional writing curriculum.13-year olds do not face the pressures 17-year olds face,so there is no evidence yet of polarization of good andbad writers. The general decline in quality at this agemay simply be another reflection of a society-widechange in attitude toward writing.The 9-Year old writing task was very.different from thetask assigned to the older students. It tapped a naturalcuriosity, prompted a creative response, and was far less_

"schOolish."Strategies for Action

When we do not know what is causing a change inperformance, it is difficult to recommend strategies forarresting or furthering it. Nonetheless, several courses ofaction seem clear:

There should be further analysis of the data to focus onspecific problem areas and the achievements of specificgroups of people.Ideally, remedial writing laboratories should be availableto all students as resource centers where trained pro-fessionals can respond to particular problems as theyarise. Such writing laboratories would be more effectivethan remedial programs that are curriculum oriented.If we want better writing, we need to require more of it;if we require more of it, we need more full or parttimepeople to respond constructively to what is written.The general movement toward a simple, "primer" styleof writing is not encouraging and deserves much closerstudy.We have to recognize that teaching grammar is notteaching writing. Grammar is an important subject in itsown right; there is no correlation, however, betweenability to describe language and ability to use it.

Richard Adler(For the SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE)

ResourcesBateman, Donald, and Zidonis, Frank. The Effect of a Study of

Transformational Grammar on the Writing of Ninth and TcnthGraders. Urbanc.,111.1NCTE, 1966.

Common Sense and Testing in English. Report of the Task Force onMeasurement and Education in the Study of English. Urbana, Ill.:NCTE, 1975.

Diederick, Paul B. Measuring Growth In English. Urbana, III.: NCTE,1974.

Geuder, Patricia; Harvey, Linda; Loyd, Denis; and Wages, Jack, eds.They Really Taught Us How to Write. Urbana,111.: NCTE, 1974.

The SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE offers the Starter Sheetsas resources for dealing with current issues affecting the teachingof English. Reproduce these sheets and use them in any waysthat might help to promote better understanding of the goals ofEnglish teaching.

. September 1976

Support for Learning and Te'aching of English

CENSORSHIP OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

The Issues

The American public schools, for many years, have beenfieed with the problem of censorship. Many such problemshave been fostered by groups who question' the use ofinstructional materials that do not meet their moral, religious,political, cultural or ethnic values. Many view the reading of adiversity of instructional materials as a method to indoctrinatestudents with ideas and values that will turn them against theirparents and established institutions or, at best, prompt themto imitate the characters they come across in books and othermaterials. Demands by various pressure groups to ban or limitthe use of language arts instructional materials have often ledto violence. These groups constantly remind the professionthat they are the persons.who "pay the bill" for the operationof schools; therefore, they have the right to make finaldecisions as to what curricular materials should be selected andused in their schools.


The National Council of Teachers of English has longsupported the students' right to read. This organizationbelieves two statements can safely be made about censorship:(1) any work is potentially open to attack by someone,somewhere, sometime, for some reason; and (2) censorship isoften arbitrary and irrational.

NCTE at its 1967 and 1974 annual meetings issuedresolutions condemning censorship of instructional materials,including textbooks. The NCTE Executive Committee en-dorsed a recent Statement of Concern as issued by theNational Ad Hoc Committee Against Censorship.

Statement of ConcernThe steady erosion of First Amendment rights,

stemming from the Supreme Court's 1973-74 obscenityholdings, menaces ever more critically the freedom ofcommunication that is the indispensable condition of ahealthy demwracy. In a pluralistic society, it would beimpossible for all people at all times to agree on thevalue of all ideas; and fatal to moral, artistic andintellectual growth if they did.

Some of the undersigned organizations reject allbarriers abridging access to any material, howevercontroversial or even abhorrent to some. Others rejectbarriers for adults, so long as their individual right ofchoice is not infringed. All of us are united in theconviction that censorship of what we see and hear andread constitutes an unacceptable dictatorship over ourminds and a dangerous opening to religious, political,artistic and intellectual repression.

Author Jerzy Kosinski sees censorship of ,acknowledgedliterary works ast, "a form of psychological malnutrition.

Allowed to flourish, it stunts the emotional and intellectualgrowth of the very students it claims to protect."- In The Students' Right to Read, NCTE clarifies therelationship between censorship and the English teacher:

fly riaht of any individual not just to read but to read whateverone wants to read is basic to a democratic society. This right isbased on an assumption that educated and reading personspossess judgment and understanding and can be trusted with thedetermination of their actions.... In'selecting books for readingby young people, English teachers consider the contributionwhich each work may make to the education of the reader, itsaesthetic value, its honesty, it readability for a particular groupof students, and its appeal to adolescents.


You may wish to distribute this sheet along with the NCTEbooklet, The Students' Right to Read, to all teachers on yourstaff, to community and parent groups, to school boardmembers, administrator groups and to textbook and cur-riculum planning committees. In addition, you may want to:-

Contact your local NCTE affiliate for suggested namesof local as well as national English language arts leaderswho might be able to offer.testimony and/or advice incensorship cases.

Notify the author of the literary work in question. Theauthor, as well as the publisher, might supply reviews bywell-known critics and others that can assist you inmaking an effective stand.

Write letters to the editors of newspapers when problemsof censorship emerge.

Organize anti-censorship groups in your communities orat local school sites.

Work closely with your local NCTE affiliate who mightissue position statemerits on censorship.

Consult The Students' Right to Read for a wealth ofinformation and suggested strategies to assist you withcensorship problems.

Jesse Perry(For the SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE)

Resources

American Civil Liberties Union, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York, NewYork 10010.

American Library Association, 50 East Huron Street, Chicago, Illinois60611.

Kosinski, Jerzy. "Against Book Censorship." Media and Methods,January, 1976,

Donelson, Kenneth, ed. The Students' Right to Read. Urbana, Ill.:NCTE, 1972.

"Selection of Instructional Materials: A Model Policy and Rules." IowaDepartment of Public Instruction, Grimes State Office Building, DesMoines, Iowa 50319.

14

September .1976


BACK TO THE BASICS: LANGUAGE AND DIALECT

The_ Issues

People complain that the schools aren't teaching studentsto "talk correctly," and people are confused about what"correct talk" is.

Does "talking correctly" mean making-geographical varia-tions conform to local practice? Does it mean getting rid ofsuch symbolic colloquialisms as "he don't" or "ain't got no"in every speech situation? Does it mean distinguishing between"lie" and "lay," or "lend" and "loan," and learning not to say"It was between John and myself'? Or, does "correctness"vary with the audience and the situation?

What people mean by "correctness" will depend on wherethey grew up, how much education -they have had, whatambitions they hold for their children, and/or what socialbarriers they want to enforce.


In November 1974, the National Council of Teachers ofEnglish passed a resolution emphasizing that students have aright to speak and learn in their own language, in the diulectthat makes them comfortable and gives them a sense of theirown identity and worth. That resolution was passed becauseNCTE members know something about the nature of languageand how people learn it; they have some information notshared by the general public.

As language scholars, we know that language changes,slowly but inevitably, and that what was a solecism a centuryagosplitting an infmitiVe, for instanceis now commonpractice among our best writers and speakers.

We know that everybody speaks a dialectthere's nothing'pejorative about the term. Dialects can be regional orsocioeconomic, and include pronunciation, vocabulary, andsyntax. All children master the basic elements of their owndialect before they start school.

We know that people learn the language they hear spoken.Young children have an enormous capacity to absorb language,an ability that begins to diminish with adolescence and hasdiminished so much by adulthood that changing ingrainedpatterns is a slow and often painful process.

We know that speakers of any dialect can add new wordswhenever they need them, usually without shifting the majorfeatures of their dialects.

We know that children who read a lot, both in and out ofschool, probably gain more syntactic flexibility and broadervocabularies than children who roam the playgrounds or sitglued to television.

We know that there's no such thing as an absolute standardof correctness. What's right for one situation may be quite"wrong," or unsuitable, in a different situation. Languagechoices cannot be measured as "right" or "wrong" in the waythat yardsticks can be checked to see whether their inches arethe proper length.

We know that all speakers adjust their language choices tothe situation they find themselves in. Students don't talk onthe playground the way they talk in the classroom, or speak totheir friends as they speak to their teachers. This ability toshift styles shows a genuine skill in using languagethe sameskill that adults use in adapting to the requirements of the job,the cocktail bar, or a funeral service.

We know that people, young and old, do make changes intheir language habits, but they make those changes only whenthey get an immediate benefit. nigh grades or success in schoolis often not enough to provide the motivation they need.

We know that people think in language, and that people canthink logically or illogically in any dialect. We know that theability to think clearly is more important than minor dialect..variations, and most of us suspect that time spent on clarity ofthought is better spent than time (1,19ted to shifting dialectpatterns.

Bufwe also know that people judge others by the languagechoices they make. Such judgments are harmless enough whenthey are limited to "Are you from Australia?" or "You soundlike a Chicagoan," but they can be damaging when they resultin judgments such as "poor white trash," "uneducated (andprobably stupid)," or "socially unacceptable." We tell studentsthey will be judged by their language habits, just as they arejudged by their dress arid their table manners.


We can help the public understand what we're trying to doif we:

1) emphasize that practice in using language by sharingexperiences, role-playing, and other devices, is a betterroute to flexibility and effectiveness than having a teachercorrect mistakes. In other words, discussions of appropri-ateness, clarity, and intelligibility are more useful than"chasing errors."

2) explain that drills in usage are more likely to teachnervousness and self-consciousness than change in language.Such drills can teach people to fill in the blanks or namethe parts, but seldom teach them to speak or write better.

3) remind parents that schools can supply only a small part.ofthe language learning that goes on. Children spend onlyseven hours a day in school for five days a week; the rest oftheir waking hours they are bombarded with language thatseems more real to them than the language they hear in theclassroom.15

4) ask 'al opecific examples from people who are troubledabout how language is taught: Deal with each objection

arately rather than attempting a general defense of whatwe do.

5) rernind people that the National Assessment results showedthat mechanics (usage choices, spelling, syntax, etc.) havenot declined but have slightly improved; what declinedwere sentence flexibility, creativity, and coherencejust the

. qualities that we're trying to teach.6) make clear what standardized tests actually measure and

what the scores actually mean. Explain what a "norm" is,what a "percentile score" is.

7) show parents some actual assignments and explain whatthose assignments aim for. Invite them to visit classes andsee that most activities are actually more demanding thanolder methods.

8) urge school boards and legislators to provide classes smallenough that every student can have the language practicenecessary for real progress.

9) demonstrate that what's "basic" about English is the abilityto communicate. Successful communication can take placein many different ways, in many different situations, anddepends on the good will of the listener as well as on theskill of the speaker.

Elizabeth McPherson(For the SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE)

Resources

Arnoled, Lois V. "Writer's Cramp and EyestrainAre They PayingOff?" English Journal (January, 1964), pp. 10-15.

Braddock, Richard, et al. Research in Written Composition. Urbana, -

Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1963.

Britton, James. Language and Learning. Miami, Fla.: University of .

Miami Press, 1970.

Clark, Virginia P., et al. Introductory Readings in Language. New York:St. Martin's Press, 1972, especially Part Four, "Americans Speak-

Dixon, John. Growth Through English. Reading, England: NationalAssociation for the Teaching of English, 1967.

Laird, Charlton. Language in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,1970.

Lloyd, Donald J. "Our National Mania for Correctness," in W. BruceFinnie and Thomas Erskine, Words on Words. New York: RandomHouse, 1971.

Miller, George A. Language and Communication. New York: McGrawHill, 1951, especially Chapters 7 and 8, "Verbal Behavior ofChildren" and "The Role of Learning."

Moffett, James. Tealhing the Universe of Discourse. New York:Houghton Mifflin, 1968.

National Council of Teachers of English, Conference on CollegeComposition and Communication. Students' Right to Their OwnLanguage. Annotated bibliography. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1974.

Piaget, Jean. Language and Thought of the Child. New York: NewAmerican Library, 1955.

Schauch, Margaret. "Social Aspects: Class, Taboos, Politics." InPerspectives on Language, edited by J.A. Rycenga and J. Schwartz.New York: Ronald Press, 1963.

1 6

The SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE offers the Startel Sheetsas resources for dealing with current issues affecting the teachingof English. Reproduce these sheets and use them in any waysthat minht help to promote better understanding of the goals ofEnglish teaching.

Vol.T; No..7 October 1976


BACK TO THE BASIC& SPELLING

The Issues

If the public agrees on one "basic" problem, it's probablyspelling. Wherever the discussion starts, w.ether it deals withdialect or usage or writing, fairly soon sorriebody is bound tosay, "But, what about spelling?"

It's hard to be sure about clarity or coherence or creativity,but a misspelled word is easy to spot, and easy to check, ifthere's a reliable dictionary around. People can argue aboutcommas, and disagree about whether a colon or a dash is moreeffective, but we are as one in agreeing that we write a letter,right an injustice, or observe a funeral rite. People are sayingthat many students can't spell very well, or that some studentscan't spell some words, and that the schools should dosomething about it.


The modern English alphabet doesn't correspond veryaccurately to modern English speech; it's a system built on thepronunciation current in London in the seventeenth century.and the language has-changed a lot since then. When foreignerssay that modern English is hard to learn, they don't mean thatspeaking it is difficult. They mean that the spelling systemseems irrational. Why do we have write and right and rite whenwe say them all the same, or enough and through and thoughand thought and cough when we say them all differently?

But the spelling system can't be changed except veryslowly, for some good reasons and for some not so good ones.People who have learned the system, or most of it, areemotionally attached to the old ways. Such simplified spellingsas nite or thru look wrong to them. When George BernardShaw left his fortune for improving English spelling, theBritish courts declared the will invalid. Other movements forspelling reform have failed miserably. There are sensiblereasons for objecting to a change: libraries would become outof date, or as hard to read as Chaucerian English; and a spellingsystem beautifully adapted to one dialect of EnglishOxfordspeech, for instancewould be a poor fit with the way Englishis spoken in Brooklyn or Bombay. For ease in communicationamong speakers of the many dialects of English, we willprobably have to keep the archaic spelling system, andstudents will have to learn it.

Speakers of any English dialect have to make about thesame number of adjustments as they learn to spell. We cannot,for most common words, depend on.pronunciation to help us,and the. advice to "listen and write what you hear" is almostalways misleading. Memorizing spelling lists won't help us tospell words in context, either. And worrying about spelling, inthe first draft of anything, slows down the creative process.Even the "good old-fashioned" spelling bees which enabled afew exceptional spellers to demonstrate their special talents,offers no proof of having helped poor spellers to improve. 17


We can point out that some people have always been "poorspellers"; there is no evidence that present day students spellany worse than their forebears. In fact, the National Assess-ment scores show that mechanics (which includes spellinehasimproved slightly, and that what declined was flexibility andcoherence.

We can suggest that many r.tudents see less need forspelling, as electronic media make reading and writing seemless important, either for business or for pleasure.

We can discuss the difference between being unable to spellwhat or were, and being unable to spell broccoli or em-barrass." One represents a real spelling (and probably reading)impairment; the other illustrates the need to use a dictionary.And we can emphasize that knowing when, and how, to use adictionary effectively is more important for mature studentsthan any amount of spelling drill.

We can remind the public that the business world is full of"editors": secretaries who are 'in effect specialists hired topolish their bosses' spelling, proofreaders who work over thecopy journalists turn in. The antiseptic orthography of theworld of commerce is deceptive, and the complaint of manybusinesspeople that their employees can't spell is sometimesdisingenuous.

We can, and should, agree that the ability to spell ordinarywords with confidence is a basic skill for which the schools areresponsible. But wc should also insist that . conventionalspelling is a matter of careful editing, and that people whowrite in haste often misspell even very ordinary words. Thisdoes not mean that they are poor spellers. More likely, theyare competent but careless spellers who count on em-ploye(eXr)s to correct their misspellings or readers to under-stand their writing despite the spelling errors.

Elizabeth McPherson(For the SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE)

Resources

Bollinger, Dwight. "The Evolution of Language: Courses, Forces,Sounds and Spellings." In Aspects of Language, edited by DwightBollinger, pp. 83-99. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968.

Fries, Charles Carpenter. Linguistics and Reading. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Gerber, Philip L. Lessons in Language. Belmont, Calif.: WadsworthPublishing Co.. 1968.

MacLeish, Andrew. "Do You Pronounce It as It's Spelled?" InIntroductory Readings on Language, edited by W.L. Anderson andN.C. Stageberg, 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and. Winston,1970.

Wagner, Geoffrey. and Radner, Sanford R. Language and RealitY: ASemantic Approach to Writing. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell,1974.

West, Fred. The Way of Language: An Introduction. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.

Vol. 1, No. 8 October 1976miminmanumimw

VIIIMINI11111111L


BACK TO THE BASICS: READING

The Issues

Of all the skills that children learn in school, reading is mostoften singled out for public attention. If a school's children donot learn to read adequately, the school has failed in anessential task. While teachers, parents, legislators, and govern-ment officials ean usually agree on this central point, they maydiffer- widely in their assessment or how schools should begoing about this task, as well as how successful the enterprisehas belen.

The current concern that schools must -,"go back to thebasics" in reading Mstruction reflects both the value thateveryone places on the teaching of reading. and the confusionaboutwhat 'the basics' might be. Public concern has beenraised by a number of events which seem to indicate theschools have failed: press reports of falling verbal scores.on theSAT and ACT, professors' complaints about the reading abilityof college students. early NAEP results indicating an in-adequate command of reading skills for 9, 13, and 17 yearolds. the Right to Read campaign's emphasis on adult illiteracyand on the relatively high level of competence needed forfunctional literacy in our complex industrial society. Oneresult has been a reneWed concern that reading skills are notbeing adequately taught, that schools are failing in theirresponsibility, that we need to ask once again why Johnnycan't read.

Professional Viewpoints: NCTE/Researeh

As teachers of English and language arts, we share with thegeneral public the concern that reading should be well-taughtand we consistently seek ways to improve our teaching. Butwe knOw that there is no single or simple route to that goal.Still, our accumulated store of research, theory, and practicalexperience has taught us a number or important things aboutthe teaching of reading.

We know that:reading is a language process and is affectedby all of-the things which affect a child's language deVelop-meat. Variations in home background, physical health, andmental well-being all lead to variations in ability to uselanguage and in turn to variations in reading achievement. Theschool is.not faced with a 'blank slate' when it begins to teacha child to read. It is extending and building upon well-established oral language skills that lead the child.to expect,among other things, that what is read will make:Sense. Evenfor the beginning reader, the task is much more complex thansimply the proper 'calling' of words or letter sounds: thewords and sentences must make sense in terms of the child'sb-ackground of expectations about language (its sounds, itsgrammar, its meaningfulness) and about life (what has hap-pened,.what cannot happen, what just might be possible). Inanother way, however, such requirements for 'meaningfulness'

18

provide important clues to guide the reading process, helpingthe reader to recognize when something has gone wrong aswell as to make a reasonable guess at unknown words orexpressions.

If readers are. to make reasonable guesses, they need to befamiliar with a wide variety of reading materials. Indeed Onedanger in the "back to ,the basics" call, as the NCTECommission on Reading has noted in its discussions. is that itcan encourage the separation of the teaching or reading frontthe teaching of content. The result can he the teachingreading as an isolated process rather than as a means for theconmumication of information, ideas, and experiences. It iseasy to JOrget when we become concerned with 'the basics'that our best learning occurs when we clre pedOrming ra andsigulficant tasks.

There is no one sure way to success in teaching wading.Though the most important ingredient is an enthusiastic,dedicated teacher sensitive to the needs of pupilsaird trainedin a variety of methods for meeting those needs, sonic childrenlearn to read even belore coming to school and a few neversucceed even with the best and most dedicated teachers. Drillin phonics, often stressed by those urging a return to thebasics, offers no surer path to success than any other singleapproach, though there is a place ror some of it. The dangerarises when drill becomes virtually the whole of the readingprogram, for we know from research that meaningless drillsand meaningless content (in any area ot learning) tre harder tomaster, less likely to be remembered, and more difficult toap-ply. As one result of an overnphasis on 'readingpoor readers often come to expect that nothing they tty toread will make sense to them. In such cases we have denied thepupils access to the purpose of reading. and we should not hesurprised if they reject the process (and what is rot themnothing but discouragement and Failure ).

Literacy is itself a comPlex concept. In our industrialsociety, 'functional literacy' involves the ability to readmessages as diverse as want ads and insurance forms. JamesBond nOVels and tax assessments. I low well one 'should' he ahleto read varies from culture to culture and geneiation togeneration; in the U.S. demands on leading skills haw heel,rising constantly over the past decades.

Measures of reading achievement are anothei frequent causeor confusion. The typical report on a child or a .school is givenas a 'grade-equivalent' score. The statistical basis of such scoresis straightforward enough, but. those reliorted to be 'belowgrade level' are left with a false sense of failure and lowachievement. The eternal struggle to bring everyone 'up tograde level', laudable though it sounds, is doomed from thestart because, it is inherent in a norm-referenced. standanli/ed

reading test that 50 percent of the children taking it will bebelow grade level. Schools so fortunate that all of their pupilsare at or above grade level Simply mean that elsewhere, wherethe health and social welfare of the Children1 may not be sofavorable, there will be schools almost all of whose childrenwill 'fail'. While we believe that teachers and schools haveimportant and lasting effects upon children's reading abilities,we also know that socioeconomic factors have a stronginfluence. As Robert Thorndike put it in summarizing theresults of a study of Reading Comprehension Education inFifteen Countries (LEA, 1973), "When the population of a

school conies from homes in which the parents are themselveswell educated., economically advantaged, and able to providean enyironment in which reading materials and communica-

' tions media a-re available, the school shows a generally superiorlevel of reading achievement."

Finally, we know that there is still a great deal that we donot know about reading achievement. The most recent results,from the NAEP second round of reading assessments suggestan improvement in students' performance in reading, butNAEP officials can only speculate about the reasons for theimprovement. After a thorough review of previous research,Farr, Tuinman, and Rowls concluded in .a. report prepared forthe 'Educational Testing Service that there had been a gradualimprovement in reading competency over the four decadesprior to 1965, though since 1965 this improvement may havelessened or halted. But the evidence is so 'complex and somany factors are involved that the authors conclude. "We arenow-convinced that anyone who says he knmvs that literacy isdecreasing is a very unsure person. Such a person is at bestunscholarly and at worst dishonest." (R. Farr, J. Tuinman. andM. RowlS. Reading Achierenwnt in the U.S.: Then and Now.ERIC Document No. ED 109 595.)


You may wish.Fo 'distribute this and other SLATE StarterSheets to fellow teachers, community and parent poupi,sehool board members, administrators, and textbook andctiiiiculum planning committees.- In addition, you may wantto:

Contact your localNCTE affiliate for names of local aswell as national experts who can give advice about issuesrelated to reading instruction.

Respond to press reports, letters, or editorials about'Why Johnny Can't Read' with a request to see theevidence on \-vhich claims are made.Work closely withyour local affiliate to respond specifically to theevidence ofThred. if any is forthcoming.

Take the initiative in explaining your-approachesco.reading instruction. If colleagues, supervisors, and par-,en ts groups understand what you are doing and why,they will be less susceptible to. an emotional call for:back to basics.-

Use the local press, through letters to the editor andthrough contracts with the staff 'education writer, tohelp keep the public informed about the teaching ofreading. Most newspapers are eager for sensible com-ments on educational issues.

If the results of standardized reading tests are releasedby !Nur school or district, be sure that they areaccompanied -by clearly written, adequate interpreta-tions. For guidelines, see Venezky (1974) and ConnmmSense am! Testing in English.

Arthur N. Applebee(For the SLATE Steering Commit tee)

Resources

common Sense and Testing in English. Report of the Task Force onMeasurement and Evaluation in the Study of English. Urbana, III.:NCTE, 1975.

Early, Niargaret. "Important Research in Reading and Writing," PhiDelta Kappan, January 1976.

"Focus: Psycholinguistics and Reading," Language Arts, Mardi 1976.Laffey, James L. Reading in the content Areas, International Reading

Association and ERIC/Crier, -1972.

Page, William. (Ed.). help JOr the Reading Teacher: New Directions in. Research. Urbana, III.: NC RE and ERIC/R('S, 1975.

Tied t, Iris M. ',1Id.). What's ,Veig liz Readife'' Urbana. III.: NCTE, 1974.

Venezky, Richard L. Testing in Readih, Urbana, IV NCTI.: andERIC/RCS, 1974.

S,:ven SLATE Starter Sheets have been issued as part ofvolume 1 of the SLATE Newsletter.

What Are the -Basks" in English? (1:2)Back to the Basics: Grammar and 1.1sage (1:3)Back to the Basics: Composition (1:4)Censorship of Instructional Materials (1:5)Back to the Basics: Language and Dialect (1:6)Back to the Basics: Spelling (1:7)Back to the Basics: Reading (1:8)

People who donate. S10.00 or more to SLATE receive a freecopy of each of the above Starter Sheets. and are added to themailing list for future issues of the Newsletter. Single copiesare also available for SI.00 for the set of 7, from SLATE atNCTE, 1111 Kenyon Rd., Urbana, Ill, 61801.

1 9

The SLATE STEERING COMMITTEE offers the Starter Sheetsas resources for .dLaling with current issues affecting the teachingof English. Reproduce these sheets and use them in any waysthat might help to promote better understanding of the goals ofEnglish teaching.