Unpacking grammar and rethinking conventions instruction in school

Lots of good thinking happening today, but Lacy's session on grammar at the end of the day really got my mind going. Actually, I don't think that I have ever been in a room of English teachers (or mostly English teachers), and didn't have an interesting conversation when the subject was grammar.  The point that started my line of thinking happened when as a group we were just saying aloud words/phrases that we connected to our thoughts and experiences with learning and teaching grammar.

Someone said that the word "overlooked." I'm not sure who. Nor am I sure what it was in reference to with respect to grammar or that person's experience with grammar.  The word brought to my mind, though, the countless complaints I've heard (from both teachers and the greater society) about students and their knowledge of standard gramatical usage:

"The grammar in these students' papers is terrible,"
"Students today just don't know grammar,"
"How are students able to get through school with such poor grammar?"
"Texting is destroying the ability to communicate."

Whenever any of the above comments are made, others in conversation agree.  They are simple statements, and usually those making them see truth in the words, plain as day.

But Lacy's demo got me to continue some thinking that I have already been doing around the subject of grammar and school, thinking that has let me to see that what on the surface appear to be simple observations about the state of language today by youth speakers, the reality is much more complex. Criticisms of grammatical usage are statements laden with beliefs about culture, language, and schooling.

The concept of grammar is huge, and when people talk about grammar I'm pretty sure they are referring to the rules that govern usage in our language.  And most commonly it's in reference to usage in the standard dialect, since any dialect of English has its own rules that govern usage.  I'd venture to guess that most people who hate on the conventions of people's language would agree with the unpacking I'm doing here about what is really meant by the "poor grammar" type comments I've mentioned here.

But I've got to wonder why, though, people tend to get so fired up about people not following the rules of the standard dialect.  Heck, this standard dialect only exists in written form, nobody speaks it perfectly, and even in it's written form, there are all sorts of disagreements about the rules, rules which get rewritten all the time.

You wouldn't think that something that is so fluid, diverse, and well...arbitrary would draw out reactions of much consequence, but in our society it's the norm to use the way people speak and write to draw conclusions about their intelligence, education, hygiene upbringing, and even morality.

And it may or may not be true that those who feel so strongly about grammar in school do so because they believe the connection between usage and intelligence.  Perhaps it is the good intentions of people who want children to have opportunity in life and to be free from these ridiculous judgements that causes grammar instruction to get the attention that it does in school.

I think that it's likely the latter, because as is often the case, our good intentions blind us to the possibility that our actions and beliefs may adversely affect our cause. Language is deeply personal, and  placing greater value on the dialects of some and devaluing others creates an injustice in opportunity and the conditions that feed marginalization.

So, here's where I am now. I'm not saying that students should leave school without a command of the conventions of standard usage.  That would be stupid. It's the dialect of power, politics, and academia...like it or not. That's reality, and it's generally agreed upon.  But when it comes to talking about grammar and taking a constructive approach to teaching grammar, I feel like the dominant narrative has much to be disagreed with.  I'm wondering now about what teaching practice looks like that gives students this command of standard conventions without devaluing their language practices or the intricacies and flexibility of our language.  Lacy's demo gave me an image of possibility where grammer offered a space to be inquired into, rather than preached, and I feel like that is definitely a step forward.