You read that title right. Why do I say that? Well, for one thing, it would get Paul Kirschling to write a comment here, and a good one. There is Tina’s great model for a CI kind of Scope and Sequence, but those are hard to create. It makes us work too hard and would create fights with people who their S/S to be nice and the same and aligned with the textbooks they bow down to.
I was talking to a few people. We have decided that it is probably for the best if the traditional teachers who cling to the old-style grammar based Scope and Sequence models that currently exist in 99% of WL classrooms get to keep their toy.
We can adapt what we do for them. This will not be a very popular position with the really hard core Krashenistas here, but nevertheless I am suggesting that we do, until I change my mind the next day. Would we rather lose time to teaching grammar so that are kids are ready for a traditional class the next year, or would we rather be in a fight all the time? I pick the former.
I don’t think that anyone will be able to stop a good story to do 10′ of focused grammar per day (he could take the first 10′ of class, I guess, because students do need variety), but I do think that it is possible to take off some of April and May to do grammar, even March, depending on the presence of the you-know-who in your school building.
The kids at that time of year are burned out on stories anyway, and some of them get in an uproar because their big brother told them that in our CI classes they are not being prepared for the academic instruction that they will encounter the next year.
Some here may object to this idea, citing the fact that so much time with CI is needed to acquire the language, why would we want to waste three months? I would say to keep our jobs.