This is the penultimate article in this exchange between Robert and the WL rep, in which we see a second response to Robert’s points. The WL rep responds to Robert in a way that does not honor the depth and breadth of the conversation. His reference to King Grammar is an entirely insufficient response to Robert’s polemic – he makes light of the change because he is uncertain about it. He covers it with an uncertain laughter. Bless his heart.
In this response to Robert, the rep again sends the message that he is not interested in delving into the multiple points Robert has made. Even though Robert’s points are rich in their variety and deep in their analysis and very much a solid reflection of the best language acquisition we know of, and rich enough to capture a strong response from many of the teachers in this PLC who will use them in professional dialogue this year, this official of the state has failed to respond. He punted.
There are too many people at the district level of our national secondary school language system who don’t know enough or lack enough passion to lock horns or in some way bring something positive out of the issues of the day that Robert has presented in a remarkably clear way and that Trisha has summarized in an excellent and most useful document for the rest of us to use (and we thank her for that).
So here is the final response of the WL representative to Robert:
I’m laughing a little are your final question. The negative interrogative is confusing me at 2:53 PM. Many of your thoughts are excellent and I’m in agreement. We may disagree slightly on one or two, as you stated.
I don’t have research to back me up; just 30 years of teaching: sometimes some kids won’t say anything because they’re lazy. Some kids need to be pushed sometimes.
I’m certainly in favor of pushing King Grammar off his thrown. His kingdom is not as extensive as it used to be, and there are a couple of regicides lurking in the villages and hamlets.