Geof's description of "sentence stuffing" matches what Faigley called "sentence-construction" exercises. I read about it in the Hillocks report and have sent for the original Faigley article. Hillocks reports it as a very good, and a very promising study. He does not indicate if the students in Faigley's project were (or were not) required to use grammatical terms. Several people advocated sentence-combining, but I have serious questions about that. Have those of you who advocate it ever analyzed a set of your students' papers to see what kinds of constructions (and what variety of constructions) your students already use? Are you aware of the research that indicates that the same results (in both length and variety) can be obtained, in far less time, simply by asking students to write longer (or more varied) sentences? Have you thought of the possible harm that sentence combining exercises can have if they include constructions that are not developmentally appropriate? I love the way that Nancy Patterson regularly argues that grammar should not be taught "systematically" and then, in one sense, contradicts herself by noting that learning must take place in context. A system IS a context, or at least requires one. I also wonder why, although she talks about teaching grammar individually, to students within the context of their own writing, she never gives any detailed examples of how it works or what she teaches. She has noted, if I remember correctly, that Connie Weaver is her grammar authority, but Weaver's texts are all built on that traditional approach to grammar that all the research has shown to be ineffective, if not harmful. Could we have some specific examples, please? As for my original request for help, I thank those of you who suggested specific texts, especially the poems. (I want to add a few analyzed poems to the KISS site.) As for my disturbing question, I'm still bothered by the fact that so much of the discussion on this list involves definitions of constructions and/or what people are doing in their individual classes (at different grade levels). Shouldn't we have more discussion about what we could do as a group, across grade levels? If grammar is to be taught systematically, all the research (as well as practical experience) indicates that it cannot be done successfully within the span of one year. Several comparisons were made to the teaching of math. Might I suggest that trying to teach a TOTAL systematic approach to grammar within one year is comparable to trying to teach students geometry to students who have not learned how to add and subtract. In a systematic approach to grammar, one level is going to have to build on previous levels. I know that the 3S committee was working on a position statement and that Brock submitted the idea to someone at NCTE. He received the reply that indicating specific grade levels conflicts with NCTE policy. I forwarded that message to Peter Feely, suggesting that it would kill my book as well. His response was that my book simply poses suggestions and it is backed by research and theory. That takes me back to the Seattle conference where I suggested that ATEG should have two or three different groups working on the curriculum. With two or three groups suggesting different curriculum designs, perhaps NCTE could not take the ATEG suggestions as advocating specific grade levels? Ed V.