I suspect that we're dealing with at least four strands of motivation for resistance to grammar-teaching, each of which calls for separate measures (and yes, a lot of this is summary; I'm just trying to figure out a taxonomy of what I've been reading on the list): (1) Identification of "grammar" with failed skill-and-drill composition practices. Craig's and Tim's postings provide a good overview of the connection assumed by many, including many at NCTE. This is a matter best dealt with by providing practical examples of what *we* mean by grammar instruction, and demonstrating the results. More work like Tim's, examining the problems with the research base, and more publicity for that work, is needed as well. (2) A potential mismatch between the cognitive style needed for holistic analyses of literature and writing on the one hand, and that needed for grammatical/structural analysis on another. Students going into English ed. have frequently either mastered the first style, or are in the process of doing so; their concept of "English" does not include the second. This renders discussion of grammar alien to the rest of their experience. The only way to address this issue, I think, is to establish that both styles are necessary for *all* teachers of *all* subjects, and to do so in a way that ed. students understand. (3) Related to (1), but slightly different: The identification of grammar pedagogy with a rigidly elitist, gatekeeping approach to public education. The structure of "grammar" portions of standardized tests for admission to higher ed. has not helped at all. Since I hate fad terms, I would like to avoid using the word "empowerment," but what we have to do on this front is to establish a grammar pedagogy that clearly lets students examine their own language(s) for their own practical purposes, as part of the process of discovering the social world. NCTE supports that position in their Students' Right to Their Own Language statement, but frequently does not extend it to students' *knowing about* their own language. (4) Resistance to grammar is sometimes just resistance to *time* spent on grammar, due to the simple fact that modern K-12 systems expect English teachers to do much of the most important work of the system at once (receptive and active literacy *plus* cultural knowledge). I would get nervous too, if someone told me I should start incorporating literary critical theory in the 75 minutes I have for my grammar class. This can only be addressed by designing units that do multiple things at once. An additional problem, of course, is that while most educators don't like elitist gatekeeping as in (3), some administrations do. A point in favor of a program for teachers can be a point against it in the state legislature. Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/