"In the end, if we don't trust each other's motives and we don't
understand each other's vision and if we don't share at least central
chunks of the vision, the committee as currently configured will not work."

―- That is what I meant ― and thought I said, in Seattle. We do NOT   understand each other's vision, nor do we (all) share at least central chunks of the vision." What I see thus far is disagreement about terminology on parts of speech ― something that, perhaps, should not even be taught to students. If there is a core that students need to know, what is it? Johanna suggests that we would start from there and build. I agree, but that means we must first define the core. For example:

1. Should students be able to identify the subjects and verbs in what they read and write?
     1.a all of them? why?
     2. just some of them? why?
2. Should they be able to identify the clauses?
3. Are infinitive phrases to be counted as clauses?

The preceding questions come, I suggest, from a different "vision" than Johanna's.  In my work with students, and in my discussions with teachers, the primary grammatical problem is that students (and many teachers) cannot control clauses --subordinate or main, nor can they identify them (which would enable them to study them to come to understand how they work). To resolve this, and many related problems, twelve parts of speech are not necessary, nor is morphology, nor is a distinction between nouns and nominatives. In fact, the more "parts," the more fields (morphology, pholonloy, etc.), and the finer the distinctions (noun vs. nominative), the harder it will be for the teachers and students to work their way through their essential problems.