The combination that Ruth proposes looks ideal to me:

> it seems to me that a combination
> of the two (utilitarian and theoretical) is appropriate.  If a basic
> understanding of grammar is taught in the formative years (sentence
> diagraming, which demands an understanding of terminology, which lends
> itself to correct punctuation, etc.), then it seems a natural progression
> for the advanced high school student and the college student to be taught
> "grammar as a subject of study, akin to bio, math, chem..."

But the reservation that she points out is also unfortunately too true:

> I realize, of course, this line of thought unrealistically
> assumes that every student arrives at the advanced high school/college
> stage with a strong grammatical foundation.  Why is it that things always
> look better on "paper?"

So the only solution is a comprehensive grammar curriculum,
including both skills and theory, distributed across the whole k to
college education system, and uniform across all school systems
in North America.  Allright!

Isn't this the ultimate goal of the ATEG and also the 3S document?

R.E.