First, I want to thank Johanna for her detailed review of my work on the web. Let me try to clarify the following.
―-----
     Johanna says, " Some of us might want to expand it in some
places (easy, Ed -- I don't mean blow it up into an advanced syntactic
theory course!)" 

I don't have any problem with the Committee using, and/or expanding what I have out there. I'm simply stating that if the expansion goes beyond what I think is reasonable, I may not be able to support the report of the committee.

―-----
Johanna notes that "that terminology is heavily relied on."

     Of course terminology is heavily relied on. But it is a very limited list. The objective is to give teachers and students as few terms as possible and to enable them to use those terms to analyze and discuss the structure of sentence.

_____
Johanna writes, "It seems that he wants students
to recognize the things these terms stand for, functioning 'live' in
real texts, before being held responsible for their labels."

Precisely. Otherwise, the terms are useless. The people we are interested in teaching (regular teachers and students) are not interested in the fine points of linguistics. Currently, as we all know, many of them hate the very thought of teaching or studying grammar. My guess (and hope) is that, if we give them some simple concepts and show them how to USE those concepts meaningfully, they may even become more interested in linguistics.  I just noted that I do not have it on the web, but note that my suggestions for the K-12 curriculum do not include twelfth grade. If students can master the KISS approach by the end of 11th, twelfth grade ― in high school, could devote time to the study of general linguistics.

_____
Johanna says, "Ed wants to keep grammar pretty
much focused on helping develop students' awareness of how language structures function in what they read and write, and he seems to be less interested in other aspects of grammar, such as enlightening children/teachers about the traditional, prejudiced approach to 'error'."

This is true, and not true. But it deals with apples and oranges. Syntax is systematic ― with very few exceptions (if one takes it at the level of the KISS approach). Still, most students (and teachers) are not accustomed to thinking systematically. It will take time, in other words, to teach a fairly complete, descriptive syntax. Usage errors, on the other hand, may or may not be "prejudiced." This is a philosophical question ― and such errors are, on the whole, NOT systematic but involve hundreds, if not thousands, of isolated cases.

_______
Johanna writes, "I would ask Ed, too, to take our testimony about 'what works' as seriously as he wants us to take his in his reports of many years' experience. Rebecca Wheeler and I, and other people, have attested to successful learning happening in their classes."

     I would never deny that any of my colleagues has been successful, but the questions are ― in what context and for what purpose? Rebecca, for example, in her post, notes her success. But we need to know how much the students she talks about knew about grammar BEFORE they took her course. And then, I want to know if we need to introduce the terms "morphology" and "nominal" before students will be able to understand that "college" can function as a noun or as an adjective. 

______
Johanna writes, "What about transitive/intransitive, for instance, or passive and cleft sentence types?"

I have challenged the need for "transitive/instransitive" many times before. "Passive" is included in the KISS approach, in the seven additional constructions (under "Retained Complements). I would like someone to explain cleft sentence types. From what I can see, they can just as easily, and with more sense from most students' perspective, be discussed as delayed subjects:

     "It it true that grammatical terms are boring."
Students even seem to be able to grasp sentences such as the following (which involves a number of additional transformations), in terms of delayed subjects:
     "It was John who came late."
     "It was the company that locked out the workers."
_____

      My main point is still that the world  outside of ATEG finds grammatical terms confusing. We need to keep it simple and demonstrate, with that simplicity, that the more complex linguistic ideas may also be worth study. 

     We are, by the way, making progress. I note that Rebecca's explanation concerned verbs and verb phrases, but is all in basically traditional terminology. And I note that Johanna defines clauses as having finite verbs. Are we all agreed on that? If we are not, I suggest we have problems. If we are, then we are at last moving. This project isn't going to make any significant progress until the committee members, at minimum, agree on some of the fundamental concepts that need to be taught. If there is no agreement on that, then terminology will multiply, and teachers will ignore the proposal.
    I may, obviously, be wrong. And all I am saying is, "Don't expect me to give up the KISS Approach in order  to support a curriculum developed by the 3S Committee, unless I am convinced that the Committee's approach is better." If the committee goes in a direction that I cannot agree with, I will, of course, put in my two cents worth. (Have I ever not raised hell?)
      Let me ask this: Several years ago I suggested that ATEG adopt the standard that, at minimum, every high school student should be able to identify the clauses in a typical passage of high school writing. My proposal was shot down, because, as I understood it, we weren't ready for it. So I ask, are we now ready? Remember, I'm asking about a minimum ― the ATEG proposal may call for much more than just the identification of clauses. My question is, can it call for that much?

Ed