Johanna wrote:

>My intuition is, if a set of terms
>is arrived at, and taught in the proper sequence from fourth grade
>onwards, there will be a natural mastery from less to more difficult. In
>other words, to some extent, turn grammar teaching into linguistics
>applied to English.

    I teach English at the high school and undergraduate levels. Which
terminology and the sequence in which that terminology is taught are
important questions for my work.  Boring as the traditional terms may be,
trying to move the entire profession (particularly those of us in K-12) to a
whole new vocabulary could only result in widespread confusion.
    A more fundamental need is the point which Ed Vavra argues that we need
a more logical, consistent, effective approach to teaching traditional
grammar to students.  Just today, a first year teacher vented her
frustration with the inexcusable chaos among professional English teachers
and English education programs with regards to grammar instruction.  "What
do I teach first and how do I explain it to my students so they'll really
understand?"  Most English teachers I know are constantly "reinventing the
wheel" by dragging students through the same textbook grammar cycle every
year, and every year students forget what they have previously "learned,"
and it all starts again.
     I am also the language arts curriculum coordinator at my school, and I
have shared Vavra's proposed curriculum (KISS) with my teachers for review
and comment. I'm experimenting with it in my own classes as well. Initial
responses have ranged from fascination to relief. What experience have
others had with this curriculum?