John,
      Personally, I have little faith in the linguists-- they are too concerned with teaching linguistics and, for example, refuse to consider a basic uniform set of terminology for pedagogy in K-12. I'll say again that the research that supposedly shows that teaching grammar is harmful actually shows that the confusing terminology is the cause of the harm. To see the reaction of ATEG members to that, all you have to do is review some of the threads on this list.
      I agree with both Ed Schuster and Herb that the problem is, in part, political, but I disagree in how to resolve it. It seems to me that rather than just complain about the politics, etc., we need to develop one or more consistent, clearly useful pedagogical grammars. Apparently, some of the linguists are working on that, and I wish them well, even thought I doubt their pedagogical success.
    My own approach has basically been to more or less to retire from this group and devote my time to developing the KISS Approach, the approach I had started before I even began the newsletter that resulted in the formation of ATEG. Again I'll point to the basic guide to the approach at:

http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/Guide_Book1.htm

This is a major project, but if you spend some time on the site you will see that it is sequential, it is simple but powerful, and it moves through the grammatical constructions always focusing on the analysis of real texts.  See, for example, the analysis of sixth graders' writing from the Pennsylvania State standards:

http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G06/Nov/index.htm

It also includes exercises on style, logic, and the analysis of literature. 
     No members of ATEG have shown any real interest in the KISS Approach, so it is taking some time to develop it. I do have, however, a separate KISS List, with members from this country and around the world (from China to Poland). The members of that list have been a tremendous help in making me see what needs to be presented in which sequence, and in how much detail.
     Once I get the site basically complete, i.e., at least one printable workbook for each of the five KISS Levels, my intention is to address the public. Addressing the educational community is useless, as Rebecca, Ed, and Herb noted. My argument will be very simple * teaching grammar is meaningless unless we teach students how to identify subjects, verbs, complements, and clauses. Year after year, students are told that subjects must agree with verbs in number, but if you ask students to identify the subjects and verbs in their own writing, most students cannot do so. Thus, current instruction is meaningless. This is, however, just one simple example. I was recently talking to a publisher's rep who thought she was good in grammar. I asked her to identify the subject of "was" in "They saw the town that was destroyed in the war." She thought it was "town." She was amazed when I pointed out that the complement of one verb can never be the subject of another verb. It is, I would suggest, this lack of practical instruction that causes much of the problem in teaching grammar. And, from what I have seen, most members of ATEG are simply not interested in teaching the simple and the practical.
Ed V.

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/