Perhaps I'm not being subtle enough, but I do not fully understand
the position taken by Connie Weaver in relation to traditional
grammar.  She stops short of endorsing traditional grammar, and
yet her book actually allows for the teaching of most or all
concepts within grammar theory.

The following is what I wrote about her textbook (Teaching
Grammar in Context) in a little conference presentation that I gave
recently.  I am arguing that once we account for the many
concessions in her argument there is very little exception to
traditional grammar left over.

The following excerpt from my presentation contains an excerpt
from her book in which she lists numerous concessions:

"Note the series of concessions that Weaver is forced to make in
the course of her argument. She begins with a rejection of formal
grammar, but eventually allows 'that we limit our teaching of
grammar and grammatical terminology to only those features that
will be most valuable in helping writers eliminate errors and
increase the effectiveness of their sentences' (104-105).

"At this point she has gone from rejecting theory to allowing it
within limits.

"A series of concessions eventually follows, including

     "The recommendation that we not try to teach grammar as a
complete description of the structure of English (except, perhaps,
in an elective course or unit), but instead that we focus our
teaching on those concepts and terms that are most helpful in
discussing sentence expansion, revision, and editing.
     "The suggestion that we focus instructional attention on those
aspects of grammar that are particularly helpful in creating,
rearranging, and revising sentences for greater stylistic
effectiveness.
     "The suggestion that we also attend particularly to those
aspects of grammar that are most critical in helping students
punctuate sentences conventionally.
     "The suggestion that while a few basic grammatical concepts
may be taught in separate language lessons, such concepts
should generally be taught and reinforced as students are revising
and editing their writing. (Teaching Grammar in Context, 181)

"Weaver's attack on grammar, as vigorous as it is, fails to dislodge
the underlying principle of structural and grammatical awareness.
Her own argument advocates the teaching of fundamental sentence
structure grammar.  The new-grammarian criticisms are not really
directed at the eradication of grammar; they are directed at getting
students involved with language in a more genuine way than any
handbook can provide. The question, even for these critics, is not
'should we teach grammar;' the question is how should we go
about doing this."

(http://www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb/elac.html)

Once we have added up all of the concessions in the above
excerpt, we have a pretty wide lattitude for teaching grammar
theory.  Connie has evidently discovered that it is awkward or
impossible to carry on theory-free grammar activities for very long.
She would simply let the activities take precedence, and control
the order of the theory concepts. I have no disagreement with that.

 I fail to see why this order cannot lead to a systematic approach
to the subject of grammar, in both skills and theory, taken through
the k-12 years.

The other part of my presentation is an argument that today's
grammar handbooks are all a misrepresentation of grammar
teaching in the truly traditional sense.

The current handbooks cannot be taken as a representation of
traditional grammar.  What we have today, what Connie refers to as
"the traditional publications," is handbook grammar, not textbook
grammar.

Ed's KISS page, on the other hand, is textbook grammar:  it builds
up a body of knowledge through a series of incremental chapters.
Ed's system works like the textbook of any other school subject.

The grammar handbooks of today are structued in a non-sequential
way.  They are in alphabetical, or glossary order, not conceptual
order.  They are not textbooks in the incremental, systematic
sense.

A biology or chemistry "handbook" patterned after today's
approach to grammar would be a ludicrous failure.

But Connie Weavers' book is also a textbook in the true sense.  I
just don't see the need for the declared hostility to the theory side
of this subject.

Robert Einarsson