I'm sorry but I teach "developmental" English and English 101 at a community college.
I have argued here -- and been booed by people who are well educated who lose the ability to recognize a few facts as soon the word grammar is mentioned -- that one of the problems developmental (remedial) students face is the fact that they were not taught grammar.
You keep raising this point and yet when I explain it to you, POM, you run away from the issue/discussion. You almost certainly were not taught grammar back in the day when you took that grammar course. You were taught a bunch of silly prescriptions that have little to nothing to do with the English language. That has been the situation in the US for centuries. I doubt very much that your little college was much different.
HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH
HAVE MISSED THE BOAT
THERE'S BEEN MORE FLUMMOXING THAN MEETS THE EYE
Charles-James N. Bailey
Consider the possibility that English grammar has been misanalysed for centuries because of grammarians’ accepting fundamentally flawed assumptions about grammar and, not least, because of a flawed view of the history of English; and that these failings have resulted in a huge disconnect between English grammars and the genius of the English that really exists among educated native-speakers. The development of the information age and of English as a world language means that such lapses have even greater negative import than formerly. But what is available on the shelves has fallen into sufficient discredit for grammar to have forfeited its place in the curriculum, unrespected and little heeded by the brighter students.
I've seen course material for these Eng 101 courses. There's one on line, Darling/Capital [I think it is] Community College, that is so loaded with misleading/flat out wrong things about English grammar as to render it useless.
Students that come to you already know all the grammar of their language. The thing that you, and so many other people miss, is that they don't know ABOUT the grammar but they certainly know the grammar, much much much better than pretty much anyone can teach it.
What is more, unless a person can figure out what a noun and what a verb is (we use the same words in the same form as both in English), they can not read.
I have students in ENG 101 who can not read on the college level, thanks to both their poor grasp of grammar and their small vocabularies.
When a 38 year old college student can not define the words caucus, constituency and disadvantage, the problem is not the problem of the individual but of the nation.
I certainly have never said that all people learn to read or write, or that all people learn to read or write well, for we know that there are people who are illiterate. But being illiterate does not mean that those people don't know grammar. If they didn't know grammar they couldn't speak.
And when we study people's speech we see that they speak in a fully grammatical manner. They don't switch and mix up verbs and nouns or even prepositions/articles/relative pronouns versus demonstrative pronouns/... . All these parts of speech are put in the correct word order for English.
Again, you confuse the artificial act of learning terminology with knowledge of grammar. We have to teach people how to read and write because reading and writing are not natural language but we don't have to teach anyone to speak or learn the grammar of their language, save for those with certain medical problems.
Now of course, this doesn't mean that you can't, and don't teach those students who need help to read and write. There are a lot of students who need help learning how to do these things. That includes pretty much every student.