Torn

I really am torn as to whether or not high school teachers should teach grammar by itself. And it's hard for me to explain all of the points on both sides.
First of all, it's very important to say that I agree with Weaver's article that teachers should teach grammar in a context that will directly improve their writing. Some of the examples included in the article are really great writing samples for middle schoolers. I think students (and teachers) should focus more on the content of their writing before worrying about grammar and editing. I think this can be done by looking at literature, having mini-lessons and individual conferences. I understand that we should be making our students better writers and that we need to teach them to communicate their thoughts and feelings effectively. However, I just can't let go of the fact that if teachers don't teach them grammar, then who will?
It would be ideal if students could have grammar nailed down by the time they got to high school so we could focus on developing their writing in further ways; however, we can just pass the buck to elementary or middle school teachers. I recognize the fact that research has shown that students do not benefit from grammar exercises in isolation from writing, but does this mean that we can just forget about educating them on parts of speech, punctuation, subject-verb agreement and everything else that goes along with grammar? In our blogs, many of us are regretfully admitting that we're not entirely confident in our own understandings of grammar. If some students are wanting/needing it upon leaving high school, shouldn't we offer some instruction on it?
The hard part is then teaching grammar in a way that benefits students' writing and involves writing while still acknowledging the fact that we're teaching grammar (which the Weaver article tries to mask).
I don't know. I'm still torn. I hope we discuss this in class.