Judy's point below is an interesting one.  I wonder if anyone would like to
comment/debate about it.

When I taught ESL, it was not necessary that I understand my students
languages (there were too many languages represented in a single class,
anyway) - or even their language conventions - in order to teach them to
read, write, speak, or listen in English (nor did I need it in order to
teach them grammar).  Sometimes, however, a little knowledge of, say,
Japanese sentence structure (like the verb coming at the end) COULD help me
notice a subtle First Language Interference problem; but usually, it was
not necessary.

The other difference, of course, is that my ESL students invested
themselves with gusto in the learning process, whereas my present inner
city adolescent students would rather be almost anywhere BUT a classroom.
And their language is so "peppered" with profanities that using their
dialects as a point of departure might take a lot of creative maneuvering.

I'm curious to read everyone's comments and suggestions. Judy hits the nail
on the head regarding improving communication - sometimes it seems that we
really DON'T speak the same language, which may turn them off to learning
"English."

Paul D.
[log in to unmask]

----------
> From: Judy Diamondstone
>
> The point is that we can USE students' dialects
> as a point of departure, for learning how to look AT language,
> how to see what there is to analyze, to build up a language for
> talking about language with our students, to enlist them in
> the work of understanding. This is what I understood to be
> the crux of the Ebonics controversy. The resolution was
> intended for the TEACHER's benefit, to improve communication
> between teachers and students (so teachers can understand
> what the Other system is that "interferes" with the students'
> use of standard English, so that they can diagnose more
> accurately the difficulties students are having and therefore
> intervene more effectively...), and to improve students'
> attitudes/ stance toward school (which is, in my view,
>  the bottom line of literacy instruction -- getting
> students invested....)
>