Dear Craig,

You write...

>    As progressive educators, we sometimes do more harm than good by our
>discomfort with clear standards.

As you know, I work in the area of urban education, and helping teachers learn
to use students' vernacular langauge in order to teach Standard English.

By "clear standards," I assume you are talking about the school systems'
requirement that students be able to read and produce Standard English (AKA
Language of Wider Communication, School Speech, Formal English, the language
of power/money, etc. etc.).

In my work on codeswitching and contrastive analysis (see
www.rebecca.wheeler.net), the whole point is to foster Standard English
mastery, so all kids can have broader access to the broader society. However,
the way to do it, is BY recognizing the integrity and structure of the home
language, and then by using a language of pattern rather than a language of
deficience and error, to lead students in discovery of contrasting grammar
patterns between home and school speech, and then to choose the language
variety appropriate to the setting.

In formal essays, the language will likely be Standard English, but in
narrative with dialogue, students will use various other varieties of English
in order to capture character and voice.

While it is true that there is much more to African American communication
style than the grammar (see Smitherman and others), it is also true that in
public schools, students are graded, assessed, and tracked according, in part,
to their ability to produce Standard English.

So, for example, school speech pathologists here in Virginia tell me that when
an African American child reads a series of phonemic test passages (The mouse
runs; the cat runs) according to the pronunciation patterns of the home
language (Da mouse run; Da cat run), the pathologist records an error for each
contrast (despite the clear instructions with the test that such dialect
influence is NOT to be counted an error). The consequence of such assessments
is that the child may be assessed as a "failing reader" and low-tracked into
remedial reading, when actually, the child READ and comprehended the passage
perfectly well. They just spoke it in the pronunciation patterns of the
language of nurture.

Similarly, the child who uses vernacular grammatical structures on the
Standardized English tests under the No Child Left Behind act will be marked
down on usage and mechanics.

So, while grammar is a small part of broader communicative competence, it is a
part on which our schools grade and track students -- much to the disadvantage
of minority dialect speaking students.

In one urban middle school where I am working with 8th grade teachers,
teaching them to use the linguistically informed tools of codeswitching and
contrastive analysis, teachers report that they are deeply relieved to use
this approach. It takes them out of the language police role where they used
to have to enforce "proper English," and "good grammar" all the time.

Now, they have deepened and broadened the dialogue, likening the diversity of
how we may speak to the diversity of how we may dress, or comport ourselves to
suit the setting. Thus, blue jeans and sweats is fine for playing ball, but
would not do for a formal conference presentation. Students understand this,
and  readily extrapolate to language. How we talk to our friends and best
buds, is quite different from how we would talk to the mayor of the town.

The middle school in which I'm working has brought codeswitching into the
broader culture of the whole school. So when a child speaks to the principal
informally, she asks the student, "honey was that formal or informal?" And the
child will likely say, "Informal, Ms. Mitchell." Then the principal might say,
"you want to codeswitch that?"

Based on linguistic analysis I've identified the top 10 grammatical patterns
characteristic of each school in which I work. Then we've build a
"Codeswitching Shopping List" which lists those top 10 patterns along the left
hand side, and then has columns for student papers 1 - 5 up along the top.
Teachers and students track student command of the patterns the students use
in writing (in these formal papers, the students are learning to codeswitch
from informal to formal during the editing process).

Anyway...



>    The natural language of our students is a wonderful starting point
>for growth, but it will not be a starting point for growth if we  don't
>demand (expect) significant development.

You know, I would never demand that any kid accept or do any particular thing.
I think it's a matter of student choice and living with the consequences of
their choices.  However, I do agree with you that if we don't present an
alternative vantage.. that the child can learn to become conscious about the
grammar and choose the grammar to suit the setting -- if we don't do that,
they will have no opportunity for this kind of growth.

Yes to bi-dialectalism, and to adding School speech to children's extant, rich
home languages.


best,

Rebecca Wheeler
[log in to unmask]

Associate Professor of English
Christopher Newport University
Newport News, VA 23606

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/