re Re: re Re: re Re: SLSL language

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 14:49, David Morris wrote:
> --- calbert at hslboxmaster.com wrote:
> > ........in fact, by removing the specific language from the debate and
> inserting a "variable", I  think we can get a clearer picture of the underlying
> argument......of course it robs some of the opportunity to tar their
> correspondent with the brush of "neo-imperialist yada yada".....
> 
> This is a good point.  It begs the question of why only US-black alternative
> grammar, Ebonics, should be taught in US schools.  Since Terrance has pointed
> out that MANY white students, not to mention hispanic, arabic and numerous
> asian students also speak their own versions of non-standard english, doesn't
> it stand to reason that we must also accomodate their own
> "fil-in-the-blank"-onics?  If not, why not?  And please don't suggest it
> wouldn't be practical.

But it would never be a question of blindly using the same teaching
methods on ALL special groups. Using the home language as a means of
teaching standard English (contrastive language teaching) would only be
employed where is it shown to be useful and necessary. It's not really a
question of "accomodating" everyone in the same way out of some notion
of fairness,  but of what works on a particular group of children.
Fairness consists of seeing to it that everyone comes away competent in
standard English.