language

[jbor]

on 22/3/03 12:50 AM, David Morris at fqmorris at yahoo.com wrote:

> When a student cannot pass a standardised literacy tests have a deficit that
> they need to overcome.  That is a fact beyond debate.

There's no point giving a standardised literacy test in English to a student
who doesn't speak English. The fact that a student can speak a language
other than English proficiently is not a deficit, and nor is it a skill
which needs to be "overcome". If they're literate in Spanish, they're
literate. That's that. What they require to become proficient in English is
specialised English language instruction, not remedial literacy classes.

> The nature of that
> deficit and the best to overcome it are matters for debate.   That students
> with learning difficulties or behavioural problems end up in the same classes
> as those with deficient literacy/grammar skills does not suggest that Ebonics
> should be taught.  It's just plain old bad management.

Yes, it is. And those bad management practices derive directly from the
prejudiced view that African-American English is "deficient" as a medium of
communication. It isn't. It's different, not "deficient".

> That is altogether
> another topic.

No, it is the topic. No-one is saying that Ebonics "should be taught" at the
expense of "standard" English. You're simply repeating the same old straw
man argument over and over again.

As Terrance has already explained, any pedagogical program has to take into
account the starting point of students, their existing skills, knowledge and
understandings. Thus, African-American English should be recognised and,
where appropriate and practical, used when teaching students from
African-American backgrounds.

best