To let the commentators tell it, educators in the city of Oakland have gone mad. They are teaching Black English as a second language and are seeking federal funds to do so, and depending on which “Black leader” you quote, this is a “bad joke” or a “cruel hoax” on the African American community. Coming a few days before Christmas, and a few weeks after affirmative action stumbled with the passage of Proposition 209, all one could say was, “Bah, humbug.”
The real comment is, “Bah, homework.” If those who are commenting would do as much reading as the children they want to protect are asked to, they’d know that Oakland never said it would teach Black English to youngsters. Indeed, on December 18, the Oakland Unified School District Board of Education approved a policy affirming Standard American English language development for all students. In other words, they aren’t suggesting that, “We be teaching dis and dat and dese and dose.” (The quote marks appear because I don’t ever, ever, ever want to be accused of an inability to deal with the so-called Queen’s English).
It seems that, without a lot of information, key African American leaders are condemning the Oakland approach to teaching standard English. But then if you believe everything you read, you’d have to doubt the Oakland approach, too. After all, it seems that conventionally educated African Americans are asking that their children and grandchildren get something different than a conventional education. But then, isn’t this what the school-choice, school-chance, school-circumstance advocates are saying. Students aren’t like T-shirts. One size one schedule, one curriculum simply does not fit ail. Oakland actually ought to be commended for seven years of experimentation in a Standard English Proficiency Program that has demonstrated success in retention, achievement, and graduation. It requires understanding, though, in order to commend them.
Oakland is trying to balance two concepts, language deficiency and English proficiency. Too many African American students in Oakland are viewed as “language deficient” because they don’t speak the Queen’s English. “They be tripping and be trying,” but the command of the English language is highly correlated with family income, education, and exposure. Too many students in Oakland come from families where there is unemployment, poverty, and a side track, not the mainstream. Should these students be welcomed into classrooms, or shunned? Should they be judged deficient, or offered a bridge to proficiency? The focus on Ebonics is an Oakland School District focus on teachers, not students. It teaches teachers sensitivity, understanding, and a way to build a bridge. Only a combination of press ignorance and raw cynicism would turn an effort to increase sensitivity into an effort to glorify non-standard English.
English proficiency has always been the goal of the Oakland Board of Education. But when they asked each other how to get to proficiency, they found that little discussion had taken place about the teaching and treatment of African American students in the classroom. Toni Cook, former chair of the Oakland Board of Education, and a current member, said she saw the key issue as the education of the Black child. She noted that 71 percent of those in Oakland’s special education courses are African American, and 64 percent of those held back are African American-both numbers out of proportion with the 53 percent representation of African Americans in Oakland’s schools. How can we fix it, Cook fretted, wearing her hat as a former college professor and motivator? The data show that one way to fix it is to use Ebonics as a bridge to standard English.
By now, though, the discussion has been skewed by reporters who find fun and fury in Oakland’s decision. The discussion has been fractured by those African American leaders who have used their prestige to suggest that the Oakland decision is wrong. The discussion about learning has been sidetracked by the pundocracy, the people who get paid to say what they think no matter how much or how little they know. Bah, homework.
Indeed, a second story in the histrionics about Ebonics is the way the media works its way into overdrive when race is part of an issue. Thirty years ago “new math” was a curriculum change that was hotly debated. But it wasn’t, as Newsweek Magazine’s January 13 cover touts, a “war” — as in the “war over Black English.” Curricular changes have done everything from introduce economics education to change history requirements. When race matters are introduced, though, rationality seems to go out of the window.
Let’s be clear about my biases. My skin crawls when I hear the word “ax” instead of “ask,” and it takes all my worldly self control to sit still when someone says, “I likes-es greens.” I am less repelled by the language of the streets, seeing in it a bilinguality that speaks to the street in all of us — for example, “I’ve been hanging with my homies in the hoopdie” instead of “I’ve been spending time with my friends in their less than traditionally maintained car.” That’s how I talk some of the time, but it’s not the commercially viable language that I take to editorial meetings and business deals. Or if I do, believe me, it is not for lack of knowing better.
Black people have always had to be bilingual, but we have also always known the space, place and context of our bilinguality. When there is no context, when commercially viable workplaces lock us out, our children end up monolingual, and only marginally so. Should our schools lock them out or pull them in? Can teachers take the language used and turn it into standard English proficiency. The Oakland Board of Education says yes. Their position has been “dissed” (or disrespected) by a drive-by analysis that reacts to headlines and nothing more. Now they have to explain themselves with press releases, web site information kits, and bibliographies that try to tell the whole story.
Oakland should not be on the defensive, but on the offensive about issues of African American education. Based on their experience, Oakland school board members ought to be the ones to bring educational leaders together to discuss key issues around the education of African American youngsters. Are educational challenges the same, or different, from those of the majority culture? And as long as we accept the notion that different children have different needs, why can’t African American youngsters be accommodated? Too often, in African American History Month, there is talk about visionaries of the past. But by opening a can of worms about learning styles and Ebonics, the Oakland school board might be described as the visionaries of the future. Let’s get the facts straight on the Ebonics controversy, and celebrate the educators who said their goal was, no matter how, to teach Black children standard English proficiency.
COPYRIGHT 1997 Cox, Matthews & Associates
© Copyright 2005 by DiverseEducation.com
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
International Students Sue Western Iowa Tech Community College, Alleging Forced Labor January 22, 2021,
Biden Proposes New Immigration Legislation That Would Impact Undocumented Students January 21, 2021,
Columbia University Life Executive Vice President Suzanne Goldberg Joins Biden Administration January 21, 2021,
Time for Anti-Racism: A Way Forward for America and Higher Education January 21, 2021,
Morgan State University Offers Poet Amanda Gorman Job as Poet-in-Residence January 21, 2021,
What You Can Do to Recruit and Retain Diverse Faculty and Staff During COVID-19 January 21, 2021,
AAC&U Conference Focuses on Higher Education’s Role in Addressing Structural Racism January 20, 2021,
Higher Education Leaders Hopeful After President Joe Biden’s Inauguration January 20, 2021,
Diverse: Issues In Higher Education highlights 25 outstanding women during Women’s History Month. January 20, 2021,
Women in Sports Leadership: A Q&A with Dr. Dana Hollie January 20, 2021,