This is a complex problem, because teachers are often not aware of their implicit
expectations for the ways children will use language in a particular context; they may
judge a child as disorganized or unable to engage in a task effectively when instead
the issue is a difference in what the child and teacher recognize the task to be or in
how the child and teacher expect the task to be accomplished through language.The expectations for language use in school are often
subtle. In a study focusing on language use by different
socio-economic groups, Williams (1999) found that both
working-class and middle-class parents in the study read
to their children in highly interactive ways in an effort to
prepare them for schooling. However, the nuanced ways
in which these two groups interacted through language
around the texts favored middle-class families because those
nuances, such as prompting for elaboration, matched school
interactions around texts. Williams argues that teachers
should both value the language students bring to school and also make the linguistic features of
school language, or SE, explicit to students in order to provide them with extended linguistic resources
they can draw upon, as appropriate for the social context (Spycher 2007).
There are many benefits associated with building understandings of nonstandard varieties of
English as assets and, as Labov (1972, 15) noted, refuting misconceptions “that any nonstandard
vernacular is itself an obstacle to learning. The chief problem is ignorance of language on the part of
all concerned.” Nonstandard varieties of English are, in fact, systematic and rule-governed dialects
rather than ungrammatical or improper English. Instead of taking a subtractive approach, teachers
should give clear messages that nonstandard varieties of English that students may speak or hear in
their home communities are equally as valid as standard English. In support of this additive approach
to language, the Conference on College Composition and
Communication, a division of National Council of Teachers
of English, adopted a resolution on Students’ Rights to Their
Own Language (http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/
Groups/CCCC/NewSRTOL.pdf). The resolution, which was
adopted in 1974 and reaffirmed in 2003, is as follows:
We affirm the students’ right to their own patterns and
varieties of language—the dialects of their nurture or
whatever dialects in which they find their own identity
and style. Language scholars long ago denied that the
myth of a standard American dialect has any validity.
The claim that any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social
group to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for
speakers and writers and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of its diverse
heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its heritage of dialects. We
affirm strongly that teachers must have the experiences and training that will enable
them to respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language.The next section focuses specifically on two of many dialects of English used by SELs and
by proficient users of SE as a sign of solidarity with their communities: African American English
(AAE) and Chicana/Chicano English (CE). Although AAE and CE speakers are highlighted here,
recommendations for understanding and appreciating language diversity and approaching the learning
of SE apply to all groups of SELs. See also the section on culturally and linguistically relevant teaching
elsewhere in this chapter.
Teachers have particular and
often unconscious expectations
about how children should
structure their oral language,
and these expectations are not
always transparent to students.Instead of taking a subtractive
approach, teachers should
give clear messages that
nonstandard varieties of
English that students may
speak or hear in their home
communities are equally as
valid as standard English.Access and Equity Chapter 9 | 883