lieve that teaching Standard English robs children of their ethnic or cultural
identity because utilizing the Standard dialect can lead children toredefine
themselves in ways that are incongruent with their home culture. Such views
are reflected in the 1974 NCTE position statement—“Students’ Right to Their
Own Language”—that some have interpreted as a rejection of usage conven-
tions in general and Standard English in particular on the grounds that Standard
English is elitist and discriminatory.
Tracing the various sociopolitical factors that underlie these views is beyond
the scope of this book. Some comment, however, seems necessary, given the
tensions that teachers must face regarding the issue. Considering the matter of
redefinition in historical terms can provide some insight. Until recently, giving
students the tools to redefine themselves was a legitimate goal of education.
Immediately after World War II, for example, working-class parents sent their
children to school in the belief that education would afford them a better life,
one that took them out of poor neighborhoods and reduced the prospect of dead
end or dangerous jobs. As Weir (2002) noted, America invested heavily in
schools following the war because “education offered occupational mobility to
millions of Americans” (p. 178). For this reason, support for education as an
opportunity for redefinition was strong and widespread.
A significant side effect was economic leveling as children of working-
class parents entered the middle class and the lines separating the working
class from the middle class became blurred. This obvious benefit was soon
offset, however, by an inevitable consequence of increased attention to edu-
cation. Weir (2002) described it thus: “Expanded education, even as it opens
new avenues for upward mobility, sorts the population into educated and
less-educated categories” (p. 179).
The sorting process accelerated as the 1970s wound down, when the nation
shifted toward a service economy. This put pressure on the middle class and, in
fact, caused it to start shrinking. Simultaneously, globalization and uncon-
trolled immigration provided a huge labor force willing to work for substan-
dard wages. Beginning in the 1990s and continuing today at an increasing rate,
millions of highly paid U.S. workers found themselves unemployed when their
jobs were exported to China, Indonesia, India, and Mexico. As a 2003 article in
theWall Street Journalreported, “the U.S. could lose the bulk of its information
technology jobs to overseas competitors in the next decade, largely to India and
China” (p. 1), and as many as 700,000 jobs in information technology and man-
ufacturing “have moved overseas [just] in the past three years” (Schroeder &
Aeppel, 2003, p. 2). Displaced workers have had little choice but to seek em-
ployment in the service sector, the only area of job growth, even though success
means a significantly reduced income. But their efforts have been greatly hand-
TEACHING GRAMMAR 33