Chapter 6: Language, Culture, and the Assessment of African American Children

In this chapter, educational psychologist and historian Asa Hilliard III explains why we cannot separate the historically oppressed status of African American children and the educational assessments used to measure their language abilities.  He begins by describing how teaching and learning are dependent upon a common language between teacher and student and how language is a feature of culture.  All cultures have language and children learn to speak the language of their culture.  Teaching and learning are also aspects of culture and therefore not exclusive to any group or groups (p. 89).

 

Hilliard discusses how teaching and learning are part of an environment influenced by politics.  Because of this influence, teaching and learning in the US has historically been rooted in a Western European dominant system.  He cites several studies that show just how pervasive the influence was in many academic disciplines.
          Africans were said by some historians to have had no  
          history, by linguists to have had inferior language, by political
          scientists to have had poor self-government, by psychologists
          to have had low intelligence, by biologists to have had
          inferior genes and by theologians to have had no soul. (p. 90)

Hilliard acknowledges that African American children are not achieving at optimal levels in school.  He goes on to say that African American children need to learn languages and content other than that which they may have learned up until now.  What he suggests is that the teaching practice and the assessment process needs to reflect the historical and cultural legacy of what African American students bring to the classroom.  Many times, when it is recognized that African American children do have a unique culture, that culture is deemed inferior to that of Western European culture.  Hilliard states that there are four areas of testing of African American students that cause gross errors--testing the mental ability, speech, language, and reading ability of these students.  He points out that these errors are made because many professionals are ignorant of basic linguistic principles and the history of American English and African American speech.

Next, Hilliard lists six misconceptions about American English; that it is:

• Immaculately conceived and is a pure language
• Superior to other languages
• A fixed or permanent language
• Essentially the same in all English-speaking countries and in the US
• Uninfluenced by African language, at least in the US
• Language, not simply a language

He points out that many Americans have not been taught even such simple things as how English came to be.  Hilliard describes how invading forces in the British Isles influenced the English language that developed. He concludes that "what is now English emerged as a polyglot language from the remnants of the language of Celts, Latin, Germanic Jutes, Angles, Saxons and finally the French." (p.93) In the very least, it could be argued that English is "non-standard German."

In the next section of the article, Hilliard describes misconceptions about African American language.  When people refer to African American language as "non-standard English", they do not recognize that it is a "fusion of languages that cannot be understood apart from an appeal to historical origins and to the oppression of slavery" (p. 94). He discusses the slave trade in the Western Hemisphere and points out that by the time many of the slaves were brought to America, they had come from Angola, Mozambique, and South East Africa--areas where the source of people was from Bantu language culture and possessed something called the "Bantu dynamic".  This dynamic influenced other languages and features of these languages were retained in the speech of the Sea Islander in South Carolina.

Also, culturally, these Bantu languages promoted oral communication and speech performances. Woven into these oral traditions were emotions tied to the humanity of the people and the culture.  These oral traditions have been past down generation to generation. Hilliard goes on to describe his experience of living in West Africa and finding evidence of these traditions in the Bantu languages of the region.  He concludes this section by pointing out that the historical, political and cultural information is important when we discover that many of the reasons African American students are labeled as "poor readers" or "dumb" or "speech impaired" are actually because they retain features of Bantu speech or speech from other African language families combine into a form of common English. He suggests that the language spoken by many African Americans should simply be considered "foreign" or "semi-foreign" and not as "deficient" or "pathological".  "The prime test of the 'normalcy'of the language of a child is to compare the child's language to the environment within which it was learned." (p. 97)  Hilliard suggests that deficiencies are in the professional preparation when they are ignorant of the African influences on language.

Next, Hilliard discusses standardized tests.  He asserts that the results of these tests favor children who speak a form of common American English and can respond to the questions that use a familiar language based upon familiar experiences. He points out some of the features of these tests and actually calls them "absurd under the light of cultural-linguistics analysis" (p. 98), namly

• 'basic word' list
• word 'difficulty'
• 'vocabulary'
• 'general information'
• standardized 'beginning and ending sounds'
• standardized 'comprehension'

Regarding the 'basic word' list, Hilliard asks the questions--what are the criteria for creating the list?--is a basic word list something all Americans use and have equal access to?--is a basic word list a random sample of all the words of the total possible vocabulary words available?--is a basic word list necessary for English speakers to communicate with one another?--can there be more than one basic word list? and so on. He poses similar questions regarding 'word difficulty' and 'vocabulary'. He does make the point that the constructs are ambiguous and arbitrary. "Therefore, the mass prodution of standardized tests and assessment procedures to measure the behaviors implied by the construct is in reality the production of mass confusion" (p. 100).

Hilliard concludes the article with these two main points:

• there is an urgent need for systematic cultural-linguistic review of all testing and assessment devices that are used with African Americans

and

• teachers must be taught so that their total orientation toward language and cultural lingustic principles represents the best we now know about teaching African American students.

This article provided me with details I hadn't considered from an historical point.  For anyone to state or to feel that any given language is "pure" and not influenced by other is not truly informed. Yet again, I ask the questions, why do most teachers not have this perspective? and why, if this research is out there and available, are not the powers that be, reconfiguring our assessment of students to benefit not only African American students, but all students?  Oh yeah, the political influence.  My thought is, those in power need to retain that power by imposing their own standards on the populace and are not about to give up the power they have attained.

Chapter 5: Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts

Michael Stubbs conducted this study in Great Britain.What he does in this chapter is to discuss the relationship between language and education.  "Many people believe that a child's language is a crucial cause of his educational success or failure" (p. 65).  He clearly states four positions on language and defines the distinctions within these positions.

The first is language and the attitudes toward language. Stubbs points out that we hear language through a strong filter of our social values and stereotypes.  Stubbs calls these "linguistic stereotypes" (p. 66). In the example given, he points out that many educated speakers will use what some would call lazy or slovenly speech in their casual conversations.  However, British people are sensitive to the social implications of accent and dialect and so are critical when there is a deviation from standard English and pronunciation. In a series of experiments, people listened to a variety of standard and regional dialects. These people perceived the speakers of standard English to be more intelligent, ambitious, and self-confident. What the listeners did not know was that it was the same speaker.

A study in Canada showed that many teachers will evaluate their students on the basis of their voices and physical appearance, even when they have academics work such as written compositions or art work on which to appraise students.  Stubbs goes on to include an exchange where teenaged students pass judgment on a speaker and a particular phrase the speaker uses--and these girls used the same phrase in their condemnation of the speaker. What Stubbs suggests teachers do is to discuss this phenomenon with students and try to bring awareness to why they feel the way they do about dialects and standard English.

Stubbs completes this section by pointing out that for many years, students were discouraged to use their home language in school and that many times they were punished for using their native tongue (p.70).  However, there have been, in recent years, changes across Great Britain and schools are now actively encouraging students to use their native languages.

Stubbs' second position is that of the primitive language myth.  He points out that linguists long ago dispelled the myth that there were primitive languages and that "all the world's languages have been shown to have vastly complex grammatical systems" (p. 71).  He goes on to state that there are languages that are functionally more highly developed than others, but only because of their wide-spread use and that they are written.
       ...English is an international language, with a highly
       standardized writing system, and is used in a wide range of
       functions from everyday casual conversation to writing
       scientific papers.  Many hundreds of  the world's languages
       have no writing systems and cannot therefore serve the same
       range of functions. (p. 71)
This issue stated, Stubbs goes on to point out that it does not affect the fact that languages and dialects are very complex structural systems.

In his third position, Stubbs discusses standard and nonstandard dialects.  The basic definition of dialect Stubbs provides is that of a regional or geographical variety or a dialect based on a social group.  He goes on to point out that in Britain, the regional and social dimensions are related.  "The higher up the social class scale one goes, the less one encounters regional variation in speech" (p. 72).  He also discusses that standard English is usually base on the written form and not the spoken form of English. Which brings him to the distinction between accent and dialect.  One can speak standard English with an accent, but a dialect will deviate more than in pronunciation alone. 

Stubbs goes on to present the idea of language varieties.  Different languages are used in different situations.  A person will speak to a teacher differently than he or she will speak to a friend or a parent.  He gives some examples of the media in Britain, teachers in a classroom, or students with their friends.

Which brings Stubbs to a sub-point of
correctness versus appropriateness.  Many of us learned that if we used grammatically correct English, our language was correct.  We were taught to avoid slang and non-standard forms of English--that it was "bad English."  Currently, the  attitude has shifted and the use of colloquialisms and non-standard English are not looked at as bad English, there is still the perspective of appropriate usage.  Stubbs gives the example of a students writing to a prospective employer.  If the writer uses non-standard English and slang, he or she may need to be cautioned about the appropriate use of the language--it may not be suited to applying for a job. The converse of this situation would be to use very formal language in a relaxed, familiar setting such as spending time with friends.  Stubbs states "that within standard English...there is a stylistic variation according to social context.  Thus standard English has formal and informal styles in both writing and speech" (p. 76).

Another sub-point Stubbs discusses is that of production and comprehension.  He points out that there maybe times when a teacher observes a child who uses language the teacher may deem inappropriate for the classroom.  However, Stubbs argues that perhaps the child does not know the forms that may be appropriate in the teacher's view or does not realize the form is inappropriate for the situation.  He goes on to discuss that perhaps the child neither knows or understands the situation; that the child does understand but never uses the item in his or her own speech; or that the child understands, but the teacher has not observed the child using the item in his or her speech (p. 77).  He also addresses the fact that many times, children will comprehend what their parents tell them long before they can produce the same forms of speech on their own.

Stubbs concludes this chapter by highlighting the implications of making such distinctions.  He encourages educators to not overgeneralize the relationship of "language" and "education."  We need to be more aware of the nuance of language and how it is produced in the classroom.  Students who use non-standard English are not disadvantaged  or deficient. What is important is that they learn the distinction between standard and non-standard English.  He includes what he calls a cartoon by Feiffer:

I used to think I was poor.  Then they told me I wasn't poor, I was needy.  Then they told me it was a self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me deprived was a bad image.  I was underprivileged.  Then they told me underprivileged was overused.  I was disadvantaged.  I still haven't got a dime, but I have a great vocabulary.


I appreciated this chapter because Stubbs says what I feel most teachers need to hear.  English has many forms and uses, one not being any better than the other, one dialect not more appropriate than the next.  I thought it was interesting how there is a clear distinction in Great Britain with the subtle and not so subtle differences in forms of English.  To me, this chapter, again, made a lot of sense.  I just wish readings such this and many of the others we have done in class were required of all teachers.  There would be a better understanding of our students and ourselves.

Chapter Four: Trilingualism

This chapter is written by Judith Baker, an English teacher at a technical/vocational high school in Boston.  Her students are representative of urban teenagers that come from diverse backgrounds and low to moderate economic levels.  The students are also typically portrayed in a negative light.  They have low test scores and are criticized for having poor formal English skills. Baker feels that her classroom is a place for her to develop teaching strategies for helping students become proficient in the use of standard English.

Baker has a theory that "there are at least three forms of the English language that most Americans need to learn" (p. 51) in order to be successful in society. The three forms are

• "home" English or dialect--language that is used in the home
• "formal" or academic English--language learned in school, through the media, and possibly in well-educated families
• "professional" English--the language of one's  job or profession (p. 51)

These three forms are what make up what Baker calls "trilingualism." She describes how she works to make trilingualism explicit in order to motivate students to want to learn them.  Students can then master the differences between them.

Her first step is to establish respect for the students' home languages.  The home language is the form we use to communicate our connections and regard to our significant others--family and friends. Baker does this because she wants the students' "own usage, vocabulary, modes of expression and their self esteem to survive the language learning process." (p. 52)  She goes on to assert that if students are given choices of the language to use, that they will quickly learn the grammar, sentence structure, and other forms of formal language. 

The project she assigns her students is to examine their home language through a exploration of the language they usually speak at home and with friends.  They are given a checklist of sorts to guide them in what to be looking/listening for as they focus on language used outside the classroom.  Some of the items are

• clipped words
• regional words or expressions
• slang
• use of language other than English
• use of language mixed with English
• accents or tonal features
• use of swear words or curse words--when and why do you use them 

Students are then arranged in groups that have common backgrounds.  These groups meet for an hour on each of two days to plan their presentation.  Baker doesn't give much direction but she does circulate in order to help keep the groups on task. One group found that one of their members, Dwayne, had some of the same speech patterns his father has.  Dwayne had taped his father and as the group was listening to the tape, he had to translate for his father.  One outcome of exploring his father's speech patterns was that Dwayne became more interested in his spelling and found connections between his own patterns and those of the people in his home.

Baker reports on other students who had similar experiences with their home language research.  She goes on to state that she learned about the languages her students used outside of her classroom.  All this examining of home language seemed to validate from where the students were coming and thus helped them understand and feel more comfortable studying language in general.

The next strategy Baker would use was role play.  She presented the situation where a 'student' comes home from college using vocabulary that is not fully understood by the family.  In one variation, the 'student' is chastised by the family--"Oh, you think you are better than us." Another variation is one where the mother is very proud of her college student. 

Another role play is where a student portrays a junior executive at a company who makes a presentation using formal English and then the junior executive gives the presentation using home language. 

After both these role plays, Baker discusses with student what had transpired.  What was revealed was that some of her Latino students revealed that they felt more comfortable when they would present themselves in formal English around non-Latino people; others stated that they felt inauthentic dropping their accents.

Through these discussions, Baker realized that learning formal grammar was a choice that the student would make--not a choice made by the teacher for the student. It seemed the students then became less fearful and more engaged, realizing they had control because of choice.

In finding strategies to engage students in learning their professional language, Baker reported that she had some ideas that she had yet to try.  She wanted to be able to support students with the language they encountered in their technical classes. There was one way she was able to assist.  Students had to give presentations on their chosen profession and actually took on a teacherly role and professional manner.

Baker ends this article describing how she wants to continue to study ways of engaging students in their exploration of their trilingualism.  She wants to use audio recordings of conversations from many different dialect and English variations and have the students analyze and compare them. Baker wants to continue to encourage students to build a foundation for motivating each other to master the formal grammar needed to be successful.  She will do this by respecting what they bring to the class from home.




I liked this article because Baker offered clear strategies for working with students and their exploration of language.  She doesn't have all the answers and doesn't suggest that she does.  And for me, it all makes sense.  Students bring to the classroom a life that is impacted by what happens outside of the classroom, so it just makes sense that exploring their home language in order to begin to understand more formal English builds a deeper respect and understanding of what is needed to be successful.

Chapter 3: No Kinda Sense

In this chapter, Lisa Delpit describes how her daughter's experience at school gave her insight into what could be done in American schools for students who do not speak Standard English (SE).  Her premise is that schools need to be more welcoming to what children do bring to the classroom and honor the places from which they come.

Delpit begins with a description of  how her eleven-year-old daughter came home from school and stated "She be all like, 'What ch'all talkin' 'bout?' like she ain't had no kinda sense." The use of Non Standard English--Ebonics--seemed to catch Delpit off guard.  She relates her personal memories and how they conflicted with the feelings she had at that moment. She describes discussions with family members about the use of SE, from her mother stating to her when she was ten-years-old, "Lisa, would you please speak correctly? Don't sound so ignorant!" to arguing with her sister, an English teacher, "...which would you rather your child be able to say, 'I be rich' or 'I am poor'?  My sister's response, with no hesitation: 'I am poor!' " (p. 33)  Delpit found herself chastising her daughter's use of Ebonics. Maya, her daughter, then restated the phrase, "...enunciating with exaggerated, overly precise diction, 'She said, 'What are you people speaking about,' as if she didn't have any sense.'" (p.33) Delpit ponders why she had such a strong reaction. 

Her daughter had been brought up in a middle-class African American family and, up until the middle of her fifth grade year, Maya had attended a predominately White private school.  She began to make statements such as "Maybe if I were prettier I'd have more friends."  And when Maya asked her mother if she could have plastic surgery to make her lips smaller, Delpit knew she had to act.  She chose to transfer Maya to a charter school where 98 percent of the students were African American. This transfer helped Maya regain self-confidence and esteem.  She was accepted by her new classmates and was more like her old self.  "But she also acquired new speech codes." (p. 34) Delpit relates how she was in awe at how quickly her daughter picked up these new speech codes and adapt to new circumstances, but also was unsure of what it all might mean.

Delpit began to wonder why she had such a strong reaction to Maya's words and then she thought about how easily her daughter acquired a new language that was not her home language, and what that might mean for African American children whose home language is not that of the school.  She decided that if we (teachers and the school community) accept students for who they are and what they bring to the classroom--language, culture and all, students will be more attuned to "building knowledge of 'standard English' " (p. 35).

Using the backdrop of the policy on Ebonics presented in the Oakland, California schools in the late 90's, Delpit argues that many people did not get it when the school board proposed that Ebonics be recognized as a language. The media and prominent African American leaders felt this proposal was a step backward for African American students.  Delpit admits there was a reason to be concerned, based on centuries of struggle of Black people, not only over language, but pretty much every thing else in society. However, the Oakland school board's policy was for teachers to be aware of what the African American students were bringing to the classroom and to use that as a starting point to teach SE. Delpit sites the work of Stephen D. Krashen and his "affective filter" as a explanation for students' obstacles in developing SE.  "The filter operates 'when affective conditions are not optimal, when the student is not motivated, does not identify with the speakers of the second language, or is overanxious about his performance,...[creating] a mental block...[which] will prevent the input from reaching those parts of the brain responsible for language acquisition.' " (p. 40)  If educators of students who speak Ebonics had a better idea of the roots of Black English, they may be able to remove some of the obstacles for students.  For teachers to "understand that Ebonics was rule-based, just like standard dialect, and that those rules had an historic basis in West African languages," (p. 42) could be a step for teachers to come closer to recognizing what their students may need.  Delpit suggests that schools change their form of classroom instruction, beginning with learning more about from where students function outside of the school environment.

In a description of how classroom instruction can change reminiscent of the work that Gibbons (2008) did in New South Wales, Delpit describes a project-based unit of culturally appropriate study where students' interests and core content can easily provide integrated instruction.  She describes the practice of hair braiding as a starting point for everything from historical significance (social studies) to symmetry (math) to interviewing people who braid hair (literacy) to even studying the chemical components of hair products (science). A unit such as this would recognize students and the use and instruction in SE could be incorporated and an obstacle removed from learning and using SE.

Delpit recognizes that one integrated unit will not change the world. She does make the argument that society needs to value contributions from cultures that are not part of dominate traditions.  "When we know the real history of Africa--the Egyptian wonders of technology and mathematics, the astronomical genius of the Mali Dogon, the libraries of Timbuktu--then we can teacher our children that if they do not feel they are brilliant, then it is only because they do not know whence they came." (p. 46)  She goes on to summarize her position--"When they [students] recognize that we believe in them, then they come to trust us, to accept us, to identify with us and to emulate us.  They will come, as Maya came, to adopt aspects of who we are, including our language.  If we were to put all of these classroom techniques to work, we would create schools in which children would more readily learn the standard dialect." (pp. 46-47)


In this essay, I can find so many arguments for supporting any student who is a second language/dialect learner.  The main obstacle for teachers would be when do you find the time to learn about students' cultural backgrounds--and what do you do when you have a multitude of cultural backgrounds in one class?  That makes me think of the "separate but equal" position--and it makes me cringe. Do we separate out the students who are L2 learners?  What about the students who already function using the dominate language?  What would they be missing if not given the opportunity to learn about cultures other than their own? There is such a mind-set that we have to ultimately have to get students to come to a collective unified understanding of the world.  I don't know what the answers are......

Chapter 2 Ebonics: A Case History

In this chapter, Ernie Smith shares with the reader his life path through the language--languages--he has used to negotiate his life.  He states that he has spoken Ebonics since he was a child, that language having been the language of his "parents and playmates, the primary teachers of speech and language." (Smith in Delpit, p. 17)

Having grown up in the late 1940's and 50's, Smith describes how his home language was labeled at school. Terms such as "corrupt speech," "broken English," "verbally destitute," and "linguistically deprived" were all used to note the language he used. His language was considered deficient and somehow seemed to be related to "physical and/or mental abnormalities," (p. 17).  Teachers would suggest to parents that Smith and other students whose language was thus labeled be assigned to special speech classes or speech therapy. As he continued through school, Smith was assigned to remedial classes and finally tracked into a vocational school.  He became bored with school and was eventually labeled "incorrigible."  He did, however, return to his original high school and graduated with his class.  Because of his experience, Smith did not have an interest in pursuing post-secondary education. 

Lacking credible Black role models in his community, Smith became a street hustler or "stuff player." He describes how he had to learn the language of the streets and specifically of the "hustle."  This vernacular allowed him a chance to find success in selling inexpensive watches and other items.  He describes how and why it works...there is an association of language and intelligence that could be manipulated to his advantage. Smith did learn that an angry "mark" would often resort to physical violence and thus realized he needed to determine another line of work. So he found a mentor. This mentor taught him a new type of language--the language of the "fast life." (p. 21) Smith began to use language to promote "an ignorant personality, sweetmouthin', rappin', and especially mackin' [pimp, gigolo, playboy]." (p.21)  This mentor, however,  also encouraged him to go to college.

In college, Smith once again found his "success and survival pivoting and hinging on [my] language behavior and linguistic competence." (p. 21)  He found support in the Black Muslim movement of the early 1960's.  He received his Bachelor of Arts degree and began working on a television talk show aimed at tackling controversial issues of the day.  During this time, he learned the finer points of debate and public speaking and began to see the social conditions of the community around him.  Smith decided to take on the issue of the number of students graduating from high schools in South Central Los Angeles without skills to successfully read or write to participate in the community.  This led him to graduate school and yet another opportunity to use his linguistic skills--in what society would deem both positive and negative.

It was 1970 and the Vietnam War was raging on.  Smith joined groups that protested the war and gave impassioned speeches.  His speeches drew the ire of several campus staff members and he was indicted for "the willful and unlawful and malicious disturbance of the peace by using what was described in the complaint as 'vulgar, profane, and indecent' language within the presence or hearing of women and children." (p. 24) Smith goes on to describe how in his linguistic community, many times it isn't what is said but how it is said that conveys intent.  A "Graduate Student in residence in one of the major universities in the Western Hemisphere, and once again my language behavior was perceived as a corrupt and deviant vernacular which needed to be corrected. Only this time, my language had been labeled as vulgar, indecent, and profane." (pp. 24-25)

Smith spent the rest of his graduate studies exploring Ebonics and at the time that he wrote this essay, he was working within the University of California system to inform both black and white students of the challenges "faced by black people in this country and about the validity of talking about a black experience and a black language in society like ours." (p. 25)


Ernie Smith certainly seems to have found his way of navigating areas of his life through language.  My question is what did he tap within himself to recognize the need to learn a variety of vernaculars in order to be successful?  How can classroom teachers encougage their students to want to pursue multiple means of communication in order to be successful--or society's definition of success? Or do students pursue their own definition of success, whether or not it aligns with socitey's?

Chapter One "Ovuh Dyuh"

The first chapter/essay is by Joanne Kilgour Dowdy.  In this essay she recounts what it was like growing up in Trinidad and her mother insisting she "curse in white", which meant that she always had to be aware that she was playing to a white audience.  She states that "there was a white way and a right way."   As a middle class child from an influential family, her mother made sure that young Joanne learned to speak the "colonial" tongue.

Dowdy describes a time when she realized the difference between the fantasy of her language and the reality.  She was playing cricket with her friends when she hit a ball over a fence.  As the other children looked for the ball, she announced "Over there."  Her enunciation was perfect.  The others just giggled and laughed.  Any of the other children would have said "Ovuh dyuh"--sensible, given the language of the island.  This incident left an indelible mark on young Joanne.

She goes on to describe how the society in which she grew up taught that if you were to be successful, you were to embrace the "language that was used to enslave you and your forebears.  It is a painful strategy for survival, but maybe it is just another facet of the kind of transcendence to which the descendants of kidnapped Africans had to aspire in order to survive the very memory of slavery." (Dowdy, 2002, p. 7)

Dowdy also describes how proud her family, especially her mother and her grandmother, were of her perfect diction and use of the Queen's English.  She pleased her teachers as well and saw her role as a way to survive.  She was appointed "Head Girl' in high school and found that she and the other "Head Girls" could use their positions to begin to assert their "Afrocentric" identities and reclaim a part of who they were and are.

During high school, she became an actress on TV and worked to produce short skits for a local show where she could use her Trinidadian language. The result was not quite what she expected.  She found that in the realm of a television show, she could be who she was and speak Trinidadian but in her "real life", she still  had to use the "colonizer's language."  She states that "as a result of my acting life, I came to understand that the colonizer only valued the native language of the colonized in the realm of entertainment." (p. 11)

Dowdy discusses how there is a mental conflict between the mother tongue and the master discourse.  In public life, "the value given to the patriarch's tongue, the master discourse, always supersedes that given to the matriarch.  The 'language of intimacy,' as Richard Rodriguez calls it, has no place in the public arena." (p. 12). She goes on to describe how a confident individual can go on to function in the dominate culture, but begin to develop doubt and disappointment.  What she hears in her head conflicts with what is produced in her throat.  Dowdy suggested that the confident individual must find a way to reclaim who she is and suggests that one day, "mothers will no longer have to force their children to act like strangers among their elders." (p. 13)  That children will be a part of reclaiming community and the language of that community.




As a monolingual speaker of my culture's dominate language, I appreciate the perspective that is given by Dowdy.  I really don't have anything to compare her struggle to.  I am finding that I agree with her statements more out of logic than out of passion--again because I don't have a reflection in the mirror that is being held up to me.  I want to understand and work to help the children reclaim who they are through their language and their voice. I do want to be passionate and be an advocate for first language speakers. Is that my role or do I just step aside and let it happen?  I don't really know what I should do.

Introduction

I've chosen to read a book that has been edited by Lisa Delpit titled The Skin That We Speak, Thoughts on Language and Culture in the Classroom.  Since this is a series of essays, I've decided to blog about each chapter/essay as I complete them.

In the introduction, Delpit discusses the research and writings done on "Black English" and "Standard English". One of the studies found that white children preferred the SE speaker and the African American children preferred the BE speaker.  Both groups of children also displayed expressions of learned stereotyped images.  Many were negative toward the BE speaker--silly, having nothing, "not having drawing ability" while the stereotypes for the SE speaker were more positive--gentle, better looking, "having better drawing ability".

I like what Delpit says about language--"Our language embraces us long before we are defined by any other medium of identity.  In our mother's womb, we hear and feel the sounds, the rhythms, the cadences of our 'mother tongue.' " (2002, p. XVII)  She goes on to say
"Just as our skin provides us with a means to negotiate out interactions with the world--both in how we perceive our surroundings and in how those around us perceive us--our language plays an equally pivotal role in determining who we are:  it is The Skin That We Speak."

The rest of the introduction sets the tone for what is to come--personal accounts of language--as identity, in the classroom and teacher knowledge of what language is.  I am eager to read these essays.  Just the format alone seems to speak to me...real discussion about real ideas facing teachers and adults who work with children.