Inquiry 2 Cyclical Motion

Being that a penny saved is a penny earned, how is it described when a penny is inherited? The most frequent way a person acquires GREAT wealth is by inheritance. Before slavery ended approximately eleven percent of African Americans were free and could own property. Of course that leaves eighty-nine percent of African Americans owning nothing in terms of property the day they gained their independence, or nothing inherited and literally having to work for every penny they get. Even though slavery ended around 140 years ago African Americans today on average make about seventeen cents for every dollar White Americans make. This being said doesn't it seem to make sense that the students described in the first part of the introduction by Lisa Delpit would rather receive a present from a person who is wealthier than poorer? The scary thing about the study isn't the perception of the children but the truth that even at such a young age children could see the actual inequalities in our system. There is a certain cyclical motion in everything. Those that start with nothing will more often than not end with nothing while those in power and wealth will probably stay there with no regard to what anyone actually "earns". Looking at everything in a culture, especially language, we must keep it in mind that over time most wealth or power just stays where it is and the language of power will be with who has the power. So, if you seem shocked by the racist ideas in these children just remember that there is truth in what they see. Of course a big part of growing up is breaking through false generalizations we create as children, which is what we need to strive for until we die.

                                          P.S. Rest In Peace Patrick Swayze. Now you're the top bouncer at the                                                       big  roadhouse.

Inquiry 2: "Teachers Attitudes Toward AAL"

In Jones’ paper on the attitude teacher’s have about African-American language she uses various studies to examine the beliefs many teachers carry into the classroom concerning AAL. One thing that stuck out to me during my reading of the text was the fact that, “very few teachers held the belief that AAL is simply a lazy form of English…but they seem to feel it is not productive in school.” After reading that, I had to ask myself why this was so. If AAL is a completely legitimate language I feel it should be respected in a classroom setting. I would also have to ask how they know AAL would not be productive in school if they never institute it. I feel teachers should try everything in their power to close the achievement gap and I believe the acceptance of AAL is a legitimate attempt. To say that AAL is a valid language while saying that it doesn’t belong in the classroom is blatant discrimination. Another question that arises is: Why do the teachers feel LWC is the language students should learn? If teachers can accept that there are many different languages why is it so hard to allow a variety of languages in their class? Obviously, LWC being the most common language of American business and politics can better suit students in the future. Is this what school is designed for; to make students better able to fit in the status quo? Sadly, I feel this is the current state of education and until we make education a means for becoming independent thinkers capable of changing the norm we will continue to have this problem. Although I think AAL should be incorporated, I can understand (but not agree with) their decision to acknowledge AAL but keep it out of the classroom. Teachers are trying to prepare the students for the “world” and unfortunately AAL is not included in most aspects of American life. It seems like the problem of AAL is a necessary evil until we are able to change the structure of daily life. I see this happening with Spanish. As it is becoming used more in business and politics, schools are allowing Spanish to be incorporated in their classrooms.

Inquiry #2: Teachers with Attitude

Jones paper “Teachers’ Attitudes toward African American Language” takes a look at the attitudes shown by educators towards African American English. This paper is a reflective overview of information drawn from various studies. Educators were surveyed and the results are shown in graphs. The majority of answers from most of the studies show that while many teachers agree that African American Language is not necessarily wrong, many also agree that it should be pushed out of the classroom as much as possible. In her paper, Jones acknowledges that many educators have negative views on African American Language because despite taking classes instituted to diversify, many of them have been subjected to media that has reinforced the idea of non-standard English dialects as bad English.

However, these viewpoints raise questions; in particular, if African American Language has no place in the classroom and yet still it takes years to grind it out of students (and does not always succeed) what could be the reason? Is it possible that maybe part of the reason is that African American Language is the language used by the children in every other aspect of their lives other than school? In which sense, it may not be as pressing a matter to learn to something that only counts in school. Perhaps, if at a younger age, students understood the value, they would try harder at a younger age to incorporate standardized English into their speech. However, it seems that in order for that to happen, teachers need to recognize that the language these students speak is not bad English, because as studies have shown, it has rules of grammar that govern it as well as the rules that govern standardized English. If students are to accept that standardized English, a dialect that has little connection with their current world, is relevant, teachers have to acknowledge that the non-standard English dialect of their students has a strong relevance to the students’ lives and that it cannot be stamped out or treated as a vice.

Inquiry 2

Lisa Delpit’s introduction to The Skin That We Speak compares our language to our “skin”. It is something that can be used to determine our “status” among peers, superiors, future employers, etc. More particularly, Lisa Delpit focuses her attention upon the African American Language, and its place in the education system. She points out that the educational setting is one of the first experiences where a student’s language will be judged as “right” or “wrong” (xviii). The school is seen by society as the holder of things that are considered “proper, correct, and decent”. Delpit recognizes that the African American Language is considered none of those things (xviii). She also discusses the achievement gap by saying “that it may not be the children’s language that causes educational problems, but the educational bureaucracy’s response to the language” (xxi). Delpit believes that teachers do not know how to respond to the language diversity in the classrooms (xxii), which I do not believe is entirely far from the truth.
As a future educator, I do not know how to respond, at this point in time, to the language diversity that I will face. Hopefully, by the time I graduate I will have an idea of how to respond. But, for now, how do we (as educators) respond to the diversities of language? Obviously, we would never want to make a student feel inferior for the way that they speak because there really is no “inferior” way of speaking. However, we do live in a world where there are those who believe there is a “superior” way of speaking in situations like the workplace and academia. How do we teach students Standard American English, without causing destruction to their own language?

AAL vs. LWC

Laura Jones's Teachers' Attitudes toward African American Lanaguage is exactly that. Through studies and surveys, she observes and draws connections concerning the current attitudes of teachers and students regarding African American Language.

Because the studies used are current, I am curious to see the information gathered from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Have the number of teachers who considered AAL increased or decreased? And the students? Could growing acceptance be a result of growing awareness?

Of greatest concern to me was the following: "While a majority of teachers recognized that teacher's rejection of students' language can harm the student, over 20% fewer teachers agreed that eliminating AAL might harm students who speak it." Is this not blatant ignorance? The irony in this statement is almost too much.

Are countries facing a similar problem? If so, how do they handle it? Additionally, our focus has been on high school, but is this a problem that is also prominent in elementary ed.?

Ultimately, my frustration was with the lack of research. If the achievement gap is our biggest dilemma, how are we not doing, trying, testing, everything to try and diminish it? How can we know if there is a correlation between using AAL in the classroom versus using LWC if this hypothesis is not tested? If tested and proven sound, would it be an effective class to require of all aspiring teachers? And as aspiring teachers ourselves, how can we call attention to the subject, or even bring it into our classrooms?

Inquiry 2

The main issue of the essay "Teachers' Attitudes toward African American Language" is the way we are analyzing the correct way to teach Standard English is not working. Students who speak African American English are discouraged, because of their discouraged attitudes they are not achieving as well as other students. The opinion of teachers, preservice teachers, and fellow students was two-sided and conflicted. But, are the opinions of teachers and fellow students really discouraging African American students and widening the achievement gap, or are there greater problems?
I understand that AAE should be recognized and not shunned or looked down upon in the classroom, but what other role does the language play? Should students who speak mostly SE learn the rules of AAE?
What are the rules and correct ways to speak it? I have never heard anyone get corrected for using it incorrectly. If there are rules for AAE, I would assume that many of them relate very closely to the rules of SE. The languages in America are slowly starting to conform to one another. I think it would be very helpful for education students to observe and learn from an African American English teacher and how she manages to teach SE to students of both races. It undoubtedly reassures African American students and helps them understand why they should learn SE.
“Teachers seem to feel that they must choose between respecting their students’ culture and preparing those students to succeed in a culture that does not always respect their culture” (Jones). Where does the necessary respect need to begin? Apparently, teachers are not the ones who need to focus on this language barrier. Where does the problem really come into play? Do students respect other students who speak differently than them? Should we start with them? Do teachers and other colleagues respect other teachers or co-workers who speak AAE? Do interviewers really deny a qualified person a job because they don’t speak SE? Does an interviewer higher someone who has an incomprehensive Spanish accent over someone who speaks AAE that is understandable?
Maybe the real problem isn’t the way the students are being taught. Maybe they are looking at the way they are treated after their educational careers even if they know the correct way to speak. They might feel that they shouldn’t have to change who they are to find a job and to be respected in the real world. This could be where their dilemma begins.

Inquiry 2: Teachers' Atttitudes

After reading Laura Jones' essay concerning teachers’ attitudes toward African American Language, I found myself asking, "What exactly is AAL?" I have the general idea, but now that I have learned that it entails rules and certain grammatical attributes, I am less educated in the subject than what I previously thought.

Jones' point that it might be worthwhile to "improve teacher education around language diversity" is a great one, and my main reaction was concern for the already large amount of untrained and uncertified teachers. If teachers are trained to value language diversity in attempt to being able to better the education process, what about those that are not even trained in the profession that they teach? I understand that the language diversity in the classroom is the root of some major challenges. If teachers are to teach American Standard English and the students do not speak or use it, it would indeed cause frustrations for the teacher. I do see the importance of having this knowledge, but the simple fact as we can see from the studies is that a good percentage of teachers do not possess it.

I had no previous knowledge that AAL was considered an actual dialect of English. I think that if this issue were to be more broadcast and widespread, the efforts in ridding the negative attitudes would be more affective.

Inquiry 2

In Lisa Delpit’s introduction of The Skin That We Speak, I was astonished by how the preschool children had already formed prejudices in their early age. The children viewed the Kenneth as the Black English box and Steve as the Standard English box; they also viewed the boxes as black and white respectively. This just shows that even when one does not think children notices the world around them, they do as seen by their judgments. It was interesting to read that even as a fetus in the womb, a child learns their “mother’s tongue”. The language that a parent speaks is the first language that a child identifies thus mimics. If a child grows up learning Black English, who am I to say that this is wrong? As a teacher, it is my job to teach; thus, no matter what language a child speaks I want to be able to teach him to better his language. Is there a way to combine BE and SE so that they do not conflict with students? Is there a chance that more and more teachers will begin to notice that this language barrier is a problem that is not simply fixed by failing a student because he speaks BE?

Inquiry 2

I had a surprisingly emotional response to the introduction to “The Skin That We Speak,” because it is disheartening to find that negative stereotypes associated with language can be instilled into individuals at such a young age. It seems by the time students are receiving their secondary education that the misinformation and misconception of other languages will have cemented itself into an irreversible bias. I feel discontented that we aren’t made aware of the highly complex and systematic nature of AAL until reaching college. I feel that if it was required that students were made aware of the legitimacy of AAL that it would eliminate some of the discrimination AAL speakers experience. This introduction compelled me to imagine if the language I was first immersed in and that I identified myself with was not the “language of wider communication.” It is discouraging to know that speakers of AAL are subject to such harsh judgment regarding “their intelligence, family life, future potential, or moral fiber every time a sentenced is uttered.” Even more revealing is that even the knowledge that AAL is not inferior to LWC has not caused a shift in attitude or helped to narrow the achievement gap. While Jones suggests that teachers’ attitudes towards AAL affects student learning, she also notes that this is not the only factor at play. I would like to know what else can be done to increase our awareness and deepen our understanding. What is expected of me as a future English teacher in addressing this issue? How will I acquire the necessary skill to teach LWC by using AAL as a springboard? How will I tell students that they cannot express themselves in the language that is most comfortable for them? How can I justify to them that LWC must be substituted for the language they know otherwise they will not be given the same opportunities? Unfortunately, there seems to be a moral issue bound up in language diversity and I wonder if I will have to compromise any values to be an effective teacher.

inquiry #2

In the Intro to The Skin That We Speak by Lisa Delpit focuses on the problem of language diversity within the classroom.  She points out that Teachers don’t know how to respond to “Black English” (BE), but rather become judgmental.  There have been many studies done to try to pinpoint what is the main reason behind students’ scores between BE and Standard English (SE) speakers, but nothing directs their scores to their language.  Delpit ensures the reader that in the chapters to come there will be many strategies on how to approach BE speakers.  One reason there is a stereotype with BE is because teachers are taught to teach Standard English and if a student does not excel then he/she is inadequate.  But is that really the case?

 As we have already explored, different dialects do not predetermine a students’ score, but Delpit brings up a good point: Teachers do not know how to respond to different dialects.  Why can’t they?  The reason is simple.  Delpit explains that, “our language embraces us long before we are defined by any other medium of identity.”  Therefore teachers who do not understand the different dialects cannot connect with their students.   This is a huge problem. 

Since we are all striving to be teachers, how can we avoid making the same mistake in our classrooms as teachers before us have?  Should there be a classroom language (i.e. Standard English) and a recess language (i.e. personal dialect)?  How should we approach a student if he/she is failing to grasp SE?  Should we try to learn his/her dialect to relate or should we be creative and find a balance between the two to satisfy?  

Inquiry 2: AAL, LWC and understanding.

In "Teacher's Attitudes toward African American Language" by Laura Jones, multiple studies among teachers regarding African American Language (AAL) and its use, place and practice in American schools were studied in conjunction with one another in order to find common themes and gain a better understanding of AAL's place in our society's educational system. While no definitive outcome was found, Jones hypothesized that it would while it is important and even necessary to have a positive outlook on AAL, it is not enough and that there are other facets, mainly student achievement, which guage improvement in the classroom.
This paper researched many studies on the subject and was presented to a Linguistics professor, therefore it is understandable to not to have examples of AAL and LWC (the Language of Wider Communication) in discussing the two. However I personally have never differentiated the two, and thus I suppose have a hindered understanding of the subject. I had never imagined there to be a grammatical rulebook for AAL, I suppose because I have never been presented with that idea. Walking into a classroom, I would feel much more confident that my job was being done successfully and correctly with more knowledge and understanding of not only AAL but any other language or dialect outside of LWC. Why isn't there more exposure in both the media and educational system of actual differences in language? Why does one have to get to an English or Linguistics course to realize the factual differences of the two. Misinterpreting communication has lead to many, many problems in humanity's history; understanding the other side will always be beneficial to communication.

Inquiry 2: Why English?

In Jones “Teachers’ Attitudes toward African American Language,” she examines the attitude and beliefs that teachers have towards AAL. Even though countless studies have been done to determine the causes for such behavior, researchers have never been able to pinpoint one particular reason why evidence is skewed or unclear. According to Jones, the main reason for the negativity towards AAL is “Teachers’ lack of awareness of what are commonly referred to as ‘nonstandard dialects’.” This is a problem that has greatly impacted students who do speak other dialects ability and desire to learn what we consider Standard English.

This trend in education can be seen even from those outside the classroom, simply because this posture has been reinforced in every outlet of media. The average person does not have a defined understanding of other dialects and even worse those in education are uniformed. In college you may be exposed to one or two linguistics classes, but the depth and training are grossly overlooked. My own knowledge and competency of AAL is far below what it should be. To be honest, I don’t think I would want to participate in a survey, simply because I know very little about it.

The view many people have is that African Americans are Americans, so the language that they speak must be English. This viewpoint can be applied to any race living in the United States, which points out a common misconception and belief. When you think about it, we are all immigrants. Everyone in this country at one point migrated here. So technically the only people who should be able to claim a particular language as the official “American Language” would be the Native Indians. This may be straying off the topic, but as you examine language, you realize more and more how much it as affected by power. Especially when you start asking the question, why we do speak English?

I find it really hard to make a distinction between AAL and what some term as “thug language”. What are the differences and how are the grammar and usage rules different from LWC? I don’t think I can make an informed opinion or hold a certain attitude towards something until I completely understand it. This may be a reason for so many neutral responses in the studies done to evaluate teachers’ standpoint on AAL.

Inquiry 2: The Skin that we Speak

In the intro to The Skin That We Speak, Lisa Delpit acknowledges that language diversity is a problem that teachers face in the classroom. “Many teachers don’t know how to approach language diversity,” Delpit said. The author notes that she will introduce new ways for teachers to explore language diversity. I am interested to finish the novel in order to discover how teachers can include both Standard and African American English in their classrooms. My biggest question now is – How can this be done? How can teachers teach what’s grammatically correct in Standard English while at the same time including aspects of African American English? I want to learn ways to include both SE and AAL in the classroom, or in other words, combine the language of home and school into one that’s effective for the students. I aspire to be that teacher.

In order to become that teacher, I have to know and understand the underlying reasons or concerns of the issue. I found the box with the tape recorders project to be extremely interesting. I think answering the following questions would be a great start for me to understand a little more. Why did these students associate a white person with the box playing SE and vice versa? In other words, why did these students even distinguish a concrete difference between the two? Where did the stereotype that the SE box was nicer and gave better presents and the AAL box needed their crayons more, generate? Did someone lead these students to believe that these boxes were different? And if so, who? Can we change the way these students stereotype, and if so, how? Finally, can the teachers that hold negative views toward including AAL in the classroom be compared to the students in this study?

Inquiry 1: Awakenings

"Ovuh Dyuh", the first chapter in The Skin That We Speak, is Joanne Kilgour Dowdy's tale of a (seemingly) minor anecdote that in fact transformed how she thought about and perceived not only the differences between schoolmates that her use of Trinidadian brought forward, but also the systematic control and even possibly tyrannical rule that the users of "the Master Discourse", the British who colonized her native country, used via language to enact upon her people. Stemming from interaction amidst her peers, Ms. Dowdy mastered use of both her native language and "the King's English." By doing so, Dowdy gained a definitive edge and insight into her society as a whole. She even references the methodology used to put down Trinidadian as a "war" on her people. She also includes her stipulations for the war being won. In my reading, it was clear that Dowdy was cognizant of this war on her and her people. The problems with subtle social control such as this is that typically the people as a whole who do not ever register that it is even occurring. My inquiry is in question to what else can be done to awaken groups of people worldwide who themselves are in the same situation: i.e. the many secular caste systems throughout the world. Ms. Dowdy's method of rising up is to gather and utilize all of the intricacies of the language exerted on her. But is this the only method to create dialogue between the oppressor and oppressed?

“Ovuh Dyuh” Inquiry: Beitzel

This opening chapter essentially serves as an introduction to the issue of linguistic insecurity and the muddled sense of identity one experiences as a result of the loss of one’s native language. The narrator feels conflicted by her mother’s desire to raise a daughter who is capable of becoming a prominent figure in society by learning the British English of the imperialistic regime and her own desire to feel comfortable communicating with her peers. It is not until the narrator has graduated from secondary school that she is able to balance her Trinidadian language and the formal English that has pervaded all public forums. It took a great sense of will upon the part of the narrator to embrace the British English language that had previously ostracized her from her people and left her feeling that she had betrayed her culture only to be plagued by feelings of insecurity. This passage has caused me to speculate why colonists are motivated to strip the subjugated people of their native language. Perhaps, they feel it would cause separation among those being oppressed or that it would expedite the process of proselytization. I also find it intriguing that even after Trinidad had gained its independence that it retained the language of those who had previously stifled Trinidad and its culture. I am also compelled by the idea that translation is debilitating for the speaker “the act of translation cooling the passion of the thought” (12).It is unfortunate that the narrator and those individuals like her were unable to express themselves as freely and concretely as they desired. I am left with the sobering reality that every individual uses language as a means to be understood, but in the case of the narrator when the pressure to conform to a “master discourse” impresses itself upon her she is left voiceless (12).

#1

#1

#1

Joanne Kilgour Dowdy’s “Ovuh Dyuh” discusses Dowdy’s insecurities concerning her search for the “right” language, and consequently the “right” identity for herself, as she is growing up as a young girl, and later as a young woman, in Trinidad. Dowdy relates her experiences as wearing several different “masks” and “playing” someone else. When Dowdy finally finds the balance between her two languages, and her two “selves”, she describes people like herself as having a need to live in “double realities” and the need to be “in two places at the same time, ovuh dyuh and here too” (11). Another way Dowdy addresses this same topic is by discussing the challenges of switching between the “home language to the public language” (13). But what is Dowdy’s true language? Is it Trinidadian that she speaks privately, or is it English that she speaks publicly? Is it in both? If all the Trinidadians are being encouraged to speak more and more Standard English, what will happen to the Trinidad language? As future teachers, how do we go about approaching students that will have similar conflicts as Dowdy has? Should we encourage both languages and encourage the student to find their “double reality”, or should we tell the student to leave their “home language” at the door and bring their “public language” to class?

Inquiry 1: Ovuh Dyuh

Joanne Dowdy gives her account of what it was like as an adolescent in Trinidad. Her mother’s wish was for her to become well acquainted with British English. This created a distance between Joanne and her peers. Joanne dealt with the struggle to be herself, or lose herself. This reminds me of using curse words around your friends. In the classroom and at home with your parents, curse words are not allowed (at least in your adolescent years). When students use curse words in front of teachers or elders they are looked at as a “disobedient student”, but yet with your peers you feel the need to use them to fit in and look cool. My question is why is it so hard to accept that people are different from one another? I think with the invention of the internet languages and people have become more and more interconnected and the newer generations are better at recognizing each other’s differences and accepting them. As languages have evolved they have merged with one another. In 1066 French was spread throughout the England. Through this the English language picked up little pieces of French and Latin. So, when, if ever, will it happen that the English language in America starts to pick up little bits of Italian or little pieces of Spanish? Ciao!

Her English May Be Good, But Her Philosophy Isn't

According to Joanne Dowdy, language is not simply a method of communication or a tool that certain sentient creatures have developed but is rather an essential and irrevocable facet of personhood. A person, says she, cannot truly be self-actualized (in a broad sense) if he or she is not allowed the freedom of his or her native tongue. An assertion like this is a bold one and one that demands thoughtful evaluation—perhaps more than Dowdy gave it herself. Inevitably, it leads one to the question: Can someone lead a meaningful, comfortable, fulfilled life identifying with a tongue that is not truly native?
The question, no doubt, has many contrived answers and yet even more questions that it raises. What is one’s native tongue pragmatically, metaphysically, and ethically? Is it the language that one heard when he or she was born? Is it the language in which he or she had the most formal or informal training? Does someone who is raised in a bilingual household have more than one native tongue, or must he or she choose the one which is truly native? Perhaps the problem in the first place is not really one that is specific to language but has much more to do with a general principle of oppression. Perhaps forcing someone to speak a foreign language is no different than forcing him or her to study in a field where there is no interest or forcing him or her to wear a particular garment. The implications that a worthwhile life cannot be come by unless it is lived in an atmosphere of some preferred speech is problematic indeed. The challenges may not be insurmountable, but the precipice of understanding is nowhere in sight.

Inquiry 1

In Joanne Kilgour Dowdy’s novel The Skin That We Speak, the main character is torn between her native language, Trinidadian, which connects her to her people and British English, which she can use to advance her social status. The “good girl” speaks in two different languages to please different people. When she wants to fit in with her friends and fellow Trinidadians, she chooses to speak in her native tongue, but when she is in a social setting like school, she feels as if she must please her mother and grandmother who have worked so hard to achieve a higher social status. How does this teenage girl know who she is if she cannot identify herself with a language? She uses each language depending on whom she needs to impress. Since she grew up with the each language that each had a particular purpose in life, she never got to choose who she wanted to be. If one were to ask her who she was, could she answer? In the first chapter “Ovuh Dyuh”, the “good girl” did not express which language she liked better or which one she wanted to use. She simply spoke whichever language was necessary. Is this girl loosing parts of her identity when she switches languages, or did she ever have one from the beginning? Will she ever get a chance to choose who she wants to be?

Language as a facet of identity

     The main point of the first chapter of The Skin That We Speak seemed to be not necessarily an argument but just an account of the way Dowdy used her language as a point of connection or rejection with not just her academic peers in elementary and secondary school but also with her strictly "right" speaking mother and grandmother. The idea of language as a facet of identity could pose problems to especially young people trying to mold whatever kind of identity they can. I feel the most important lesson learned from Dowdy's tribulations is the fact that if properly honed, code-switching can be an extremely advantageous tool to possess. Code-switching allows whoever masters it to flow freely across many social boundaries constructed by language the same way mastering different languages fluently to the point of accent control allows its masters to act as a native miles away from their homeland. The problem is overcoming the desire to be defined by your language. While taking pride in heritage is important, it should not make others feel excluded. However, we don't live in a perfect world and we do feel a special kinship to those with similar speech traits. We must all find a way to stay on the right side of pride and arrogance if such a thing is possible. In schools especially, diversity of language should be encouraged and teachers should never draw strict boundaries labeling some dialects higher over others. Knibb high football rules.

Dare to Explore?

Language is described as a means of survival in the first chapter of the novel. British English is associated with public success while Trinidadian is associated with the home and family in this chapter. The character in the novel finds it difficult to reach a happy medium between the language she is to speak at home and in the public. The exploration into the double life she is living raises many questions concerning language and identity. At what cost is one willing to give up a native language for the sake of being successful in the public eye? The character finds herself speaking in British English in front of her friends and being laughed at because she pronounced the “th” sound in the word “there”. Each time she uses British English she disconnects more and more with her own language and thus her culture. “The more I succeeded in this role, the more I felt segregated from my peers,” (Dowdy 8). This then raises the question – does a decrease in the use of a native language trigger a loss of identity? As the character disconnects more and more with her family and friends, does she lose a sense of who she is? In the case of the text, the character’s native language was still present, and she demonstrated this when she became the “good girl” in school. When the character was otherwise imitating the English language, the author described it as putting barriers or “chains” on a native language. Do these chains have the power to completely lockup a native language? Once a native language is locked away for some time, is there ever a point when it simply fades away? And at what cost is one willing to explore this?

Inquiry: Speaking Freely

In Dowdy's first chapter of The Skin That We Speak, we are introduced to the fact that our language affects far more than just our means of communication. The language that we speak has to do with our identity, and also how we are seen through others' eyes. She describes in her high school years that she wore "the mask of language" enabling her to blend in and be accepted by her peers. This happens all the time especially at the high school level. We see it we use slang terms amongst our peers. We do it to try to fit into our surroundings, almost in a survival like manner. If we hear someone speaking in a different dialect, we immediately recognize it as foreign, and it is difficult not to distance it from ourselves. We immediately see the unfortunate person as "not one of us." The foreigner has to overcome the "linguistic tension" that will be present before being accepted into his or her new surroundings.

This forceful usage of language seems to complicate things when we are trying to express ourselves, especially in our fits of passion. Dowdy explains this as our common “loss for words.” We have to go through an “act of translation, cooling the passion of the thought.” This diversion from the formal nature of the expected language blurs the line of what is considered acceptable in public conversation. Wouldn’t it be more natural to be able to fully express our thoughts all of the time? …Then again, this might have its repercussions as well.

what would you do?

Joanne Dowdy explores the tension of the two languages spoken in Trinidad, British English and Trinidadian, in the first chapter of The Skin We Speak.  British English is spoken as a well-cultivated language, the "right" language, whereas Trinidadian is conveyed as the natives' innermost feelings.  With this conflict of right and wrong many in Trinidad are faced with the problem of knowing when and where to speak both languages to suit their lifestyles and desires. 

Societies put too much pressure on different cultures to conform to speak the "right" way, but why?  What is the "right" way and why is it so important to speak? Many claim if everyone spoke correct English then it would make communication easier and make the speaker sound more intelligent.  British English is a well-rounded language that many countries can communicate at a scholarly level.  But what is the measurement of intelligence?  Is it the appearance of a person, their language or their knowledge and wisdom? Here stems an issue concerning intelligence.  How can a person's intelligence be measured and valued based on their dialect?  There have been many people in this world that have been noted as geniuses and some did not sound "intelligent".  Dialect is a cultural aspect of a person's life.  It is their identity of region, not a measure of intelligence. 

Is the hidden agenda of society to change a cultures' language to change their regional identity or is it really to make them sound more intelligent? 

Inquiry1: Like a Phoenix

In post-colonial Trinidad, Joanna Kilgour Dowdy grows up in a world splintered by language. While the language of English and once Trinidadian oppressors dominates and is held as the educated tongue of the elite, the native Trinidadian language is looked down upon as low class and vulgar. As such it is not used as an official language of business; it is only suitable for “the realm of entertainment” (11). The “good girl” and those in desired positions must learn to speak English and speak it as well as the British, but one must wonder: what does this mean for Trinidadian? Will this language be stamped out and eradicated as settlers have previously done to entire civilizations? Or is it possible that the vigor of people such as Dowdy and her associates could be an unexpected determining factor? They hold the native tongue and culture of Trinidad as something to be embraced because it holds a representation of their country and its proud and glorious ancestry. With these same ideas inspired in others, perhaps the rest of Trinidad will see that it is now free to rule itself in Trinidadian and not English, that the former British rule from which it has been freed is not needed to tell it that it is civilized or intelligent or the good country because it confirms to the British ideology of what a good civilized, intelligent country should be (a reflection of Brittan). In doing this, Trinidadian stands a chance of regaining the throne as the ruling language of its nation. Let it not be forgotten that English was once considered a low class, vulgar language, and Trinidad is living proof that it has risen from such ranks to conquer whole lands and become the elite tongue. Therefore, why should Trinidadian be written off as a language incapable of becoming more that what other people – people not of Trinidad – denounce it to be?

Divided Thoughts

This post has been deleted.
(I thought that it wasn't in the right place.)
KEC

Inquiry 1: Divided Thoughts

“Ovuh Dyuh” is Joanne Kilgour Dowdy’s account of how the two languages of Trinidad, British English and Trinidadian, are viewed in Trinidadian society. British English is spoken as an educated, well-cultivated language that is the “right” language to speak, whereas Trinidadian is the language that expresses natives’ innermost feelings and desires, which can cause a schism in the citizens’ lives. The native language comes more easily, of course, and the idioms that are used in it are more readily available to express what they want to say. English, on the other hand, may come haltingly; the speaker may search in her mind for the “right” phrase or expression, the resulting speech coming off with less emotion, simply because the speaker couldn’t find the words. In order to be the “good girl” one must speak in English, but to be accepted in one’s personal life, Trinidadian is a necessity. Trinidadian society considers its own native language one of a lower class. This stems from the country’s colonial rule, having ended only twelve years prior to Dowdy’s article. The country is still dealing with the transition of freedom and independence from foreign government control. It is understandable that those in power would still consider English the language of power, education, and class. Perhaps as the next generation comes to power, this purview will decline and Trinidadian will no longer be considered a poor choice of language for public communication. The native language may, in time, become the language which Trinidadian newspapers are proud to print.
Would this even become an issue if one of the languages were to die out in the region? Could Trinidadian even prevail as the public language considering the opportunities English poses? Will future generations care about the native language enough to save it, or will they perhaps consider teaching their children English as a first language so as to get rid of this issue altogether? Would that be a terrible thing?

*(Someone let me know I did this right!)*
Posted by KaciElise

Welcome! Fall 2009

Welcome to our class blog. I can't wait to read and discuss with you here. Although I'm sure you don't need it, here's a reminder about norms:

-Keep it professional.
Remember that the world is your audience, and that you're representing not only yourself and LSU, but the teaching profession. What we may know is intended as a joke could appear to be utterly serious to somebody who's never met you.

-Keep it topical.
This is a forum for discussing articles and issues raised by them related to language development and diversity. Make sure your postings and comments are relevant.

-Protect your anonymity, as well as that of others. 
Use either first or last names in posts, but not both.

-Seek to understand before being understood. 
Voicing disagreement is productive. In order to keep it that way, make sure you understand the point with which you disagree before offering your alternative. It's always a good idea to ask for clarification.

-Hold each other to high standards.
Push each other's thinking. Don't let assumptions go unquestioned. Ask tough and interesting questions. Make connections to other ideas we've talked about. Challenge yourself to think deeply about these issues, rather than simply getting the grade.

Below are posts from past semesters--don't use them as models, because the assignment was different. They are dealing with the same topic, however, so you will probably find them to be interesting reading. 

Linguistic Profiling, African American English, Gullah

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EPGx1icFdLQ

In my linguistics class and in English 3201, I have learned that AAVE is considered a grammatical language. However, I was never taught in any detail about its origin or history. Of course, I heard here and there that it came from slavery. But I did not know much beyond that.

Actually, what I thought I knew about the language, I have come to learn, is incorrect.

Growing up, I've always heard this language being called Ebonics. It was not until last year at LSU that I learned it was widely known as AAVE. I always thought it was an ignorant and lazy language used by those of a lower class. I often associated it with gangs, guns, death, drugs, etc.

But this semester, my eyes have been opened to a completely different concept. Though I've met this concept with apprehension, fear, and resistance, I at times find myself understanding.

I wanted to include this video because of my ignorance. I questioned whether others in this course may have the same void of knowledge I have about AAVE.

As I was watching the video, I, for the first time this semester, slightly understood. We speak Standard English because our ancestors spoke it, and they were never forced to change their dialects. Instead, those on the African coast, the African middle men changed their languages to trade with the white Americans. They created a Pigeon language, and they still speak it today. But those who received the most suffering were the slaves. They were placed in groups in a type of reservation setting where they were held until they were shipped to America. While on these destitute reservations, the blacks (who were about to be enslaved) were separated. They were separated by language, to limit revolts. So, in order to communicate, these slaves had to create their own language, a language which is often referred to as Gullah.

What worries me is that while watching the two African Americans speak Gullah, I could barely understand. Though modern AAVE is not the same dialect as Gullah, it does have its resemblances. This made me wonder whether I truly understand AAVE? Throughout watching this video I also wondered why modern-day America is unable to teach African American children Standard English, and the different groups of people in the video came to form a language through which they could communicate? Is it because African American students feel no need to learn the language, unlike the middle men in Africa? Why can't their be a blend of AAVE and Standard English that is more acceptable and not so widely criticized? Why can't we, all as Americans, break barriers that different cultures and regions of people were able to break? Maybe our school system doesn't fail miserably because teachers constantly correct African American students. Maybe it fails miserably because we have two separate cultures and feel no need to come together and blend our cultures in anyway.

I asked my friend because I was curious of another person's point of view, why she prefers not to communicate with the black community. I found her answer very interesting. She said, "It's frustrating because not only do I not always understand them, but I hate to listen to them butcher the language." But what language? I asked her this and she said, "Standard English. In order for African American to maintain this certain identity they mess up the English language." I think I may almost be coming to a turning point, because my question would be, "But didn't we force them to take on this certain identity? And wouldn't you think that modern AAVE is African Americans' ways of trying to take Gullah and transform it into something that is more of a 'Standard English' dialect?"

Language Issues Prove Challenge to Brown

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119393,00.html
-"It's an issue in every part of the country."

This article discusses the issue of discriminiation today in the classroom. There is a segregation of students who are native English speakers and who are not. Public schools are not fulfilling the Brown vs. Board of Education decision that states that there should be "equal access to education opportunity for all." The problem here is that the students who cannot speak proper English successfully are being separated from the students who can. This is discrimination. Just like we have discussed all semester, students who do not naturally speak proper English should not be denied an education. They should be given just as much, or even more attention by teachers so that they can learn proper English. In the article, a 17-year old student named Jackson Gao said that the high school he attended did not even have an ESL program. Do you all think that this is unfair to him? Why should be be denied an opportunity to learn through the English language?

On the other hand, some non-native English speaking students are completely lost when they are placed in English-speaking classes with no help. Should these students be separated completely in school? Or, should they be a part of English-immersion classes, like the article suggested? There is a need for more teachers who are trained in teaching bilingual classes . Should teachers be responsible for this type of language discrimination? Shound more teachers be able to speak a second language fluently? I know that here at LSU, I will be fluent in Spanish by the time I graduate! Either way, failing to address these language issues in the classroom denies education for students.

Free Verse Poetry: My Texas Dialect

Where I come from
We don't ride horses to school
We don't have roaches the size of rats
Even though people who ain't from 'round here think we do
They say everything is bigger in Texas
But that don't mean everything
I ain't from the country, but I'm still a country girl
Houston is a big ole' city, but my country accent still stays
They say you can never take the Texas outta' a Texas gal
No matter what anyone says, Texas is the South for me
I'm always gonna be a Texas girl with a Texas twang
We might not ride horses to school, but we sure 'nuff ride 'em
Either at a ranch, or near Rodeo Houston time, or just for fun
Houston is full of big buildings, roads, and multiple freeways
But that doesn't mean I don't say gosh dern and fixin' to because I do
I will always be a Texas gal, born and raised,
Even if I am in Louisiana for a lil' while!


This is the dialect poem that I wrote for class when Chanclerier "xero" Skidmore came to visit. It basically describes the way that I talk when I am back home in Houston, or just hanging out with friends. I try my best to use proper grammar when I am at school, work, or in any other professional setting. The bold words resemble specific words that show my dialect. As you can see, I am very proud of where I am from, and have a lot of love for my hometown.

Throughout the semester, I have expressed my opinions on the issue of allowing students' home dialects in the classroom. I have stated that I believe that a student should not be criticized for speaking their home language, but to understand the difference between proper English and slang. I know that my Texas "twang" dialect is not proper English, and I would not even think to use that type of grammar in formal essays or papers. However, I think that it is useful to allow students to be able to write in whatever language they wish to in certain free-writing or creative assignments. Does anyone else agree with my views? Does anyone think that students should not be allowed to speak in their home languages in the classroom? There are some teachers who correct students every time they say a word that is not proper grammar. Do you think that teachers should do this? Why or why not? These are questions that I have asked myself after observing a majority of AAVE high school students this semester.

A Bit of Scientific Thought for Our English Class

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/19/asia/talk.php

Some would suggest that there’s not a lot to debate about regarding a simple fact, but there are many important things to consider. The world’s languages are going extinct at a faster rate than any mammal, plant, fish or bird species on Earth. I read somewhere that English, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese are the fastest growing and currently the most abundantly used languages of modern society. So suppose that one day these were the only 3 languages that were in use. What would the world lose from losing languages? With thousands of the current languages only existing in an oral form, should linguists attempt to preserve these cultural identities by converting them into a written form? It seems like somewhat of a waste of time since in some cases there are only 3 people alive who still speak the language. But because language is oftentimes a huge part of an entire culture, is it worth the time to preserve the language in order to conserve a culture of a particular community?
I would imagine that as languages begin to disappear, the number of dialects of a few languages would skyrocket. What if by the end of the century the 6 billion people of the world spoke only 1 of 3 languages? Surely the variety of dialects would out number the current number of languages in the world today. For example, the Australian dialect is very much different than that of America’s New Orleans’s dialect. And the British dialect is a much different dialect than that which would be created from the Pacific Island region.
Most people do not realize what kind of an impact losing languages would have on our globe. Maybe it’s a little extreme, but if the world would conform to only three forms of communication thousands of cultures, customs, and traditions would also disappear. We’ve worried about differences between AAVE and Standard English. Think of the dialect issues that could occur if a third of the world spoke only one language!

"The Night Before Christmas" in Different Dialects

The following links are to three different variations of "The Night Before Christmas." We are all familiar with the traditional version, and I am sure most of us have even heard "The Cajun Night Before Christmas." However, for those of us who are not familiar, I would like to introduce a new version to think about.

Originial - http://www.christmas-tree.com/stories/nightbeforechristmas.html
Cajun - http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=1022468
Ebonics - http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19599

The two variations of the original poem bring insight into two separate regions and cultures. The Cajun poem uses examples of the Cajun French dialect, and the ebonics poem demonstrates use of AAVE. As readers, we find these humorous because they depict a typical stereotype of a particular dialect. However, do some find it offensive? Is it possible that some feel that they are being falsely portrayed? For those of you from Louisiana, do you feel that "The Cajun Night Before Christmas" is amusing because it is an accurate description of your life or of someone you know? Or is it just something you find entertaining overall? As I read the Cajun version , I noticed that it depicts its speakers as overindulgers (mainly with food and alcohol). They also refer to alligators, which is what we are immediately reminded of when we think of the bayou. (When I first became a student at LSU, I remember people asking me if Louisiana residents actually rode alligators.) Moreover, the ebonics version implies that people who speak this way are accustomed to a life of thievery and crime.

I think that taking traditional literature and translating it into another culture can be very helpful when we are trying to understand something we are not part of. The only thing is, we have to be careful not to misrepresent an image or insult a way of life. As I have learned this semester, preserving our diversity is important to our identity and individuality.

New dictionary includes 'ginormous'

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/2007-07-10-dictionary-new-words_N.htm#open-share-help

In class, we are always discussing how to and if we should allow AAVE in the classroom, be it spoken or written. My question is, what if the word that students use outside of the classroom that is not formal is included in the dictionary? This presents a real problem for me. 'Ginormous' is not a word. It is a combination of two words, gigantic and enormous. Either of those words would be appropriate in a paper, when used as an adjective. However, should 'ginormous' be acceptable? In my opinion, no. It is a word that is to be used outside of the classroom with friends or in a text message. I can tell students that are in high school now that they know the difference between formal and informal words. What I worry about is the students who have yet to enter kindergarden and do not know formal from informal or what a dictionary is. When they learn about the dictionary these words, created words, will be in there. Will there soon be a class where students have to learn which dictionary words are appropriate and which aren't? Are teachers going to have to make a list of which words are appropriate to be used in papers?

MSNBC Ebonics Debate with Tucker Carlson

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=a2e5e2fe-2bfb-4591-9407-2ef77b52ec3e

I find that this video shows many of the controversial sides of the Ebonics or AAVE debate. I think that this video shows the many struggles and thoughts that we have debated over this semester. I don’t agree with many of Tucker Carlson’s views of Ebonics or AAVE. I find that he presents AAVE as a very negative language and stereotypes these students and the language as being ignorant. He commented how Ebonics is “associated with failure.” After our discussions this semester and reading the various articles, I disagree with this statement. I have seen through my observations how many of the students who use AAVE can be very intelligent and insightful. I do agree with his points about how accents in the workforce can hurt or hinder job chances. I think that this discussion shows how language is very important part of our society and the conflicts that can arise from it.

I find myself being very conflicted when taking into consideration Ebonics in the classroom. Should teachers stress Standard English entirely or is there a place for Ebonics to work with education. I think that the opposing views expressed in this discussion present how AAVE can be used to improve test results. I am left with several questions from the discussion in the video. Should results on a test determine what is correct or not correct in the classroom? Should our society and the education field be mainly concerned with students getting jobs? I am very curious to hear other people’s opinions about the comments that were expressed in this discussion.

Flocabulary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT8T0wy2pMw

The Flocabulary website states the purpose of this program is to use "educational power of hip-hop music to foster literacy and promote academic success in the classroom and beyond. Through a range of multimedia products and live performance programs, we bring our concept of music and learning to students and teachers worldwide."

The creators of Flocabulary boast that by using SAT-level vocabulary in their lyrics, they are able to increase the interest of students, as well as improve their test scores. This video clip features inner-city students who actively use AAVE as a standard dialect while being interviewed and filmed. They seemed genuinely interesting in learning new material because it was presented in a fun, creative way. The students were also able to catch on quickly because this type of music was obviously relative to their own lifestyles.

I feel that this program would be a great way to incorporate learning with lifestyle. This has been something we as a class have discussed all semester. It would allow the students to be more comfortable and confident in their classroom. The use of Flocabulary (or similar methods of teaching) would let students know that it is okay - and even encouraged - to bring their personality and diversity into the classroom.

After watching this clip, I wonder if this particular technique is only motivating to urban students, or those who live in an area where rap and hip-hop define their culture. For example, would it be as effective if these lyrics were put to country or rock music? Does it depend on the region? What about their age? The statistics that Flocabulary advertises are impressive, but I would be very interested to see something like this firsthand!

For more information, visit http://www.flocabulary.com/.

Fox News: Ax or Asked?

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=X_KKLkmIrDk&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//video.search.yahoo.com/video/play%3Fp%3DBlack%2BEnglish%26n%3D21%26ei%3Dutf-8%26js%3D1%26fr%3Dyfp-t-356%26fr2%3Dtab-web&iurl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/X_KKLkmIrDk/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskInpzbnpdo6BDzdkIerGFzq

I found that this news story dealt with many of the issues that we have covered throughout this semester. From this story I find myself seeing Standard English as important in society but I do also see how keeping individual cultures and dialect is important as well. Mr. Mcclendon showed a major focus on the students’ future and how their speech will affect job options. Both teachers interviewed showed a real importance for job readiness and the speech that is needed in the professional world. I do agree that speech is a factor in getting a job. I don’t agree with limiting students in their speech and not teaching them to translate. I find that Mr. Mcclendon’s teaching style tends to be very limiting and oppressive.
I definitely did not see Mr. Mcclendon show the student’s own dialect in a positive manner. This style of teaching is very different from the video we watched a few weeks ago. I find that Mr. Mcclendon did take into consideration their families and the roles that they have in the student’s lives. It seems that he is blaming everyone for the students not know Standard English. How much of the student’s own culture and dialect is lost when using this teaching style? Is this style of teaching really efficient and effective for the student’s learning? Should professional teachers correct grammar in this manner?

White Voters Attracted to Obama's 'Articulate' Side

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/01/clinton-backer-obama-will-probably-win-white-voters-attracted-to-his-articulate-side/

This article seems to show that in today's time it is assumed that African Americans cannot speak 'proper' English. When an African American takes the stage to give a speach, the first thought in many people's head is "oh boy. I wonder if he can speak correctly". What I did not understand about the article was the comment made by Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. He said, "If you put him on a level with a lot of other African American public speakers, he may not even measure up." What does he mean? Does he mean that Obama's English/speaking skills really aren't that good and considered not 'proper' or correct? This comment also showed that there are African Americans out there who strive to speak standard English and that they judge other speakers, of their own race or different, in the same way that a Caucasion would judge an African American. Another thing that I find interesting about this article is that it seems to be suggesting that white voters are voting for Obama because he is articulate. Do they think that he is representing the "change" because he is an African American who speaks properly? Do they think that white voters are voting for him because they think that just because he speaks properly he must have had a good education and therefore must be intellegent enough to run the country?

Melody of Home

Melody of Home
To my brother on his departure to college

Cotton candy colored skies
Early to bed, early to rise
Fixin’ to melt into the bay
Suggestin’ the end to yet another day
Forty five minute never ending goodbyes
Chocolate, cherry, chestnut pies
Stretchin’ seas of southern snow
That summer smell of grass just mowed
Friday nights the high school game
Teenage boys and their four year fame
Tractor travelled gravel roads
At 5 AM the rooster crows
Right up the road or just down the street
An hour drive pendin’ on who ya meet
Sippin’ on lemonade, “Well I declare”
Sighs the Old Magnolia in her front porch rockin’ chair
“Ya’ll come back real soon, ya hear”
A friendly neighbor always near

Time to get out, no time to be naïve
Hafta see the world, believe, achieve,

Here comes that chance
To run wild and roam
The future - a dance
Set to the melody of home.


I’m not really sure if I need to explain the above poem. It’s not very difficult. Probably more corny than anything else. Basically, it is a poem mostly describing where I am from. Each line depicts a different detail. The end of the poem is just a suggestion that urges one not to forget his or her roots, no matter where the future takes you. As to some of the particulars, “Right up the road” and “Just down the street” are phrases we use to describe distance when asking directions. They can either mean a few blocks or 15 miles depending on who you talk to and where you are going. “Southern snow” is often what people call cotton fields in fall. An “Old Magnolia” is a very elderly, elegant, well respected southern woman who has been pampered and taken care of with the utmost attention her entire life. The other bold words are simply contractions that I just find myself and the people of my area constantly saying as if the real word doesn’t exist. Also, in case you didn’t catch it – alliteration is my favorite literary device when dealing with poetry, so there’s a little of that thrown in.

sample post

Here's something I wrote on my own blog last year, which offers an example of the kind of posting you might do here. Don't consider this a recipe that you need to follow, just a sample to consider.

Key components:
1) Links to articles (in this case, audio clips)
2) My own reflection on those texts
**Note that at no point do I summarize either text: I expect readers to follow the link and read/hear for themselves.
3) Questions posed for readers to consider.

Virigina Woolf delivered this gorgeous "Eulogy to Words" in 1937. Part of the reason that words are dead (or at least are lacking the power they once had), she claimed, was that "we refuse to allow words their liberty, we pin them down to one meaning, their useful meaning...the meaning which makes us pass examinations."

Anna West, a local poet, educator, and mother of a son in public school, describes the same problem in our age of state standards and standardized tests in a poem that speaks for itself, beginning with the title: "Battle for the Board of Ed." She describes what often happens in classrooms, evocatively, as "the castration of the tongue." I love the double-meaning of the word "tongue:" on one hand, it's a physical part of us, the loss of which would leave us unable to speak. At the same time, it's our language, often our home language, our "mother tongue."

So this problem isn't new; maybe it's even one of the few things about English that hasn't changed over the past hundred years. The accents and diction are so different it's hard not to laugh at Woolf's ultra-proper sounding speech, but she and West have homed in on the same problem: education is at odds with powerful, artful, personal language. Tests are easy to blame, and we often do blame them, but I think we all know that the issue is more complex than that.

It's a truism in anthropology that the act of observing a thing changes it. Perhaps it's become a truism in education that the act teaching language dries it up and hollows it out. It's frustrating to imagine that we've known about this problem for nearly a century but haven't made a dent in it.

As a teacher, I'm pained to think that I'm harming what I love most (students and language). What if we're asking kids to write expressively and powerfully even as we're undermining their ability to do just that? No wonder so many of them are fed up, frustrated and totally resistant to school. Not much that we've done since 1937 seems to have altered this, so what do we do next as we try to build a system that lives up to its promises? Can it be done by individual teachers in the current system (and if so, how do we enable more teachers to do it)? Alternatively, is it going to require a radical overhaul of that system? If so, what can we do for students while we wait for (and work on) that long-term reform project? How do we educate them in a way that enlivens and empowers them and their language?