. I. .1. in .4. £31 .15 . .. A}H.l.4\ 1 I. (i... :1: 9.5: .5 1:96.. .( \- IIu-x. .1! {0.1, filing: 1.3.1:? 1 \. .55.. .ufltiix. In}: $.31... UNN-V . «V..- n“ «6-1... b. It I" tvfl. zithuislltzx‘. an“; I...» .Ifiue‘h .2). .. .. 1.7 ‘gill ‘l’g‘1‘3. ‘1... 5...? 5&1; 20 'O LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled NAVIGATING DIALECT: HOW THREE FIRST GRADE EURO AMERICAN TEACHERS FACILITATED MAINSTREAM ENGLISH LEARNING WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS presented by SUSAN K. VERWYS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral degree in . Family and Child Ecology MWJQd. Major Professor’s Signaturlei /(//3/07 Date MS U is an Affirmalive Action/Equal Opportunity Employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K:IProj/Aoc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd NAVIGATING DIALECT: How THREE FIRST GRADE EURO AMERICAN TEACHERS FACILITATED MAINSTREAM ENGLISH LEARNING WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS By Susan K. Verwys A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Family and Child Ecology 2009 ABSTRACT NAVIGATING DIALECT: HOW THREE FIRST GRADE EURO AMERICAN TEACHERS FACILITATED MAINSTREAM ENGLISH LEARNING WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS By Susan K. Verwys This qualitative study investigated how three Euro American first grade teachers facilitated mainstream English learning with low-income African American English speaking students through proximal processes in a classroom mesosystem where the two linguistic systems met. The research was carried out in three urban classrooms in a midwestem public school system. The study was grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model and called upon the sociocultural and critical views of literacy espoused by those in the New Literacy Studies. Writing conferences between 44 first grade students and teachers were observed in order to ascertain the methods by which the teachers scaffolded the children into mainstream English. Twelve observations were completed in each classroom. When the classroom observations were completed, each teacher was interviewed on her familiarity with African American English, her views on its use in the classroom and her ideologies about its use. Each teacher was also asked about the strategies she found successful as well as how she built upon the linguistic resources and literacy practices the students brought from home. Three levels of qualitative analysis were carried out, utilizing modified grounded theory methodology as well as critical discourse analysis. Deductive coding identified teacher responses to Afiican American English utterances in the writers’ conferences. Selective coding enabled thematic analysis of the interviews. Finally, critical discourse analysis revealed to what extent the teachers were willing to recognize that use of mainstream English is part and parcel of dominant ideological Discourses in the United States, that building upon the primary Discourse of the students is important, and that wrestling with ideological tensions around language is a necessary process in which to engage. The study findings revealed that the teachers have not had any in-service training on cultural competency or on Afiican American English through the school district. Two of the teachers were largely unaware of dialectal features and how to build upon the linguistic resources students brought from home. Only the teacher with an English as a second language background was aware of many features of African American English as well as the strategies needed for scaffolding her students into mainstream English. She was also cognizant of issues and ideologies around nondominant linguistic forms. It is difficult to support communicative competence in young children if one is unaware of the full extent of students’ verbal repertoires. Other key findings expanded responsibility for the difficulties that African American English users experience in school beyond the microsystem of the classroom and the home. Excessive demands for assessment and use of standardized and non- culturally responsive curricula in the school district appear to be fueled by the No Child Left Behind legislation. Stakeholders across systems need to be held accountable for unjust policies and practices that penetrate the classroom. C0pyright by SUSAN K. VERWYS 2009 Dedicated with love and appreciation to my father, Fred J. Kamminga who taught me to act justly, love mercy and live humbly with my God Micah 6:8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, for His faithfulness during my Ph.D. program. He also blessed me by honoring my father’s wishes to remain on earth until I had completed defended my dissertation. Thanks be to God! I would also like to thank Dr. Anne Soderman, the first chair of my committee, for her support and encouragement which extended into her retirement. I am grateful for Dr. Robert Griffore, the second chair of my committee, who patiently answered endless questions and worked to ensure that my work would be meticulous. I am indebted to Dr. Marsha Carolan, the third chair of my committee, for recognizing the qualitative researcher within me, for continuing to share her knowledge with me, for allowing me to contact her at all times, for supporting my choices, and for being a joy to work with. I would also like to thank Dr. Pat Edwards for her service on my committee, for for encouraging me to work with parents and teachers of children who do not come to school “marinated in literacy.” Dr. Lillian Phenice, the fourth member of my committee, offered helpfiIl strategies throughout the dissertation process and helped me keep a sense of humor and perspective about the process. Other scholars have been true inspiration for my work. Dr. Yvonne Van Ee Spent countless hours with me, carefully mentoring me as I entered higher institutions of learning. Dr. Anne Haas Dyson introduced me to critical literacies and encouraged me to study African American English-speakers and the teachers they meet in the classroom. Early in my program, Dr. Janice Hale welcomed me as a White scholar studying African American children. All three are role models of excellence! vi I have been surrounded by a circle of support by my colleagues at Calvin College, who were not only willing to bring me on as faculty before my Ph.D. was completed, but who have also provided continued prayer support, listening ears, and helpful suggestions for my work. I will always cherish the wisdom and encouragement of Dr’s. Debra Buursma and Johanna Kuyvenhoven as I wrestled with the realities of urban education and tried to untangle cognitive knots in my data analysis. I am honored to work in a community of practice truly dedicated to social justice. I am also so grateful for my friends, Julie Brower, Sue Bruggink, Peggy Lewis, Sheri McCarthy, Meenal Rana, Mary Tomczyk, Kristin Vanden Bosch, and Jan Van Otteren. All have remained by my side, in spite of my lack of attention during a demanding phase of my life. I will become a better friend! I am thankful for the teachers who trusted me enough to allow me to study their practice in urban classrooms. As always, the children welcomed me into their official and unofficial worlds of school. You will always be my motivation and my inspiration! Finally, I will never be able to thank my family enough for their support during my program. Each of you learned, as did I, that the Ph.D. process is a family commitment. My dad and Ruth as well as my sons, Christian and Jeremy, provided endless encouragement as did my sister, Marylou, who also proof-read. But most of all, I’m indebted to my husband, Mike who supported me in Sickness and in health during the life of this dissertation and my entire Ph.D. program. Thank you all for believing in me. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiiiiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. I Background of the Problem ............................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 2 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 3 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 4 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................... 8 Bronfenbrenner ’s Bio-Ecological Model ......................................................................... 8 The New Literacy Studies: An Ecological Perspective .................................................. I 3 Language, Power, and Ideology .................................................................................... 16 African American English as a Linguistic System ......................................................... I 8 African American English-- Dialect or Language? ....................................................... 22 African American English Speakers ........................................................................ 24 Two Landmark Cases regarding African American English ......................................... 25 Language Recommendations for Teachers .................................................................... 2 7 Research Questions Explored ........................................................................................ 29 Conceptual Definitions .................................................................................................. 33 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER TWO: RE VIE W OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................ 36 Using the Nonstandard Version to Teach the Standard Programs ............................... 45 Effective Strategies for Teachers ................................................................................... 49 Ineflective Strategiesfor Teachers ................... 53 Ideological Tensions for Teachers ................................................................................. 54 Teacher Attitudes ........................................................................................................... 58 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ........................................ 63 Sample Selection ............................................................................................................ 65 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 67 Methods and Techniques for Analyzing and Interpreting Data .................................... 70 Analysis of Classroom Observations ............................................................................. 71 Thematic Analysis of Teacher Interviews ...................................................................... 74 Critical Discourse Analysis On Observational Data and Interviews ............................. 75 Presentation of the Data ................................................................................................ 78 T rustworthiness of the Research .................................................................................... 79 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 82 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS: MAIAH AND HER AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS ........................................................................................................................ 83 Overview of the School District — An Exosystem ........................................................... 83 Maiah and her African American English Speakers ..................................................... 87 I don’t know what strengths they bring. They haven’t been exposed to that much. ...... 87 viii Douglas Elementary School as a Microsystem .............................................................. 87 Recruitment .................................................................................................................... 88 Maiah ’s Classroom as a Microsystem ........................................................................... 89 Interview Setting ............................................................................................................ 90 Maiah ’s Teacher Presence and Teacher Voice Tenor ................................................... 90 Maiah ’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. 1) ..................................................................................................................... 91 Maiah ’s Familiarity with African American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) ..................................................................................................................... 92 Maiah ’s Responses to A fiican American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) ........................................................................ 93 Maiah ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Diyfirences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) ..................................................................................................................... 95 The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of Afi'ican American English-speaking Students are Recognized (RS. Q, 5).. 96 Emergent Themes for African American Learners. ....................................................... 96 The Importance of Relationships for Afiican American Students: Beliefs and Evidence of Maiah ’s Relationships with Students as Proximal Processes ..... 96 Incorporating Culture into the Classroom ..................................................... 97 Collaborative work ......................................................................................... 98 Students Talking in the Classroom. ................................................................ 98 Movement Needs of African American Children: ......................................... 1 00 Ramificationsfi'om the No Child Left Behind Act ........................................ 101 Critical Discourse Analysis ......................................................................................... 101 Maiah ’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. I) .................................................................................. 101 Maiah ’s Familiarity with African American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) ............................................................................... 103 Maiah ’3 Responses to African American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) ........................................... 104 Maiah ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Difi'erences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) ................................................................................... 106 The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) ................................................................................ 107 Critical Discourse Analysis on Emergent Themes ...................................................... 108 Summary on Maiah and her African American English Speakers .............................. 109 CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS: LA UREN AND HER AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS ...................................................................................................................... I 1 1 Highland School as a Microsystem ............................................................................. 11 1 Recruitment .................................................................................................................. I 12 Lauren’s Classroom as a Microsystem ........................................................................ 1 12 Interview Setting .......................................................................................................... 1 13 Lauren’s Teacher Presence and Teacher Voice Tenor ............................................... 113 ix Lauren’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. 1) ................................................................................................................... 114 Lauren’s Familiarity with African American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) ................................................................................................................... 114 Lauren ’s Responses to A fiican American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) ...................................................................... 115 Lauren’s Description of Ways Dialectal Difi’erences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) ................................................................................................................... 118 The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5 )1 I 9 Emergent Themes for Afi'ican American Learners ...................................................... 120 The Importance of Relationships for African American Students: Beliefs and Evidence of Lauren ’s Relationships with Students as Proximal Processes. 120 Incorporating Culture into the Classroom ................................................... 121 Students Working Together ........................................................................... 121 Students Talking in the Classroom ............................................................... 122 Movement Needs of Afi'ican American Children .......................................... 123 Ramifications from the No Child Left Behind Act ........................................ 124 Critical Discourse Analysis ......................................................................................... 124 Lauren’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. I) ................................................................................. 124 Lauren ’s Familiarity with A fiican American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) ............................................................................... 125 Lauren’s Responses to African American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) ................................... 127 Lauren’s Description of Ways Dialectal Differences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) .................................................................................. 128 The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) ................................................................................. 128 Critical Discourse Analysis on Emergent Themes ....................................... 129 Summary on Lauren and her African American English Speakers ............................. 130 CHAPTER SIX FINDINGS: SHERI AND HER FIRST GRADE AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS .................................................................................................... 1 3 3 Brentwood Park School as a Microsystem .................................................................. 1 3 3 Recruitment .................................................................................................................. 1 3 4 Sheri ’s Classroom Microsystem .................................................................................. I 3 5 Interview Setting .......................................................................................................... 1 3 6 Sheri ’s Teacher Presence and Teacher Voice Tenor ................................................... 13 6 Sheri ’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. I) ................................................................................................................... 13 7 Sheri ’s Familiarity with Afiican American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) ................................................................................................................... I39 Sheri ’s Responses to African American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes. (R. S. Q. 3) ..................................................................... 141 Sheri ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Diflerences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) ................................................................................................................... 145 The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) 14 7 Emergent Themes for African American Learners ...................................................... 1 4 9 The Importance of Relationships for African American Students: Beliefs and Evidence of Sheri ’s Relationships with Students as Proximal Processes ..... I49 Incorporating Culture into the Classroom ................................................... 151 Students Working Together ........................................................................... 151 Students Talking in the Classroom ............................................................... 152 Movement Needs of African American Children .......................................... 1 5 3 Ramifications from the No Child Left Behind Act ........................................ 153 Critical Discourse Analysis ......................................................................................... 1 5 4 Sheri ’s Ideology About Afi'ican American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. I) ................................................................................. I54 Sheri ’s Familiarity with African American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) ............................................................................... 155 Sheri ’3 Responses to African American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) ........................................... 155 Sheri ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Differences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) ................................................................................... 157 The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5)... ..157 Critical Discourse Analysis on Emergent Themes ....................................... 158 Summary on Sheri and her African American English Speakers ................................ 1 5 9 CHAPT ER SEVEN: DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 1 61 Findings Related to Research Sub Questions .............................................................. 164 T 0 Mat Extent are the Teachers Wrestling with the Ideological Tensions Involved Around the Use of African American English in the Classroom? (R. S. Q. I) .................................................................................................... 164 How Familiar are the Teachers with African American English and its Rhetorical Components as a Linguistic System? (R. S. Q. 2) ...................... 169 How Do Teachers Respond When African American English Speakers Speak and Write in African American English During the Conferencing Period of Writer’s Workshop? (R. S. Q. 3) ................................................................... 171 How Do the Teachers Describe the Way They Address the Dialectal Diflerences in the Classroom as a Whole? Do the Teachers Explicitly Teach About the Need to Acquire Mainstream English? Are Specific Strategies, such as Code Switching, Taught to Enable Children to Cross the Borders Between the Nondominant and Dominant Language F arms? (R. S. Q. 4) ................. I 73 To What Extent are the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources, and Literacy Practices of African American English Speaking Students Recognized by the Teachers? (R. S. Q. 5) ........................................................................ 175 xi Other Critical Findings ............................................................................................... I 76 Classroom Talk or No-Talk? ........................................................................ I 76 Literacy Curriculum Developmentally Appropriate? ................................... 1 78 Critical Literacies ......................................................................................... I 79 A Note on Culturally Relevant Pedagogy ..................................................... I 79 Classroom Management Issues .................................................................... I 80 T eacher/Student Relationships ..................................................................... 182 Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Classroom Management ............ I 83 Implications ................................................................................................................. 1 83 The Federal Level as a Macrosystem ........................................................... I 84 The State Level as a Macrosystem ................................................................ I 85 Teacher Education Programs as Exosystems ............................................... I 85 The District Level as an Exosystem .............................................................. 1 8 7 The Classroom Level as a Microsystem ....................................................... 188 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................... I 89 Suggestions for Further Research ............................................................................... 190 Reflexivity ..................................................................................................................... 191 The Code of Silence at Douglas School ....................................................................... 196 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... I 9 7 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 200 Codebook ..................................................................................................................... 201 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................. 209 Interview Questions for Teachers ................................................................................ 210 APPENDIX C ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Research Participant Information and Consent Form ....Error.’ Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................. 212 Parent/Guardian Information and Consent Form ....................................................... 21 7 APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................. 219 Assent Script for First Grade African American English Speakers IRB #08-497 ....... 220 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 221 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Theoretical and Conceptual Framework related to Research Questions and Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2: Model for Proximal Processes of Language-in-use Between Teachers and Children ............................................................................................... 165 xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION I can be neither for Ebonics or against Ebonics any more than I can be for or against air. It exists. It is the language spoken by many of our African- American children . . . It is the language through which they first encountered love, nurturance and joy. (Lisa Delpit, 1998) Background of the Problem Literacy achievement among African American children of lower socioeconomic status has long been an issue of considerable concern in the United States. One issue that continues to resurface related to the literacy achievement of underserved Afiican American children is the use of Afiican American English in the classroom. This use is a point of contention among students, families, teachers, administrators, and policy makers and an issue that is often misunderstood. Literacy acquisition in the United States requires proficiency in standard or mainstream English. Those who speak nonstandard dialects of English must learn how to speak, to read, and to write within the standard variety of language. I Ball (1992, 1996), Richardson (1995), and Smitherman (1998) believe that African American students are being failed in the current educational paradigm that stresses accountability and relies upon traditional methods of addressing the language differences between African American English and mainstream English. In this qualitative study, I argue that teachers must address and utilize the language system students bring into the classroom in order to scaffold students into mainstream English learning and literacy. In addition, I speak to the gaps in the literature about non dominant dialects and literacy learning as well as the reality of language and literacy practices with African American English speakers in the early childhood classroom. Finally, I highlight avenues for research that remain to be investigated as Euro American early childhood teachers cross cultural borders in literacy instruction with African American children. Before continuing, however, two notes are in order. First, considerable chunks of quotations are deliberately used in this chapter in order to give voice to the speakers, many of whom are scholars expressing powerful statements about language and ideology. Second, for ease in reading, I use the term “mainstream English” to indicate the language variety that is preferred in dominant academic discourse in the United States, although it is recognized that mainstream English differs across geographic regions and sociohistorical contexts. Statement of the Problem For many years, African American students have lagged significantly behind their peers in literacy achievement. The 2007 National Assessment of Educational Process (N AEP) indicates that the lag continues to be a prevalent one. In the fourth-grade literacy assessment of the 2007 NAEP, African American students performed 28 points lower than their White peers, up one point from the 2005 NAEP. Eighth grade Afiican American students performed 21 points lower than their Euro American counterparts, also up one point fiom the 2005 assessment. Students in fourth grade who were eligible for free or reduced lunches performed 27 points lower than their middle- or upper-income peers; among eighth graders, lower-income groups performed 24 points below the higher- income groups. Although it should be noted that the validity of accurately assessing minority students on this standardized assessment is challenged by educators, this type of assessment is nonetheless the national criteria upon which programming policy, such as President G. Bush’s 2001 legislative act No Child Lefi Behind, is decided. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons the measures required by No Child Left Behind are falling short is because higher standards, prescribed curricula, and standardized tests do not address the language systems of Afiican American students in the classroom and the ideological tensions around language with which Euro American teachers and Afiican American students must struggle. Although a wealth of information in the literature addresses how African American English is a highly structured linguistic system (Delpit, 1998; Gee, 1998; Labov, 1972; Siegel, 1999; Smitherman, 2000), the use of Afiican American English is a topic of debate in the United States today, urged on by such high profile figures as Bill Cosby. Siegel (1991) states that The public tends to view pidgins, creoles, and minority dialects (such as Afiican American English) as corrupted or degenerate forms of standardized languages and to fear that their use interferes with students’ acquisition of the standard. As a consequence, stigmatized varieties are banned from most classrooms. (p. 701) Those who write about culturally relevant pedagogy indicate that teachers need to build upon the linguistic systems that students bring from home (Ball & Lardner, 1997; Cazden, 2001; Delpit, 1998; Hyrnes, 1964; Smitherman, 2000). But whether or not these practices are taking place in the classroom is a concern for those hoping to empower under resourced students of color with literacy proficiency. It is imperative that teachers and teacher educators carefully consider how to honor and build upon the linguistic repertoire that students who speak Afiican American English bring from the home and community to facilitate the acquisition of mainstream English. Purpose of the Study This study aims to contribute to the need for qualitative classroom research on how Euro American teachers cross cultural borders in teaching African American English speaking students how to become proficient in mainstream English on their road to literacy achievement. The study is grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (2005), bio- ecological model and calls upon the sociocultural and critical views of literacy exemplified in the new literacy studies (Cazden, 2001; Heath, 1983; Hyrnes, 1980; Street, 2000, 2003; Gee, 1989, 1996, 2001). The study contributes to the small body of literature on useful strategies to offer Afiican American English users in their acquisition of mainstream English and addresses a gap in the literature between linguistic research and language-in-use in classrooms. This research also considers to what extent the teachers in the study recognize the linguistic competence and resources of children who speak African American English in their classrooms as well as to what extent the teachers build upon these competencies and resources in literacy learning. Finally, the study explores the ideologies that the teachers hold about these dialectical differences. Significance of the Study The continuing disparity in literacy achievement between African American and Euro American students is disconcerting. The stakes for literacy learning are high for African American children, especially for those who tend to use African American English in poor, urban schools. As part of the No Child Left Behind Act, school districts and individual schools must disaggregate data by racial/ethnic groups. Objectives are created for those groups with low literacy scores. If the groups do not meet their objectives for learning, the schools that they attend are in danger of closing. In addition, standardized tests that assess the learning outlined by objectives do not take into account the different “ways with words” (Heath, 1983) with which many lower-income African American children come to school, ways that may be in conflict with how questions are posed and how answers are expected on the tests. Ball (2002) notes that Today’s sociopolitical climate demands a focus on issues of standards, testing and accountability, which has an inhibiting and constraining effect on classroom teachers’ ability to act upon the knowledge that is available to them concerning the use of students’ home language as a resource to enhance their classroom lives. (p. 96 & 97) Although the issue of Afiican American English in the classroom, or the Ebonics controversy, as it is commonly known, surfaces now and again in the literature, the issue also tends to sink underground and out of view rather than gain momentum in the light of full examination. Ramirez (2005) asserts that Ebonics speakers do not receive the linguistic education they need in our schools. At this point, although some excellent studies of accommodations designed to facilitate the acquisition of mainstream English among African American English users have been reported upon in the literature (Hollie, 2001; Labov, 2001; Piestrup, 1972; Siegel, 1999), it is critical that more study be undertaken for further understanding of mainstream English language acquisition and literacy development. Furthermore, little research has centered upon how, or if, teachers actually carry out the suggestions that experts have given. Educators need to know how teachers work with African American English speakers as they acquire mainstream English. For example, to what extent are the verbal repertoires (that is, both the means and meanings of speech that people have available to them and the different contexts in which speech is found) recognized by the teachers (Hymes, 1972)? Furthermore, to what extent are the linguistic resources (that is, the ways of speaking and writing which a person has available to use due to socialization within a group or groups) of students who speak Afiican American English recognized by the teachers? What other strategies, such as deliberate instruction in code switching, are used to scaffold or support students in the acquisition of mainstream English? How are teachers wrestling with the ideological tensions involved around the use of African American English in the classroom? Charity, Scarborough and Griffin (2004) found that greater familiarity with standard English among Afiican American English speakers was associated with higher achievement in reading. These authors suggest that “research efforts on the relationship of dialect to reading was probably abandoned prematurely 20 years ago” (p. 1354). They propose that a fresh examination of the issue may lead to greater literacy acquisition among Afiican American children as well as new approaches for instruction. Craig, Connor, and Washington (2003) report that ascertaining valuable pedagogical practices for African American students is an immense task. Their research indicates that culturally relevant teacher discourses, direct or indirect instructional approaches, appropriate classroom environments and early literacy materials warrant reexamination for African American students. Ball (2002) agrees that the process of building upon home and community literacies and using them as a bridge to academic literacies, needs to be illuminated through research (p. 97). In 1994, Lucas and Borders indicated that two things were lacking in research: information on how and when dialects are used in classrooms and consideration of the role language plays in the classroom. Fourteen years later, additional research in these areas is still warranted. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) conclude that “demonstration studies of linguistically-informed instructional programs for African American youth have yielded promising results, but more analytic and longer-term research is required to gauge these benefits and to understand the factors on which they depend” (p. 341). Furthermore, they suggest that such research could reveal the kind of phonemic and phonological awareness of instruction that would be responsive to the differences in African American English and how best to support the orthography of English as well as functions of other linguistic aspects such as syntax. These authors have highlighted significant gaps in literature and research concerning the use of African American English related to literacy. It is integral that researchers study classroom practice in order to assess how Euro American teachers address language and dialect differences, especially in literacy learning. The focus of this study is a timely one and contributes to the understanding of how Afiican American English speakers acquire mainstream English while on the literacy learning journey. For A Fuller Understanding The study of the issue at hand is immensely complex, fraught with complicated issues imbued with cultural, racial, educational, legislative, and pdlitical overtones. In order to fully comprehend the complexities around the use of African American English in school and the need to acquire mainstream English, it is necessary to consider several related issues. In the remaining pages of this chapter, Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model is explicated as the theoretical background of the study. Then, how both language and literacy can be seen as social practice(s) of a particular cultural group in the macrosystern is demonstrated. For those unacquainted with African American English as a linguistic system, this chapter also briefly describes Afiican American English and notes who, in general, speaks it. In addition, two landmark court cases regarding African American English in educational systems are reported upon before language recommendations for teachers are regarded. The issues are summarized in an argument prior to exploration of the research question and sub-questions. After key concepts are defined, a conceptual framework integrates theory, concepts and research sub questions. Theoretical Framework This study is grounded in an ecological context, examining teacher/student dialogue within the boundaries of the classroom. The study draws from Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model, especially his concept of proximal processes, enduring, reciprocal patterns of interaction between adults (the teachers in this study) and children (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). The study also appropriates the sociocultural and critical view of literacy espoused by those in the new literacy studies, a view that describes language and literacy as social practices among persons in communities, an ecological approach to literacy. Bronfenbrenner ’s Bio-Ecological Model In 1979, Bronfenbrenner offered 'a new theoretical construction explaining human development. Bronfenbrenner drew from Lewin’s life space theory, adapting it to the ecological niches people create, and from Piaget’s view of the individual as an active constructor of knowledge. Bronfenbrenner also built upon Vygotsky’s conception of the role of the adult who is responsible for cultural transmission (language, mores, norms, etc.) in the life of a child (Vygotsky, 1978). Throughout its development during his career, Bonfenbrenner’s model was identified as a process-person-context-time model, considering (a) The process of development which integrates both person and context; (b) The person as an individual with biological, behavioral, emotional and cognitive characteristics; (0) The context of systems of relationships in the child’s environment; and (d) The element of time, called the “chronosystem” which consists of changes that occur over time in the life of an individual or across contexts. Bronfenbrenner asserted that all of these components need to be studied in order to fully understand human development. For the purposes of this paper, Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) initial bio-ecological model is considered. Bronfenbrenner identified the microsystem as a pattern of activities, social roles and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical, social, and symbolic features that invite, permit, or inhibit engagement in sustained, progressively more complex interaction with, and activity in the immediate environment. (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, p. 1645) In this definition, Bronfenbrenner expanded his previous definition of the microsystem to the world of language and symbols, key features of this study. He remained most interested in the relationalprocesses, later identified as proximal processes, that powerfully influence a child’s development within his/her microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 6-7). Often the child interacts within more than one microsystem. The mesosystem consists of linkages and processes between and among actors in the microsystem settings that affect the child. For example, parents who interact with childcare providers or teachers constitute a mesosystem. This study will examine the mesosystem where the language and culture of the home and the ecology of the classroom and “school language”-- mainstream English--meet. In this mesosystem, the young student will need to make meaning of two linguistic systems. The exosystem consists of environments in which the child does not reside but which affect the development of the child. For example, the parent’s workplace and maternity/paternity leave policies or choice of insurance plans can powerfully affect the child’s development. The 1989 expansion of Bronfenbrenner’s concept of the macrosystem represents culture and subculture, societal structures (political, economic, and social) as well as ideological values, beliefs, and norms that‘influence how individuals and groups in a society operate. The macrosystem concept was built upon Vygotsky’s (1978) thesis that a given culture at a given point in time will define and delimit potential options for individual development-- a noteworthy thought pertaining to all Afiican American children. The social constructs of race, ethnicity, and class considered in this study are enfolded within the macrosystem. In 1998, Bronfenbrenner further defined the chronosystem--changes over time-- delineating microtime which occurs over the life course to macrotime, “the changing expectations and events in larger society, both within and across generations, as they affect and are affected by, processes and outcomes of human development over the life course (Bronfenbrenner, 1998, p.995). The microtime considered in this study is the time period during which classroom processes are observed. Macrotime represents the historicity of language of the dominant variety spoken by the early settlers in the United States and expected to be Spoken in school today, mainstream English, as well as the history of Afiican American English, with its roots in West Afiica, shaped by slavery, and ever evolving over many years of oppression and racism. Macrotime also represents the way that experiences of both the students and the teachers have been shaped by a society characterized by structural inequalities. 10 Bronfenbrenner emphasized that the individual is enveloped within this set of nested structures and is influenced by each one, viewing development as a function of the person operating in the environment: D = f (P, E). Proposition 1 of the bio-ecological model states that a critical component of the ecological model is that one’s experience is determined not only by the environment, but also in the way the he/ she encounters it. Furthermore, Proposition 2 states that: ...human development takes place through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects and symbols in its immediate external environment. To be effective, the interaction must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. Such enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment are referred to as proximal processes; Examples of enduring patterns of proximal process are found in parent-child and child- child activities, group or solitary play, reading, learning new skills...and performing complex tasks. (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 5) The effect of proximal processes depends on both characteristics of the individual and the environment-- they mutually influence each other--and are integral to this study. Proposition 3 acknowledges that proximal processes will vary as a joint filnction of the considered developmental outcome, the developing person’s characteristics, and the changes in the environment over time, including the person’s life course and historical period in which he/ she lives. Bronfenbrenner (2005) held a theoretical expectation that the quality of the environment, with its concomitant resources, will determine the developmental effects of proximal processes on the child and outcomes ranging fiom dysfunction to competence. The proximal processes of language—in-use between the Euro American teacher and the young, low-income, African American English-speaker during a literacy event in the urban classroom were the unit of analysis in this study. These proximal processes 11 occurred during a historical period that continues to be characterized by racism (albeit sometimes more covert than overt), at a time when teachers are becoming more aware of the need to be culturally relevant, and, when the nation has elected an African American president for the first time. How the teachers addressed dialectal differences and taught mainstream English were indicative of the knowledge, resources, and beliefs of the teachers relative to the Afiican American English dialect and the importance of building upon the home language. Because teacher ideology (and perhaps that of the school) regarding Afiican American English may deeply affect learning outcomes, it was necessary to critically analyze these proximal processes to show how they are much more than a simple interaction between teacher and child. The Oral Language and Literacy Connection Children learn language in their homes and communities, ecosystems that may vary significantly in the form and function of language. Otto (2002) states that there is a strong relationship between language and literacy activities in the home and later emergent literacy skills. Heath (1983) conducted rich ethnographic research in the Piedmont, Carolinas, finding differences in “ways with words” (the title of her book, describing the research) among speech communities. As our country becomes more diverse, children come to school speaking many different languages and varied ways of communicating words and their meanings. The needs of second language learners and appropriate pedagogy for them are currently an issue of immense concern and intense labor in educational systems, among university researchers, and within the domains of policy makers. That both the language resources and needs of those who speak African American English receive much less respect and attention than do second language 12 learners is more than somewhat disconcerting, this is also an area in which teachers must possess knowledge and skill. In an effort to fully understand the proximal processes between Afiican American children and Euro American teachers surrounding issues of language and literacy learning in the classroom, it is useful to consider the sociocultural and critical views of language and literacy in the new literacy studies. The New Literacy Studies: An Ecological Perspective In the 19705 and 19805, a group of scholars began to question the traditional view of literacy where decoding writing, in order to read, and coding language into a visual form, in order to write, prevailed. Valuing Vygotsky’s recognition that the child and the adult are co-constructors of language and that language is a functional tool that enables the individual and the enviromnent to interact and influence one another, scholars considered the question: how does any child learn the tools of culture in order to take a turn in the societal life around them? Theorists began to ask qIIestions: What is literacy? and What is literacy good for? This gave rise to an interdisciplinary field, one that crossed over the fields of linguistics, sociolinguistics, anthropology, psychology and literacy (Gee, 1996. p.39). This field of work has often been called the new literacy studies (Cazden, 2001: Heath, 1983; Hyrnes, 1980; Street, 2000, 2003; Gee, 1989, 1996, 2001) The new literacy scholars have what may be considered an ecological vision of literacy. They believe that culture is produced through language and that when participants of a community engage in meaningful action, the actions become part of their identity, evolving into practices. As people learn a practice, they develop beliefs, values 13 and a sense of belonging and identity within the community. As practices change over time, language develops according to the needs, purposes and context(s) in which language is found (Cazden, 2001; Heath, 1983; Hymes, 1980; Street, 2000, 2003; Gee, in 1989, 1996, 2001). Oral and written communication, then, are considered a practice, and in a sense, the dichotomy between orality and literacy is fused. In 1972, Hymes proposed that both the means and meanings of speech that people have available to them and the different contexts in which Speech is found are intertwined. These intertwined elements constitute what Hymes calls one’s verbal repertoire. Identifying sets of patterns of speech, meaning, and context, Hymes called these patterns the “ways of speaking of a person, a group, or a community” (1972, p. xxiv). Hymes believed that language is tied to identity, politics, and ideology. Prescriptive language is tied to those who have the power to decide which language is standard, while descriptive language, the language that is actually spoken, usually represents a vernacular. Hymes asserted that vernaculars (or dialects) are framed by innate linguistic structures and that if one’s vernacular is deemed a problem, the problem lies with those who consider it so. In 1985, Hymes furthered his work with sociolinguistics and identity, posing that when the communicative systems of students are rejected, the students are apt to feel rejected themselves. Such rejection stands in the way of academic achievement. Furthering Hymes’s work, Heath (1983), an anthropologist, highlighted how literacy is a social activity in which a cultural tool is used with a symbolic function. Building upon Hymes’s concept of the communicative event, Heath’s unit of analysis became the literacy event-- an act in which individuals engage in organized activity 14 around the use of text. Heath (1983) studied language and literacy in three communities, highlighting how some children come to school with different communicative systems ‘ than those commonly expected by teachers (to be discussed below). As this grand conversation of the new literacy scholars continued, Street (2000), a sociolinguist, drew from Heath’s work, asserting that one develops an identity through participation in cultural literacy practices that entail sociological and ideological thought. All literacy practices are not equal or recognized as such in that some practices represent more prevalent roles and powers in a society. Developing into the 19903, the new literacy studies also became known as critical literacies. The premise of critical literacy is that literacy encompasses more than the mechanical skills and processes entailed in reading and writing; literacy is also concerned with social, cultural, and political processes and entails a call to equitable educational praxis. Drawing from the work of Bourdieu (1973) and Friere (1970), critical literacies validate the languages and literacies from the homes and cultures that the children bring to school. [This] alternative, ideological model of literacy, offers a more culturally sensitive view of literacy practices as they vary from one context to another . . . This model starts from a different premise . . . it posits instead that literacy is a social practice . . . that it is always embedded in socially constructed epistemological principles. (Street, 2003, p. 77) Furthermore, The ways in which teachers or facilitators and their students interact is already a social practice that affects the nature of the literacy being learned and the ideas about literacy held by the participants, especially the new learners and their position in relations of power. (Street, 2003, p. 77) It is hoped that teachers embrace linguistic differences in the classroom, build upon the language and literacy practices found in communities, acknowledge dominant ideologies 15 in our society that may harmfully affect students’ well-being, and work to promote social justice in the classroom community. As issues of power and ideology profoundly impact the proximal processes in language and literacy practice in the classroom, power and ideology are considered next. Language, Power, and Ideology Milroy contends that dialogues about language are not grammatical but are instead, ideological dialogues. Regardless of the language and literacy practices in communities, mainstream English is the language of dominance in the United States. Referring to the standardization of the English language, Milroy stated that: The canonical form of a language is a precious inheritance that has been built up over the generations, not by the millions of native speakers, but by a select few who have lavished loving care upon it, polishing, refining and enriching it until it has become a fine instrument of expression. (Milroy, 2001, p. 537) Reminding us that as standardized forms of language become legitimated as part of a state’s identity, Milroy avers that other forms of language become illegitimate. He also suggests that people do not always associate their rejection of nonstandardized varieties as racist or discriminatory; instead those who speak nonstandardized varieties of language are viewed as persons who make language mistakes and who merely need to learn how to speak correctly. According to Murray, the choice of a variety of language is never a neutral choice. Speakers of non prestigious language varieties or languages challenge the power of the in-group in using the variety as well as their own lack of power in situations where the prestigious variety is the only one acknowledged (e.g., in school). In all situations, but especially in education, we as language educators need to explicitly ask, “Whose language is used? For what purposes is it used? Who holds the power?’ (Murray, 1998, p. 145). 16 Distinguishing between discourses and “Discourses” in society, Gee defines Discourse (often referred to as “big ‘D’ discourse” in his work) as “ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are accepted as instantiations of particular identities [or ‘types of people’]) by Specific groups” (2008, p. 3). Gee also asserts that Discourses are primarily ideological, involving values and perspectives that determine whether one is or is not part of the Discourse and thus contribute to identity. Furthermore, Discourses are related to power and structure in society. Dominant Discourses can lead to acquisition of social goods like money, power, and status. Humans acquire primary modes of Discourse (and their first language) naturally through enculturation in the family and community. Secondary Discourses, on i the other hand, are acquired through schools and other institutions outside the family and build upon primary discourses, although these may or may not be compatible with the primary modes (p. 156). Believing that children from nonmainstream language homes often do not have opportunity to acquire dominant secondary Discourses (such as the mainstream English needed in literacy leaming), Gee (1996, 2008) claims that secondary Discourses often conflict with the values and perspectives of students’ primary Discourses. Students must have access to the secondary Discourse through apprenticeship with someone (e. g., a teacher) who can scaffold learning from the primary into the secondary Discourse needed for literacy. Yet within their discourses, both participants hold expectations about what is conventional thought and behavior for language practice; expectations are strengthened through group membership. Gee (2008) asserts that tacit theories reside within Discourses and that these theories are actually ideologies (p. 6). Therefore, language and 17 literacy practices cannot be viewed apart from ideologies and must be understood in terms of their representation in societal systems. Literacy works in tandem with political, economic, and social structures. Most early childhood teachers in the United States are Euro Americans who speak the language of the dominant variety. Many have grown up with the notion that they speak the “correct” form of English (regardless of dialects generated in different sociohistorical contexts). Whether or not teachers are aware of ideologies around mainstream English and African American English is a question deserving its own study. Yet for the purpose of this study, the implications of early childhood teachers who speak a privileged Discourse are great in the classroom. Are teachers aware of their membership in a dominant Discourse and the power that they hold? Are teachers aware of their ideologies about Afiican American English? If so, how might these belief systems impact classroom praxis? If not, how might a lack of awareness about ideologies impact how one negotiates dialect with students who need to acquire mainstream English? Before considering how Euro American teachers facilitate learning of mainstream English as a secondary Discourse, it is essential to consider how African American English is a linguistic system and who its speakers are. African American English as a Linguistic System The following discussion proffers a Simplified description of the main features of African American English--a small primer for the purpose of this study. This description iS not meant to be a comprehensive introduction to Afiican American English. Rickford 18 and Rickford’s (2000) compelling text Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English is highly recommended for the reader interested in learning more deeply about Black English. According to Smitherman (2000) and Godley (2006), dialects such as Afiican American English (also commonly referred to as African American Vernacular, Black English or Ebonics) are logical and structured, varying in vocabulary, pronunciation and grammatical patterns. African American English is comprised of language patterns and communicative styles that are: 1) derived from Niger-Congo (Afiican) languages, and/or, 2) derived from Creole languages of the Caribbean; and/or 3) derived from the linguistic interaction of English and Afiican languages, creating a language related to but not directly the same as either English or West African languages (Smitherman, 2000, p. 20). African American English has unique grammatical features, such as (a) multiple negatives; (b) invariant use of the English verb to be (commonly referred to as the copula) to denote a recurring state of affairs, e.g., He be lookin' good (Smitherman, 2000, p. 22); (c) absence of verb to be that refers to the present only, e.g., He lookin ’ good; (d) absence of “r” at the end of many words, demonstrating W. African language influence, e. g., Sista, Brotha;, (e) use of the word “done” for completed action, e. g. ,They done been sitting in the car; (I) use of finna for going to in the immediate future (derived from fixin to), e.g., Ifinna go to the store;(g) initial voiced th that sounds like d, e.g., dem for them; (h) final th that sounds like f, t, or d, e. g, birf-day; (i) a Shift of stress to the front of the word, e. g, PO-lice; (j) reduced consonant pairs, which are ordinarily heard as the deletion of a final consonant, e.g., tes for test (Smitherman, 2000, pp. 22-25). 19 It Should be noted that African American English like any other dialect, is variable. It continues to evolve and speakers may use different versions of it, or may use it to different degrees. The characteristics of African American English above are those under inquiry in this study. African American culture is an oral culture. It is characterized by a narrative style of speaking; storytelling is a part of everyday life. Furthermore, it is highly stylistic, and exemplified by these features: (a) rhythmic patternS--language and speech sound rhythmical, lyrical, musical, making use of repetition; (b) spontaneity--the speaker’s delivery is lively and improvised, emphasizing process, movement and creativity; (0) concreteness--ideas and imagery are centered in the empirical world; ((1) a call and response style--the speaker’s voice alternates with the audience’s response (as in African American worship services, but also present in daily speech); (e) signification--what seems to be insult is actually a ritualized, ceremonial game of playing with words. This game is also called woofing or playing the dozens and often takes the form of a “Yo mama is. . ...” insult. After the sender sends the message, the receiver decides whether or not to join the game. This game is deeply rooted in the Afiican American verbal tradition and serves to release suppressed rage and frustration built up over many years ((Lee, 2002; Meier, 2008; Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Smitherman, 2000). Smitherman believes that Euro American and the Afiican American verbal systems are at odds due to clashing cultural suppositions about suitable discourse and styles of rhetoric. She describes the Afiican American linguistic style as passionate, emotional, and “hot” while the European linguistic style is objective, detached and “cold” (Smitherman, 2000, p. 254). 20 Afiican American English also differs from mainstream English in its form of discourse. Gay (2000) speaks to these differences in discourse style in terms of organization of ideas, position-taking, imagery, and affect expression as well as gender styles. Gay identifies two major styles of discourse: topic-centered discourse, generally preferred by Euro Americans, is characterized by focusing on one topic at a time and presenting information in a logical order, relating ideas to each other. This more linear style of discourse style is the one preferred in American schools. On the other hand, in topic-associative or topic-chaining discourse, participants often address more than one issue at a time. Talk and writing are “episodic, anecdotal, thematic and integrative ...Related explanations unfold in overlapping, intersecting loops, with one emerging out of and building on others.” Furthermore, the speakers infer relationships between different discourse segments which are “circular and seamless” (Gay, 2000. p. 96). African American, Latino, American Indian and Hawaiian discourse are representative of topic- associative discourse. Au (2000), Cazden (2001), and Heath (1983) have also corroborated these styles. Storytelling or narrative is often an important part of cultures that use topic-chaining; stories are often used to answer questions, and multiple voices join in to tell a story. Naturally, such discourse may be difficult for uninformed Euro American teachers to understand; teachers may believe that speakers are competing for voice and/or collaboratively straying off course. Heath (1983) and Lawson (1986) both found that Black children responded differently to questions than did White children. Both scholars discovered that lower- income Black children may answer questions analogically, that is, through description of an object as it relates to oneself or one’s experience rather than sharing the kind of 21 information that is expected in response to a what, where, when, who, or why question. Teachers need to be aware of analogical responses as they work in urban classrooms in order to accurately assess communications. African American English» Dialect or Language? Although Afiican American English is the dialect or, as some assert, the language, of many children who come to school, it is stigmatized in North American society. Linguists believe that no dialect is inherently better than another. Yet, teachers, teacher educators, and student teachers often conclude that those who speak African American English suffer from deficiencies in cognition, lack of motivation, and the ability to think in an abstract manner (Baugh, 1999). Dyson, a language and literacy scholar who has studied young children of color for over 30 years, states that the terms dialect and vernacular, which are often used interchangeably, are actually different varieties of a language often related to a geographic area or a social background (Dyson, personal communications, Spring, 2006). Everyone speaks a dialect, although not everyone’s dialect demonstrates power or status. All dialects reflect complex linguistic systems. Dyson (2006) also describes mainstream English as a dialect, although it is viewed as the correct dialect to speak in the United States. This version of English is the one taught in schools encompassing prescriptive grammar; non standard varieties of English are deemed incorrect. Other scholars have also been engaged in a discussion about whether Afiican American English is a dialect or a language. Palacas (2001) suggests that linguists may have inadvertently contributed to the disparagement of African American English by asserting its similarities to mainstream English. Utilizing a Chomskian approach that 22 addresses the deep structure of language, Palacas demonstrates that “English and Ebonics are structured oppositely in many respects at their core in the grammar of noun phrases ' and verb phrases and in the grammar of subject-verb agreement” (Palacas, 2001, p. 333- 334).Thus, mainstream English and Afiican American English are both languages that are quite different in nature. Palacas reports that his new perception has been immensely valuable for his work with college students who speak Afiican American English, for he has been able to transform his educational praxis in accordance with this novel view. Smitherman refers to African American English as a language because the concept of dialect is so often regarded in a pejorative manner, writing that whether or not one considers Afiican American English a dialect or language is essentially a matter of semantics (Smitherman, 2000, p. 139). Consideration of words, grammar, and sounds might indicate that African American English is a dialect. However, Smitherman observes that if Afiican American English is considered to have a different deep structure than mainstream English, one could argue that it is a language and not a dialect. “If one also considers the history and social rules that govern the use production and interpretation of the words, grammar, and sounds, then black speech data more nearly resemble a different language” (Smitherman, 2000, p.139) Smitherman decided that “there are indeed deep-structure linguistic differences . . . in rhetorical style and strategies of discourse” in the language of Black America (Smitherman, 2000, p.16). Reconsidering Afiican American English as a language instead of a dialect is of importance to our discussion, for it would warrant a reconceptualization of Afiican American English as a linguistic system. Such a reconceptualization would indicate that scholars and teachers perceive African American English speakers as becoming bilingual 23 as they acquire acquisition of mainstream English and literacy. In The Dream keepers: Successfid teachers of Afiican American Children, Ladson Billings remarked that This notion of speakers of Afiican American language as bilingual is a decidedly different perspective . . . . (Respect) for “the language they (African American English users) bring with them (to school) serves as a tool that helps with additional language learning, just as speakers of mainstream English use English to help them acquire new languages. (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 84) At the very least, a perspective that African American children who speak Afiican American English become bidialectal as they acquire mainStream English would certainly assist some teachers to reframe the issue in a positive manner. A question remains: Who speaks African American English? African American English Speakers Although Afiican American English is commonly considered the language of those in the working and lower classes, linguists estimate that 80% - 90% of all African ' Americans speak the dialect at least some of the time (www.multicsd.org/doku.php?id=aave). In T alkin That Talk: Language, Culture and Education in African America, Smitherman (2000) states that Blacks speak in a variety of ways: “the Language of Wider Communication” (Smitherman’s term for mainstream English), Black English, Nonstandard American English (language patterns used by the working class that are nonAfiican in origin), Swahili, Arabic, Spanish and Creole. Furthermore, while middle class African Americans are generally bilingual, those in the working and lower classes are usually monolingual. Smitherman (2000) speaks to how the Black power of the 60’s, work of current Black writers such as Walker and McMillan, the Hip Hop Culture and the awareness among some Black professionals of being 24 “bilingual,” (Smitherman, 2000, p. 38) have served to “re-creolize” Ebonics, helping Afiican Americans shape a unique identity . Regardless of who speaks Afiican American English when, or why, mention of the word Ebonics among legislators and school superintendents often brings to mind two infamous court cases involving school districts and the linguistic practices of many Blacks. Two Landmark Cases regarding African American English The barriers that exist in schools around the linguistic practices of Afiican American English speakers became the focal point of two landmark cases concerning the use of Afiican American English in the United States. In 1977, the Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children v. the Ann Arbor School District Board alleged that the school failed to properly educate 15 economically deprived Afiican American children. Many of these children were placed in learning disability and speech pathology classes, were retained in grade levels, were disciplined or were otherwise kept from learning mainstream English and from reading because no one overcame the language barriers that existed in their classrooms. In 1979, Judge Joiner ruled that the Ann Arbor School District had violated the children’s right to equal educational opportunity. The second landmark case occurred in 1996 and is commonly referred to as the Oakland California School Board resolution. In the Oakland resolution, Ebonics (also called pan-African communication behaviors, or Afiican language systems,) was recognized as a complex linguistic system and the primary language of African American students. The resolution stated that it was in the interest of the Oakland Unified School District to provide equal opportunities for all students, 25 and that instruction should be imparted to Afiican American students in their primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language whether it is known as Ebonics, Afiican Language Systems, Pan-African Communication Behaviors or other description, and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English language skills. (Perry & Delpit, 1998, p.143-145) Approving a resolution to support the position of the resolution in 1997, the Linguistic Society of America cited evidence that children from nondominant language systems can learn the dominant variety if pedagogical strategies support the nondominant variety (Perry & Delpit, 1998, p. 161). This case has been widely misinterpreted for years as tacit permission to neglect teaching mainstream English and, thus, has often been ill-received. Perry spoke about the discussions that ensued after the Oakland resolution, the failure to examine the meaning and function of the literacy acts--speaking, reading, and writing --in the Afiican-American community: the failure to see these literacy acts (speaking, reading and writing — in the Afiican American community) as distinct, interconnected, and interdependent moments that are most powerful when they function for freedom, for racial uplift, leadership, citizenship. ’ (Perry (1998) p.14) Perry also addressed “the silence of white school reformers, white progressive educators and their organizations was deafening” (Perry, 1998, p. 14) as a symbol of how Whiteness operates in our country. In her discussion of the Oakland case, Smitherman (2000), addressed wider societal obligations to African American students, such as the need for teaching Afiican American English speakers to speak mainstream English, when necessary; the need to consider implications for assessment; the need for accountability in educational effectiveness; the need for advocacy for ethics in the media; the need for academic 26 research that is responsive to other cultural communities; and the need for judicial processes critical for shaping educational practice and policy. Language Recommendations for Teachers Unfortunately, these two court cases have failed to transform classroom language and literacy practice for most children who speak African American English. On the other hand, scholars passionate about social justice and equitable pedagogy have offered suggestions for teachers to transform classroom language and literacy practice. Dyson (2006) reminds us that the mainstream English, or the language of wider communication as she and Geneva Smitherman prefer to call it, that children speak in school may not be representative of their complete linguistic repertoire. In other words, children may be very competent in the linguistic system of their home and culture but may not display this competence in school. Furthermore, Dyson believes that educators, must assist children who speak a nondominant form of vernacular develop communicative competence: “an unconscious knowledge of linguistic and social rules that enable them to use language appropriately in different social contexts” (Dyson, personal communications, Spring, 2006). Early childhood educators must understand the sociocultural context, the home, the neighborhood, and the other systems with which the child is involved (Cazden, 2001; Edwards, 2004; Gay, 2000; Heath, 1993; Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 2004; M011, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, 2005; Street, 2003; Wolfram, Adger, & Christian, 1999). Furthermore, excellent early childhood teachers know that instructors must begin with “where the child is at” (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992), building upon what the child knows in order to facilitate learning of most kinds. 27 Accordingly, in regard to language, teachers must respect and learn what they can about the language variety and literacy practices with which the child comes to school (Edwards, 2004). Then, teachers must scaffold the child into acquisition of the dominant discourse. If teachers desire to learn how to recognize the linguistic resources of African American English speakers as they scaffold literacy learning, they may access growing bodies of literature that have emerged during the last ten years, such as the those addressed in this chapter as well as the body of literature on culturally relevant pedagogy (Hale, 1982, 2001); Delpit, 1988, 1998; Gay, 2000; Green & Perkins, 2003; Ladson- Billings, 1994; Smitherman, 1994,1998, 2000). Dyson (2003) writes about the need for permeable curriculum—curriculum that responds to the popular literacies and social worlds of children. Moll et a1 (1992) urge teachers to draw upon the funds of knowledge students bring into the classroom from home. Those who are part of the new literacy studies (Gee, Heath, Street, and others) advocate sociocultural views of literacy that examine communities of practice and center upon the “oracy-literacy mix” rather than the acquisition of isolated skills (Stephens, 2000). For example, teachers must recognize that topic-associative styles may be more creative and literary than other styles and that storytelling is an integral element in the language and literacy practices of communities of color. Gee (1996) and Gay (2000) recommend that teachers who work with children of color include storytelling as part of their praxis. Language and Dialect Concerns in the Classroom Ecosystem Both educators and legislators should examine closely whether there may be a remarkable discontinuity between the language/literacy needs of lower-income, young 28 Afiican American students and the understanding of teachers who work with these students through proximal processes at school. Teachers need to consider whether they are operating from a deficit rather than a strengths-based model. Teachers must question whether or not they have wrestled with a definition of literacy and given careful consideration to how language and literacy develop in different subcultures. Teachers need to reflect upon how oral and written communication is culturally constructed through complex processes of systems in interaction and how various cultural groups organize thought and knowledge differently, influencing the development of linguistic systems and the formation of identity and language learning among the young. Teachers must learn how language is a tool not only in the transmission of culture but also a tool of power and ideology. Teachers need to study African American English and inquire how to facilitate acquisition of mainstream English among its speakers. These are the concerns that propelled me into a passion to understand the proximal processes between Euro American teachers and Afiican American English speakers during language and literacy learning, proximal processes reverberating with economic, historical, political, sociocultural, and ideological issues in the ecology of the classroom. Research Questions Explored The primary research interest of this study is: How do teachers, who identify themselves as good teachers of diverse learners, cross cultural borders to facilitate the acquisition of mainstream English during a literacy event with speakers of Afiican American English? This study will examine classroom discourse, the proximal process of 29 language - in - use between students and teachers during a literacy event. Sub questions are: . To what extent are the teachers wrestling with the ideological tensions around Afiican American English and its use in the classroom? . How familiar are teachers with Afiican American English and its rhetorical components as a linguistic system? . Within proximal processes, how do teachers respond when Afiican American speakers speak and write in Afiican American English during the conferencing period of writer’s workshop? . How do teachers describe the way they address the dialectal differences in the classroom as a whole? (a) Do the teachers explicitly teach about the need to acquire mainstream English? (b) Are specific strategies, such as code switching, taught to enable children to cross the borders between the nondominant and dominant dialect forms? . To what extent are the verbal repertoires, linguistic resources and literacy practices of Afiican American English speaking students recognized by the teachers? The reader is referred to Figure l on pages 31 and 32 in order to understand the connections between theory, concepts, and research sub questions. 30 ewezw=£\e 523 ES: «M5285 «is M2382 A885 5 85.5 emexwfit 8238 «9.8238 8 2888: a “N «@va 3.28% 8% 3:9: Rem RMVV Beau 35$ :8. 3e :85 act «52283.8 2: 5 E @2385. 2233.6 Secs atmcaefikzeanwme 28A 23 E: a. «NYE «£92m :uoteEV 9282.? to GEMSSELBNEQG Sea 23 BS: ”808 805 508 war—565 .8583 :80 :53 35325 82325358 < m «M v .N .— m..O.m.~— AN $880500 8:383 {8:3 2: wetse 8889a 8552a 50wa 58 5888 me 8505 E58805 v8 859082 533 858.5830 5888—0 05 5 moococoEB 38.5w 2: 8828 >05 83 05 3:88 50:82 05 ow 3oz 383.83 @8ch no @523 868558 05 a wage fizwfi- 858:2 852.3. 5 8.23 v8 o 58% 58—8on cm=w=m 808:2 85hr. :83 o 5888 50:88 5c 30! 2.529? 8585— a 8 88:09:00 E5292: 5 c8 8:me 8585< o 8o£< .53 50:82 08 8:55 302 2.5888? 05 5 :5me 858:3. :mo£< .Lo e cm: of 5508 8395 8588 185285 2: :53 mam—“823 50:82 2: 08 525 8:3 oh "maeumo=0-a:m :88QO Emzwem 858:3. 85a< 58558 2: («o owmzwes mo 58808 553 :5.ow G Am .508on :mzwcm 85.85 8o£< weep—m :mzmem 5888585 we 855368 05 85:65 2 820 5 05:8 050: 05 me 0888— 2: some 2:5 “.8 5889 .5315 808 8:5 50:80.“. 528885 a 5:53 885 08:98. so 3858 :53 583 8:5 8883. Am 500:8 5 58825 on 9 890 5 .358.» “8558 05 mo mew—2&5: 05 05:38 9 woo: EB 5:250 500583 05 mo 5088-855 2 2: 5 A52: co.“ 85086 bmwcooom 3 but? 05 85:88 E? 58855: Le 55588 85886 858 52: 8 Or: Baum—mow.“ Ow who—PROD ~32me Gmomuog §o£< 85:8 880 5282 058% Mo 29885 gauge 8 05280? :8 0:3 52.88 850 LEE ow Be: :88 on? 86:50 80:83 8558 we can 8 c8 88805 85:85 awsoafi n Q N 3.0.9: 2 38.8.5 £888.. aha—5.5 08:98— 0588 soap—EU 558—30 3.5 2852.0 :eaaomomflnoean ..e 5:833:— 5 8835:5500 82.23 was :20 o .28.:82Q 25 0396 85.8 on. .838 335805 5 8me 353558 a me $855th :23» o .5508 So 5 88% soon 08: 50:82 65.... 3:83.... Eon mo 885880 85 83 2: 3:82qu 88 : .SE< 5 302 5 :53 .amzmcm 858:2 o 802,3. mo D082 05 8 :03 8 bong c8558 05 we owmzwcfl me .5885: 2: 38.858 05.8282 0 .2830 3508 m 5 gnaw e8 0 536365 Be: 882:5 85 mate: @0on .858 785285 8 :03 8 2508 G8 55258 85533 823088 3508 623—398 58 o 0523 388.52 58882er 2R 0 dam—mem— 585585 he w5=82 FEE”. 2: 20:88 8 50823085 55 5 8,4882% 35.383 nwsefi 8:03 8:82 2C. 0 .8825 8:88 v8 Bio 05 55:3 553» 585.885 8 5 8589 woe—5— 08 253.5 588585 v8 5595 858:3. o 885‘ Go 288% 5585— 051 o .5888? 05 mo 55382.55 05 5 05: 288588 88% 58 050: 05 .252 .aomweEooueE o .«o 58888.8 05 5 85— 2.50 2E. o 98:85:53.5 88280 .28.; 558—30 «:5 1:: 5582.0 5.883— 3 88.0.. 53305:; 338280 18 358.82; 3 0.55.9 31 «.850 .500. 05.0 05:00 000203005 00:. 00 20% 0 «50020050 200:. 5 00.000.2Q 0.00.505 00000§0 00.50% 50 3.00 oz ..5 0s: . «50020050 .303 5 0023.50 05 :5: 3.550.050: Q5000: 00A 00 305‘ 0 «50020050 05 5 @353 00: 0:: 0:00:80. 05820 5.0: 0~MM0200 00% 0:0 .3 085w 000 0 :09: :5: 0:0 00 0055.8 000.5 00: 00:80:00 85008 :0:w:m 0050.» 0: 8:5 850: 50020 50.: «.5505 0. 3.50 808:3. 8.05.0. 80:00:: 0:88:— 08 808:0— 0: H o 0 0:0 .350. 000000: .«0 005.005 >88:— 0030: 0:0 00:00 000000000 0 0205 :0 0 0:0 0008000: 000085— 52080: 085 0:080:00 8008:: «500.550 05 5 .30. 00:98:00 _0:8> 0500 8:0 5 :08 00 005.808: 00:08 50:0 A0000: 0 05 0 00 0:008 8:3 0 a. G .00_.:< 5 00 :0 00:00 :0: 0:0 80:00:: 8080: =< o 000: 30:00 200:. 000Q a 00500.: :03 m0 008% 5:800:29? :waog 8050050 0.5093650 05 ownwnwcfl HGQcEO—u teams: 05 Cm OEEOHONE “Cwafifiafi 05 Damn—vow awn—E omhsonvmmfl 5 .3028 000: 00.0.2000 0:0 50550000: :w:0::0 505500-00: 0 300% 0:3 :008: < o A2000: 00A 00 30m 0 0:: 8038: 08000: 008:: :00: 08: 0:0 .08: .«0 00: 05 00:05. «.050: 502K 05 0008 00 :0 000:0 0:588 8080—000: 0:008 005808 888 20:00:05 05000 :0 :00w 0 :53 M02: 00.23.50 000.0093 030:0 0: Ema: :53 00.55: 000 :053 5 80 :0 m: 5000 A0020»: < 0 0:88:— 0:0 0w0sw8— AUGKNNQ 323 mw~0~um=~0~ Nu} .wcmn—oumam OUOO wEDum~AmOuomE .wfiomumamm MO maficmatgflm g 00% 3.5: 00:. 00 30: o 00 :08 00800050 :8: 5 00:05 0888.: c 00080 0805:5500 0. 5:30 05 ”8808:: «5002850 .500. 05.: 0:80am 02 3 0:58:50 0: 08.8.— 0000003000 00.000505509 0 3550905005 M02: 0023.50 000.205: 0:535”.— 00080 000080.500 0:00.: >885: 302 000.25.. 05 00 0.002002% 50050505 05:08 00000505500 5 :00000 :55: 5 050.000 «88:30 A0085? 00.5 00$: 0 00 000: 05 50:0 05 000898 05 0:0 50:: 0: 28:08 08: . 808::— :0 «500.2050 200A 05.: :88 550298 0: 8:5 850—50 850000 0300: 85 800:0 :0 85:00:: 0:0 :50; $030.00”.— :< 5.2: 0023.50 000.205V 08:88 05 09 A0 00585.0~ 0005:: 0:005 05 00 E082 0:020:02 00:20: 0 000.250 0:: 00 050.5050 020:3 0 00 50088—0 :0 00:88:00 00:80, 0: H. o .00.:002Q 8:58 :0 8: 0085800 :582—00 025 0:0 0:0:00=O 80008“ 0. 080—0.. 010.5050.— .m 35:00:00 0:0 5030.304: 0— 0.55m 0005500 _ 0.55m 32 Conceptual Definitions Afi'ican American English (also known as African American vernacular, Black communication, or Ebonics): the dialect often spoken by African Americans in the working and lower classes. The grammatical and stylistic features of African American English are described in Chapter 1. Communicative competence — (borrowing fiom Dyson, 2006): a person’s unconscious knowledge of both linguistic and social rules that enable him/her to use language appropriately in different social contexts. Correction — (as defined by Verwys): the term for when a teacher informs a student that his/her utterance is incorrect and offers a word/phrase as a replacement. Dialect (often used interchangeably with the term vernacular)(borrowing from Dyson, 2006): a variant of a language spoken in different ways in different geographic areas and in social groups (community, social class, or ethnic group). Language - specialists say that a dialect contains systematic deviations from the standard form of language, in phonology, semantics, and syntax. Discourse: “Ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are accepted as instantiations of particular roles . . . by specific groups of people . . . . They are . . . always and everywhere social and products of social histories.” (Gee, 1996, p. viii.) Ideology: the belief systems that people, often shared groups, hold about the world and the way it should be. Attitudes are profoundly influenced by ideologies, often instantiations of them. 33 Linguistic resources: the ways of speaking and writing which a person has available to use due to socialization within a group or groups. Literacy event (borrowing from Heath, 1983): an act in which individuals engage in an episode organized around the use of text. Literacy practice (borrowing from Street, 2000): development of identity through participation in cultural literacy practices that entail sociological and ideological thought. Low Income: the schools chosen for this study will be representative of those where the children in this study will be eligible for free or reduced lunches and thus considered low-income. Middle class: the teachers participating in the study are considered middle class due to their socioeconomic status - their income falls into the middle income bracket and they each have at least a bachelor’s degree. Mainstream English: English of the standard variety expected to be spoken in school, business, and professional practice in the United States. Verbal Repertoire (borrowing from Hymes, 1972): both the means and meanings of speech that people have available to them and the different contexts in which speech is found. Conclusion This chapter has thoroughly explored the need for inquiry into how Euro American teachers facilitate the acquisition of mainstream English, the dominant form of English in the United States among young African American English speakers. It has highlighted the proximal processes that take place between early childhood teachers and young children as they engage in language learning and literacy practices, 34 co-consu'ucting knowledge together. These proximal processes are situated within a mesosystem, an intersection of the language and practices of the home and those of the school. The processes also function within a larger societal context, a macrosystem, typified by ideologies of domination of the oppressed and of embedded racism. Language practice in the United States is also imbued withideology. Mainstream English is considered the language variety of choice in school, business, and professional settings. In this chapter, the advantage Afi-ican American English speakers will have if teachers recognize cultural resources in language and literacy and literacy practices the children bring from home has been considered. Teachers need to enable students to gain communicative competence as they cross borders between the home and the school community. 35 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Success in American schools as well as many other systems requires proficiency in mainstream English. Those who speak nonstandard dialects of English must learn to speak, to read, and to write within the standard variety. As a consequence, stigmatized varieties are banished fiom most classrooms in the country (Siegel, 1991). This is a point of contention among students, families, teachers, administrators, and policy makers, and it is an issue that is often misunderstood. Thompson, Craig, and Washington (2004) state that students who speak a nonstandard variety of mainstream English may be at a disadvantage because instruction, curriculum, and standardized assessment instruments are based upon the vocabulary and linguistic rules of mainstream English. Maier (2008), citing research by Goodwin (1990), Heath (1993), and Labov (1972) reports that “this is a phenomenon made all the more anomalous by 30 years of ethnographic research whose findings suggest that children socialized in the Afi‘ican American speech community enter school with ‘ . . .extremely sophisticated linguistic abilities’ ” (p. 5). Three bodies of literature, bodies in need of expansion, are integral to understanding students who need to become bidialectical and the teachers who work with them on the road to literacy. First, research on Afiican American English speakers and literacy learning will be examined. Second, literature on strategies for teaching mainstream English will be reviewed. Finally, teacher beliefs and attitudes toward Afiican American English and its speakers will be considered. Research on African American English Speakers and Literacy 36 In the 19603, during President L. Johnson’s war on poverty, some linguists began to examine the relationship between dialect differences and reading problems among urban children. Labov (1969, 1972, 2001, 2003), essentially the originator of the field of sociolinguistics, has studied inner city children and Afiican American English since the 19603. Using his knowledge base of Afiican American English to consider its effect on literacy achievement in mainstream English, Labov (1969), hypothesized that if teachers were aware of the structural differences between the two linguistic systems, they should not experience problems facilitating literacy development among Afiican American children. Labov’s work was published in a volume called Teaching Black Children to Read (1969). Others who published in the same volume, including Walt Wolfram, acknowledged that learning to read in mainstream English would undoubtedly be more complicated for Afiican American English speakers. Wolfram advocated that teachers adapt materials to a linguistic system more similar to what children in the classroom speak. The use of dialect readers, translating early reading materials into African American English, was one idea considered by these linguists. Although these theories were published in the text, these authors did not engage in research about their theories at the time. In a well-recognized study on African American English speakers and reading, Piestrup (1972) decided to investigate a number of assertions. Her study, published in Teaching Black Children to Read, is one of the few empirical studies to date on the relationship between Afiican American English and learning to read. Piestrup and a co- researcher studied 14 classrooms) with a majority of Afiican American children in Oakland, California. Identifying linguistic mismatches between the African American 37 English of the students and the mainstream English of the teachers, Piestrup found that the mismatch was not as important as the way the teacher handled the linguistic differences. Piestrup identified two groups of teachers: those who accommodated misunderstandings between mainstream English and Afiican American English, perhaps through clarification and appreciation of word play, and those who interfered with learning by ignoring, correcting and/or confusing the children, essentially interrupting the flow of the lesson. Piestrup then characterized the teachers by their particular styles, identifying the “Vocabulary Approach, the Decoding Approach, the Standard Pronunciation Approach, the White liberal approach, the Black Artful approach, and the Interrupting approach” [sic] ‘ (Piestrup, 1972, p. 83). After recording children’s repetitions of mainstream English and then testing their reading performance with a standardized test, Piestrup found no real differences in dialect or reading scores between the accommodation and interference groups. She did find however, that those students taught by Black Artful teachers had the lowest mean dialect score and the highest mean reading score among the groups. In addition, these scores were substantially higher than the national norm (Piestrup, 1972, p. 163). These Black Artful teachers not only “encouraged children’s active participation in lessons and resolved conflicts between Black Communications and Standard English in an expeditious manner,” but the teachers also incorporated some African American English features into their pedagogy, including animated communication, rhythmic language play, and signifying patterns--the playful, ritual insults introduced in chapter one (Meier, 2008, p.248). In other words, the Black Artfiil teachers drew from Black culture enthusiastically, increasing the comfort level of the children while offering 38 encouragement and involving them in engaging lessons. In addition, these teachers helped the children hear differences in words. In her discussion about Piestrup’s work, Meier notes that not all Black Artful teachers are Black and not all Black teachers are Artful (Meier, 2008, p.286). Although not finding a definite relationship between learning how to read and the use of African American English, Piestrup’s study did provide evidence that there is a possibility for conflict between African American English and mainstream English. Even when a systematic program of phonics is used, dialect differences are likely to appear in instruction, and it is not effective to label these as simple misunderstandings. Furthermore, a question arose in Piestrup’s study as to whether the problem was linguistic differences or negative teacher attitudes toward the dialect. Piestrup suggested that teachers often interrupted learning by alienating children, sometimes through subtle messages that dialectal verbalizations were incorrect. Labov’s work continues to advocate that reading research must focus upon linguistic diversity. He has recommended for many years that specific attention be given to the ends of words in reading instruction with African American English speakers. Labov and his colleagues (2001) at the University of Pennsylvania studied children lagging one to two years behind in literacy achievement. These children, African American English speakers, attended tutoring sessions focused upon reading. The results of Labov’s careful research has underscored the necessity of paying close attention to decoding errors that occur at the end of words. It is advocated that systematic word study address these errors, especially as they can affect reading comprehension. 39 The notion that teachers need to discern the difference between the dialect present in Afiican American English and reading errors has been also been noted by Berdan (1980) as well as others (Craig & Washington, 2006; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Piestrup, 1973). Berdan notes the hazards of ignoring dialectal differences, but also warns against employing corrective strategies that may be experienced by the children as rejection. Unconvinced that the usual kind of professional development efforts would be effective in transforming teacher practice, Berdan and colleagues annotated reading selections in a curriculum with “conventional spelling representations of the range of Black English pronunciations that would be expected for each vocabulary item prior to classroom use” (Berdan, 1980, p. 83). The results of this study indicate that the teachers were thrilled at the opportunity to listen to reading as reading, rather than perceived errors. It was also reported that the intervention appears to have affected teacher attitudes for the better. As far as is known, this intervention has never been repeated. In a chapter in the Real Ebonics Debate (1998), Mary Rhodes Hoover debunks certain myths about Afiican American English, which she terms Ebonics. One myth is that there is no research linking Ebonics to education. According to Hoover, research is supportive of the Standard English Proficiency Program used by the Oakland School District. Drawing upon Ebonics as a bridge to literacy, the program emphasizes mainstream English teaching skills, instruction for teachers about Ebonicsas a linguistic system as well as the culture of its speakers, and pedagogy that highlights phonics learning as well as eight other elements of literacy. Perry and Delpit (1998) praise the Standard English Proficiency Program, urging teachers to call upon the rich oral tradition in Afiican American communities. Hoover stresses, however, that Afiican American 40 English speaking students need intensive, structured, phonics-based reading programs as well. In 1998, the National Research Council’s Commission on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, chaired by Catherine Snow, published Preventing Reading Difi‘iculties in Young Children. This well known text briefly highlights the struggles Afiican American English and other dialect speakers may have in reading because of differing phonological and grammatical characteristics in linguistic systems. The text also offers a small amount of information on what has been tried with these speakers as well as Labov’s (1995) suggestions that teachers should “ (a) distinguish between mistakes in reading and mistakes in pronunciation, (b) give more attention to the ends of words (where much dialect variation is most apparent) in initial reading instruction, (c) present words to students in phonological contexts that preserve underlying forms,(d) avoid contractions, and (e) teach grammar explicitly” (Labov, 1995, p. 241). Unfortunately, the text is inadequate in terms of recognizing cultural factors and ecological influences; instead, most emphasis is placed on the skills children need to learn how to read. Indeed, Snow, Burns and Griffin question “whether we have the ability to adjust cultural factors in the classroom: cultural differences are entrenched in history and social institutions are not easily amenable to educators’ manipulations” (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 243). It is curious that the term educators’ manipulations is used-- this term seems disrespectfirl to both teachers and children. The report remarks that cultural accommodations may increase student participation in class but states there is no empirical evidence that indicates a positive correlation between cultural congruence and student achievement. However, the text encourages further research on the effect of 41 linguistically informed practice and programs on literacy outcomes. Charity, Scarborough, and Griffin (2004) have indicated that familiarity with mainstream English is correlated with reading achievement, offering three possible explanations for this: (a) children who have more familiarity with mainstream English may be better liked by teachers, receiving better instruction from them; (b) because they are more familiar with mainstream English, the children may not experience as much interference from African American English; (c) these children may construct better metalinguistic awareness than those who are not as familiar with mainstream English. Having conducted extensive research with African American children and language, Craig and Washington highlight the importance of students learning to “dialect shift” between Afiican American English and mainstream English in order to succeed in reading. In a study of 400 lower- and middle class Afiican American students on dialect shifting, Craig and Washington found that those students able to dialect shift outperformed their peers in both vocabulary and reading achievement (Craig & Washington, 2004, p. 460). The authors note that first grade is a critical time for children to learn how to dialect shift, for inability to do so may impact the process of learning how to read (Craig & Washington, 2004, p. 458). Concomitantly, higher productions of Afiican American English may inhibit Afiican American students from performing satisfactorily on standardized tests. Acknowledging that empirical data to investigate dialect shifting in African American students is in need of expansion, Craig and Washington emphasize that this information could improve our overall understanding of how to work toward enhancing the cultural congruence between Afiican American English speakers and their mainstream English classrooms (Craig & Washington, 42 2004, p. 452). Ball (2001) agrees that getting teachers to recognize the cultural nuances and strengths in language practices is a crucial challenge in American education, as our African American students express their knowledge through their home linguistic system. Through a year-long ethnographic and sociolinguistic study in an urban 11th /12th grade classroom, Ball supported her own assertion that students can successfully navigate cultural borders if allowed to integrate their own language and cultural resources with writing in mainstream English. The students in the study effectively learned how to not only call upon both dialects, but also to powerfully exert their voices (as is typical in Afiican American rhetorical style)--a literacy characteristic many teachers emphasize in their literacy teaching. Literacy success was achieved. Unfortunately, there is a prevailing assumption in the United States that lower- income Afiican American students come to school without literacy backgrounds. Numerous scholars have written about the rich oral tradition enfolded within narratives and about the high value African American families place on literacy learning and school success. Investigating these dynamics, Dyson (2003), Taylor (1983), and Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988) demonstrate in their qualitative research that multiple literacies exist in the homes of many underserved students. Yet those literacies may not be _ recognized or even evoked in the school setting. Dyson (2003, 2006) has studied excellent teachers of young children and language/literacy for many years, noting that those who allow students to call upon their resources—whether playing basketball, singing, rapping, or drawing-rather than merely focusing upon errors enjoy more literacy success with their students. Literacy expert Clay (1998), the founder of the Reading 43 Recovery program, believes that although children come to literacy by different paths, they may achieve common outcomes. Besides focusing on the unique features of African American English and the linguistic challenges African American English speakers face in school, Labov (2003) also locates responsibility for the dialect and literacy challenge within the educational system, stating that “the central problem for a scientific approach to the matter is not to find out what is wrong with the children but what can be done to improve the educational system” (Labov, 2003, p. 129). Gee (2008) agrees with Labov that the literacy crisis is a schooling crisis, partly because of the quality of poor schools in urban areas. Stressing that today’s literacy crisis is a crisis of inequality in education, Gee claims that in the Preventing Reading Difi‘iculties in Young Children report, Snow et a1. maximize attention to reading skills and minimize cultural, familial, and socioeconomic factors (Snow et a1. 1998, p. 16). Furthermore, Gee advocates that literacy teachers veer away from the traditional view-of literacy in terms of decoding and coding and transform practice in line with the new literacy studies, where, as we explored earlier, language and literacy merge within a group’s social practice. A member acquires literacy “in a ‘fluent’ or ‘native-like way’-- being apprenticed by a more knowledgeable member who socializes one into ways of thinking, believing, valuing, talking and interacting , a sociocultural and highly Vygotskian perspective” (Gee, 2008. p. 45). To sum up the literature on the relationship between Afiican American English and literacy, scholars have not been able to conclude fiom the studies canied out thus far that that there is a strong association between use of African American English or the inability to use mainstream English and early literacy learning challenges, although 44 common sense seems to suggest such a correlation. It is evident that more research is needed in this area. Certainly, phonics instruction seems to be one of the keys to literacy success for Afiican American English speakers, yet if it were the only key, literacy scores would certainly be higher than they presently are. Knowledge of the African American linguistic system and culture, bringing both system and culture into the classroom, using effective teaching strategies with African American children as well as demonstrating positive attitudes toward African American English seem to work in tandem for its speakers and literacy success (teacher attitudes are examined in the third part of the chapter). Locating problems only in the dialect speakers rather than also considering pedagogical strategies and the systems within which the speakers reside is a near-sighted perspective with the potential for long range deleterious effects. Unfortunately, this stance is all too common in dominant culture thinking and stands in direct contrast to the praxis of many educators who embrace social justice and bring culture into the classroom in order to inform literacy practice. The second body of research: considering programs and possibilities for using nonstandard dialects to teach the standard version will be considered next. Using the Nonstandard Version to Teach the Standard Programs To begin this discussion, it should be acknowledged that some scholars believe it may be more difficult for Afiican American children to learn mainstream English not only because of the linguistic differences between mainstream English and African American English but also because of the similarities which young ears and brains may not be able to disentangle (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Stewart, 1969). Without explicit guidance and practice, young learners may have difficulty determining which linguistic forms are 45 common to both mainstream English and African American English and which forms are unique. Three programs from the 19703 that made use of African American English were reviewed by Williams (1997), coiner of the term Ebonics. In one program, Afiican American children took the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts before and after it was translated into Afiican American English. Scores on both versions were compared; the children scored higher on the translated version. In another, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was translated into African American English and administered to children. Not surprisingly, the children raised their IQ scores (Williams, 1997, p. 212). Thomas and Collier’s (1997) research also demonstrated that children learn more effectively in the language system with which they are most familiar, asserting that stigrnatization of nonstandard dialects and fear that the first language system will interfere with acquisition of the second keep nonstandard dialects from being used in the classroom. Verification for Thomas and Collier’s assertions come from three different types of programs that build upon stigmatized language systems. Those of the first type are called instrumental programs. In these, the nonstandardized variety is used as a means of instruction in literacy and subject matter disciplines such as mathematics, science, and health. Classrooms utilizing accommodation programs accept the stigmatized variety (students may speak and write in it) but it is not a “medium of instructiOn or subject of study” (Wiley, 1996, p. 127). The third type of program is called an awareness program. In this program, the nonstandardized form is at the center of study: students construct learning around it in literature or in discussions about language diversity. Through awareness, students may compare and contrast the phonetic, semantic, 46 syntactic, morphemic, and pragmatic aspects of language in the two systems: the standardized and the stigmatized. Besides promoting use of language in both varieties, the programs purport to improve “students’ linguistic-self-respect” (Siegel, 1999. p.705). Other programs, described by Siegel (1999), encourage students to compare differences between their own language system and the standard, or where the students’ language system is used as a bridge toward learning the standardized variety. Au and Mason’s (1981) oft-cited research in the Kamehameha Early Education Program demonstrated the effectiveness of using a structure similar to those in the Hawaiian community speech event, talk story, using literacy lessons with Hawaiian children. Also focusing on structural differences between the two linguistic systems, Wolfram et al. (2007) developed a dialect awareness program for older children and adults. Urging that the study of dialect awareness be integrated into the curriculum, Wolfram advocates that students become involved in linguistic and ethnographic research in their own speech communities--a particularly intriguing idea. Of particular appeal is - Wolfram’s suggestion that such study can be cross-disciplinary. Learning about language variation and standard English is often mentioned in state educational standards. Through such a study, students are enabled to learn about the nature of language and how dialects differ as well as to explore attitudes toward the dominant and nondominant forms of linguistic systems. Similarly, Hollie (2001) reported upon the Linguistic Affirmation Program in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Working to meet the language needs of African American, Mexican American, Hawaiian American, and Native American students since 1991 , the Linguistic Affirmation Program is a comprehensive, nonstandard language 47 awareness program. The program incorporates historical, linguistic, and cultural approaches as well as a philosophy of additive bilingualism into research-based instructional strategies. These foster the acquisition of mainstream American English in its oral and written forms while also valuing the home language and culture of the students. The primary goal of the program is for students to use mainstream American English proficiently in order to grow in literacy and to experience academic achievement. Based upon knowledge of how West Afiican children learn the languages of French and English through written materials in their own languages, Stewart (1969) wondered if the same sort of intervention might be advantageous for lower-income Afiican American children. Simkins carried out these ideas in the Bridge Program (1977), where reading materials were offered in a sequential manner, from text written in the home language, to a transition text and then to text written in mainstream English. The Bridge Program was field tested for four months with 417 seventh and twelfth graders in 27 classes. 123 students received their usual remedial reading assistance and were held out as a control group. The experimental group made significant gains on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in Reading Instruction and gained 6.2 months in progress over the four months in contrast to the control group who gained 1.6 months. The Bridge Program’s publishers discontinued its publication due to negative feedback from parents and teachers, although Smitherman (1977) proclaimed it was an exciting development. Rickford and Rickford (1995) maintain that the program was prematurely abandoned and that schools should reconsider use of dialect readers. They cite three mini-studies on the use of dialect readers in Northern California, reporting that student motivation increased in all three studies and that reading comprehension was 48 greater in two studies. Suggesting that research efforts on dialect readers be renewed, Rickford and Rickford suggest that such a program might be implemented in a small way (perhaps with a linguist as consultant) in order to garner new attention to a lucrative means of literacy success for our African American children (Rickford and Rickford, l995,p.121) Hoover (1998), also mentioned previously, developed a program called Superliteracy originally developed in Nairobi and used in the Standard English Proficiency program in the Oakland School District. Linguistically oriented and phonics- based, the Superliteracy program focuses on developing fluency in speaking, reading, and writing (Perry & Delpit, 1998, pp. 205 & 206). These studies and reports have all demonstrated the effectiveness of using students’ varieties in linguistic systems as they gain greater facility in mainstream English. Effective Strategies for Teachers In the afore-mentioned report Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998), various scholars recommend contrasting the grammatical structure particularities of Afiican American English with mainstream English as well as centering on phonemic and phonological awareness, concepts of print, letter and sound recognition, word recognition, and comprehension--the essentials of literacy instruction. Fogel and Ehri (2000) studied the writing of Afiican American English speakers in third and fourth grade. The students were given one of three treatments: exposure to the features of mainstream English in stories, exposure plus explanations of the rules of mainstream English, or both strategies with the added benefit of aid in transforming 49 writing from Afiican American English to mainstream English. Fogel and Ehri found that the last treatment was most effective in aiding the students to eventually write with mainstream English features. The technique was called Dialect Transformation Practice (Fogel & Ehri, 2000, p. 212). Heath described the practices of a second grade classroom in which students and teacher engaged together as “linguistic detectives.” (Heath, 1983, p. 327-3 34). The classroom participants listened to the speech varieties of various staff persons in the school as well as in the community, after which the teacher posed questions such as, “What sounds did you hear when _ talks” and “What did __ read?” As they continued their investigation, the children noticed differences in oral and written language as well as differences in the ways certain sounds were pronounced as deviations from what was advocated in the classroom phonics curriculum. As a result, the children developed a metalinguistic awareness as well as a vocabulary that included words like formal, informal, standard and dialect. They were also able to recognize sounds, endings, and styles of words in various discourses. Fourteen of the children performed at grade level on literacy tests, while eight performed above grade level, and two below grade level at the end of the year. It should be noted, however, that although the approach seemed to have a positive effect upon reading achievement, the awareness of dialect features related to knowledge of phonics was not studied. Teacher Carrie Secret (1998) builds metalinguistic awareness among her elementary students, but builds it by utilizing a contrastive analysis approach that encourages students to translate from Afiican American English to mainstream English or vice versa. The language and literacy practice in both of these classroom communities was engaging and full of intellectual 50 integrity, a necessity for developmentally appropriate curriculum. Remarking upon the tremendous awareness and ability that young children have in regard to the codes communities use, Delpit (2003) recommends that teachers build upon this resource, instructing students when to use each code. In accordance, some instructors deliberately teach code switching strategies. A curriculum in DeKalb County School in Georgia employs the contrastive analysis approach through the use of role play and through assessment of home and school speech, allowing students to give one another feedback on their own and others’ language practices (Harris-Wright, 1999). A high school teacher in Boston helps students recognize the different kinds of “Englishes” spoken in their communities, eventually comparing them to “formal English” and role playing situations where differing dialect use is appropriate (Baker, 2002). In both programs, therefore, dialect and context are interwoven. Also in regard to code switching strategies, while studying preschoolers’ use of Afiican American English and emergent literacy skills, Connor and Craig (2006) found that some of the children seemed to be dialect switching which is suggestive of metalinguistic awareness in young children. Also, Smitherman (2000) states that because code switching is often a more natural process for children from the middle class, lower- income children may need to be deliberately taught these strategies. An African American teacher who successfully taught mainstream English through using the Black rhetorical style was studied by Bohn (2003). This teacher included the call and response sequence so evident in Afiican American worship as well as the practices of signifying and code switching in her classroom while also modeling the grammar and pronunciation of mainstream English. In her study, Bohn attempted to 51 assist three other teachers in incorporating this style into their pedagogy, finding that the two teachers who believed in its efficacy could do so, while the one who did not accept its premise was unsuccessfirl in her attempts. Similarly, Foster (2001) studied a teacher who taught first and second grade in the San Francisco Bay area with successful literacy praxis, finding that this teacher similarly used Afiican American English discourse styles, such as rhythmic language play and the call and response style. Foster (1989) also studied an African American instructor in a northeastern community college who was highly successful with Black students by using African American English to both establish relationships with the students and to converse about course content. In short, Foster recommends teachers regard and incorporate some of the language as social practice in Afiican American communities into pedagogy, thus utilizing active participation in discourse, imagery in metaphor, and dramatic presentation styles. Although Meier (2008) advocates a strong phonological approach when teaching African American students to become bidialectical, she first urges teachers to attend to the rhetorical features of African American English mentioned previously as well as the episodic nature of storytelling. In addition, Meier contends that teachers of Afiican American children must learn about the unique grammatical features of Afiican American English. Cazden emphasizes the importance of discursive practices between Euro American teachers and Afiican American students as well as students present in classrooms which she defines as “a meeting of cultures” (Cazden, 2001, p. 156). She states that teachers must build upon the language resources children bring into the classroom in order for students to gain the communicative competence they need in order 52 to become fully participating members in speech communities that use the dominant discourse. Cazden also recommends that teachers deliberately teach code switching strategies. Some scholars (Labov, 2001, Dyson, 2003 ) recommend that teachers allow students to write hip hop lyrics, encourage students to write songs in other characteristically Afiican American styles, or draw from other popular literacies (such as comic books) to foster motivation and to be more culturally relevant. These scholars also advise teachers to call upon the strong oral tradition and prevalence of narrative in Afri can cultures in classroom practice. Always an advocate for African American children, Smitherman (2000) urges scholars and teachers to (a) advocate for the rights of African American children and for their communicative competence at the school, district, state and federal level; (b) learn and teach more about Black English so that Black students will feel more secure about its legitimacy, hopefully becoming more willing to learn another language; and (0) work to change the language policy in our country so that it is one of multilingualism in order to protect the interests of the Afiican American community and to prepare Afiican American youth for leadership positions in the world. Ineffective Strategies for Teachers In a study that Lewis (1980) conducted on whether or not informing teachers about the structural and functional characteristics of Afiican American English affected their attitudes toward it, a portion of Lewis’s research centered upon the analysis of classroom observations where teacher behaviors were categorized as either positive or negative. Lewis found that teacher communications were often confusing, either vague or 53 unsuitable for Afiican American English speakers who were trying to make sense of two different linguistic systems. For example, teachers often used language in these ways: “If you use two words that mean ‘no,’ you mean ‘yes,”’ or, “When you say, ‘he walk home last night,’ you mean last night is today,” (Lewis, 1980, p. 88). Deleterious effects from teachers’ use of correction are noted by several scholars, including Berdan (1980), mentioned previously. Allington (1980), Collins (1996), M011 et al. (1992), and Cazden (2001) have also demonstrated that correcting a child’s grammar is one of the least effective ways to teach the structure of a new linguistic system. In conclusion, the literature indicates that there are valuable and constructive ways to build upon linguistic systems from the home and nondominant cultures in order to facilitate acquisition of mainstream English. Of course, whether the current emphasis on standardization of literacy teaching advocated by policy makers and school administrators in preparation for standardized assessments would allow for creative approaches is a question of significance. Finally, ineffective strategies may be partially a result of teacher ideologies, attitudes, and expectations-«the literature which will be examined next. Ideological Tensions and Teacher Attitudes Regarding Afiican American English Ideological Tensions for Teachers It stands to reason that teacher attitudes are supported by the ideologies they embrace. Whether or not they are aware of it, teachers maintain ideologies around language-in-use both in and out of the classroom. For the purpose of this study, ideology shall represent beliefs, opinions and attitudes as well as the manifestations of them. 54 Although discussion of ideology around nondominant Discourses is prevalent in the literature, actual studies of teacher beliefs tend to center on attitude. As a result, the following discussion focuses primarily upon discussion of the various ideological tensions. It concludes with a consideration of a study. Some prevalent ideologies, especially those relating to dominant Discourse and the inferiority of nonstandard Discourses have already been regarded. Such ideologies foster a perception that those who speak Afiican American English suffer from deficiencies in cognition, lack of motivation and ability to think in an abstract manner (Baugh, 1999). Speicher and Bielanksi (2000) call such privileging of dominant discourses “ideological hegemony” (p. 156). Others may call it racism. The most troubling ideologies are those beset with racism. It is commonly recognized that one’s belief systems are influenced by primary discourses within the social systems of which one is a member. Belief systems are also profoundly affected by the media in a media-driven society such as the United States. Discussing the negative reactions to both landmark court cases on African American English, Smitherman attributes reactions to racist beliefs about educational and language needs of Afiican American people. Just as racism is fueled by the inequality of power between Whites and Blacks, it seems natural that racism’s powerful nature would enter the classroom. Smitherman declares that the insidious nature of racism has resulted in “deplorable pedagogy and way of thinking about language that has only added thousands of African American and other students of Color to the marginal underclass” (Smitherman,2000, p.162) 55 Another prevalent ideology, one that probably most of us espouse, is that speaking mainstream English will ensure success in American society. While increasing one’s communicative competence and speaking the dominant variety of language will undoubtedly help one through North American schools, many exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem variables weigh in to lessen chances for success for African Americans, especially those who are under-resourced in the United States. Speicher and Bielanksi (2000) note that race and class become obscure when discussions remain focused only upon the necessity to acquire standard English in order to attain social mobility (pp. 157- 159). Other teacher-held ideologies may not be quite so apparent. One erroneous belief often held by teachers is that everyone who speaks mainstream English speaks the same version of it. Another is that the mainstream English spoken by dominant Discoursers is the same as that which is written (Speicher & Bielanski, 2000, p. 152). Such perceptions may be belied by oral communications in the classroom, as will be evident in the present study, informal/nonstandard language spoken by teachers is often heard (e.g., “How ya doin’?” and “I’m gonna be right back ‘cuz I gotta go see what is goin’ on over on the other side of the classroom”). On the other hand, students are often held accountable to both speak and write in the standard variety (Speicher & Bielanski,2000, p. 152). Hearing such teacher-talk must be confusing for students, especially those who are auditory learners. Little research has been carried out on this phenomenon. Furthermore, teachers may believe that any linguistic system is a static entity, rather than always evolving. This belief applies to mainstream English as well as to the Afiican American form (Speicher & Bielanksi, 2000, p. 153). Teachers armed with the 56 knowledge that language expectations and practices change, are better equipped to prepare students for a multiple literacy society. Another common ideology that is held is that Afiican American English is only spoken by those in the lower and working classes, rather than being used by the middle and upper-classes as a choice (Smitherman, 2000). Middle-class Euro American professionals may behave in patronizing manners in regard to Afiican American students from lower socioeconomic statuses while favoring those students from higher classes. Calrill and Collard (2003) carried out action research with teachers of Australian Aboriginal students who spoke a nonstandard variety of English and lagged behind their mainstream peers on measures of educational achievement. The participants engaged in straight-forward discussions about issues of language, power, and pedagogy. Postulating that the students were actually achieving but that the teachers were unable to recognize and assess achievement, the researchers provided “more complete and compelling information to teachers about Aboriginal English and its link to culture, identity and power” (Cahill and Collard, 2003, p. 213), offering strategies for utilizing the students’ native language variety, including purposeful use of code switching strategies. Targets for literacy outcomes of students in the study exceeded expectations by 50% pre-test in1998 to post-test late in 1999. Clearly, teachers who are unaware of the complexities of language, including the ideology surrounding it, are at a disadvantage, as their students may be. Studies of teacher attitudes will be explored next. 57 Teacher Attitudes The issue of teacher attitudes continues to be a timely one because of the overall negative attitudes toward Afiican American English in our country that are likely to spill over into the classroom. Teachers should examine their beliefs, expectations, and attitudes prior to embarking upon language and literacy issues in the classroom; whether or not teachers do so is an excellent question. Hoover (1998) refers to Stanford University’s Program on Teaching and Linguistic Pluralism (1969-1980). The Stanford program studied hundreds of African American English speakers and over 100 teachers who had been trained in how to teach Afiican American English-speaking students. In the Handbook of Tests and Measurements for Black Populations (1996), it was reported that the students whose teachers had positive attitudes as well as training in how to effectively teach them achieved more than those whose teachers only had the training. In 1973, Taylor published a comprehensive study of the attitudes of 422 teachers toward nonstandardized dialects, taking into account geographical locations, race, gender, age, grade taught and teaching experience. Taylor’s survey demonstrated that teachers’ attitudes varied, depending upon which aspects of African American English or other nonstandard dialects were discussed (i.e., the structure and usefulness of nonstandard dialects, philosophies concerning their use and acceptance, and the intellectual abilities of the speakers). Overall, the majority of the teachers expressed positive to neutral opinions on Afiican American English other than its structure, but 40% were negative about the structure and use of Afiican American English. 58 Three years later, Stokes (1976) asserted that teacher and student attitudes toward mainstream English and Black English as well as their perceptions of each other’s attitudes must be assessed in order for Afiican American students to learn mainstream English. In her publication, Stokes stressed that Black English is a highly complex linguistic system and that Afiican American students regard their dialect as useful for their expressivity, unique identity needs, and their group and personal communication. Shortly after the Oaldand School Board decision, Blake and Cutler (1997) designed a survey, hoping that near the end of a century, teachers might be more sensitive to the issues surrounding the controversy. (Blake and Cutler also acknowledged that awareness of the resolution could influence the results of the study). Due to its nature, this study will be described in more detail than the other studies were. The goal of the research was to investigate the attitudes of teachers toward African American English in a large metropolitan area, home to linguistic diversity. The study sample consisted of 88 teachers at five public schools (all the teachers at the schools were invited to participate). The survey was comprised of 19 statements on language attitudes, for example, “Afiican American English is lazy English”; “African American English is subject to its own set of rules”; “Using African American English as a tool to teach subjects to Afiican American students would hurt their chances to learn Standard English”; and “African American students have language problems similar to those of students learning English as a second language” (Blake and Cutler, 1997, pp. 166-167). The respondents were offered choices from agree strongly to disagree strongly. 69% of respondents viewed African American English as a form of English. 55% viewed Afiican American English as having its own set of rules. 14% viewed it as a lazy form of English. It may be that teacher attitudes 59 toward African American English are becoming more positive. Blake and Cutler speculate that their results may indicate a correlation between teacher attitudes and the degree and/or nature of language arts programs and policies at the school level. Subsequently, Blake and Cutler examined the practices of the schools. Teacher attitudes seemed influenced by the philosophy of the schools in which they taught. For example, those who taught at a high school that was bilingual with a policy of respect for linguistic differences demonstrated more positive attitudes. The authors of the study assert that the culture of the school is probably responsible for teacher attitudes. The authors also noted that those teachers who do not work in schools with a large group of African Americans were more positive in their responses. 72% of the teachers felt that it was not appropriate to use Afiican American English as a tool for teaching mainstream English, while 55% felt African American English would be sufficient for teaching math or social studies. These studies suggest that teachers may be more open to the use of nonstandard language systems in teaching mainstream English than one would assume. On the other hand, there is a substantial body of literature on attitudes of teachers regarding those dialects that are stigmatized as well as findings of lower teacher expectations for those students who speak a nonstandard dialect and concomitant lower student achievement (Bowie & Bond, 1994; Godley, Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici, & Carpenter, 2006). Often, children who speak African American English are perceived as speaking a “lazy” form of English, one that is inferior and in need of correction, even though it is part of their familial and cultural habitus. According to Blake and Cutler (2003), Godley et al. (2006), and Perry and Delpit (1998), the research on attitudes toward language that has been carried out has shown that negative beliefs about language 60 issues are pervasive and resistant to change and that such a deficit view is incompatible with literacy success for young learners. If most teachers believe their duty is to uphold the proper dialect and eliminate those that compete with it, Cross, DeVaney and Jones (2001) propose that it is likely that students will feel that both their language and culture are dismissed. Boetang (1990) calls this bias in the United States “linguistic chauvinism,” stating that “considering the fact that language or dialect is the fundamental medium through which ethnicity is transmitted [Banks, 1981], children are deculturalized if no recognition is given to the existence of the home and community dialect they bring to school” (Boetang, 1990, p. 82). Smitherman asserts that, although Black English helps African Americans shape a unique identity, negative language experiences at school threaten the student’s sense of self within his/her community. In Talking and Testifying (1977), Smitherman offers implications for teacher practice, contending that individual teachers in their individual settings are the single most important factor in the educational process (Smitherman, 1977, p. 216). She goes on to say that What is needed to prevent further miseducation of black kids is a change in teacher attitude and behavior, a complete reordering thought about the educational process and the place of black students in that process. The belief sets, the philosophy, the world view, and the pedagogical ideology of the teacher are all intertwined and interrelated. Those ideas and underlying assumptions are revealed in the behavior and practice of the teacher in the classroom. (Smitherman, 1977, pp. 216-217) Finally, although many scholars recommend that teachers would become more respectful and effective through knowledge about the dialect (Labov, 1972; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Smitherman, 1977, 2000), one should be careful to assume such knowledge will transform practice. Meier (2008) stresses that although teachers must gain knowledge about African American culture and the linguistic system discussed in this 61 study, they also need to reflect on their own practice as well as the political and sociohistorical perspectives that profoundly influence practice. In addition, teachers must be willing to become involved in a generative process of transformation. Conclusion In chapter two, three bodies of literature were examined. First, research on Afiican American English speakers and literacy learning was examined. Although this body of literature is still in need of expansion, some scholars’ work suggests there is a correlation between acquisition of mainstream English and literacy learning. Second, literature on effective and ineffective strategies for teaching mainstream English were reviewed as were effective programs that have been developed to scaffold African American English speakers into mainstream English. Possibilities for classroom praxis are both practical and intriguing; features of Afiican American rhetorical strategies such as enthusiasm and storytelling should be part of early childhood practice as a whole. Finally, predominant teacher ideologies and attitudes toward African American English and its speakers were considered. Ignorance of African American English as a linguistic system, lack of knowledge about effective pedagogy, and deficit beliefs may stand in the way of effective proximal processes between teachers and students in the language and literacy practices of the classroom. 62 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This qualitative research study enabled exploration, description, and analysis of the nature of linguistic, actually, sociolinguistic practices in a mesosystem where the language of the home and the language of the school met. It employed modified grounded theory methodology and critical discourse analysis, offering a thick description of classroom experience (Carolan, personal communications, 2006, 2008, 2009; Creswell, 2003). Chapter three will offer a detailed description of research design, sample selection, data collection, and data analysis. The primary research interest of this study was: How do teachers who identify themselves as good teachers of diverse learners cross cultural borders to facilitate the acquisition of mainstream English during a literacy event with speakers of African American English? Sub questions were: 1. To what extent are the teachers wrestling with the ideological tensions around African American English and its use in the classroom? 2. How familiar are teachers with Afiican American English and its rhetorical components as a linguistic system? 3. Within proximal processes, how do teachers respond when African American speakers speak and write in African American English during the conferencing period of writer’s workshop? 4. How do teachers describe the way they address the dialectal differences in the classroom as a whole? (a) Do the teachers explicitly teach about the need to acquire mainstream English? (b) Are specific strategies, such as 63 code switching, taught to enable children to cross the borders between the nondominant and dominant dialect forms? 5. To what extent are the verbal repertoires, linguistic resources and literacy practices of African American English speaking students recognized by the teachers? In order to adequately explore these questions, a qualitative research design was used, including purposive’sarnpling, multiple observations of classroom discourse and an interview with each teacher. The data is presented as case studies in chapters four through six. I was the research instrument in the study, being mindful of the need to remain close to the data in order to attain theoretical sensitivity and to be constantly mindful of reflexivity (Carolan, personal communications, 2006, 2008, 2009; Richards, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). As I have been immersed in studying the area under observation for several years, I am familiar with the literature and the fi'uitfirl strategies suggested in it. Furthermore, as I have professional experience with the school district, I was able to draw upon this expertise and experience in my observations. On the other hand, I needed to remind myself to be cautious about early perceptions and ideations that I formulated and to remain grounded in the process of data collection. It was important to check out my hunches about possible personal and institutional racism with trusted mentors so as to not interpret behavior erroneously. In addition, as I began to develop categories of response and a confirmation of the importance of second language learning knowledge in relation to Afiican American English, I stayed close to the data, open to new possibilities. 64 I also needed to be mindful of reflexivity. As I began data collection, I was reading Kozol’s (2005) book The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. I was taken aback at witnessing first hand many of the features of urban schooling of which Kozol writes. During the summer of 2009, as I finished data analysis and writing, I was reading Haley’s (1974) book Roots. Both books heightened my awareness of the profound impact racism has had upon our country, the strong reaction I have to racism, and, my own participation in it. Sample Selection This study was conducted in order to fulfill the dissertation requirements of a Ph.D. at a large midwestem university. I reside in a mid-size city approximately 60 miles from the university, I hoped to carry out the research within my city’s public school district in the fall semester, 2008. Four urban first grade classrooms with a high percentage of low-income African American children were sought for the study. The chair of my doctoral committee suggested that the school district be contacted prior to filing the research application with the university’s institutional review board in order to ascertain the feasibility of carrying out research there. The assessment and evaluation specialist for the district, who also functions as the institutional reviewer for research conducted in the district, informed me that much research is carried out within the district and that, in all likelihood, the study would be approved. The study application was filed with the institutional review board in early May 2008. Several weeks after its submission, one of the reviewers asked me to contact each of the principals in the prospective schools where the study might take place. The purpose of this contact was to obtain consent for the possibility of carrying out research 65 in the first grade classrooms in their schools as well as for utilizing a passive parental consent process. The university also requested that each principal send an approval letter to the institutional review board. Only then would the study be approved. By the time the institutional review board responded to me with this directive, school had dismissed for the summer, 2008. I spent the summer attempting to contact principals in eight of the district’s schools. Multiple telephone and personal calls were made to principals who appeared to wait until the second week of August to return to work. In all likelihood, this consent process was partially delayed because the district was in a crisis: the teachers were working without contracts, several schools were closing down, and principal assignments were shifted from school to school (in one case, multiple times). Some principals were not sure of which schools they would be assigned. Others were unsure of who would be on their staff. These factors may have affected my opportunities to contact the principals. By mid-August, principals in six of the schools agreed to the possibility of my study being conducted in their school. During discussion with the principals, I emphasized that teacher participation needed to be strictly voluntary. By mid-September, approval letters from those principals were filed with the institutional review board and the study was approved. The assessment and evaluation specialist for the district also approved the study. I again contacted the principals to ask how they would prefer the teachers in their schools be approached. By late September, five principals gave me permission to contact teachers by phone, by email, or in person. One principal preferred to speak with her first grade teachers herself to see if they might be interested in participating in the study. With the institutional review board approval, invitation letters 66 were hand delivered to eight teachers, and the study was described to them in early October 2008. Of the eight, six agreed to meet to discuss the dissertation. In those meetings, I explained that there would be no way to guarantee participant anonymity. Although all of the teachers I spoke with described themselves as good teachers of diverse learners, three agreed to participate in the study. These teachers also sent home the passive parental consent forms with the Afiican American English speakers in their classrooms. I was given permission to seek verbal assent of every potential child participant, all African American English speakers. Each student gave verbal assent to allow me to both observe and record his/her participation in the writer’s workshop. As a result, 3 teachers and 44 first graders participated in the study. The teacher participant and consent form can be found in appendix (1 (p. 215), the passive parental consent form can be found in appendix e (p. 220) and the child assent script can be found in appendix f (p. 224). I gave the teachers a thank-you card and a $25 gift certificate to Schuler’s Books for participating in the study. They also received a thank you card and a small gift at Christmas. Data Collection All of the early childhood teachers in the school district have been trained in and is held accountable to use writer’s workshop--a literacy technique where students write as a meaningful part of the curriculum. In writer’s workshop for first graders, after receiving a mini-lesson on writing as well as a writing prompt from the teacher, each student writes his/her own thoughts or a story. When students have finished writing/illustrating on their 67 own, they confer with the teacher regarding the connection of their thoughts, the fluency in their writing, and the logical ordering of their stories. For example, the teacher may say, “Read to me what you wrote.” The student may reply, “I ” (in Afiican American English). And the teacher may respond with “ ” (helping the student rephrase the word or sentence into mainstream English). The study officially began on 7 November, 2008 (almost two months after the initial plan for a start date). I visited each of the classrooms in order to observe and audio record student-teacher interactions during the literacy event of the writer’s workshop conferences. In the writer’s workshop, each teacher-child conference is a few minutes in length. The interchanges between Afiican American English speaking students and teachers regarding the children’s written texts were observed and audiotaped. I gave close attention to the utterances spoken and written in Afiican American English by the children and the response(s) of the teacher to each utterance. I was mindful of whether or not the teacher addressed the dialectal differences, how the teacher addressed the dialectal differences, and whether or not the differences were used to teach mainstream English. For example, did the teacher ignore the dialectal differences? Rephrase utterances? Correct students? Encourage students to listen to differences? Address differences in narrative style? In addition, I carefully observed non-verbal behaviors (e.g., body language) and characteristics of speech delivery (e.g., intonations) that accompanied verbal expression and could be of interest. I observed and recorded proximal processes that centered not only on the grammar and function of both dialects but also on the pragrnatics of each. In addition, I noted issues surrounding narrative style 68 and topic-associative vs. topic-centered discourse (Gee, 1996). After the observations, I wrote theoretical memos in an effort to triangulate the methodology (Carolan, personal communications, 2006, 2008, 2009; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). At the end January 2009, I was confident that saturation had been reached in each classroom; at that point, I no longer saw or heard new information (Richards, pp. 135- 136). I had visited each classroom twelve times. As the classroom observations were complete, I invited each teacher to meet for lunch or dinner in a pleasant restaurant setting with small, private nooks well-suited for conversation. If the teacher preferred, she could be interviewed at school. Two teachers chose to go out for dinner; one chose to be interviewed on her lunch hour. The dinner interviews lasted for 3-4 hours; the lunch hour interview was completed in one hour. Although more information was gained in the longer interviews, I believe that the one hour interview yielded enough information to adequately represent the teacher’s perceptions and belief systems. Interview questions included: What are the demographics of the neighborhood in which your school is located, as well as the demographics of your school and your classroom? 1. What are your opinions/thoughts about Afiican American English? 2. What are your opinions/thoughts about children speaking Afiican American English in the classroom? 3. How much do you know about African American English? 4. How would you describe Afiican American English? 5. Is it necessary to explicitly address language issues in literacy teaching and learning? 69 6. What kind of language strengths do the African American children bring into your classroom? 7. What kind of literacy practices do the African American children bring into your classroom? 8. How do you usually address uses of Afiican American English in the classroom? 9. Does your school have a policy about African American English in the classroom? 10. What are the kinds of issues you struggle with around the use of Afiican American English in the classroom? 11. How do you build upon the language the child brings from home? 12. Is there a connection between Afiican American English and a child’s identity? 13. What are the kinds of issues you struggle with around the use of Afiican American English in the classroom? 14. How do you develop relationships with the children in your classroom (an important facet of proximal processes)? 15. How have policies stemming from the No Child Left Behind legislation affected your classroom literacy practices (this question emerged from the research process)? 16. How do you incorporate culture into the classroom? Other questions proceeded from following the lead of the interviewee. (For a complete list of interview questions, see appendix b (p.210). 1 completed the data collection on 9 February, 2009. Methods and Techniques for Analyzing and Interpreting Data This study employed both modified grounded theory methodology and critical discourse analysis methods. The grounded theory methodology was guided by the 70 research sub questions and utilized for coding and analysis of the classroom observations which will be considered first. Analysis of Classroom Observations Grounded theory methods utilize open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and a constant comparative methodology (LaRossa, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In this study, strategies the teachers used informed the coding process; thus, it is best to describe the first coding process as deductive rather than as open coding. After I observed each literacy event, I memoed my thoughts on the strategies teachers used as well as the themes and issues that seemed to arise during the observed session. The student/teacher exchanges during the writer’s workshop were then carefully transcribed. Research participants reviewed the transcripts for accuracy. No changes were necessary. I searched the transcripts for utterances spoken in Afiican American English by children and responses of the teachers to these utterances to discover whether the teachers addressed the dialectal differences, how they addressed the dialectal differences, and whether or not the differences were used to teach mainstream English. For example, did the teachers rephrase utterances? Correct students? Encourage students to listen to differences? I also wanted to identify other strategies teachers used to scaffold the African American English speakers into mainstream English. For example, did the teachers encourage students'to play with language? In qualitative research, open coding or deductive coding enables the researcher to break down, investigate, conceptualize, compare, and categorize data. In order to begin this process, I developed a strategy table for each teacher as well as a code book for the study. Working with one set of classroom data at a time, I searched for each Afiican 71 American English child utterance and its teacher response. I entered each utterance and response into the strategy table and developed representative codes. For example, for the student utterance, “I’s just doin’ de back, ” and the teacher response, “OK, let’s see,” I developed the following codes: Itb: teacher ignores the “to be” form IOfinC: teacher ignores omitted final consonant IthR: teacher ignores “th” replacement SW: teacher scaffolds writing In addition, because of their high frequency in the recordings, I also entered nonstandard teacher responses to mainstream student utterances into the strategy table. As I worked with each set of data, I developed additional codes and refined existing codes. And as the coding process unfolded, I became more accurate in identifying strategies, often needing to change existing codes. The open coding process was an arduous and iterative procedure yielding an abundance of codes. I analyzed and compared in a constant comparison method the ways the teachers and students participated in literacy discussion using linguistic features of both Afiican American English and mainstream English across the three classrooms. In the end, after much revision and editing, I developed 135 codes, each a specific response to a student utterance. Although this is a qualitative study, its very nature lent itself to some simple quantitative analysis. I entered codes into an Excel spreadsheet and created six columns: two columns for each set of classroom data, one column for responses to Afi'ican American English utterances and another for the nonstandard responses teachers gave to 72 standard utterances. I calculated the frequencies of each code for the teachers and inserted the frequencies into the columns. After laboring for many weeks on the coding process, I found that working with the number and diversity of codes had kept me very close to the data, but I struggled to maintain a larger view of the data picture at the same time. I had developed some working hypotheses for the teachers but was very curious to see how the numbers totaled in terms of frequency of strategies. The next step in grounded theory methodology is to engage in axial coding where connections are made between categories by integrating the data together. First, I calculated the frequencies of each teacher response across the three classrooms. I deleted total frequencies of 0 - 2 from the code list unless I deemed the fi'equencies significant to first grade mainstream English learning based upon my study of the subject. I deleted other codes, such as FOPu (focus on punctuation), for the purpose of this study. In addition, I collapsed very similar codes into one code. For example, I combined FOH (focus on hearing) and F OS (focus on sound). I decreased the code list to 125 codes. Most of the codes naturally fell into these major categories or axial codes: (a) codes that indicated the teacher addressed nonstandard elements, African American English, in particular; (b) codes that indicated the teacher rephrased a child’s utterance in mainstream English; (0) codes that indicated the teacher ignored nonstandard elements and African American English, in particular; (d) codes that featured elements important to Afiican American English communicative style; (6) codes deemed important for early childhood language/literacy teaching in general; and, (f) other codes that did not fit into a specific category 73 The next step in classroom observation analysis was to calculate the totals of each teacher’s responses within the axial codes. This process enabled me to see which category of responses were most prevalent for each teacher and to compare their styles of response. Thematic Analysis of Teacher Interviews When analysis of classroom observations was completed, I began the work on teacher interviews. With teacher permission, I had audio recorded the interviews and had carefully transcribed them. I emailed the interview transcriptions to the research participants to review for accuracy and, if necessary, revision. No revisions were required. This process helped ensure trustworthiness, the qualitative term commonly used to indicate validity and reliability of the data. Employing a modified grounded theory approach once again, I utilized selective coding to begin analysis on the interviews. I identified several pertinent themes and subthemes in the research and coded the interviews using these themes: (a) ideologies around language and literacy practices, (b) understanding of Afiican American English, (c) pedagogy with Afiican American English speakers, ((1) culturally responsive pedagogy with Afiican American students, in general, (e) prevalent early childhood themes, and (f) the impact of No Child Left Behind legislation on classroom practice. Naturally, relationships between categories both within and across cases and across the classroom observation data became evident, yielding a more accurate picture of the dynamics that played into the linguistic mesosystems. Each of the teachers had distinctive belief systems, knowledge bases, and experiences with language and literacy practice with their Afiican American English speakers. 74 I found that, as Strauss and Corbin (1990) indicate, data collection and analysis are “tightly interwoven processes” (p. 5 9), for many weeks of the coding process yielded hunches, hypotheses, and discoveries as well as fostering additional inquiry. Critical Discourse Analysis on Observational Data and Interviews Critical discourse analysis is an approach to studying discourse, viewmg language as a social practice, describing and interpreting issues of language and society, and explaining how and why discourses operate (Rogers, 2004, p. 5). Critical discourse analysis was the third analysis carried out for the study; it was applied to both the observational and the interview data. Recognizing that spoken words, rather than being neutral, have deeper, underlying meanings, critical discourse analysis locates linguistic elements within sociohistorical contexts (Fiske, 1994; McGregor, 2003). Belief systems and knowledge, social relations, the power one does or does not hold, indeed, even identities, are influenced and restricted by the language systems and words one possess as part of one’s cultural membership (Luke, 1997; McGregor, 2003). ‘ The goal of critical discourse analysis is to investigate both the form and the function of language, to seek an understanding of why one Discourse may be privileged over another. Through the analysis, both spoken and written words are examined to expose how bias, inequality and power are instigated, sustained, replicated, and altered within particular contexts (Van Dijk, 1988). As dominant Discourses tend to marginalize those who are oppressed, voices and Discourses as well as the hidden agendas of those in power are examined for the way they sustain authority and overpower others, silencing voices (Henry & Tator, 2002). Critical discourse analysts hope not only to understand 75 social problems revealed through Discourse but also to work for social and political action, giving voice to the oppressed (Rogers, 2004). A proponent of critical discourse analysis often “openly professes strong commitments to change, empowerment, and practice-orientedness” (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000, p. 449). Critical discourse analysis is regularly employed to explore dominant Discourses and their hidden ideologies in politics, media, communities, and schools, examining words, connotations, and tone as individuals become positioned in particular ways in social and political hierarchies (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Luke, 1997). Many critical discourse analysts view schools as gatekeepers of discursive recourse allocation, questioning how dominant ideology may create inequities in education and access to the very discourses students need to acquire (Luke, 1997). Recognizing that every field is represented by a Discourse that represents its ideologies, in critical discourse analysis, one pays attention to what participants both say and do.“Starting with the full text, working down to the individual word level, one can peel back the layers to reveal the truth behind the regime--the profoundly insidious, invisible power of the written and spoken wor ” (McGregor, 2003, 11 11). In the process of analyzing discourse, one first considers the text (written or spoken) as a whole and in an uncritical manner. The text is then regarded with a critical view that involves revisiting the material, asking questions about it, contrasting it with similar texts and recognizing its genre or variety. Features are analyzed for whether they are brought to the forefiont (commonly called foregrounded) or positioned in the background (commonly called backgrounded) of the text. Cues to power relations and agency are offered in the foregrounding or backgrounding of text, as are the way 76 sentences are structured and words and their connotations are chosen. The critical discourse analyst examines textual tone (e.g., words of authority that seem to ring of truth) and register (language used for communication with a set of people or appropriate for particular social situations). An illustration may be useful for understanding critical discourse analysis. Politicians frequently code-switch to a common vernacular in order to align themselves with citizens. For example, rather than speaking as a Yale and Harvard graduate who grew up with privileged status, President G. Bush often used common vernacular and a folksy register in his speeches. For example, “a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it” (Ross, 2001, the Associated Press). In spite of the informal vernacular in this sentence, the words, “there’s no question about it” seems to establish Bush’s authority and his words as truth. President G. Bush displayed his position of authority in other utterances. For example, in his 2004 re-election campaign against John Kerry, Bush asserted that “if America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch.” (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/24/content_308774.htrn). As also demonstrated in Bush’s words, register is often conveyed through the choice of either first person (1, me, my, we, our), second person (you, your) and third person (he, she, they, their, hers, his, him, her). Using first person can connote greater objectivity, while third person may connote lesser agency or legitimacy. Finally, moods of authority and deference are conveyed through verb choices, norninalizations (transforming verbs into nouns), and modal phrases (phrases indicating that a verb is coming in a sentence or altering the verb form or meaning). (McGregor, 2003). For example, a teacher talking 77 about her African American English speakers may say, “They should know it isn’t OK. to talk that way in my classroom.” In this sentence, the modal is the word should. Because the work of critical discourse analysis addresses the overlap between social structure and language, it is often used to explore racism and educational issues. It is particularly suitable for the analysis of literacy social practices as described by the new literacy studies, for “issues of power asymmetries, exploitation, manipulation, and structural inequalities” can be foregrounded here (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000, p. 447- 466) Critical discourse analysis is appropriate for the analysis of data in this study. My analysis examined teacher beliefs and attitudes toward the use of African American English and the African American English speakers in the classrooms. The critical discourse analysis revealed to what extent the teachers were willing to recognize that use of mainstream English is part and parcel of dominant ideological Discourses in the United States, that building upon the primary Discourse of the students is important, and that wrestling with ideological tensions around language is a necessary process in which to engage. As the data analysis unfolded in the study, critical discourse analysis was naturally employed and will be presented with the data in chapters four through six.. It must be noted that in this study, critical discourse analysis is presented in all . lower case letters representing a number of approaches in the field. Fairclough’s specific approach is associated with the acronym CDA by Gee and others (Gee, 2004 p. 20). Presentation of the Data Although I did not set out to undertake case study research, the data for this study is presented in three case studies, one for each teacher. Because the ways with words in 78 each mesosystem were distinct, the data seems to best lend itself to presentation in case studies. It was natural to compare and contrast the proximal processes between each teacher and her students in the phenomenon of classroom discourse. Teacher presence and voice, the errric perspective, were foregrounded in the interviews. The styles of each teacher, the strategies that were used, and teacher belief systems supporting the strategies were distinctive, compelling me to engage in deeper and more critical reflection on the research journey toward written presentation of the case studies (Richards, 2005, p. 172). On the other hand, the dynamics of student family systems of sirrrilar socioeconomic status; the cultural mores, norms and ways with words of the children in the study; the similar characteristics of urban schools, infused with current academic frenzy around standardized curriculum and assessment, and fueled by the No Child Left Behind legislation created commonalities among the cases. Thus, the case studies in chapters four through six provide rich illustrations and thick descriptions of the discoveries made in response to the research sub questions, pertaining not only to the linguistic mesosystem between teacher and child but also to the microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem influences impacting classroom life. Trustworthiness of the Research The term trustworthiness refers to both reliability and validity in qualitative research. (Carolan, personal communications, 2006, 2008, 2009; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). As I worked over the course of a year, I thoughtfully considered how to work toward trustworthiness in my dissertation work. The concept of researcher as "detective" (Johnson, 1997, p. 286) has been particularly useful in thinking about this research. Johnson uses the term detective to 79 describe how the qualitative researcher establishes validity by carefully looking for causes and effects, systematically rejecting those that do not fit the research problem. Using the term more broadly, I watched for opportunities taken and opportunities missed to build upon the home language. Furthermore, contemplation was given to how and why both students and teachers expressed themselves the way they did. Patterns were identified within and across cases. Student/teacher interactions were carefully observed in order to assess the strength of relationships, an important variable in proximal proCesses during the early childhood years. Most importantly, after months of reflection and analysis, I reached a thorough understanding of the data. For the purpose of this project, the extent of the field work and its copious documentation was one step toward ensuring trustworthiness. I completed 36 classroom observations; I was confident that I had reached saturation regarding the ways each teacher worked through proximal processes to address dialect differences in the writer’s workshop conferences with Afiican American English speakers. I incorporated triangulation (Carolan, 2006, 2008,2009; Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003; Richards, 2005) through close observation of the three classrooms as well as through semi structured interviews with each teacher that addressed not only the observed strategies but also teacher beliefs and ideologies about first grade Afiican American English speakers and difficulties the teachers face working within the school system. I audiorecorded the observations as well as the interviews. I wrote theoretical memos after reflection on each observation and interview, while reviewmg the audiotapes and the transcripts, and during the literature review. In addition, each teacher confirmed the validity of the 80 transcriptions. I consulted with the chairs of my committee and trusted peers and colleagues during the entire process. I kept a log, or audit trail (Carolan, personal communications, 2006, 2008, 2009; Richards, 2005) from the inception of this project. The log trail consists of careful documentation, a record of the history of the data collection process including notes on the setting and inquiries, reflections and interpretive hunches in memos that led to implications, hypotheses, theories, and analysis of the data. In addition, writing memos enabled me to attain some distance from the data, fostering metacognition about it (although, admittedly, it was difficult to maintain distance during utterance coding and analysis). These measures ensured the validity and reliability of the research. In the log trail, it was integral to remain attentive to any flaws in the research process, open and honest in the examination of any assumptions or claims made, and amenable to alternative explanations to those I considered. The log trail demonstrates how I reached the best-fitting conclusions. In order to work towards validity, I was honest about the dynamic nature of classroom discourse and attuned to the possibility of changing conditions in the classroom. In writing, it was imperative to remain very close to the verbatim text (spoken and written words of those in the sample); this provided a thick description of the proximal processes that took place between students and teachers. (Carolan, personal communications, 2006, 2008, 2009). The thick description facilitated external validity, often seen as a weakness in qualitative research (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Discovered patterns were validated through examination of the data. Committee chairs and trusted 81 colleagues experienced in qualitative research, discussed my impressions and reflections with me. In order to work towards reliability, raw data was relied upon and impressions were recorded in the theoretical memos as soon as possible after each observation. I completed transcriptions as soon as possible after the observations; I then carefully read the transcripts while the audio recording played. In addition, consistent coding and careful organization of categories assisted in assurance of reliability (Richards, 2005). Summary This study examined the proximal processes between three first grade teachers and their Afiican American English speaking students during the literacy event of the writing workshop conference. In particular, I observed and recorded the utterances spoken and written in African American English by the children and the response(s) of the teacher to each utterance. In addition, I interviewed the teachers about their knowledge and ideologies on the use of African American English, the strategies that enable the children to learn mainstream English, and the district (actually nation-wide) decisions that impact classroom discourse and learning. I analyzed the data through grounded theory methodology and critical discourse analysis. I sought differences and similarities within and across cases. As distinctive differences across cases emerged from the data, the data will be presented in chapters four through six in case studies. Overall, this analysis provided valuable information on classroom discourse involving dialect and mainstream English learning and a critical perspective on teacher beliefs about the community practices with which children enter school as well as ideological issues around the use of Afiican American English in school. 82 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS: MAIAH AND HER AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS The findings of this study are presented as three case studies, one case study each in chapters four, five and six. . As teacher ideologies and practice regarding the use of Afiican American English in the three classrooms presented a range of belief systems that affect classroom practice, the findings lent themselves well to presentation in individual case studies. Chapter four includes a description of the school district in which the study was located and the findings from both observations in Maiah’s classroom and her interview. In addition to information gained in response to the research subquestions, three emergent themes under the heading of emergent themes for African American learners are discussed in each chapter Within the case studies, descriptions of each school, classroom teacher and proximal processes as relationships with children as well as the findings of classroom observations and interviews are included. Results fiom teacher interviews address research subquestions one, two, four, and five. The findings of classroom observations address research subquestions two and three. Critical discourse analysis will be included in the chapters and presented in their summaries. Overview of the School District — An Exosystem The school system in this study is located in a mid-size midwestem city. Approximately 20,000 students attend the schools and almost 83% are deemed economically disadvantaged. Many middle- and upper-class children in the city, having left the city’s public school district, attend charter or parochial schools in outlying 83 districts, charter or parochial schools. Some, however, attend the district’s magnet or specialty schools (to be discussed below). Of the approximately 20,000 students in the district, roughly 20% are White, 40% are Black, 30% are Hispanic, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% are American Indian/Alaska Native, and 10 % are Multi-racial. Approximately 40% of the district’s teachers hold a bachelor’s degree and 60% have a master’s degree. There is an average of approximately 16 students per teacher in the district. Advertising its large number of comprehensive programs to meet the individual needs of unique children, the district has 30 elementary schools, 16 middle schools, 5 high schools (one of which is described as the highest performing high school in the region) and 5 alternative schools. School choices include a rmiversity preparation program, a leadership academy, a creative arts school, a math and science technology program, and a global arts school. 15 of the schools offer special education and several schools are nested within juvenile justice facilities. 11 schools are either new or renovated with new technology and educational design deemed beneficial to achievement and for instruction. A flyer for the district states that it is a “model” urban school district; 35 schools are now meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress Goal required by the No Child Left Behind legislation. The district-wide proficiency score average for reading is approximately 60 % and the proficiency score for math is almost 50%. The district’s curricular focus in the past few years has been primarily on language arts in order to improve the reading and writing scores. 84 In each of the schools, literacy rubric levels are posted in the hallways, flanked by student work representative of the levels. The rubrics help ensure uniformity in language arts curricula coverage to make certain that all teachers are preparing their students for standardized tests. Teachers have some latitude on when to present material based on the needs of their children, although each classroom must cover essentially the same material. Unfortunately, as is common across the country, the rubric levels and the state standards are developmentally inappropriate; kindergarteners are attempting to learn what used to be taught in first grade. Young students, even the kindergarteners, need to learn which level of the literacy rubric their writing represents as well as how they need to improve to get to the next level. Children are coached to describe these levels in preparation for “district walk throughs,” where administrators, curriculum directors, specialists and team teachers visit each classroom and afterwards discuss the practice within it with the teacher and her principal. At the present time, the district is collecting a great amount of data on assessment of student learning. Several times during the data collection, classroom observations were re-scheduled because a district-wide writing prompt or another assessment was scheduled for that day. The teachers provide data reports on a curious schedule they do not understand. For example, similar data reports were sometimes scheduled three weeks apart and sometimes scheduled three months apart. As noted in chapter three, while I was seeking approval for the study, recruiting research participants and carrying out data collection, the district was in a crisis. Common to urban schools, a financial crisis loomed. Some schools were in danger of 85 closing. The teachers had worked without a contract for a year and there was talk of an impending teacher strike. (The strike did not occur and the teachers worked for a second year without a contract.) Principals were transferred from school to school; some did not know until the end of summer who their staff would be. District administration was not highly favored by the teachers. Part of the present disfavor stems from district administrators and cuniculum directors directing teachers not only what to teach, but also how to teach. According to the teachers, most prevalent is the view that young children should be doing more seatwork (i.e. worksheets). One of the participants told me she was criticized in the Fall, 2009 for allowing students in her classroom to work in groups; she was told that children are supposed to listen, not talk in school. Interestingly, six months later, she was instructed to allow more talking in her classroom. Each school building in the study appears very different on the facade and each is labeled as offering a special kind of program. In spite of these differences, however, there are consistencies across the schools. Each school serves a primarily low-income constituency while the teachers in each school are primarily middle class, Euro American and female. Hallways in the schools are peppered with posters that encourage doing one’s best and how to exhibit model behaviors. Kozol (2005) writes that this feature is common in lower-income urban schools. The teachers in the study stated that although they have attended many in-service trainings on literacy the past few years, they have not had any training on cultural competency and none on African American English. 86 As a final relevant note, three years prior to carrying out the present study, I conducted a mini-study about use of African American English in the classroom at one of the schools in the district (not a school in the study). That school held a policy of “No Afiican American English (called “Ebonics” or “slang” by administration, teachers, students and parents) spoken here.” I was curious to discover whether any of the schools in the study might have a similar policy. Maiah and her African American English Speakers I don’t know what strengths they bring. They haven’t been exposed to that much. Douglas Elementary School as a Microsystem Maiah teaches first grade at Douglas Elementary School. Located in an inner city neighborhood, Douglas was previously the home of an old, decrepit building, administered by a well-known and loved Afiican American principal who was highly respected for her leadership capabilities and ability to target achievement goals with low- income Afiican American students. The old building was torn down and recently re-built as a nearly $11 million state-of-the art facility, described as a triumph for the community that surrounds it. The history and the physical revitalization of the school in recent years have enabled it to gain notoriety. The school is located in a renaissance zone where kitchy stores and restaurants continually spring up. Interestingly, while the businesses are trying to recapture the charm of the antiquated neighborhood in their facades and interiors, the school was constructed in a very modern and shiny architectural style which towers over and seems out of place with the surrounding area. 87 The neighborhood around Douglas is inhabited by mostly lower-income Afiican Americans who rent their homes. While new businesses are starting to move into the area, their owners appear to live in different parts of the city. The area surrounding the school is considered a high crime area; however, the school is across the street from a vibrant Afiican American church. Douglas is a Reading First School. According to the US Department of Education, the Reading First program was created to serve students from Kindergarten through Grade 3 who live below the poverty line (United States Department of Education). Reading First schools are advertised as offering scientifically-based and researched reading instruction and assessment. Douglas school’s website states that its mission is to foster students becoming educated, compassionate, self directed, productive and contributing members of society. It serves Pre-K through Grade 8 students. Approximately 80% of the students are Black; 8% are Hispanic, 7% are Multi-racial, 5% are White, and 1% is American Indian. 96% of the students are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Most of the children who attend Douglas come from the neighborhood, but some are bused fiom other neighborhoods. Maiah thinks the beautiful building is a draw to citizens. Recruitment Maiah is a Euro American first grade teacher. She has a bachelor of science degree in elementary education and an early childhood endorsement. She also attained a master’s degree in teaching and curriculum a few years ago. She has taught in the district for 10 years, serving in all high—need schools. She job—shares with a partner and works either two or three days per week. Maiah and one of the other first grade teachers set up 88 an appointment to meet together with me. Maiah’s teaching partner also set up an appointment to meet with me. Maiah has long blond hair and was comfortably attired when we met for our appointment to discuss the study. As a potential research participant, Maiah was appealing to me; she was easy to talk to and seemed interested in the study. When asked if there were Afiican American English speakers in her classroom, Maiah smiled and replied, “Oh, yeah!” She stated that her present classroom had not yet begun using writer’s workshop conferences, but needed to do so very soon. Maiah indicated a willingness to consider being part of the study. After meeting with me, both her teaching partner and the principal of the school had spoken with her about their beliefs that little Afiican American English was spoken at Douglas. Nonetheless, all three supported the research being conducted there and Maiah agreed to be part of this study as did 21 Afiican American children in her classroom. Maiah ’s Classroom as a Microsystem Maiah’s classroom at Douglas is painted in soothing tones of butter yellow and slate blue. All the equipment is relatively new and adequate storage space is evident in the room. Maiah’s classroom has an Elmo visual presenter (commonly called an Elmo) on which teachers project writing or books onto a screen or whiteboard. Computers for student use look quite new. The classroom is well- organized with tables and chairs for the children (mostly clustered in groups of 4) in the middle of the classroom space, a kidney-shaped table at one side where a teacher can work with a small group, a group area in the back, a whiteboard space in the front, and a teacher’s desk at the side. On the walls are writing 89 samples from the children (usually correlated with the season of the year or a holiday), and many sight words'the children may know or use in their writing. Although the district states that the student teacher ratio at Douglas is 14:1, there are 27 first graders in Maiah’s classroom. Some of the children there have never been to preschool or kindergarten and so this is their first formal educational experience. Interview Setting As Maiah has young children at home and her husband works in the evenings, she chose to meet for our interview during her lunch hour. Maiah scheduled the use of someone’s office for us to meet in. Because I couldn’t take her to out for lunch or dinner, I brought her a hot chocolate and a scone from a popular, local bakery. During the interview, Maiah was amiable, seeming ready to answer my questions and stating that she couldn’t imagine how much work a dissertation must be. Maiah ’5 Teacher Presence and Teacher Voice Tenor Maiah seems to have a serious teacher presence. Her voice remained even-toned, especially in the classroom observations I conducted prior to Christmas. For the most part, I heard Maiah raise the volume of her voice only when she spoke to the group at large in order to ask them to become re-engaged with their work or to work in silence. After Christmas, Maiah demonstrated some enthusiasm and voice modulation; perhaps she was tired prior to the break and refreshed afterwards 90 Maiah ’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. I) As stated in Chapter One, dominant language issues are replete with ideology. Each of the teachers were asked to give their thoughts and opinions, their ideology, about African American English. When I asked Maiah, she replied, I don’t have an opinion about it. When I hear adults speaking African American English, to me, and I don’t want to dumb it down and say they don’t sound intellectual, but I think sometimes they don’t. And I hope I’m not sounding racist or anything like that. I just think we need to speak clearly for people to understand us. Similar to the prevailing ideology in our country that in order to be successful in our country, one must speak mainstream English, Maiah believes that children must learn the dominant language variety. “If it’s going to affect them in their future to be successful ...as a professional. . .they’re only seven now, but we need to start changing it now. So I think the sooner we change it, the better for them.” When asked if Douglas school has a policy around the use of African American English in the classroom, Maiah answered “No, but I don’t know if anyone realizes that it might be an issue.” The intimate relationship between dialect and identity was discussed in chapters one and two. Ladson-Billings recommends that culturally relevant teachers help “students make connections between their community, national, and global identities” (Ladson- Billings, 1994, p. 34). Maiah does not perceive dialect as related to the identity of her young Afiican American English speakers: “Not for younger kids — it’s just what they hear at home . . . maybe that’s [the identity connection] true for adults. “ Maiah indicated she was not wrestling with any ideological tensions around the use of Afiican American English in her classroom. This issue will be explored under the heading of critical discourse analysis. 91 Maiah ’s Familiarity with African American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) I inquired about Maiah’s knowledge of Afiican American English as a commrmicative system. Maiah said that she did not know much: “I have never researched it or looked into it, (I know about it) just from working here.” Describing the dialect, Maiah stated that “If I could use just one word to describe it, it would be ‘choppy’ or ‘unclear.’ And that’s very general. I don’t want to say everybody is unclear, but. . .it’s almost mumbled with some of the kids’ talk.” When asked for an example of what she meant by “choppy,” she answered, “Not talking in complete sentences. Leaving off ‘He done this,’ or ‘He doin’ that’. . . not talking clearly.” Maiah was unaware of call and response as a communicative strategy; she referred to her African American English speakers as “blurters.” Asked if children answer questions in a way that surprised her, she spoke of how her own children answer questions with a complete thought, but that the children in her classroom give shorter and one word answers. I was curious to know whether Maiah noticed if the African American English speakers in her classroom tell stories in a different way. She stated that “sometimes their sentences just go on and on. They have one big thought and it goes on forever.” She also spoke about children interrupting each other to talk, but when asked if the children built upon each other’s stories, Maiah thought and then said that “Yes, they. do.” She was, however, unable to give any examples of such storytelling. Maiah was informative when I asked her about children confusing prepositions in their speech, calling that “a first grade thing.” And when I asked about the tendency I had observed where children switched between “t,” “d” and “th” as beginning sounds in a 92 word, she stated that it was difficult to know whether that tendency was indicative of age or culture. Maiah ’s Responses to African American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) Maiah acknowledged that she and Jill may actually not hear much of the Afiican American English in their classroom: “We nright just be too used to it.” Regarding how she addresses children speaking and writing in the dialect, she expressed that: “If they phrase something, leave out the verb or use a different tense, we just try to correct them. Maiah stated that she mostly corrects use of pronouns, verb tenses and sayings like, “I’ve got to use it” (a phrase for using the bathroom). Although Maiah believes she corrects student language errors, only one of her responses was representative of the definition I gave the word correction: “when the teacher informs. a student that his/her utterance is incorrect and offers a word/phrase as a replacement” (see conceptual definitions on p. 34). Maiah also indicated that, “Sometimes I ask them to tell me again or to tell me differently.” Asked how she decides what to do when, Maiah replied that it depended on the situation and that she doesn’t like to “call them (students) out in front of other kids.” Selective coding of classroom observations suggested that Maiah primarily ignored the utterances phrased in nonstandard English (f= 71). She ignored the omission of a word’s final consonant on 18 occasions, the replacement of the sounds “d” or “t” for the “th” sound on 9 occasions, and the incorrect verb tense on 9 occasions. The second prevalent category for Maiah’s responses was the rephrasing category (f= 25); Maiah primarily rephrased words with their final consonant (f=14). It is 93 interesting, however, that she only rephrased an utterance with subj ect/verb agreement 4 u 3: S times and re-phrased with the plural once. She never rephrased the verb tense or word choice. Maiah, however, repeated a child’s utterance back to him or her 6 times, an important tool for language learning in general. When Maiah focused upon particular Afiican American English elements with her young learners, her most prevalent strategy was to have the children focus on sound (f=19), often inquiring about the writing: “Does that sound right?” Also, of particular interest in this category is that there were no instances of Maiah deliberately teaching about the omission of final consonants, word choice, use of “to be” forms (copula), pronunciation of the “th” sound or use of slang or word combinations like “gotta” or “gonna.” 4 instances were recorded when Maiah questioned students about the final sounds of words or verb tense or use. According to my recordings, Maiah encouraged her students 8 times throughout the observations. On one occasion she said, “Well, you can try! You’re a good artist.” Another time she said, “I can’t wait to hear about that;” I could hear no expression in Maiah’s voice when she made that statement. In terms of praise, the word “great” was recorded 24 times. E.g.,“Great! That’s a great sentence! ‘Thank you for teaching me about clouds.’ Write that down.” She also uttered, “Good job” on numerous occasions. As noted above, vocal expression often did not support semantics in the utterances. Slang or slang/word combinations were recorded 6 times in response to nonstandard utterances and a total of 30 in response to standard utterances. E.g.,” How you gonna start it?” “What’ya do?” In addition, Maiah omitted the final consonants of 94 words and use of the “to be” form 16 times. E.g., “How ya doin’?” “I’m lookin’ to see who’s working.” In terms of using rhetorical elements important to the Afiican American communicative style and deemed highly usefirl pedagogy for Black students who need to acquire the dominant discourse, no instances were recorded on use of colorful, musical and/or passionate speech; African American English word choices or African American expressions. However, I heard Maiah tell two stories about her own experiences and the children seemed to enjoy those. While Maiah worked with her students, she also kept up a rigorous pace of documentation for district data collection. I marveled at her capacity to simultaneously listen, talk and record student progress. Maiah ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Diflerences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) Maiah believes that it is important to address language issues in literacy learning, alluding to her belief that children’s use of the nonstandard dialect needs to be changed early. She states that she primarily focuses upon what she views as “correction” of pronouns, verb tenses, and Afiican American English phrases. It does not appear that she explicitly teaches about the need to acquire mainstream English. Nor does she teach specific strategies such as code switching to enable children to cross cultural borders. Maiah also does not believe that the children are yet able to code switch on their own. When asked if she struggles with issues relative to the use of African American English in the classroom, Maiah stated that the biggest struggle she faces is in writing, because “they write what they say and we have to correct them.” 95 The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) I asked Maiah about the language strengths the African American children bring in to her classroom. She replied: “I don’t know what strengths they bring. They haven’t been exposed to that much. . .well, sometimes they’ve been exposed to inappropriate language.” Then, softening her previous statement, she went on to say that some children are able to communicate clearly and that “a lot of them just need help finding that big word or the other meaning to a word.” In terms of building upon the home language, Maiah stated that if the language is appropriate, she builds upon and reinforces it. When asked about literacy practices the children bring into the classroom, Maiah said she believes that most of their literacy comes from looking at books or watching television and not necessarily from being read to at home. Emergent-Themes for Afiican American Learners. The Importance of Relationships for African American Students: Beliefs and Evidence of Maiah ’3 Relationships with Students as Proximal Processes According to Ladson-Billings, culturally relevant teachers have high expectations and extend warmth and relationship to their students (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 25). During the interview, I asked Maiah: “What do you believe about student/teacher relationships?” and, “How do you build relationships with your students?” Maiah stated she tries to be very nurturing with the children because “a lot of them do not get nurtured at home, so they need nurture at school. They need to know they are in a safe and loving environment. I think they will behave better if they know that.” 96 In regard to the nurture of which Maiah spoke, I recorded her calling a student “honey” (commonly considered an indicator of verbal warmth) instead of by her/her name 5 times Near the end of the observations, 1 observed Maiah joking around with a student, “Hey you, did you copy my picture?” Respect for students is an important part of building and sustaining relationships with them (De Vries & Zan, 1994). One way respect was conveyed in each classroom was through the use of the words “please” and “thank you.” Maiah used the word “please” 20 times when she asked the children to do something and 10 times when she asked them to refi'ain from doing something. “Thank-you” was used twice in each way. Incorporating Culture into the Classroom Among other things, culturally relevant teachers incorporate the race/ethnicities of their students into the classroom (Edwards, 2004; Gay, 2000; Howard, 2006). In reply to my question about how she does so, Maiah replied that the reading series the school district uses is “pretty good with this.” She also said that she had planned to do some multicultural cooking with her students this year, but cooking with 27 students is too costly for her. Although the room was replete with literacy items, no multicultural artifacts or posters were in view. As Euro American teachers, in-services trainings, workshops, and conferences foster our cultural knowledge and professional development. Maiah stated that she has never received any training on the needs of Afiican American children or Afiican American English through the school district. She was, however, contemplating signing up for a workshop through the intermediate school district “on something like ‘How to 9” acclimate yourself to African American culture. 97 Collaborative work Because Afiican American culture is, in many ways, a communal culture, it is advantageous for students to work in groups. Ladson-Billings (1994) speaks to the importance of collaborative learning and the need to encourage a sense of connectedness among students (p. 25). In Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research and Practice, Gay suggests that community, cooperation and collaboration should be pillars of instruction for students of color (Gay, 2000, p. 158). Maiah believes that it is too difficult for first graders to work together because they all want to be the leader. After further thought, Maiah added that the children in her classroom do work together in groups during center time as well as with math games that are part of the curriculum. They also read to a partner. In terms of fostering collaboration between teacher and student, I heard Maiah utter the word “Let’s” (denoting collaboration) once: “OK, let’s look at the first sentence.” I also recorded her use of “we” 13 times. E.g., “We haven’t learned about the “H” brothers yet, but you wrote the sounds that you heard and that’s great” and “Now, think about how we sounded these words out. OK, ‘I went to my TT’s house.’ ” This collaborative tenor was balanced with placing responsibility on the student for his/her writing: “What else can you say to Miss P? Do you want to thank her for anything else?” Students Talking in the Classroom. As previously explored, African American culture is a highly oral culture. In The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America, Jonathan Kozol (2005) writes how inner city schools “. . .have embraced a pedagogy of direct command and absolute control...” (p.64). Teachers issue commands and students answer only when 98 called upon. Kozol states that these strategies are measures to enforce Afiican American and Hispanic students to change their attitudes and learning styles (p. 65). Silence seemed a significant feature in Maiah’s classroom during the observations. Often during the writing consultations, the children not conferencing at the table with Maiah would begin to talk. Then, she would increase the volume of her voice to utter a phrase such as “Voices off!” or “You have no reason to talk.” When asked about how much talking she prefers while the children write at their own tables during the writing conferences, Maiah replied, “I would love for there to be none! Well, during conferences I don’t mind them talking to me. It’s those kids out there that . . . ” She went on to say that in her “perfect world,” she would like the students not working directly with her to be silent, including those at the table who are not speaking directly to her: “they . . . interrupt each other because then they are trying to take someone else’s thoughts and change their thoughts.” I wondered aloud if their talking might serve any purpose and Maiah replied, “It could. And if I knew it was going to serve any purpose . . . ” her voice trailed off at that point before she again took up the subject and talked about having “a lot of mommies in the class who just want to tell others what to do.” Yet, she added, if she knew that children were talking about their writing, she said she would allow more talk. Maiah expressed concern about the volume of her students’ speech: “They get louder and louder and louder. The more freedom I give them, the louder they get.” As far as opportunity to talk in class, the children are invited to give answers when she asks them questions, they are allowed to share “one good thing” each day at a group time and they may speak to one another at center time. 99 It is interesting to note that the children fulfilled their needs to converse with one another in spite of directiVes not to speak. A hum often filled the room as the children joked and signified with one another, moving back and forth between what Dyson (2003) calls the official world of school and their unofficial world of interactional space (p. 23). Movement Needs of Afi'ican American Children: Young children should not be expected to sit for extended periods of time (Fields & Fields, 2006). In addition, kinesthetic learners need to move in order to learn (Kostelnik, Soderrnan & Whiren, 2006). Some scholars believe that African and African American children are precocious in motor development and need to move more than their peers (Hale- Benson, 1982; Morgan, 1976). I have observed that Kindergarteners and first graders in the school district are required to sit for extended periods of time so I included a question in the interview about the movement needs of Afiican American children. Maiah replied: You know, I don’t know and that’s funny because Jill (her teaching partner) and I were just talking this week. They move a lot and that, too, can be developmental. You know, I find myself many times (saying) Sit back down, sit in your seat!” But then I think, Well, maybe if they are working better with their butt up in the air, they should be allowed to. Maiah said she had also noticed the children rotating their bodies in a circular pattern as they sit on the carpet during the read-aloud portion of the day. In reference to that, she stated: “I don’t know if it’s a security thing or they’re anxious. It’s very odd.” 100 Ramifications from the No Child Left Behind Act I asked each teacher how No Child Left Behind has impacted her classroom practice. Initially Maiah stated that this legislation is good, but soon talked about how she is not able to do the fun things she used to do with her first graders because of all the record keeping and data collection required. Soon, however, Maiah opened up to say that the curricular and assessment changes she has experienced over the years are daunting, whether they are driven by No Child Left Behind or the district. She asserted that these changes have brought down the morale of the teachers: “teachers are discouraged and don’t want to give 100% to new ideas/programs.” Referring to assessment practice in the district, Maiah described it as “excessive” and admitted that she sometimes puts on movies for her students to watch while she individually assesses children. Asked if she could utilize volunteers, perhaps parents for any assessment, she informed me that she is a “control freak” and would rather do it herself. Acknowledging that teachers have to “teach to the test” more and more, Maiah also declared that she is not stressed out over these matters because she team-teaches, but that she sees “other teachers stress about it.” Critical Discourse Analysis Maiah ’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. I) Maiah stated that she doesn’t have an opinion about African American English: I don’t have an opinion about it. When I hear adults speaking Afiican American English, to me, and I don’t want to dumb it down and say they don’t sound intellectual, but I think sometimes they don’t. And I hope I’m not 101 sounding racist or anything like that. I just think we need to speak clearly for people to understand us. Although, this statement may appear to be sound on its face (one needs to speak clearly for people to understand what is said), Maiah’s view seems to be that people who speak Afiican American English do not sound smart. Maiah adds a caveat that she does not want to sound racist. Bonilla-Silva proposes that such phrases, common to racial discourse since the Civil Rights era, “act as discursive buffers before or after someone states something that is or could be interpreted as racist” (Bonilla-Silva, 2006, p. 57). He asserts that that such statements conceal the “color-blind racism” most Whites now own, especially as it is not considered appropriate to openly express racism in the United States anymore. It is not my task nor my intention to call Maiah a racist. I do, however, want to call attention to how she seems to have appropriated the dominant ideology of hegemonic Discourse in the United States. Similar to most of us as Euro American teachers, Maiah, enjoys a position of privilege in the United States. In such a position, it is easy to “other” and assign deficits to those of different races and socioeconomic status, including their language and literacy. This position is furthered in Maiah’s belief that her job is to change the language that her African American English speakers bring to school rather than to enable them to expand their verbal repertoires into communicative competence across situations: “If it’s going to affect them in their future to be successful . . . as a professional . . . they’re only seven now, but we need to start changing it now. So I think the sooner we change it, the better for them.” 102 Although Maiah does not appear to struggle with ideological tensions, she is struggling with the rhetorical components of her students' linguistic system, to be discussed below. Maiah ’s Familiarity with African American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) Maiah seems to be unfamiliar with the components of African American English. When I first spoke with Maiah, she indicated that there were African American English speakers in her classroom. After our first contact, she conferred with her teaching partner and principal and reversed her position. Then, in our interview she spoke about the deficits in her student’s linguistic abilities, although she admitted that she and her teaching partner may not hear the dialect when it is spoken. Perhaps these discursive moves reveal some ambivalence she may have about how to deal with Afiican American English in the classroom and some question she may have about how I may view its use (she did not ask any questions about either iSsue). At any rate, Maiah seems to have little awareness of the sophisticated language abilities her students may bring to school and perhaps how to elicit those abilities in the classroom. When I asked her to describe Afiican American English, she answered, “Not talking in complete sentences . . . leaving off ‘He done this,’ or ‘He doin’ that’...not talking clearly.” Although she stated that the African American English speakers give “shorter and one-word answers,” I observed that the questions she asked the students were often closed-ended, calling for one-word answers. On the other hand, when talking about the stories her students told, she said: “Sometimes their sentences just go on and on. They have one big thought and it goes on forever. ” When I had asked Maiah if 103 Douglas School had a policy about the use of African American English in the classroom, Maiah answered “No, but I don’t know if anyone realizes that it might be an issue;” that statement that may have been reflective of her own level of awareness. I should note that I do not believe that Maiah’s awareness of African American English is much different that many Euro Americans in the United States, teachers included. Maiah ’s Responses to A fiican American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) I believe that Maiah was respectful in stating that she does not want to focus on her students’ grammatical errors by “call [ing] them out in fiont of the other kids.” Although she believes she primarily corrects the errors in her student’s spoken and written word, I did not observe the use of correction, according to my definition. Maiah’s primary mode of response was to ignore Afiican American English utterances. She did not focus on the ending sounds of words or utilize many other suggestions given in the literature. Teachers must make difficult choices as they teach writing; scaffolding student thought about writing may at times be more important than address of grammatical elements. Most of Maiah’s responses in the observations focused on other writing conventions: upper and lower case letters, punctuation, and having beginning, middle, and endings in each written narrative. One concern is that many of Maiah’s utterances were vocalized without expression or enthusiasm. For example, when Maiah uttered: “Great! That’s a great sentence. . .thank you for teaching,” little expression was heard. However, Maiah and I had a discussion about volume of speech at the beginning of the interviews. She told me 104 that she wanted to speak softly with her students at the conference table so as not to disturb the other students. Similarly, she wanted the students who were conferencing with her to speak softly. As noted above, Maiah continued to document student work as she listened and spoke to them, so undoubtedly her attention was divided. Perhaps she diminished the expression or enthusiasm of her vocalizations as she lowered her volume. On the other hand, as Maiah did not usually speak to me without expression, I wondered if, by diminishing her own vocalizations, she was trying to lower the volume of the children’s talk or contain their energy and enthusiasm. Boykin (1986) calls the energy and enthusiasm of Afiican Americans verve stating teachers often have a difficult time dealing with this behavior in the classroom. According to Boykin, teachers often view verve as impulsive behavior and respond to it with overt control. While I was in Maiah’s classroom, I was also reminded of Smitherman’s assertion that the European linguistic style is objective, detached and “cold” (Srrritherman, 2000, p.254). Another concern is that Maiah used the phrase: “That sounds funny” or “Does that sound right?” several times with her students. I observed that students would frequently nod “yes” in response to the question: “Does that sound right?” in regard to a nonstandard word or phrase. It is important to consider that the phrase or sentence may have indeed sounded right according to the children’s home/cultural linguistic systems. A child uttered: “Wolves is red.” Maiah first asked the child: “Does that make sense?” When the child replied “yes,” and persisted in uttering “Wolves is red,” she corrected, “Not is. That sounds funny, Wolves is red.” I wondered how the child felt when he was told that a common feature in his linguistic system sounded funny. Although I believe that Maiah’s responses are likely due to her lack of knowledge about how to work with 1.05 nondominant dialects, these responses may have been confirsing for the children and are reflective of dominant ideology. As Speicher & Bielanski (2000) found in their study, Maiah used a variety of nonstandard responses while expecting students to both speak and write in a standard manner, just. Kuyvenhoven asserts that “teachers need to move toward Standard English in their communications. As much as possible, we need to speak in Standard English.” Kuyvenhoven also cautions teachers to use language one’s students understand, likening it to “a dance between clarity and modeling” (Kuyvenhoven, personal communication, 4/25/2009) Maiah ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Differences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) Maiah stated that the biggest struggle she faces is in writing, because “they write what they say and we have to correct them.” I appreciate that Maiah was honest with me in this statement, but her ideology seems fairly clear. Teachers, the ones'in power, correct those who stand in need of it. As in this statement, there was “othering” in her interview. Othering is reflective of the differences and deficiencies people in dominant groups perceive in nondominant groups. Furthermore, Maiah assigned intentionality to the students working in small groups at the conference table with her: “. . .they interrupt each other because then they are trying to take someone else’s thoughts and change their thoughts. “ One wonders what kind of experiences Maiah has had with the children to foster this ideation. Seemingly unaware of the importance of openly addresSing dialect issues in the classroom or of the need to teach students about code switching, Maiah believes that her 106 first graders are not capable of code switching. Her awareness may reflect the paucity of language address in her undergraduate and graduate programs as well as a lack of in- service training in the district. The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) Similarly, Maiah seems unaware of the verbal repertoires, the linguistic resources, and the literacy practices of her Afiican American English speakers. Nor is she aware of the field of critical literacies that perceive language and literacy as social practice. When I asked about what strengths the children bring to school, her initial response was: “I don’t know what strengths they bring. They have not been exposed to that much. . .well, sometimes they’ve been exposed to inappropriate language.” In this sentence, Maiah first offers her perception that her children haven’t had much exposure to language and print at home; then, she softens her thought to “well, sometimes . . . “ Still, it appears that an assumption has been made about home language and literacy experiences. Maiah also believes that her students receive most literacy experience at home through the media or books they look at themselves, not from being read to by family members. It appears that Maiah has appropriated a deficit view of lower-income Afiican American families not only in literacy practices, but also in values about education (she stated that the parents are drawn to the school for its architecture, not for its educational opportunity) and the kind of people the parents are (she watches the news every night to see if one of her student’s parents committed a crime.) Again, although these statements may be true of 107 some people of any socioeconomic status or race, it is the generalized nature of these statements which cause concern. Critical Discourse Analysis on Emergent Themes Ladson-Billings speaks to how the role of the teacher in many classrooms is that of a leader or an authority figure: The teacher talks, the student listens. The teacher asks, the student answers. Rarely are the roles reversed. Even when teachers endorse superficially more equitable classroom relations, they sometimes continue to marginalize and poorly service students of color. (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 55) Ladson-Billings also speaks to how teachers work to enforce compliance or conformity, rather than cooperation This seemed to be the case in Maiah’s classroom. Maiah is a self- professed “control freak.” It must be disconcerting for her to work in a district that seems out of control and with an urban population she does not understand well, especially when the neighborhood around the school and where many of the children live is familiar with violence. The children in Maiah’s classroom had little voice, especially as they were often silenced. Stating to me that: “They get louder and louder and louder. The more freedom I give them, the louder they get,” Maiah appeared to struggle keeping control of student voice. Maiah tried a number of different behavioral strategies to keep the children from talking - writing names on the board, taking away recess minutes, and assigning points to earn extra recess minutes to those who were silent. Near the end of the observations, she started playing classical music during the writing conferences. When that did not quiet down the room, she increased the volume of the music. None of the techniques seemed to work; the children needed opportunities to talk in the classroom. When the exosystem of the district and the microsystem of the school prohibit students fiom talking, the intimate 108 relationship between oracy and literacy is diminished. Furthermore, a highly valuable opportunity for teaching language is lost. Maiah has not only a teaching degree and a master’s degree, but also an early childhood endorsement. It seems logical that she would have learned about the movement needs of young children and the verve which many African American children bring into the classroom. Yet, lessons learned in higher education can be easily forgotten in the milieu of the classroom. Maiah’s response to my question about movement needs clearly represented her lack of knowledge at the present time. Summary on Maiah and her African American English Speakers Maiah was gracious to allow me to come into her classroom and to be studied, a vulnerable position for any teacher. Readily accommodating my needs as a researcher during the weeks I spent in her classroom, she seemed more comfortable the longer I was there. Furthermore, Maiah seemed to be very honest in the interview. I believe that Maiah is working hard to be a good teacher grappling with district demands. I believe I witnessed a valid and reliable sample of Maiah’s praxis, although perhaps Maiah adjusted her own demeanor to appear more professional to me. In terms of pedagogy with Afiican American English speakers, Maiah taught about phonics. She ignored or rephrased Afiican American English utterances. She worked on the structure of a narrative during the whole of the classroom observations. Near the end of our interview, I was heartened to hear Maiah express: “These are bright little kids.” Maiah classroom practice is a partly result of the belief systems explored above, and, her limited knowledge about the needs of Afiican American learners in general, and the language strengths Afiican American English speakers bring 109 to the classroom. Similar to what Blake and Cutler (1997) found, Maiah seems to be deeply affected by the philosophy of the school in which she teaches. Her practice may be a response to what her school district is demanding of her. She asserted that the changes have brought down the morale of the teachers:“teachers are discouraged and don’t want to give 100% to new ideas/programs.” Perhaps Maiah was speaking about herself through this comment. At any rate, it is difficult to support communicative competence in young children when one is unaware of the full extent of students’ verbal repertoires. 110 CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS: LAUREN AND HER AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS My kids speak like First Graders. Highland School as a Microsystem Lauren teaches first grade at Highland School of Arts. Highland’s website states that it offers its students not only a strong academic foundation but also classes in art, music, dance, and drama. In addition, Highland focuses upon the character traits of respect, responsibility, caring, trustworthiness, fairness, and citizenship. Highland also has a long history and until recently was a differently themed school, housed in an old building in need of repair. In the early 2009’s, an addition was put on the building and older classrooms were brought up to code. It is now sparkling clean and full of children’s art work as well as the motivational posters, writing rubric levels and examples of writing described earlier. Highland School of Arts is located within an aged area of the city on its north side of the city, near to the downtown area. For many years, the immediate neighborhood around the school has been home to a transient population, but that is changing now. More professionals are moving into the area, partly because the downtown area of the city is becoming re-vitalized and also because an expensive co-op housing community was built a few blocks away from the school. Some of the homes in the neighborhood are privately owned and well-kept; others are run-down. Many of the homes are rental properties. More diverse than the other two schools in this study, Highland’s school population hosts approximately 40% Black, 25 % White, 20% Multiracial, 10% Hispanic, 111 and <1 % Asian/Pacific Highlander students. Lauren calls this ethnic mix “a nice balance” and also says that many of the children come from homes with single moms. 87% of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. As Highland is a magnet school, some of the children are bused to school. Recruitment I went to Highland, study invitation in hand at 8:30 A.M., 1/2 hr. before school began. When I asked the secretary where to find Lauren, she happened to be in the office. After inquiring what would be the best time to contact her to set up an appointment, Lauren asked, “How about right now?” in a business-like manner. I assured her that I did not want to interrupt her preparation time, but Lauren stated that she was ready to begin the day. Lauren took me to her classroom and showed me a seat. As she listened attentively to the description of the study, Lauren, with long dark hair and fashionable black eyeglasses, struck me as very professional in her dress and in her demeanor. Although I informed Lauren that she did not need to make a decision for a few days, she immediately said yes to participation in the study. At that point, it appeared that Lauren was a decisive, no-nonsense person; this perception was confirmed throughout the data collection process. After Lauren agreed to be part of this study, so did eight Afiican American English speakers in her classroom. Lauren’s Classroom as a Microsystem Lauren’s classroom is spacious, colorful and well-organized with some soft touches like a small table lamp, inviting to both student and guest. Excellent educational 112 materials are apparent - quality tables and chairs for the children, newer computers, an Elmo machine and many books. The front of the room is home to a group area where Lauren carries out literacy teaching as well as other large group activities. Children’s tables and chairs fill the center of the room. Literacy materials abound: many books fill shelves, posters about writing conventions and literacy directions cover the walls and hang from the ceiling, and sight words are placed on the word wall. Lauren says, “I’m all about reading” and that focus is evident in her classroom. Interview Setting When Lauren and I met at the restaurant for our interview, I think we both felt a little awkward at first; we’d never been in a social setting together and we’d never had extended conversation. We talked a little small talk, ordered our food and then I began with the questions. After awhile, we both relaxed and Lauren opened up a great deal by the end of the interview. Lauren’s Teacher Presence and Teacher Voice Tenor Lauren is a Euro American first grade teacher. She has bachelor of science degree, with a major in English and a minor in reading. She has earned 18 hrs. toward her master’s degree in reading. She has taught at Highland for 13 years, 12 in first grade and lyr. in second grade. Lauren stands upright and has a strong teacher presence in her - classroom. Lauren is enthusiastic as she teaches; her voice is filled with expression and voice modulation. Lauren has an excellent sense of humor, which she demonstrated on occasion for the children, but much more when she spoke with me. 113 Lauren’s Ideology About Afiican American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. 1) When I asked Lauren about her opinion on African American English and its use in the classroom, Lauren replied, “Opinion? I don’t think it’s wrong. Um, this is how they’ve learned . . . everybody has something that might, that isn’t necessarily going to be standard English” (a very accurate view according to linguists). Lauren continued on to say that she doesn’t have any judgments about children speaking African American English or any other language students bring to school; she just knows that part of the reason they are at school is to learn standard English and that part of her job is to teach standard English. It is important to note that Highland school does not have a policy against the use of African American English. When I asked Lauren about how a child’s language system might be tied into his or her identity, Lauren stated that we learn language in our family systems and so it gets passed on from generation to generation. Then she added said, “I don’t know. I’m not an expert. I don’t know.” Lauren’s answers to RS. Q. 2 below also reflect her ideology. Lauren’s Familiarity with African American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) Asked how much she knows about Afiican American English, Lauren indicated that she doesn’t know much about it and has never really given it any thought. She just thinks of the children in her classroom as first graders who speak like first gaders. She then informed me that after I had invited her to join the study, she looked into Afiican American English and now could understand why the children in her classroom were 114 dropping the final endings of their words so often. But she’d never really thought they spoke in a particularly African American way before that. “And I’ve never specifically said, ‘O.K., I’m gonna focus on just these students’ language.’ It was kind of across the board. They’re children and this is how they’re talking and, everybody seems to have something . . . So, I just never really segregated it in my thoughts.” Like Maiah, Lauren was unfamiliar with the call and response rhetorical style and we discussed the phenomena of “blurting” in the classroom. She laughed and said “It doesn’t matter. There’s a blurter of every race.” Nor does she perceive that the Afiican American English speakers in her classroom answer questions in a different way. When I wondered about her experience with children seemingly jumping from topic to topic (topic-associative discourse), Lauren informed me that she designs lessons on staying on track and staying on the topic and that this approach works very well. Regarding communal storytelling, she said “I haven’t really noticed. They all kind of tell the stories in the same way. They leave the same things out. They stick to pronouns so you don’t know who they’re talking about!” Lauren’s Responses to Afiican American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) When I asked Lauren about how she responds to utterances in Afiican American English, at first she stated that she doesn’t specifically plan out instruction for these speakers. Then she stated: “I never thought about it. That [a lack of thinking about the issue] could be bad, see?” 115 Lauren described how she often rephrases what the student says, rather than to correct the student. When I asked her to expand upon that thought, she said: I think that . . . when they hear it correctly, it gets incorporated, rather than telling them that they’re wrong. If you are telling them that they’re wrong, that gives it a negative kind of feel . . . . whereas when you just repeat [I believe she meant re-phrase] and kind of incorporate it, they are hearing that way and eventually it will kind of sink in, I think. They’ll start hearing it the right way over and over, then they’ll start doing it themselves. Lauren also gave an example of how she encourages students to clarify what they mean, citing the example of “I need to use it” as Maiah did. By asking students to clarify what they say, they learn to be more “clear about what they need.” According to Lauren, it is important for the children to read their writing out loud in order to hear the sounds for editing. She explicitly teaches about the need to edit writing. I observed and heard the children reading their writing many times during the observations. Iesha often edited out loud as she worked with Lauren. For example, “We milk? We milk? We milk don’t make no sense! We have to buy milk.” Lauren attributes some of the students’ writing and pronunciation errors, especially omission of final consonants to “being in a hurry” and “going fast,” which she says she also does. Lauren encourages the children to “stretch out sounds” (a current way of describing sounding out words slowly). Selective coding of classroom observations suggested that Lauren primarily ignored the African American English utterances she heard and saw during the writing conferences (f=100). Interestingly, she ignored omission of the final consonant 21 times, omission of the first consonant 9 times, omission of a skipped syllable or sound 9 times, a “th” replacement 14 times and use of the incorrect the verb tense on 12 occasions. 116 Lauren re-phrased Afiican American English utterances 28 times. The final consonant was re-phrased 8 times and the “th” replacement was re-phrased on six occasions. Other re-phrasing utterances were spread out across the codes. Lauren focused upon omission of the final consonant 6 times and deliberately focused upon the sound of a letter an additional 6 times. In the observations, she did not focus upon the “to be” form at all and addressed subject/verb agreement only once. In terms of using rhetorical elements important to the Afiican American communicative style, as stated above, Lauren uses rich vocabulary, much enthusiasm and a great deal of expression. E.g.,“O.K., good details! Color, visual!” and “Excellent. Put [write]that down! Great details! Now I’m getting those details, understanding what '99 happened. I can picture that in my mind In another example, Lauren skillfully scaffolded a student into thinking about how to get his audience’s attention: How could we change that or add to it? We could put a sentence before that that hooks the reader. Something unusual? Funny, [inaudible], or serious to get the reader to wonder? Or, could we start with a question? Lauren also told peppered the writing workshop with some highly engaging stories, including an on-going saga about her cat who likes to drink coffee with cream in it; the children and I were eager to devour these tales. (During the interview, Lauren told me that she does not own a eat, but read that idea in a book somewhere.) Lauren was often encouraging with her students (f=21). These two samples of her utterances are indicative of the kind of encouragement she gave: “Where? Well, why don’t we just look at...” and "That’s a long sentence! All right. Can you remember that whole sentence to write down? Let’s try it.” Her praise was sincere: “O.K., great! D, I am so impressed...how your writing started out! You’ve come a long way, haven’t you?” 117 “Oh, I love that word! Excellent job.” As Lauren made these statements, the student she was working with would invariably nod in response to encouragement and smile broadly. Finally, I recorded Lauren using nonstandard responses (slang like “yeah” or slang/word combinations like “gotta” and “gonna”) to nonstandard utterances 15 times and nonstandard responses to standard utterances on 38 occasions. She omitted final consonants of words 12 times and the “to be” form 14 times. Lauren’s Description of Ways Dialectal Differences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) As Lauren had indicated, she had not given previous thought to the differences between standard English and African American English, I did not ask her if she explicitly teaches about the need to acquire mainstream English. She did, however, say that “there is a time and a place where it’s OK. to speak this way and there’s a time and place where it’s not OK. And that’s something we have to teach as well.” I asked her if she ever discusses how the way we speak is often very different than the way we need to write. She said she had just recently taught about that; she discussed that when we talk quickly, we often omit the final consonant. After I asked Lauren if she thinks it is necessary to explicitly address language issues in literacy teaching and learning, she distinguished between explicit and implicit ways of doing so and also how the two can be incorporated together. Describing the daily oral language exercises the teachers are required to do, she described how poorly constructed sentences are posted on a chart, a board or a projection screen and that the children correct the sentences aloud together. Sometimes she writes these sentences in a way that represents African American English. In Lauren’s estimation, this is an explicit 118 way of saying that “This isn’t the way you would write that or say that.” She then described re-phrasing as an implicit way of addressing nonstandard issues. When I asked about code switching, she said she had noticed that happen between two boys who are cousins, but not necessarily between the other students. Not surprisingly, Lauren indicates that she does not struggle with any issues around the use of Afiican American English in the classroom. The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of Afiican American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) Lauren’s response to the question “With what kind of language strengths do you think the Afiican American English speakers come to school” was: Um, hmmmm. Strengths. Hmmmm. Well, I think that’s usually what comes out first, is weaknesses that you notice . . . they’re not going to come in with the vocabulary because they don’t have the oral language. And that’s something that you’ve learned in class, too. Your oral language classes and how many words they hear in a day compared to higher income families. So, you prepare for that. And you build on that. Lamen is referencing the famous Hart & Risely (1995) study whose findings suggested that the children of professors come to school with 30 million more words in their experience than do those in a low socioeconomic status. When I asked Lauren how she builds on what the children know, she spoke in tenns of experiences — showing photographs, reading books, going to museums, etc. Lallt‘em reiterated that her students speak like first graders, so she begins with what she experiences with first graders, their vocabulary, their language development and goes from there. “I try to model appropriate language, standard English language, what you Would call it.” 119 I also inquired about literacy practices that children bring from home. Lauren was unsure of what I meant and asked for an example. After I spoke about exposure to print in the home and any other experiences with letters or lists, she said that it depends on the family — some have an abundance of books and some have nary a book, magazine, or newspaper. She then talked about the balanced literacy program (composed of modeled reading and writing by the teacher, shared reading and writing, guided reading and writing, and independent reading and writing) the district uses as an excellent way to grow literacy. Emergent Themes for Afiican American Learners The Importance of Relationships for Afiican American Students: Beliefs and Evidence of Lauren’s Relationships with Students as Proximal Processes In Lauren’s interview, our discussion about relationships was intriguing. I said: “Tell me what you believe about student/teacher relationships.” Lauren asked: “Student/teacher relationships?” and paused. As she seemed uncertain about how to answer this question, I moved on to the following question, a more practical one: “How do you develop relationships with your students?” Lauren thought again and asked: “with my students.” After a pause, she answered: “They just develop naturally, I guess. She referenced some difficult students she had previously had in class and with whom She was very firm. She stated that one is quite a bit older now, but gives her a hug each tithe he sees her. Finally she said, “I think that relationships just kind of develop. I think they know that I’m in charge, I’m the teacher, but they also know that I am there to Support them and I’m their biggest fan.” 120 The importance of respect in developing relationships with students was noted in chapter four where we considered Maiah’s use of the words “please” and ‘thank-you.” In her classroom observations Lauren said “please” 3 times while asking the students to do something and 5 times to request they stop doing something. Thank-you was used twice in each way. Incorporating Culture into the Classroom Lauren does not seem to worry about incorporating culture into her classroom. In all likelihood, as seems true of the other teachers I studied, she doesn’t have the time to do so. The only cultural artifact observed was a rain stick Lauren used to signal a transition time to the children. Her reply to the question about use of multicultural literature was curious. After pausing and then saying that literature has come a long way, she told me that the school had bought a set of books about character traits that a local author had recommended. Although the books centered on respect, friendliness and responsibility, Lauren said they made a very nice mix of cross-cultural literature. As time Was running short, I could not follow up on this question. Students Working Together One of my theoretical memos reads: “L. is so encouraging with her students. They can’t wait to write with and for her. It seems like collaboration.” Lauren’s responses seemed to be balanced between collaboration with students (co-constructivist tea(thing) and encouraging students to construct their own learning. E.g., Note the use of we in the following statements: (a) “I think we discovered one of the problems. We are goin g to go through your writing a little and see what we can do so you can read it a little eElsier,” and (b) “Oh, I love that word! Excellent job. What do you think we could do to 121 make this piece of writing better? What have we been working on in our lessons the last couple days?” In the following example, however, Lauren appropriately shifted the responsibility to the student: J (the student): “And I don’t have no more room!” L: “So what do you think you should do?” By mid-January, Lauren began teaching the children about the different writing levels on the rubrics referred to earlier in the chapter. A district walk through was impending and all the children were to be prepared to tell the guests at which level they were writing and what they needed to do to get to the next level. After the students learned about which kind of work exemplified each level and scored some writing as a whole group, Lauren assigned some of the better writers to be rubric leaders. Students took turns bringing their writing to the rubric leaders where work would be reviewed in collaboration; Lauren continued to conduct one-to-one conferences while the student-led conferences took place. The partnerships appeared to be working effectively; student engagement was high. When asked if there were other times the students in her class worked collaboratively, Lauren stated that the students also work in small groups on the math games of which Maiah had spoken. Students Talking in the Classroom Lauren seemed to have a realistic view about the children’sneed to talk in the classroom. She informed me that she never expects silence. Children may talk quietly together during math games, during science activities and during the writing conference time. Although she preferred that they talk about their writing, she stated that those not being conferenced with often go off-task if they talk together. 122 For awhile Lauren used what she called “Buzz Groups,” where the children would talk with each other in groups of three in order to generate ideas for their writing. Feeling that the children produced more writing ideas through the Buzz Groups than they do now, Lauren wishes there were more time to do activities such as these at the present, but state and district requirements are too time-consuming to allow more group work. The students who conference with Lauren each day read what they wrote to the whole group. Students also engage in book discussions, although Lauren stated that these are really book talks. There is little time for rich discussion in the classroom. Movement Needs of African American Children Lauren’s reply to my request that she talk about the movement needs of African American children was not surprising in light of her other answers: “They all [all the students in her classroom] need to move,” she said. “They have a lot of energy. I think that’s with all the students . . . [although] you have those kids who need to move more than the other kids do. That’s just kids. Not necessarily one race or another.” Once again Lauren reiterated that she’s never separated out the African American children from any of the others in this category either. Lauren feels her children’s needs for movement are well met. She makes sure she keeps a lively pace going in her classroom, accommodating for those who have “ants that are buggin’ them.” Several specials, art, music, dance and computer, are part of the weekly schedule. In addition, the children get a break with a morning recess; teachers “fought for” and regained recess after one year during which it was eliminated. 123 Ramifications from the No Child Left Behind Act Lauren’s view about the ramifications of No Child Left Behind differed from Maiah’s. She primarily talked about a lack of planning time or the ability to discuss other issues that may come up (as in the violence of a student’s written story): “I never really thought that No Child Left Behind was affecting me. I did not agree with the whole concept necessarily, but as far as teaching, that did not change for me when that became policy.” Believing that the assessment expectations are more district than federally driven, Lauren states “They (the administrators in the district) want data and they want results. And you have to take time to get the results.” She is concerned about the amount of data collection the teachers in her district are required to do compared to teachers fiom other districts. Lauren has no idea who is making the decisions about assessment and data collection in the district. In terms of teaching to the test, Lauren feels that she is teaching for the, district walk throughs that were previously discussed more than for standardized assessments. Critical Discourse Analysis Lauren’s Ideology About Afiican American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. 1) Lauren clearly stated that she does not believe that Afiican American English is wrong; she is informed in her thinking in her thinking that “everybody has something that might, that isn’t necessarily going to be standard English.” She seems comfortable with the knowledge that today’s students will bring a number of different language systems into the classroom. This is interesting; my experience has been that such knowledge usually engenders anxiety among teachers who have not had bi-lingual or ESL training. 124 Still, throughout the interview, Lauren maintained that her students all speak like first graders who may each have something that does not sound like standard English, which also represented Lauren’s own responses to nonstandard and standard child utterances. Lauren also seemed somewhat uncomfortable with some of my questions. After the question on language and identity, she said: “I don’t know. I’m not an expert. I don’t know.” I wondered if Lauren found my questions bothersome. Or, if she felt uncomfortable that she was not more knowledgeable about language issues. As I revisited the interview in repeated passings, I began to question whether Lauren thought that l was being racist in singling out Afiican American English speakers in my study. Lauren’s Familiarity with Afi'ican American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) Lauren indicated that she does not know much about Afiican American English and that she has never given it any thought. I appreciate her honesty in stating that she lacks knowledge about this linguistic system. Lauren has been in the field for 16 years; it is feasible that she did not encounter dialect issues in her undergraduate or graduate course. Still, I question how any Euro American teacher in the United States cannot have given thought to Afiican American English. Whether or not is addressed by the teacher, the issue of Ebonics is alive and well in the media, in the classroom and in the teacher’s lounge. Lauren believes that her students all speak like first graders. Stating that she has not focused on one particular group of children’s language, Lauren went on to say that “[1].. . just never really segregated it in my thoughts.” Lauren’s use of the word “segregated” may indicate that she does not agree with the way I have singled out the 125 dialect; perhaps she thinks that I am moist to do so. She furthered her position in other questions, for example when she laughed and said “It doesn’t matter. There’s a blurter of every race” and insisting that “They all kind of tell the stories in the same way.” It is important to acknowledge that to some extent, the students in her class do. speak like first graders. There are some developmental issues, such as use of incorrect use of pronouns that should not be mistaken for dialect issues. Language capabilities need to be carefully assessed with each child. In the interview, Lauren voiced a concern about how to tell the difference between an articulation and a language problem; this is truly a tricky issue for all early childhood teachers. On the other hand, to insist that all children speak like first graders is to neglect the link between culture and linguistic patterns. When Lauren makes such an assertion, it sounds as if she is espousing the color-blind approach mentioned earlier. Such an approach, advocated by many, assumes that we have moved beyond racism in the United States, that we can see beyond color, and that “it’s what’s inside that counts” (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997). Formerly regarded as a more progressive view, Bonilla-Silva (2006), proposes that a color-blind approach to racial issues actually serves to uphold white privilege. Offering several different categories or “frames” of colorblindness, Bonilla-Silva might typify Lauren’s view as minimizing racism (p.29). In the minimizing fi'ame, whites do not believe that discrimination against Blacks keeps them from moving ahead in our society or that institutional racism exists. Such a view obfuscates the structural inequalities that work against people of color in our country. 126 Lauren’s Responses to Afi'ican American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) It is interesting that when I asked Lauren about how she responds to utterances in African American English, she indicated she does not specifically plan out instruction for these speakers and then said:” I never thought about it. That could be bad, see?” Lauren started to question her own pedagogy with dialect speakers at this point, wondering if not being informed might affect her students’ literacy achievement. Like Maiah, Lauren primarily ignored the African American English utterances during the writing conferences (f=100). There were no instances of her centering upon the “to be” form. These numbers substantiate Lauren’s belief that she does not address the dialect. Perhaps, as Maiah and Jill proposed, she no longer hears it. Nonetheless she re-phrased African American utterances 28 times. Lauren used slang and slang/word combinations a total of 53 times. At one point, she spoke to her student about including the “g’ in “ing.” Although she wasn’t aware of it, she deleted the “g” from a word that ended in “ing” in the same spoken paragraph. This is not surprising, however, because Lauren teaches the students that people sometimes delete our final consonants when they talk quickly. In stating that she also deletes her final consonants, Lauren aligned herself with her students. 127 Lauren’s Description of Ways Dialectal Diflerences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) Although asserting that she doesn’t explicitly address Afiican American English, Lauren teaches about using appropriate register in different situations: “There is a time and a place where it’s OK. to speak this way and there’s a time and place where it’s not OK. .” She gave an example of how an instructor must teach a student that it is not appropriate to use vulgar language in school. But she offered a sophisticated analysis between explicitly and implicitly addressing language issues in literacy learning, calling upon the Daily Oral Language exercises the first graders in the district do as an example of an explicit teaching tool. The examples Lauren gave were written in African American English which leads me to wonder whether Lauren recognizes the features of the linguistic system more than she is willing to admit. On the other hand, it is also important to note that Lauren asked me if it is OK. for children to code-switch. This question substantiates the notion that she does not have much knowledge about linguistic issues. The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of A fiican American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) Although she does not like to see differences in her students in terms of language, Lauren spoke about weaknesses when I asked her about the strengths her Afiican American English speakers brought to school. Here she, too, called upon the Hart and Risely (1995) study. Although this study has highlighted the importance of using rich language in the classroom, reading to children and providing extra literacy experiences at school, I believe that in some ways it has served to further marginalize lower-income 128 Black children. Teachers may stereotype the children’s language abilities and literacy resources as deficient rather than building upon the resources that are present. When I asked Lauren how she builds upon the literacy practices children bring fiom home, she asked for a definition of literacy practice. After I offered it, she reiterated her position that she sees her students as first graders and that “I try to model appropriate language, standard English language, what you would call it.” The final phrase “standard English language, what you would call it” seemed to position me as one who others. In spite of my own best intentions, I, too, am a product of racism and I’m sure I other, too. Still, although I re-phrased the question about home literacy practices in three different ways for Lauren, she seemed to find it difficult to answer the question. Critical Discourse Analysis on Emergent Themes The themes that will be regarded with critical discourse analysis in Lauren’s case are the themes of relationship, talking in the classroom, and ramifications from No Child Left Behind. Lauren had a difficult time speaking to how she develops relationships with her students. After some thought, she talked about relationships developing naturally and how the teacher gains respect as the authority in the classroom. This did not surprise me as she presents herself as a strong authority figure. If Lauren had a background in early childhood education, she might put more thought and effort into building relationships with students and using relationship as a teaching tool. On the other hand, Lauren also stated that her students know she is their biggest fan, which speaks to her role of advocacy and support. 129 Expectations for student talk in Lauren’s classroom are much more realistic than in Maiah’s room. Although Lauren says there is not much time in the day for classroom discussion, children are not expected to be silent and are allowed to talk quietly with each other at the tables and at centers. As a result, she has to spend less time than Maiah does on classroom management issues although children needed continual behavioral reminders. Lauren also spoke of teacher confusion about the decisions made in her school district. Unsure of what is fireling the excessive drive for data collection, NCLB or district administrators, she feels pressure to perform and to have her students perform for the district “walk throughs.” Lauren talks about all the in-service training she must attend on different literacy models and assessment as well as the standardization of curriculum. To standardize curriculum is to de—culturize it, to assume that all people are alike without the richness and texture of cultural ways of being and doing. Lauren does not seem to be aware of teachers needing to gain cultural competency. - Summary on Lauren and her Afiican American English Speakers As with Maiah, I appreciate Lauren’s willingness to be vulnerable and to allow me to observe the proximal processes between her and her students during the writing conferences. Although she told me she was nervous when I started to observe her, she said she became used to my presence in her classroom. She never appeared nervous or uncomfortable to me, always maintaining her professional demeanor. Lauren seemed to be a capable and competent teacher. She taught phonics, a literacy component especially important for Afiican American English speakers. She spoke with a rich vocabulary and told interesting stories. Although she did not employ 130 particular Afiican American rhetorical strategies, she was energetic, enthusiastic and expressive. She was engaging to listen to as were her students; I found myself wishing I could stay in the classroom longer than that for which I had permission She encouraged students and praised them, too. Several times I walked into the classroom and heard a young eager voice say, “Mrs. V., do we get to write today?” Lauren knows how to motivate young children to write. The children wrote and spoke in colorful language with a great deal of expression just as their teacher did; for example, Michael wrote about his trip to the zoo as “spectacular!” According to Lauren, first graders are first graders with their own set of needs. Although she spoke some about the lack of language skills with which lower income children come to school, she unmistakably stated that she does not view children in terms of race. I appreciate that Lauren resists putting children into a category. In some ways, this is advantageous for the students, just as initial understanding the culture of a people can lead to stereotypical views. As explored previously, however, to deny the culture and social practices of our students (which live on in the classroom regardless of efforts to ignore the practices or to stamp them out) is to deny the very identity of our students. It also limits our ability to recognize linguistic and literacy practices as assets. Furthermore, it undergirds dominant Discourse in a nation beset with racism. On the other hand, perhaps Lauren hoped to portray herself to me as a non-racist teacher in the face of my questions. Still, the color-blind approach, as benign as it seems on the surface, can cleverly disguise and normalize racism for some students are invisibly positioned outside the world of school (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Luke, 131 1995/1996). While appearing to be a non-racist position, the color-blind approach can mask the marginalization of underserved peoples and normalize linguistic chauvinism. It, however, fits well with one-size-fits-all curricula. 132 CHAPTER SIX FINDINGS: SHERI AND HER FIRST GRADE AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS Nobody complains about the differences between Cuban and Caecilian Spanish. So, why are we splitting hairs over English or, English? Brentwood Park School as a Microsystem Sheri teaches at Brentwood Park School, near some of the suburbs. While the other schools in the city are towering structures, Brentwood is one-storied, like many schools constructed in the 1960’s. The school seems to have a pleasant aura that greets the visitor. The principal of Brentwood is a fiiendly person who puts welcoming messages on the school sign on the front lawn and other fiiendly messages inside the doors. As the gym, which also serves as the cafeteria, is near the entry way, the smell of pancakes and maple syrup often waft through it. The school property spans an entire block; it is also home to a large, pleasant park populated with old trees surrounding the buildings and playground. The park has been used by the neighborhood for many years; in fact, the property features a large hill along its northern perimeter, known as the one of best sledding areas in for children in the city. The neighborhood around the school was formerly well-established as a comfortable middle class neighborhood. This neighborhood is also undergoing transition; fewer houses look well-kept and more are becoming rental properties. Although the racial composition of the neighborhood remains largely White, the neighborhood is becoming more diverse. Still, most of its children attend charter or parochial schools. Sheri wishes that the parents in the neighborhood and neighboring churches that are involved with the school would send their children to Brentwood Park. 133 Instead, most of the children who attend Brentwood are bused in from the core city. Approximately 70 % of the children are Black, almost 15 % are multiracial, nearly 10% are white, < 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and < 1% are American Indian/Alaskan Native. Brentwood Park is a public school that serves roughly 350 students in grades prekindergarten through grade five as well as special education. Sheri states that Brentwood is actually an English as a second language (ESL) school with all instruction carried out in English. Although she is certified as an ESL teacher, Sheri’s classroom is a regular one. The only person who provides any specialized services for ESL students in the school is a Hispanic para- professional with no specialized training. In terms of No Child Left Behind requirements, Brentwood school made annual yearly progress in 2008. Recruitment I visited Brentwood Park just as school let out for the day on a beautiful autumn afternoon. Children were bursting fi'om the doors as I made my way inside. As the principals had given me consent to speak with all of the first grade teachers in the school, I checked in with the school secretary and learned how to find the first grade classrooms. At the first classroom, a tall blonde woman stood in the doorway, giving directions to the children who remained in the room. She stopped to speak with a parent and then seeing me, asked if she could help me. I introduced myself and asked if I could speak with her for a few moments about a study I wished to carry out in the district for my dissertation. As soon as the students left the classroom, Sheri turned her attention to me. As I began to describe my study and offered her my invitation letter, she began to nod her 134 head. Ihad been unaware that she is certified as an ESL teacher. As Sheri has recently completed her master’s degree in reading and is entertaining the idea of attaining a Ph. D. in the firture, we had much to talk about. The discussion with Sheri revealed immediately that she understood language and literacy issues and their implications with dialect and second language speakers, even more so because she is married to a man fiom Mexico and both English and Spanish are spoken in her home. Sheri warmly agreed to my studying her classroom, saying, “I love to learn! When you are finished with the data collection, you can tell me everything that I’m doing wrong!” I told her I was there to learn about what she was doing right and not to judge her, but told her I was looking forward to being in her classroom and would return with a consent form for her and the forms for the parents. As stated in chapter three, all parents and children gave consent. In Sheri’s classroom, 15 African American English speakers participated in my study. Sheri’s Classroom Microsystem As Sheri’s building was built rather recently (the 1960’s), it has not undergone the extensive re-modeling that the older schools in the district have. Still, it has an attractive interior, with light wood and built-in planters. The classrooms also reflect the age of the school. The children’s tables and chairs are older as are the computers. Sheri does have an Elmo projector at the front of the room where she can write for the children or show literacy artifacts as students either sit at their small groups of tables (called “columns”) or on the floor in front of Sheri and her rocking chair. The four groups of tables actually form a long column as one enters the room. A row of computers lines up perpendicular to the children’s tables. A kidney- 135 shaped table flanked with chairs is in one corner; here Sheri can work with a small group of students. Another rectangular space holds a large easel, a teacher’s chair, and many children’s books. This space serves as another gathering space, as a place to work in small groups, as a space for reading to one’s self or to partners, and as a space for center time. At one point during data collection, Sheri apologized for the “messiness “of her classroom, saying that it had never looked so disorganized before, but that she couldn’t stay on top of the physical environment when pressured by the many demands of the district. Sheri’s classroom space as a microsystem has permeable boundaries. She partners with the first grade class next door, so the children trade spaces each day. If parents drop by, they are welcomed in, just as I was on my first visit to the school. One day as I arrived, Sheri set aside teaching for a few minutes to hold and coo to the custodian’s new born baby. Interview Setting My interview with Sheri took place over dinner in a pleasant restaurant, next to a fireplace. She arrived late after a staff meeting that was ran overtime. Part of the reason for the meeting’s length was that Sheri took a stance regarding an inaccurate report going out to the district from the school. Similarly, our interview time ran long (almost five hours) as Sheri discussed language issues and the way federal, state and district policies are operating against sound pedagogy for language and literacy learners. Sheri’s Teacher Presence and Teacher Voice Tenor Sheri is a Euro American first grade teacher. She is certified in kindergarten through eighth grade English, science and bilingual education. She has a master’s degree 136 in reading instruction and intervention. When Sheri signed on to be a research participant, she said that she wanted me to know that she would not put a show on for me or anyone else: “What you see is what you get when you come into my classroom.” Highly articulate, Sheri’s voice is filled with enthusiasm and expression. She knows the importance of voice modulation in teaching; sometimes she whispers so that the children strain to hear her. At other times, Sheri speaks with a booming voice. Her vocabulary is expansive and she works to “color” her words for the children so they can visualize what she is teaching. For example, “Today we are going to paint a picture with our words!” It is evident that Sheri is passionate about her work. She also has a wonderful sense of humor and is willing to laugh voraciously in the classroom. Sheri ’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. 1) Sheri’s ideology about African American English is different than Maiah or Lauren’s. She states that “It just is,” going on to say that “Nobody complains about the differences between Cuban and Caecilian Spanish. So why are we splitting hairs over English or English?” Sheri sees this as a double standard, but believes the double standard exists because in the United States, we attribute value to specific norms about dialects. By way of illustration, she stated, “Why are people with the southern drawl characterized as being stupid. . .and yet people with the Bostonian accent are seen as kind of snooty or snobbish?” Sheri attributes her openness to dialect as significant of her beliefs about diversity as a bilingual teacher, saying to me: “You have to understand a bilingual background 137 means you believe in diversity.” Going a step further, she said, “You don’t just believe in it, you dedicate yourself to it.” As far as respecting dialect use in the classroom, Sheri clearly states to her students: “I don’t care where you’re from. . .I don’t care what language you speak. I don’t care what you do. You will respect each other in here. And it’s OK. that we’re all different.” In the interview, Sheri continued on to say that too many people are shutting the door on the Afiican American English speakers in the classroom who need to be accepted for whoever they are. On the other hand, she stated from the first time I met her that the students in her classroom already know how to code switch and don’t speak as much Afiican American English in the classroom as what I might expect. She suggested that a study contrasting playground language with classroom language would probably yield a different study outcome Sheri expressed the mainstream belief about the Standard English needed for employment acquisition: “1 want my kids to be able to walk in some day and get a job and not have the door close because of the words that come out of their mouths. Their future depends on that.” As a result, she expects that students speak in “academic English” to her except when they are playing games or doing math where “it’s flowing and more relaxed . . . that’s where you hear more of it come out.” In terms of identity, Sheri says that “language determines who we are” as well as “how the world sees us.” Furthermore, “if you can draw a line between you and someone else based on the way words come out of their mouth . . . their identity is determined by that.” She, in accordance with Smitherman’s view (2000), asserts that Afiican American English “has evolved as part of the African American identity.” 138 Brentwood Park does not have a policy about the use of Afiican American English. But, according to Sheri, the teachers are still pretty adamant about use of mainstream English in the classroom, especially the Afiican American teachers who are “in corrective gear.” One of Sheri’s close friends, another first grade teacher in the school, is Afiican American. That teacher tells her African American students that as they represent her as a teacher and as a Black woman, they need to make her proud. Regardless of the ideologies among her colleagues, Sheri avers that she does not struggle with any ideological tensions around the use of Afiican American English in our society or in her classroom. As we shall see, because of her knowledge about communicative systems, Sheri wrestles more in the area of pedagogy at the present time. Sheri ’s Familiarity with A fi'ican American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) From our first conversation during the recruitment process, I knew that Sheri was fairly well-acquainted with Afiican American English and its rhetorical components. My first impression was validated in several other conversations that took place in the classroom as well as during the five hour interview. Sheri views African American English as a “more free flowing form of English with definitive rules, some of which I recognize and some of which I don’t.” Addressing the dynamic nature of linguistic systems, Sheri called upon the notion of identity (see statement above.) She went on to say that: It’s [African American English] a means of communication within a group of people that is not accepted as standard, but has many of the same characteristics. But it has just enough different characteristics that it stands out. I think more what characterizes it and what stereotypes it is the volume and the tone that accompany it. It’s the norms that go with it, I think, that set people on edge. It’s not the correct volume by my upbringing; it’s more that than that it is 139 the language pattem. I don’t believe that it’s the grammatical structure which makes people frustrated about it. Calling African American English a dialect, Sheri went on to describe how the key components of the dialect were laid out in one of her graduate courses. And, after working with the same sort of population for seven years, she figures she’s “pretty much got it hammered out,” although every once in a while she experiences something that stands out as new to her. Sheri is aware of the call and response rhetorical pattern, but says she struggles with its use in the classroom and sees Euro American children calling out or, blurting, responses, too. Although she realizes that her Afiican American English speakers come from an oral culture with communal storytelling and that they build upon each others’ stories, she knows she needs to teach her students to write their own stories. In terms of these students answering questions in a way that is different from their Euro American peers, Sheri said that usually they don’t, althOugh, “Sometimes it’s more tangential than I would expect. They want to be able to expound on things.” She attributes part of this tendency to her own intentionality about asking open-ended questions and part to the storytelling and self-expression that is part of the Afiican American culture and that the children have a right to voice. Sheri did not seem aware of topic-associative conversation patterns, referring to children responding to teacher utterances with divergent information that is “not moving you toward what the topic is.” As do Rickford & Rickford (2000), Sheri noted that the African American English speakers often don’t seem to hear the differences between “in” and “an” or the difference between “pin, pen, and pan.” She stated that often the children write, but do not pronounce these words correctly. 140 Sheri ’3 Responses to Afiican American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken With in Proximal Processes. (R. S. Q. 3) Sheri states that her primary strategy for scaffolding students into mainstream English is to re-phrase what they say. She believes that correction will not grow vocabularies. Because the children need to focus on stretching the word out to hear all the sounds, Sheri does not pay attention to missing consonants or misspoken and misspelled words in Afi'ican American English. Often I observed her as she encouraged the students to count out the number of sounds on their fingers; sometimes she held their hands and assisted this counting process. Focusing on the use of prepositions, Sheri states that “you always work with prepositions with second language kids because these parts of language are some of the most confusing parts.” She also works with the children on subject/verb agreement, on 6‘ 99 S the endings of words, on adding the plural , as well as on how to pronounce the “th” sound (articulation of the “th” sound may be also be a developmental issue with first graders). Sheri points out that although a child may have knowledge of a language element, that element has not necessarily become part of the student’s “verbal repertoire.” Sheri reported that she would like to say that the language pieces are the biggest concern of her classroom, but “children are not assessed on those elements on standardized tests, even though their lives depend on that!” Sheri’s work is infused with lively stories which do seem to call for a response. On the Monday after the Thanksgiving Break, during Writer’s Workshop time, Sheri told the students about her Thanksgiving Day. Students called out responses to some of her 141 very descriptive language. For example, when Sheri said that her extended family consumed 13 pics over the course of the day and evening, someone called out, “Oh, teacher, you make me so hungry!” and heads nodded while other utterances, “Yummy!” and “Oh, yeah!” were emitted around the room. Another time, Sheri told the story of her baby brother being born because one of the children was very excited over the impending birth of a sibling. While Sheri told the story with a great amount of expression, the normally wiggly children were at rapt attention. Sheri completed her story with instruction, “When I think about my stories, I write down all the ideas so I don’t forget them!” Dontae exclaimed, “Oh, yes, you do!” Sheri then stopped to ask him, “Whose story is this?” While Sheri understands communal storytelling, she wants to model for her students how to tell their own story. Selective coding of classroom observations suggested that Sheri focused on teaching specific elements of mainstream English a total of 27 times (lower frequencies were recorded for Sheri because sometimes children crowded around her for the conferences and extraneous over-talk dominated the recordings). Very particular to and intentional in Sheri’s practice were her foci on stretching out sounds (fi7) and on subject/verb agreement (f=6). The other examples were distributed quite evenly across the category. Interestingly, in the observations, Sheri only addressed the invariant “to be” form once and the omission of the final consonant 3 times. As mentioned above, clearer . recordings might have yielded higher frequencies in these two areas. Although Sheri informed me that she often re-phrases child utterances in nonstandard dialects, her frequency for re-phrasing utterances was rather low (f=l 3); of 142 the 13 instances of re—phrases, five were of the “to be” form. Again, it is thought that these fiequencies would be higher with more accurate recordings. Unlike Maiah and Lauren, Sheri ignored Afiican American English utterances only 13 times. She ignored use of the invariant “be” only once and the omission of the first and the final consonant twice each. In addition, Sheri utilized encouragement and praise a great deal in the observations. Typical utterances sounded like this: “All right! You know what? You used all your ideas around your circle map, didn’t you? Very, very good job! That’s a fantastic start on that!” “Good job! Good, good job! That’s what you do is you stretch it out and you spell it out, girl!” “Give me five!” and “Awesome. Awesome, awesome!” Sheri’s work is also infirsed with humor. Sometimes she used a low troll-like voice: “We gotta get ‘b ’s ’ and ‘d ’s ’ right, 0.K. ? ” After these expressions, the child with whom she was speaking would usually giggle. Also varying the pitch of her voice, Shari would point out spelling errors and ask the child if s/he really meant what s/he had written. Invariably the child would answer, “No,” after which Sheri would reply with a high voice that fell in pitch: “Neewwwww!” Telling the children about her family ' Thanksgiving, Sheri described it as a big circus, and then reported that the women have to do all the clean-up work while the men fall asleep watching football. She wondered if that happened in anyone else’s home. The children laughed uproariously and someone shouted “Yeah!” Sheri was also very frank with the children about their writing. If someone could not read to Sheri what s/he had written, Sheri might answer: “Well, if you don’t know, how am I supposed to, silly?” 143 I observed Sheri balance co-constructive learning between teacher and student while encouraging children to work on their own: “Not sure? O.K. Let’s start this way, then.” “We need to work on this.” “0.K. Go to the next one and see if you can figure it out down here” On a different note, Sheri used slang/slang word combinations 13 times in response to nonstandard utterances and 58 times in response to standard utterances: E. g.,“Yeah” “What you gonna do now?” “How you gonna spell it?” “Whacha got, girly girl?” In addition, she utilized colloquial expressions a number of times: “You can write it down here jokingly, but just so you know for real, that could hurt him big time” “Where are you at?”“Don’t be losing those!” In terms of utilizing elements important to African American communicative style, Sheri calls upon her rich vocabulary with her first graders: “That helps me understand. Good. You went to S. H. I love that you used a very specific place. Very, very good. That’s the name of the place. Good!” “What did you see, what did you hear when you chomped on the grapes?” “Does that make more sense to you? OK, take a peek at that for a minute.” I heard Sheri play with language and rhyme a few times. For example, “Cuz we don’t want that crazy space, even after we erase.” She also incorporated some signification: “Crazy kids and their crazy periods!” uttered in a humorous voice, and, “Girl, you just told me the calendar date a few minutes ago. Hello!” I recorded Sheri using Afiican American English word choices (E. g.,” I know you’re not done with them, girl !”) a total of 8 observed times. She used expressions 144 commonly heard among African American English users a total of 11 times. E. g., “Don’t be using those!” Sheri’s utterances were musical a total of 10 times in the recordings and as was noted above, she used a great amount of expression in her storytelling as well as her other instruction. In the interview, I asked Sheri if the rhetorical strategies she uses are deliberate and she said they are not. She said she knows that being animated is an attention grabber and that using voice modulation is also important for attention. She laughed and said that: “My speech patterns are starting to line up more with who is influential in my life.”Michelle (the African American first grade teacher in the classroom next door) is one of my best fiiends.” Although Michelle would not use Afiican American English with her students, she and the other Afiican American teachers use it with each other and with Sheri. As a result of spending time with Michelle and her fiiends, Sheri states that she is beginning to use more features of Afiican American English, like calling a female “girl!” Sheri ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Diflerences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) Sheri teaches her students explicitly about the need to acquire mainstream English. Stating that children need to know the differences between what is appropriate in the neighborhood, in the home and for job interviews, Sheri says her students must learn to code-switch. If teachers do not teach about the differences, who will? In an earlier conversation, however, Sheri had indicated that she believes that kids learn how to code- switch almost from the time they learn to talk. She said they also learn to speak “academic English” in school because teachers demand it; it’s an unwritten rule. Sheri 145 notices how Afiican American parents come to parent/teacher conferences speaking mainstream English, but at the same time, will code-switch into Afiican American English while speaking to each other at the conferences. The children, Sheri noted, will often speak to each other in mainstream English when talking about reading and writing. Otherwise, they speak to each other in Afiican American English. Sheri called this a “constant re-negotiation of the environment — not a conscious negotiation, but a constant movement/sliding between the dialects.” When I had informed her that the title of my study originally was about teachers and students negotiating dialect, she stated that the children negotiate, but she doesn’t think the adults do. In order to teach code switching, Sheri calls upon her home and professional life and the different languages and registers spoken there, describing to the children that how she speaks with her husband is different than how she speaks to her children, her mother, her friends, her students, and her boss. She gives examples of how she speaks on the telephone to her husband versus how she speaks to their parents. Sheri also calls upon the analogy of clothing. She speaks to the current fashion of “sagging” pants and asks the class if one should wear those to a job interview. The children find this humorous and talk together about how one should dress up for an interview. Sheri finishes this lesson by talking about how “your speech says the same thing about you that your clothing does.” Interestingly, she also talks about how important it is to have a relationship with one’s students so they are “comfortable with correction . . . because language is a very personal thing.” 146 As indicated above, Sheri grapples with how to best build upon communal story telling practices while encouraging the children to write their own stories. And, as will be addressed under the ramifications of No Child Left Behind below, she also struggles with how to make room in the cruriculum for addressing the language issues of which she is knowledgeable. Sheri is afraid that we may create “language impaired children” if we leave basic and key concepts in language development out of classroom teaching. The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) Sheri believes that teachers need to honor what children come to school with. When asked what kind of language strengths she believes Afiican American students bring to her classroom, Sheri immediately replied, More diverse story telling ability . . . Afiican American kids are very similar to Hispanic children. They have a really rich and descriptive means of oral languaging. Everything is a very rich, very descriptive, lots of information in it. Everybody joins in to help each other fill in the words and help each other if they were there. They’re both talking. . .not necessarily talking over each other, because they don’t interrupt each other, but it weaves together. Yup. . .so I think that’s a definite strength and one that we don’t monopolize on enough. I wondered out loud how one achieves the delicate balance Sheri had spoken to me earlier, that of respecting students’ oral storytelling abilities but also encouraging them to write their own stories. Sheri answered that it is very difficult to do so. Referring to how communal Afiican American and Hispanic cultures are, Sheri talked about the juxtaposition of the individualistic way American schools operate with the communal way the children have been raised: We say we want students to work together collaboratively to solve problems, yet assessment is very individualistic. Therefore the student wonders, “What do 147 you mean I can help them (another student) when I work, but I can’t help them when it really matters?” Continuing, Sheri asked: “What sense does that make for our kids?” Sheri believes that she needs to “validate and accept what children come [to school] with.” Part of that validation means that students should be able to express themselves through oral storytelling. It also means that Euro American teachers should tell stories that build upon the children’s home and cultural experiences. Sheri informed me that she told the story of her baby brother’s birth because a child was very excited over the impending birth of a sibling and because she has been told by several African American parents that their children have attended the birth of sibling. Also, because she knew that several students would be with only one parent on Thanksgiving, she told the first graders about how her daughter wishes that Sheri and her first husband could come together for the holiday. When asked about the literacy practices the children bring to school, Sheri replied in a similar way to Lauren: “Well, I don’t think that is related to race. I think it is much more related to socioeconomic status.” She. spoke of children raised in educated homes and good preschools where they are exposed to rich oral language experiences versus those who are raised in front of the television and with playing video games. Stating that: “Many students of lower socioeconomic status have never held a book prior coming to school,” Sheri asserted that students who have been highly stimulated are very different from those who aren’t and that this difference “generally translates into reading success, writing success. It’s not about color.” I asked Sheri how her view fits with her lower- income Afiican American students coming fiom a strong oral tradition. Her view is that this is somewhat of an oxymoron: the strong oral tradition is there, but the children do not have highly developed vocabularies. In this discussion, Sheri was careful to distinguish 148 bet par Eu 510 the loc Ill true the: hat (109 between generational and circumstantial poverty as she also emphasized that many parents are doing the best they can and that it is important not to judge as middle-class, Euro American teachers. In terms of building upon the language that the child brings from home, Sheri looks at Afiican American English as another dialect and does not do anything different for these students than she does for Spanish speakers. She credits her linguistic courses in graduate school for helping her understand dialect structures as well as basic language, reading and writing development. Posing that the teacher’s job is to “fill in the gaps,” Sheri believes that the teacher needs to build upon language the students bring to school. If student vocabulary is insufficient, students need to be steeped in language experiences in school. As stated above, Sheri believes that teachers need to build upon communal story telling abilities, although, as previously explored, Sheri acknowledges the challenges surrounding encouraging children to write their own stories. In addition, looking to Florida, Texas, Arizona and Mexico’s examples, Sheri believes that all teachers should have special education and bilingual training. Emergent Themes for Afiican American Learners The Importance of Relationships for African American Students: Beliefs and Evidence of Sheri ’s Relationships with Students as Proximal Processes Sheri spontaneously brought up the subject of student/teacher relationships in our interview. Speaking to the importance of relationship, she said, “My kids know I love them and they know I’m not going to tear them down,” and, “They get the best that I have. That’s relationship and the parents know that.” She went on to assert that if she does not have a relationship with her students, they will not listen to her. Sheri states that 149 some of the children have no one at home telling them to come to school, so kids come to school because of relationships and because they feel safe and loved there. She spoke lovingly about a child who was in her classroom last year and remains “truly out of control” this year: “he is a very traumatized young man.” Even though she would become so frustrated with him at times that she would have shaken him if she could, Sheri said she loved that student dearly and he knew it. The student was suspended fiom school several times, but he knew Sheri would take him back and say, “I’m so glad to see you. You ready for a better start? Here we go!” Interestingly, in spite of his behavioral issues, that student was at the top of Sheri’s class academically. Stating that the relationship makes the difference, Sheri also said, “They [our students] need us to love them. . . just like our own kids.” When asked how she builds relationships with children, Sheri replied, “Through talking with them.” She also reported that she uses indoor recess time (a common punishment in the schools) for bonding with her students. In‘our interview, Sheri often referred to the children in her classroom as “my babies.” During the observations, I frequently heard her call students by name or by 99 “- girly gir, my ’9 6‘ “ Miss or Mr. __ “ as well as by terms of endearment: “honey, sweet,” and “my darling.” I believe these terms convey respect, a sense of warmth and a sense of belonging for the child. Another way Sheri conveyed respect to her students was her use of the words “please” and “thank you.” “Please” was used 3 times in relation to asking a student not to do something and 15 times in a request to do something. “Thank you” was used twice in relation to thanking a student in advance for not doing something and 10 times for 150 thanking a student for something s/he had done. Furthermore, on several occasions, I observed her turn to a waiting student and ask “Yes, ma’am, what can I do for you?” Finally, Sheri’s sense of humor addressed above also infirsed the observations and may have helped establish a more relaxed atmosphere for the children: Incorporating Culture into the Classroom Sheri incorporates much multicultural literature into the classroom. Also, sometimes visitors fiom other cultures come to the school for presentations. In November, I came in one day while a woman who identified as an American Indian was ready to make a presentation on present-day Native Indian culture. As already stated, Sheri also tries to build upon the children’s home experiences. Sheri believes all cultures should be recognized always, rather than just during Thanksgiving or Black History month. Interestingly, in reference to working with her Afiican American students, Sheri asserts: “I think sometime we get too hung up on the diversity‘thing to the point of saying, “you’re different than us . . . we’ve got to tell you all about yourself!” As in the other classrooms, posters of different ethnicities or artifacts were not observed; literacy materials virtually filled the space. Students Working Together Sheri indicated that the “Best class that I’ve ever had, the best test scores I’ve ever had came from me allowing my kids to work together. Not on tests, but .as a daily routine.” On one occasion, I observed that she asked those who were finished with their conferences to find a partner and read their writing to each other. I also observed the children working in small groups during two of the writing conferencing periods; Sheri had asked them to brainstorm on a subject and then to write as a group. She rotated 151 around the room as the children were writing. Engagement and motivation were particularly high as the children worked with one another. According to Sheri, the students in her classroom also work together in intervention reading, science, math, and center time. She enjoys co-constructing knowledge with her students: “I want an equal partnership. 1 want my kids to be responsible for their learning as well.” Students Talking in the Classroom Sheri is quite sensitive to the issue of students talking in the classroom, especially as she was criticized one semester for allowing children to work in groups and then told the following semester that her students needed to be allowed to talk more. Knowing that children must be involved in rich discussion in order for their vocabularies to grow, she is disheartened that district curricular expectations overpower opportunities to engage in conversations over topics studied. During the time of data collection, Sheri began to have the students use “chat” journals. After modeling with another teacher how to chat, she now begins the school day- by asking the children to chat prior to joumaling. Although she says the practice does not always result in prolific writing, the chats do help meet the talking needs of the children. In terms of talking at the writing tables while she works with particular children, Sheri stated that “If I had my way and I knew how to manage it, they would be able to chatter the whole time because it aids the thought process for some children.” Conversely, “Some kids need absolute silence.” Then Sheri inquired: “How do you find the balance? I don’t know yet.” 152 Movement Needs of African American Children Sheri differentiates between the movement needs of the second graders whom she used to teach and the first graders she presently teaches. She also distinguishes boys from girls: “Little boys are just squirrny.” Sheri states that she gives her students options of sitting or standing, as long as students present no danger to others. When I informed her that I noticed some of the students standing up whenever they could and that standing up seemed to meet movement needs, she agreed and said that most of the children who do that are “scrawny little boys.” Sheri likes to allow children to move around in the classroom, but some of the movement has had to be stemmed due to the district policies and walk-throughs. “It’s just very, very frustrating to me... the fact that we took recesses out of our day. . .and they can’t figure out why our behavior problems are escalating. ” Ramificationsfi'om the No Child Left Behind Act Sheri spoke of observing at a neighboring district elementary school where the children were involved in fun, hands-on activities. Sheri wonders about all the curriculum required by the district, “Don’t we live in the same state and take the same tests in the end? Why are we pushing that type of stuff on our kids when the neighboring district isn’t and they’re making the grade? I don’t get it.” Sheri went on to contrast how the kids in the other school seemed to be loving school where the children in her classroom don’t know what it’s like to be having an enjoyable day. Kinesthetic activities that used to be considered an important way to reach leamers are now seen as interventions. Furthermore, now teachers across the district are supposed to be teaching the same literacy lessons each day, which negates individualizing to the needs of students. Sheri expressed that 153 I don’t like what they do when they get there [when the children come to school] half the time.Because it’s humdrum every single day, the same thing and all our routines. It’s not the routine that gets me, it’s the lack of originality of anything I teach. There is none. There is none! And I never dreamed I would be that kind of a teacher. Sheri lamented that: We are much more accountable, just in all the wrong areas. I’m trying to avoid teaching to the test because it goes against every belief I have. But, it’s getting harder and harder. Because as my kids don’t line up with the test scores and my colleagues who do teach to the test do, that creates a problem because it’s a reflection on me. My only question is: at what cost to the children? Critical Discourse Analysis Sheri ’s Ideology About African American English and its Use in the Classroom (R. S. Q. 1) Sheri’s ideology is that African American English is a linguistic system in its own right. As she talked about her ideology, Sheri’s background in linguistics became apparent. As an English as a second language teacher, she appreciates different linguistic systems and is perplexed why Afiican American English is viewed in such a pejorative manner in our country. Although she knows that her students must acquire the dominant language variety, she does not privilege it, but instead respects what her students bring to school. Sheri believes that she needs to expand the verbal repertoires of her students into communicative competence rather than to change their home language system. She does not appear to participate in ideological hegemony. 154 Sheri ’s Familiarity with A fiican American English and its Rhetorical Components (R. S. Q. 2) Sheri is familiar with Afiican American English and its rhetorical components, but is very honest in saying that every time she thinks she is very knowledgeable, she learns something new about it. This may be due to the dynamic nature of language, Afiican American English included. As she is very expressive in the way she speaks, Sheri naturally engages her students. It was interesting for me to learn that she was not aware of her story telling ability and how effectively it reached her students until I brought it to her attention in the interview. Sheri ’s Responses to Afi'ican American English Utterances Both Written and Spoken Within Proximal Processes (R. S. Q. 3) Sheri understands the important elements of language learning and says that she does not treat'her Afiican American English speakers any differently in language and literacy learning than she would a second language learner. By explaining the rules of language to her students, she helps the children hear differences between their nondominant language variety and the dominant one. Sheri ignored Afiican American English utterances markedly less in the interviews than did the other teachers, reflecting her English as a second language training and experience. She spent time encouraging students to hear sounds, to stretch out sounds and to use their fingers to count the sounds, reaching the more auditory and kinesthetic learners in the class this way. Sheri also concentrated on subj ect/verb agreement, a key feature of difference between African 155 American English and Standard English. Although in the first two observations, I heard her focus on the final consonant sound, I was surprised that she didn’t do that more. Of the three teachers, Sheri comes closest to Piestrup’s (1972) designation of the Black Artful teacher (see chapter one). In other words, she incorporated some Afiican American English rhetorical features into her teaching: vocalizing with much expression, speaking passionately, playing with language a bit, using some of the dialect’s words and expressions, calling upon signification, and telling wonderful stories. Sheri’s linguistic style reminded me of Smitherman’s description of the Afiican American linguistic style as passionate, emotional, and “hot” (Smitherman,2000, p. 254). Her humor lightened up the serious nature of work in the classroom microsystem. I believe that the use of these strategies came quite easily to Sheri because of her own ways with words and her passion for languages. In using these strategies, Sheri aligned herself with her Afiican American English speakers rather than to position them further into subordination. In spite of her knowledge and skill, Sheri struggles with the juxtaposition of a communal culture, whose norms infiltrate its linguistic system, and the individualistic norms and rhetoric of American schools and marketplace. Sheri understands that her students engage in call and response; yet, she needs to teach them the academic way of waiting for their turn to talk in school. She knows that her students want to contribute to each other’s stories; yet, Sheri needs to scaffold them into writing stories of their own. She realizes that when her students are independently assessed, the assessment practice conflicts with the Afiican American communal nature of work. A passionate teacher and life-long learner, Sheri is thirsty to learn practical strategies to help preserve her students’ 156 cultural and ethnic identities while helping them achieve success in the discourse of the dominant culture’s schools. Sheri ’s Description of Ways Dialectal Dififerences in the Classroom are Addressed (R. S. Q. 4) As stated above, Sheri recognizes that her students need to acquire mainstream English in order to be successful in school and to navigate the job market. She is adamant about further enabling her students to learn to code-switch, owning an intriguing theory about it. Sheri believes that students naturally learn how to code- switch. She thinks this ability may begin at home and that it continues to grow in school where students are confionted with teachers who demand the dominant language variety. Sheri spends time at the beginning of the school year spelling out the differences in ways of speaking for her students in order to help them gain communicative competence. Believing that code switching comes naturally for her African American English speakers as they constantly re-negotiate the environment, Sheri intimated that this re-negotiation empowers her students to navigate two worlds. The Extent to Which the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources and Literacy Practices of African American English-speaking Students are Recognized (R. S. Q. 5) Although not aware of critical literacies, Sheri recognizes the verbal repertoires and linguistic resources of her students. She seeks to build upon that which students bring to school. Part of the reason that Sheri is so aware of these issues is that she lived in Mexico and married a Mexican man there. His Mexican son presently lives with their family; Sheri now has two English language learners in her own home. Her teaching 157 partner and close friend is African American. Furthermore, she lives in an inner-city neighborhood. Thus, Sheri’s pedagogy is driven by knowledge and skill gained through both course work and life experience. Like Maiah, Sheri believes that the vocabularies of her lower-income Afiican American students are small. On the other hand, she talks about the rich linguistic tradition they come from. Although Sheri admits this seems like an oxymoron, she knows that lower-income parents are more caught up with survival needs for families than in the luxury of talking and reading to the children. Thus, she is aware of the contextual issues that interfere with language and literacy learning as well as success in school. Sheri is also aware of the intimate connection between oral language development and literacy. She is mystified why the district would discourage students from talking in school and dismayed that curricular expectations are so great that there is no time in the day for rich discussion. To address these issues in the classroom, Sheri tries to infuse her classroom with speaking with and reading to the children. Unfortunately, there is not a vehicle outside the school in which she teaches where Sheri teaches in order to exert her professional voice. When we talked about advocacy, she stated that she didn’t dare to question authority in the district for fear of losing her job. Critical Discourse Analysis on Emergent Themes I believe that Sheri knows and understands her students well. Instead of othering them, Sheri calls her students “her babies,” regarding them as family. She knows the power of relationship, especially for students who come from a culture of connectedness. Thus, Sheri invests herself in relationships with her students. She is also willing to work 158 extra hours without pay to facilitate literacy learning with some of her lower performing students whom she gathers together after school in “Book Club.” Sheri is in charge of her classroom, but states that she wants to share power with her students and co-construct learning with them. Thus, she has high expectations for her students, but this is accompanied by warmth and some shared decision-making. Sheri knows the power of collaborative learning with students, but is concerned about the district mandates for what teachers are supposed to and not supposed to do. She also has a realistic view of children talking in the classroom, but similar to Lauren, struggles some to keep it under control. She also tries to meet the movement needs of her students, which is difficult as the morning recess in the school has been cancelled. Finally, Sheri seems to be mourning the loss of some of her excellent teaching practices, including the time to collaborate with her first grade teaching partners due to the No Child Left Behind Act and district expectations. She talks about the lack of creativity and the everyday monotony that has been forced into her classroom with standardized curriculum district oversight: “And I never dreamed I would be that kind of a teacher.” She experiences a great deal of cognitive dissonance between believing that it is wrong to “teach to the test,” but that if she doesn’t, her classroom’s scores will be lower than those of her teammates. Summary on Sheri and her African American English Speakers Sheri is very knowledgeable about the language and literacy practices addressed in this study. Her practice is infused with many of the strategies suggested for scaffolding language and literacy learning with her Afiican American English speakers: she teaches phonics, she uses rich vocabulary, she teaches about code switching, she uses some 159 African American rhetorical strategies and she encourages and praises her students. Understanding the verve of her students, Sheri also maintains her own style of verve in the classroom. With a background as an English as a second language teacher and a cross- cultural marriage, Sheri understands many of the issues surrounding Afiican American English speakers, those located within the microsystems of home and school, the mesosystem of languages where school and home language practices meet, and the exosysterns that affect language issues and macrosystem ideologies about them. This knowledge, while giving Sheri more depth of understanding, may make her job more difficult, as she constantly engages in critical thinking about the issues and the demands the school district is putting upon her and her students. Appropriately, she is wonied about how deleterious the demands will be for the children Even though she says she doesn’t put on a show for anyone, Sheri, like Maiah and Lauren, is pressured by the district walk tlrroughs - a technique that seems to intimidate the teachers and further demonstrate the power of the district. Rather than continuing to put Sheri and teachers like her under more pressure and giving her contradictory advice, the district should call upon Sheri for her expertise. Sheri is a gifted teacher and a life-long learner, thirsting for more knowledge. She came to me several times as I was about to leave her classroom to ask me to help her with the issues noted above. As a researcher in her classroom, I knew I could not help Sheri. It would be helpful for her to be involved in a community of learners, perhaps a group of teachers with a university professor, to discuss the issues with which she struggles. 160 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION Chapter seven presents a discussion of the study findings and their implications. The overall study findings will initially be discussed in relationship to Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model and critical literacies. An emergent theoretical map will be presented. Then, the findings will be explored in light of the research sub questions. Theoretical maps for each classroom mesosystem will be displayed. Limitations will be discussed as well as implications for classroom practice, advocacy and suggestions for firrther research. Reflexivity will be considered prior to concluding remarks. Theoretical Framework - Bronfenbrenner’s Bio-Ecological Model Bronfenbrenner’s bio—ecological model was an appropriate fit for the findings of the study. As we shall see, each of the systems in Bronfenbrenner’s model seem to be powerfully at work affecting classroom mesosystems. The realities of racism and White privilege in the macrosystem of the United States continue to deeply penetrate our core city schools as do dominant ideologies around the use of mainstream and African American Englishes. The macrosystem of the US. Department of Education is saturated with dominant Discourses from mainstream culture. These are also manifested in the State Departments of Education and flow into the exosystem of school districts where they infiltrate the microsystems of classrooms. Finally, they seep into the mesosystems where home and school languages meet in dialogic communication between students and teachers It appears that this flow has greater magnitude for core city school districts, home to a considerable population of lower-income Hispanic or African American students. These are the school districts most 161 targeted and powerfirlly impacted by the No Child Left Behind legislation (a macrosystem element), which, because of the danger of failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress Goals, are directing teachers not only what to teach, but also how to teach. With No Child Left Behind, a proverbial bar for achievement has been set with the expectation that under-resourced children will leap over it via standardized testing, standardized curriculum, intensified teacher control of behavior, increased use of work sheets, and hours of seat work. The very legislation that was ostensibly created to address underachievement in inner city schools may be leaving children behind. Thus, federal, state and district policies are working against sound pedagogy for young language and literacy learners of nondorrrinant groups who are without voice in the official world of school (Dyson, 2003). At the least, the dominant Discourse of the legislation is a powerhouse that has created an untenable situation for learning. At the most, it smacks of institutional racism. In this study, three teachers worked diligently through proximal processes to encourage language and literacy learning for students in the microsystem of the classroom. Fortunately, these teachers were required to use a high quality literacy program called Four Blocks, which divides daily literacy periods into intervals for guided reading, self-selected reading, writing and working with words (phonology). The three teachers were in agreement that this literacy program was a useful one for their students, . but none were aware of the more ecological View of literacy exemplified in critical literacies which could be integrated with the Four Blocks program. Although each teacher was in agreement that her African American English students needed to acquire mainstream English, none seemed to view language and literacy practices as social 162 practices. Only the teacher with English as a second language background understood the importance of crossing cultural borders and building upon the language of the home culture in order to facilitate acquisition of the dominant discourse. This teacher also understood the relationships between language, ideology and identity. The children in each classroom studied were learning how to read and write in mainstream English. The teachers reported that the range of literacy scores in each classroom was what they expected. Yet, the pace of classroom life was hectic. There was no time for relaxed language play, valuable discussion, teachable moments, inquiry learning or rich experiences based upon student culture. Except for writing workshops and literacy and math centers, direct instruction was the primary mode of teaching, For the most part, the teachers felt a push to deliver information and a pull to elicit information from the students through nearly constant assessment. Bronfenbrermer (2005) held a theoretical expectation that the quality of the environment, with its concomitant resources, will determine the developmental effects of proximal processes on the child and outcomes ranging from dysfunction to competence. The quality of classroom environments and the learning that takes place within them have to be suffering due to unmitigated assessment strain on both teachers and students. Although each teacher in the study reported differing levels of stress regarding testing requirements of the district, each expressed significant concern that excessive expectations for assessment and data collection in the district stole valuable classroom time to not only work with literacy, but also to teach math (social studies and science have nearly been eliminated from the curriculum in the emphasis on literacy). 163 None of the teachers had any idea of who was making district policy; the vague nature of policy making appeared to be an effective way for the district to exert power over the classroom. Each teacher was, however, keenly aware that she essentially had no agency in making decisions that would impact district thinking or practice. In this way, the exercise of teacher voice had been diminished over the years. Figure 2 on p. 165 depicts the research findings of this study, which will be explicated below. Findings Related to Research Sub Questions The primary research interest of this study was: how do first grade teachers who self-describe as effective instructors of diverse learners cross cultural borders to facilitate the acquisition of mainstream English with speakers of African American English. The findings related to the research sub questions follow. To What Extent are the Teachers Wrestling with the Ideological Tensions Involved Around the Use of Afiican American English in the Classroom? (R. S. Q. I) In the first chapter of this study, I proposed that the implications of early childhood teachers speaking a privileged Discourse are great in the classroom. I stated that although we know that teachers should examine their beliefs, expectations and attitudes prior to embarking upon language and literacy issues in the classroom, whether or not they do so needs to be explored. I wondered: are teachers aware of their membership in a dominant Discourse and the power that they hold? Are they aware of their ideologies about African American English? If so, how might these’belief systems 164 impact classroom praxis? If not, how might a lack of awareness about ideologies impact how one negotiates dialect with students who need to acquire mainstream English? 165 0885 23: 5:25 Eczema“ Edobmfimz goioguousm QEmaozsom / \ oan a omag 0885 8304 83953 5%on 8:553 EEO 30:85 53, 9.: E own-as: mo mommoooa 35x2 wfifiwfli £0:ch misun— 8315 58.55 505.4 :mswem 505:2 Became—U 50$? .«0 032305“ Looeow 30:8 5%:me going 0 2 oo 0 505.4332... eozom a E .n: ,n m 95:8 Sacha—“RE panm to:— EEU oZ _ momma—ODE 82¢.meme i— nane—Eu 98 E388 5953 emfficmgwcfl mo $380.5 35:85 no.“ .352 .N 0.5mm"— 165 Each of the teachers in the study shared the mainstream ideology that her Afiican American English speakers need to acquire mainstream English in order to gain employment in our country. While this belief appears grounded in reality, it is also a statement that often falls far short in reality because it does not foreground other structural inequalities, akin to institutional racism, that prohibit success for lower-income peoples of nondonrinant cultures. As stated in chapter two, when discussions remain focused only upon the necessity to acquire Standard English in order to attain social mobility, other variables related to race and class become obscure (Speicher & Bielanksi, 2000) The findings from each classroom represent distinct ideological stances about Afiican American English speakers. Although Maiah and Lauren stated they do not have any thoughts or opinions on Afiican American English and its use in the classroom, critical discourse analysis of both practice and interviews reflect the teachers’ beliefs. Maiah seems to have a deficit view of the language abilities of her students, asserting that teachers need to change the language of the students, bringing to mind Milroy’s (2001) assertion that people do not always associate their rejection of nonstandardized varieties as racist or discriminatory. Lauren, repeatedly asserting her belief that her students all speak as first graders, clearly reflects a color-blind view, one representative of a progressive view in the United States during the 1970’s and through the 1990’s: “I do not see color; it’s what is inside that counts” (Derman- Sparks & Phillips,1997; Bonilla- Silva, 2006). In the discussion about language, ideology and power, Murray (1998) was quoted, asking: ‘Whose language is used? For what purposes is it used? Who holds the power?’” 167 (p. 145). Maiah and Lauren appear to regard their students as persons who make language mistakes and who need to learn how to speak correctly. Although neither teacher seems consciously aware that she is straddling Discourses (Gee, 1996), each must be aware of her membership in a dominant group and the power that she holds over students because of it. Cross, DeVaney and Jones (2001) proposed that if most teachers believe their duty is to uphold the proper dialect and eliminate those that compete with it, f" it is likely that students will feel that both their language and culture are dismissed. (p. 145). Sheri owns the ideological stance that no linguistic system should be privileged over another and that she needs to expand the verbal repertoires of her students into communicative competence rather than change home language systems. She is strong in her beliefs and can compare her ideology to other staff in her building, including African American teachers. It was interesting that Sheri did not mention the notion of power related to language, although she alluded to it several times referring to the district. Robert Williams (1997) creator of the designation “Ebonics,” related language to cultural identity: “My language is me. It is an extension of my being, my essence. It is a reflection and badge of my culture. Criticism of my language is essentially a direct attack on my self-esteem” (Williams, 1997, p. 209). Hymes (1985) also spoke to the rejection of a student’s language essentially being the same as rejecting his/her person. While neither Maiah nor Lauren clearly understand the correlation between language and identity, Sheri has a sophisticated understanding of their intimate connection (Delpit, 2002; Gay, 2000; Hymes, 1985; Street, 2000). 168 It is perplexing that both Maiah and Lauren seem to have engaged in little critical reflection about the ideological nature of classroom discourse. Perhaps their educational experiences did not address linguistics or ideology. It appears that these teachers have not been encouraged in their school district to reflect upon dialect issues either. Cahill and Collard (2003) talk about the fruitfulness of professionals engaging in straight-forward discussions about issues of language, power and pedagogy. In working with dialect, Smitherman reminds teachers of the necessity of wrestling with our ideology because “The belief sets, the philosophy, the world view, and the pedagogical ideology of the teacher are all intertwined and interrelated. Those ideas and underlying assrunptions are revealed in the behavior and practice of the teacher in the classroom” (pp. 216-217). How Familiar are the Teachers with Afi'ican American English and its Rhetorical Components as a Linguistic System? (R. S. Q. 2) Both Meier (2008) and Smitherman (2001) argue that teachers of Afiican American children must learn more about Black English in order to connect with students and to help them feel more secure about the legitimacy of the dialect. Furthermore, Srrritherrnan proposes that such an approach will render students more willing to learn another language. Although Maiah and Lauren have worked with African American English speakers for years, both profess that they have little knowledge of African American English. In contrast, Sheri’s knowledge, as an English as a second language teacher is considerable. It is surprising to me that there has been no in-servicing in the district about the dialect or how best to work with African American English speakers. As suggested in 169 a recent article by Dyson and Smitherman (2009), ignorance about the components of the dialect can lead to errors and remarkable misunderstandings on the teacher’s part. These authors propose that writing proficiency will be increased if teachers understand exactly what it is their dialect speakers are saying and writing rather than misinterpreting oral or written text through mainstream eyes and ideology about that which needs to be fixed (Dyson & Smitherman, 2009, p. 981 & 984). It seems that if teachers are not aware of the features of Afiican American English, they will not be able to use any of the beneficial strategies recommended in chapter two. Discussing their 2003 study, Cahill and Collard reported on the success they experienced by providingl”more complete and compelling information to teachers about Aboriginal English and its link to culture, identity and power,” as well as offering strategies for utilizing the students’ native language variety (Cahill & Collard, 2003, p. 213). Still, although scholars recommend that teachers will become more respectful and effective through knowledge about the dialect (Labov, 1972; Perry & Delpit, -1 998; Smitherman, 1977, 2000), we should be careful to assume knowledge will transform practice. Meier (2008) goes a step further, emphasizing that although teachers must gain knowledge about Afiican Ammcan culture and this linguistic system, they also need to reflect on their own practice as well as the political and sociohistorical perspectives that profoundly influence it. Finally, they need to be willing to become involved in a generative process of transformation. 170 How Do Teachers Respond When African American English Speakers Speak and Write in African American English During the Conferencing Period of Writer '5 Workshop? (R. S. Q. 3) At the outset of data collection, Sheri had informed me of her belief that African American English speakers begin to learn how to code-switch from an early age. Although I had read Connor and Craig’s 2006 study where the findings suggested that some preschoolers seemed to be dialect switching, during my data collection I was still surprised that I did not hear more African American English spoken in the writer’s workshops. I did not have permission to observe any other verbal exchanges in the classroom. Still, it was impossible to be present and to not overhear some of the exchanges between the children carrying on conversations with each other when the teachers were busy doing something else. It sounded as if the students were using Afiican . American English to a greater extent with their peers than with their teachers (an area for further study). Although the children’s language abilities were not the topic of the present study, it would be imprudent not to consider that teacher responses would not only be less in quantity, but perhaps different in quality if some of the students were using a more mainstream form of English in the linguistic mesosystem which was observed. Several scholars wrote that correcting a child’s grammar is one of the least effective ways to teach the structure of a new linguistic system (Allington,l 980; Collins 1996; Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez, 1992; and Cazden,2001). In terms of teacher responses, it was heartening to learn that the teachers utilized little correction, according to the definition I had developed after reviewing literature for the study (see p. 36). 171 Sheri, who understood the issues at hand, focused more on phonological components such as stretching out sounds and subj ect/verb agreement in response to nonstandard elements of speech. Lauren explicitly taught about the final consonant sound, as recommended by Labov (1972, 2008). Maiah and Lauren both re-phrased more than Sheri did, especially re-phrasing the word with its final consonant sound. Interestingly, Lauren ignored many nonstandard elements, but skillfully scaffolded her ] students into descriptive writing, modeling vivid, expressive language for them. Sheri crossed cultural borders, drawing from her knowledge of Afiican American culture and using many of the rhetorical strategies advocated in the literature and detailed in chapter two. Her students’ work portrayed strong student voice. In contrast, Maiah’s responses seemed non-descript and non-expressive, primarily focusing on writing conventions. Her students uttered responses with few words in response to Maiah’s questions and their writings, although strong in structure, lacked voice and expression E.g.,“First I got up. Then I got dressed. Finally I went to school.” Piestrup (1972) suggested that teachers often interrupted learning by alienating children, sometimes through subtle messages that dialectal verbalizations were incorrect. It seemed that teacher utterances of “Does that sound right?” or “That sounds funny” were not respectfirl of student verbal repertoires. Recently, Dyson and Smitherman spoke to the same phenomenon, asserting that focusing on whether or not something sounds right, is not entirely unreasonable, but does highlight “communicative disconnect” between students and teacher (Dyson and Smitherman, 2009, p. 975). A more useful strategy would be to point out the way words and phrases sound in different dialects, 172 discussing which ways with words are appropriate in which situation -- essentially, teaching about code switching (Craig & Washington, 2004; Delpit, 2002; Meier, 2008). Finally, the teachers commonly used nonstandard words, slang and word combinations: “Yeah. . .nope. . .gonna. . .gotta, etc.” Informal language creeps into mainstream speech, but to expect our students to both speak and write in the standard variety of English is not fair if we are not doing so ourselves (Speicher & Bielanski, I 2000). Becoming aware of one’s nonstandard utterances is a challenge, but an undertaking teachers should be encouraged to do. How Do the Teachers Describe the Way They Address the Dialectal Diflerences in the Classroom as a Whole? Do the Teachers Explicitly Teach About the Need to Acquire Mainstream English? Are Specific Strategies, such as Code Switching, Taught to Enable Children to Cross the Borders Between the Nondominant and Dominant Language Forms? (R. S. Q. 4) As discussed in chapters four-six, the teachers answered this question in very different ways. Maiah has earnestly taken up the district mandate to teach first graders the importance of structuring their narratives; this importance was emphasized in each of the observations and served to re-focus topic-associative writing. Maiah, however, seemed to be unaware of the importance of addressing the structure of dialects, which could be accomplished in a developmentally appropriate manner. Furthermore, she spoke to the necessity to change the way dialect speakers talk. Such a view reflects the kind of othering that occurs in core city schools and across America in mainstream culture (Delpit, 1993, 2002; Kozol, 2005). 173 Lauren is careful not to engage in othering while clearly asserting that her job is to teach standard English. She describes her strategy of discussing the use of appropriate registers in different social situations. Although Lauren states that she does not segregate the Englishes of her students, her description of implicit and explicit ways to engage in language learning and teaching demonstrates that she has given some thought to the needs of students who do not speak mainstream English. Craig and Washington assert that first grade is a critical time for children to learn how to dialect shift, claiming that inability to do so may impact the process of learning how to read (Craig, & Washington, 2004, p. 458). Neither Maiah nor Lauren explicitly teach about code- switching from Afiican American English. Sheri speaks with knowledge about how she, family members, her students, her and her co-workers code- switch across cultural borders. Although she believes that some of this is acquired naturally, she also explicitly teaches her students about Gee’s big “D” Discourse: “. . .ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are accepted as instantiations of particular identities [or ‘types of people’]) by specific groups...” (Gee, 2008, p. 3). The recommendation of some scholars (Labov, 2001, Dyson, 2003) that teachers allow students to write hip hop lyrics, write songs in other Afiican American styles or draw from other popular literacies (such as comic books) were not observed in this study. On the other hand, narrative writing in the mandated literacy curriculum seemed to fit well with the prevalence of narrative in Afiican cultures. 174 To What Extent are the Verbal Repertoires, Linguistic Resources, and Literacy Practices of African American English Speaking Students Recognized by the Teachers? (R. S. Q. 5) Although Sheri was the one teacher who recognized the rich, descriptive oral tradition in Afiican and Afiican American culture, I do not believe any of the teachers were thoroughly familiar with the verbal repertories, the linguistic resources and the literacy practices of the African American English speakers in their classrooms. I make this assertion because as stated above, the children appeared to be code switching as they moved in and out of the official world of school (Dyson, 2003). As they spoke with one another, dialogic communication appeared to be elaborate. This casual observation may support the assertions of Goodwin (1990), Dyson (2003, 2009) Heath (1993), and Labov (1972) that African American speakers, including those from lower-income families, come to school with sophisticated linguistic abilities. It is difficult to reconcile these assertions with the findings of Hart and Risely’s 1995 hallmark study; their results indicate that lower income children come to school with 30 million fewer words than their well-resourced peers. If the children in this study were code switching into English when they spoke with the teachers, it may be that the whole of their linguistic repertoires remained unrecognized. Similarly, as noted earlier in this study, there is a prevailing assumption in the United States that lower-class Afiican American students come to school without literacy backgrounds. Taylor (1983), Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988), and Dyson (2003) all of whom studied lower-income children, reported on the multiple literacies in the children’s I75 homes. It may be that these literacies are not recognized or even evoked in the school setting. Both Maiah and Lauren seem to have limited knowledge about how to draw upon the Afiican American English rhetorical strategies their students bring to school. Sheri, however, called upon home and cultural experiences when she told stories as writing scaffolds. She is aware of the connectedness in the culture of the children and how it is integrated into their thinking, enabling them to create imaginative stories. For example, when writing about her upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, Precious talked about going to her grandmother’s home in order to go swimming in an indoor heated pool and taking breaks to eat pizza and drink soda pop (Sheri knew that Precious’ grandmother did not have an indoor swimming pool.) Regarding discursive practices in which teachers engage with students, Cazden (2001) reminds us to build upon the language resources children bring to school, a microsystem where cultures meet to create new social practices. We must remember that in language and literacy practice, our goal is to scaffold children into communicative competence so that they, too, can participate in the world of dominant Discourses. Other Critical Findings Classroom Talk or No-Talk? Delpit, 2002, discusses how teacher talk far exceeds student talk in the classroom (Delpit, 2002, p. 40). This characteristic of academic Discourse was true in each of the classrooms studied. In spite of Piaget’s constructivist and Vygotsky’s co-constructivist theories which teacher education programs are embracing, traditional educational pedagogy has focused upon teacher delivery of information and student uptake. In 176 addition, the movement in many urban school systems to ‘return to basics” in the curriculum has diininished student voice. At its best, this phenomenon is manifested in a lack of time for rich discussion as Sheri lamented. At its worst, expectations for silence reign in the classroom. Prior to carrying out my study, I had heard colleagues and classmates speak about the expectation for silence in core city schools. I must admit, I did not believe them until I spent time in Douglas School. At first I believed this was just Maiah’s particular way of controlling 27 first graders during the writing conferences - possibly a formidable task. Even with the help of a student teacher each semester, Maiah found it difficult to enforce silence during the writing conferences. Often Maiah interrupted individual conferences with the announcement that someone’s name would soon be written on the blackboard. Sometimes Maiah wrote down names at the table, subtracting nrinutes of recess. One day, as she began the conferences, Maiah informed the students that they would get stars for being silent. The first graders seemed immune to these methods, keeping up continual communication with each other. In The Shame of the Nation Kozol writes about the control which urban schools try to exert upon students. Kozol discusses teacher commands for “Zero Noise,” as well as the institution of silent lunches in the cafeteria, both of which I experienced in the school district under study (Kozol, 2005, p. 65 & 66). Earlier, I reported how Sheri spoke to me about the contradictory messages she received from district administrators regarding the value of discussion in the classroom. As a person well-versed in language and literacy issues, Sheri knows that literacy is based upon oral language development. Sadly, she also asserts that there would be no time for rich discussion even if it were allowed. If curricular and assessment expectations 177 are so great that rich classroom discussion cannot take place, the problems are with the district expectations, not the students or the teachers. Literacy Curriculum Developmentally Appropriate? With the national frenzy around standardized testing, curriculum expectations, standards and benchmarks, which are necessary and can be useful for teaching and learning, have fallen prey to being pushed down from one grade to a grade lower (McAffee & Leong, 2007). Kindergarteners must try to master first grade learning; first graders are doing second grade work. This is a disturbing trend, without research to substantiate it. Many early childhood advocates (Elkind, 1987; Katz, 1988; Kostelnik, Soderrnan & Whiren, 2006; National Research Council, 2000) worry about the risks children experience in “academic-pushdown”--the undue stress, the diminished motivation and the reduction in opportunities to acquire favorable dispositions to learning. The National Association for the Education of Young Children has warned against the misuse of standardized testing and curricula for many years (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992; Copple and Bredekarnp, 2009). The teachers in the study were asked if they thought the literacy curriculum expectations in their grade were developmentally appropriate. All responded in the affirrnative. They were proud of the reading and writing that some of their children were able to do and very concerned about those who were not “benchmarked” (performing at standard levels). All labored to meet the needs of individual learners and spoke a great deal about how the district’s demands for data collection impeded their ability to differentiate practice for those students who required extra assistance. As an early childhood educator, I was amazed at the work the first graders were turning out, but I was 178 also fearful for student motivation a few years fi'om now. Unfortunately, much of the tendency to push curricular expectations down is currently fed by the No Child Left Behind Act. Critical Literacies Although a strong emphasis on phonics and a balanced literacy curriculum such as Four Blacks, are advantageous for Afiican American English speakers, these elements are insufficient for working with diverse populations. Only one of the teachers in the study had heard of critical literacies as discussed in chapter one. In that chapter, we explored how the premise of critical literacy is that literacy entails more than the mechanical skills and processes entailed in reading and writing but also validates the languages and literacies from the homes and cultures that the children bring to school. This more culturally relevant view of literacy as a social practice of a people as well as a social practice of a classroom would be advantageous for both teachers and students. The resources of the students would be honored as they transition into mainstream English reading and writing. The teachers would be called to equity in pedagogy and encouraged to regard not only nondominant position and power in the classroom, but also in the district. A Note on Culturally Relevant Pedagogy A thorough discussion of culturally relevant pedagogy is beyond the scope of this discussion, but a few notes are in order. As I recruited for my study, I routinely informed the teachers that I was interested in how we, as Euro American teachers, can become culturally competent with our students. Invariably, I was asked: “What does that mean?” When I went on to explain the importance of integrating the culture of our students into 179 our classrooms and engaging in culturally relevant practice, I was met with puzzled gazes. I surmised that I was not expressing myself clearly. It was not until the study was completed that I realized some of the teachers may not have understood what I meant. My assumption was that teachers who described themselves as good teachers of diverse learners built upon the home cultures of the students. I learned, however, that instead of being able to do so, the teachers are required to use standardized curricula, which, designed as one size fits all, stands in the way of culturally relevant pedagogy. While teacher education programs are working diligently to foster cross-cultural competency in pre-service teachers, and state standards for educational programs now include culturally relevant pedagogy, it is egregious that a school district largely located within the core city does not offer in-service training or encourage teachers to learn about culturally relevant pedagogy. Equally disconcerting is that due to No Child Left Behind and district requirements, teachers would not have time to incorporate such pedagogy into their classrooms. Classroom Management Issues Effective language and literacy teaching and learning cannot materialize when classroom management issues are not under control. Some of the greatest concerns I have about children in the district are the classroom management techniques commonly used by the teachers. Strict behavioral expectations are the manifestation of a top-down authority model. Often when one enters a building, one or more young black males are seated, waiting to see the principals or security guards. Typical for urban schools, responsibility for misbehavior is attributed to the students, their families and the violence with which they live (Kozol, 2005). While these 180 are certainly important variables for student behavior and success in school, other variables intervene to create problems for the children in the classroom. Expectations that children sit still and be quiet for extended periods of time are problematic for young children. Elimination of recess and a return to “seat work” (i.e. worksheets) exacerbate behavioral issues. During the writing conferences, stories and conversations with children were interrupted with repeated calls to offenders to stop whatever it was they were doing; my own concentration was jarred each time this occurred. In addition, according to anecdotal evidence, most of the teachers in the district use behavior modification methods. These methods, which work on a short-term basis, are based upon extrinsic motivation which does not encourage the development of inner control that is involved in self-regulation. Classroom management techniques observed included: offering stickers and marbles in jars for incentives, writing children’s names on the board, eliminating recess and noon hour playground time, and using stoplight procedures for warnings about misbehavior. Offenders were often told to put their heads down, sent to other classrooms to do their work, or directed to go to the principal’s office. These techniques, observed throughout my data collection, are often not successful with young children (Fields & Fields, 2007). Schools must be safe places in which to learn. Anti-bullying programs may be necessary. But classroom environments would be calmer and more conducive to learning if children are taught to regulate their own behavior through positive guidance techniques. 18] T eacher/Student Relationships The early childhood perspective on classroom management centers on helping children achieve self-regulation through constructivist techniques. Mutual respect and relationships with children are considered the foundation of effective classroom management (Fields & Fields, 2007). Woolley, K01 and Bowen (2009) have found that student/teacher relationships not only affect student attitudes and behavior, but also achievement in urban classrooms. Ladson-Billings (1994) discusses how teachers need extend relationships with Afiican American students beyond the four walls of the classroom. Bronfenbrenner (2005) argued that we can make human beings more human if we work to improve relationships and dynamics between people and their ecologies. Drawing from Kleinfeld’s work with Athabascan Eskimo and Indian students, Gay advocates that effective teachers of Afiican American children be “warm demanders.” These teachers balance high expectations clearly communicated with warmth expressed through words and touch and relationships that go beyond the classroom (Gay, 2000, p. 50). The importance of warm relationships has been investigated by research on second language learning. Lisa Delpit discusses Krashen who distinguishes between conscious learning of a language and unconscious acquisition of it through informal means. Krashen proposes that there is an affective filter in the brain. He suggests that if students do not feel comfortable with a classroom teacher, do not identify with second language speakers, and are not motivated to learn, information is blocked from connection with the learning centers in the brain. Conversely, according to Krashen, children unconsciously learn language when that filter is lowered and they identify with 182 those whom they admire and with whom they have a relationship (Lisa Delpit, 2002, p. 40 - 41). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Classroom Management Other crucial elements for effective classroom management are briefly addressed in this section. The classroom environment must be set up for child engagement in a way that fosters growth across developmental domains and subject matter disciplines. Expectations for behavior must be developmentally appropriate. Teachers who work with lower-income Afiican American students are encouraged to issue directives with authority rather than asking children to do something, which Black children may interpret as a choice (Heath, 1983; Delpit, 1988). Children must know there are firm boundaries in place and that consequences ensue when boundaries are crossed. Many specialists recommend that parents and teachers of young children maintain an authoritative stance in which teachers maintain authority in the classroom with high expectations, but accompany it with warmth and some shared decision making (Fields & Fields, 2006: Baurnerind, 1967). I believe it is crucial for the teacher to present her classroom management plan to parents and explain it to children, discussing how behavior management at school may be different from that at home. Implications The implications from a study replete with many complex issues are also complex. In line with Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model, implications will be discussed across systems. Many of the ideas delineated below are not novel ideas, but they need to be seriously regarded. 183 The Federal Level as a Macrosystem Howard (2006) speaks to how the No Child Left Behind legislation has not only provided accountability for our nation’s schools, but has also highlighted the focus upon underachieving students of color. Unfortunately, Howard asserts, additional funding for core city schools has not accompanied legislation. In addition, legislation has not addressed the need for teachers to become more culturally competent. In a nation that is becoming more diverse each year, cultural competence is a must. The No Child Left Behind legislation is weighted down with obfuscation, locating problems within students and teachers rather than including systemic factors. Although the increase in standardized testing is lauded by policy makers, it has long been a concern of assessment specialists (McAffee & Leong, 2007). Policy holders must be held responsible. Stakeholders must advocate that the legislation is revisited by President Obama and the United States Department of Education so that complex issues in urban education are addressed in a more efficacious manner. 1 Ever an activist, Smitherman (2002) advocates for a three- part national language policy on language. According to Smitherman, a Language of Wider Communication is needed to empower each language learner to gain communicative competence. Second, the use of nonstandard languages and dialects must be legitimated so they may not only function as a bridge to the Language of Wider Communication but will also be preserved. Third, the acquisition of one or more foreign languages (perhaps Spanish) should be promoted across the country. Smitherman’s position is that North Americans must become tri or multi-lingual in order to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse country 184 and to address structural inequalities for nondominant language speakers. All stakeholders fiom educators to policy makers are called to this task. The State Level as a Macrosystem Decision makers in the State Departments of Education must be held accountable for the ramifications of No Child Left Behind as it stands. In addition, they must become familiar with developmentally appropriate curriculum and assessment strategies as well as the crucial nature of culturally relevant pedagogy. Present standards must be revisited and those who write them must engage with school districts to assist in interpretation of them. Policy makers must also be taught about the importance of norm-referencing in standardized tests and make adaptations to the state versions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress test. I am told that such actions will only occur if educators and other stakeholders in communities come together in grassroots movements. Teacher Education Programs as Exosystems The findings in this study support the view that strategies for second language learners may be beneficial for Afiican American English speakers. Fortunately, state standards for institutions of higher learning are changing to reflect the need for pre- service teachers to become proficient in curriculum and assessment for linguistically diverse students. Professors in teacher education programs must now engage their students in critical reflection about pedagogy with diverse learners and must ensure that students experience diverse classrooms. As well as instructing students in balanced literacy programs, literacy professors must also explore critical literacies with their students. We must engage in issues of White privilege, language, ideology and power, working against institutional racism at all 185 levels. Friere, noted for his critical perspective on literacy, argued against a simplistic view of “men on the margin,” who are oppressed in society and viewed as illiterates in need of literacy saviors. Instead he views ...”the [literacy] process, as cultural action for fi'eedom, is an act of knowing in which the learner assumes the role of knowing subject in dialogue with the educator” (Friere, 2001, p. 338). According to Friere, the educator’s role is to pose problems for the student so that s/he may develop a more critical view of reality and engage in critical reflection upon action that results in transformation. Even though Friere views his theory and pedagogy as utopia, his View is one that re-frames educators’ perceptions of those usually seen as needing help and engages both student and teacher in an authentic dialogue. Those of us who are deeply concerned about social justice and believe in collaboration find hope and inspiration in Friere’s thought. Ball calls upon the Bakhtinian concept of “ideological becoming” (Ball, 2006, p. 54). This concept proposes that the process of developing one’s world view and ideation is a dynamic process, representing the ideological self. When pre-service and in-service teachers engage with theories, perspectives, pedagogy, and alternative voices, they encounter personal growth and develop ideology. This process must be highlighted in teacher education programs so that teachers can exert their own voices and ideologies in the face of institutional practices that run counter to human beings becoming human (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). In terms of advocacy, Perry discusses how “. . .the silence of white school reformers, white progressive educators and their organizations was deafening” in the aftermath of the Oakland controversy in California (p. 14). Viewing this phenomenon as a symbol of how Whiteness operates in our country, Perry urges higher Euro American 186 educators to step up to the task of challenging the status quo in language learning for African American English speakers. Finally, those in the academy who advise both undergraduate and graduate students need to recommend that those who hope to teach preschool through grade two attain an early childhood endorsement in order to advocate for developmentally appropriate curriculum and assessment strategies. The District Level as an Exosystem Administrators in school districts, from superintendents to curriculum directors to principals, need to be educated about: developmentally appropriate curriculum, developmentally appropriate assessment, and culturally relevant and critical pedagogy. These people also need to learn about the effects of No Child Left Behind legislation on the district’s students, the effects of stress on the brain, and the particular issues African American English speakers face. Furthermore, they must share the responsibility for the literacy success of Afiican American English speakers with students, families and teachers. A move away from standardized curriculum is in order. Many school districts are now hiring teachers with early childhood endorsements; these teachers are able to assess that which is as well as is not developmentally appropriate. Issues of cultural competency must also be addressed in hiring processes. School districts are presently paying attention to pedagogy for second language learners. Some of this focus must be shifted to Afiican American English and other nondominant dialect speakers. As suggested in Sheri’s practice, some of the same strategies may be beneficial for these students. Administrators must also engage with teachers in professional development on how to scaffold Afiican American English 187 speakers into mainstream English. Local university and college professors can partner with school districts in order to help administrators and teachers learn about critical literacies and to examine issues of language and power. Scholars and practitioners sometimes wonder about the effectiveness of teacher in-service training. Unconvinced that usual professional development efforts would be effective in transforming teacher practice, Berdan and his colleagues annotated reading selections in a curriculum with “. . .conventional spelling representations of the range of Black English pronunciations that would be expected for each vocabulary item prior to classroom use” (Berdan, 1980, p. 83). The results of this study indicated that the teachers were thrilled at the opportunity to listen to reading as reading, rather than perceived errors. Fogel & Ehri (2006) found that teacher attitudes changed modestly when presented with information about Afiican American English. These scholars pose that that understanding the difficulties dialect speakers face in school may be advantageous for changing negative attitudes about dialect. If school districts put as much time and energy into cross-cultural competency and critical literacies training as they do on assessment and varying models of literacy, the proximal processes in language and literacy between Euro American teachers and Afiican American English speakers could create powerful surges of learning. The Classroom Level as a Microsystem Teachers must be encouraged to reflect upon their own racial identities and ideologies, their “ideological becoming” in Bakhtinian terms. This is a difficult task to do alone. University professors can collaborate with school districts in order to engage with these issues. 188 In an article called “The silenced dialogue,” Delpit (1988) recounts how an African American mother instructs teachers to help her children how to be successfirl in the White world. Teachers must learn about Afiican American English and the beneficial strategies laid out in chapter two. They need to be careful not to label something as a problem when it is a developmental issue. Children need to be taught how to code- switch; teachers must also emphasize that how one speaks at home and in the neighborhood may be different than how one speaks in school and the larger world. Teachers must advocate for use of excellent literacy programs as well as to learn about critical literacies. Teachers must explicitly teach phonics. Use of rich language and language play in the classroom are important. Finally, it is imperative to advocate for children’s nondominant voices. Limitations of the Study The limitations of this study must be delineated. First of all, only three classrooms were studied and only twelve observations were made on each one. It is not possible to generalize from the findings, regardless of how significant they seem to be. Another limitation, as Dr. P. Edwards pointed out at the inception of the study, is that the teachers knew what I was studying and may have adapted their scaffolding methods accordingly. In addition, teacher voices were foregrounded in the study; student voices need to be brought to the fore in additional research. The nature of qualitative research is iterative. As the study progressed, I began to wonder if the children were code switching as I didn’t hear as much African American English in the classrooms as I thought I would have. I would have liked to observe the children to determine if they were indeed code switching between talk with teachers and 189 talk with their peers, for this ability and my knowledge of it would have deeply impacted the results of the study, its pedagogical implications and recommendations for further research. Finally, the institutional review board would not allow me to use my field notes as they were not written into my original study application. Therefore, I needed to rely upon theoretical memos about the observations as I wrote the dissertation. Some valuable information may be missing as a result. Suggestions for Further Research As indicated above, a fruitful area for study would be to investigate whether or not the first graders were code switching in these first grade classrooms. More research is needed on dialect shifting capabilities in early childhood. A longitudinal study regarding children’s use of African American English in elementary and middle school would shed light on changes in its use with greater demands for speaking and writing in mainstream English as well as the relationship between use of the dialect and racial identity. As this study highlighted teacher voice, the voices of Afiican American English speakers also needs to be foregrounded. How do children feel when various strategies are used to scaffold their language use into mainstream English? What kind of conflicts do they face? Do they feel empowered as their verbal repertoires are expanded into communicative competence? How do they feel about being silenced in the classroom? What would they like their Euro American teachers to know about them? How could their teachers best help them learn mainstream English? More research on the different strategies suggested in the literature is in order. Also, a fruitful investigation would yield information on whether or not some of these 190 strategies (such as contrastive analysis) could be successfully used in the first grade classroom. Also, my study did not explore literacy outcomes of the first grade African American English users. If it did, it would have been interesting to do a quantitative analysis on reading scores across the classrooms. Further studies on the relationship between African American English and the attainment of literacy are in order. Additional research should be carried out comparing the methodology of African American and Euro American teachers in relation to the African American dialect. It would also be beneficial to compare teacher methodology prior to and after beneficial in- service training. Perhaps a book study on critical literacies with a group of teachers or a group of teachers and administrators would be beneficial. Finally, this study has highlighted the usefulness of critical discourse analysis as a tool to investigate classroom discourse and ideologies about it. Luke speaks to how “critical discourse analysis is a political act itself, an intervention in the apparently . natural flow of talk and text in institutional life” (Luke,1 995-1996, p. 12). Dominant discourses that exist below consciousness of the stated word, fostering inequality, can be brought to awareness through the use of critical discourse analysis. Reflexivity When I contemplated and proposed this study, I was cautioned by committee members, colleagues and other scholars that I was investigating an issue of immense complexity. Yet, I wanted to move ahead, spurred on by the memories of the African American children whom I had taught but failed to respect in my own color blind ideology. Although cautioned by these scholars, the complexity was much greater than I expected. From the initial institutional review board application to the recruiting of 191 research participants to potential revisions--all of these steps were accompanied by difficulty. Fortunately, I was reminded by colleagues that I needed to make companions of persistence and dogged determination. I’ve been studying language acquisition and its relationship to literacy as well as African American children and African American English for several years. I’ve also gained considerable expertise in early childhood development and education. Having strong thoughts and opinions about best practice for young children, I needed to keep these opinions in check, remaining open-minded to the practices I encountered. I also found it necessary to continually engage in critical self-reflection in order to examine my own professional predispositions, opinions, and biases (Carolan, 2006, 2008, 2009; Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003; Johnson, 1997; Richards, 2005). As I collected data, memoed and reflected about it, and then wrote the dissertation, I attempted to remain very honest regarding reflexivity. I now realize that this is a difficult task, for I have been immersed in a topic about which I am passionate. In the study, each of the teachers had self-described as a good teacher of diverse children. Each was a Euro American female who was teaching lower-income African American children in a core city school and had taught for at least 10 years. I looked forward to experiencing experts at work. I not only thought I would see the literature to which I had become so accustomed spring to life, I also believed that I would learn new methodologies for how Euro American teachers scaffold Afi'ican American English speakers into mainstream English. Co-constructivist in my own thinking, I observed closely for how teachers and students negotiated dialect in a linguistic mesosystem where the language of the home and the language of the school met. Instead of negotiation, 192 however, I found that the teachers navigated the waters of dialect, often making difficult choices about which route to take with their students: scaffold writing? . . . “ ignore use of the “to be” form? . . . focus on the final consonant sound? At first I was disappointed that I did not hear as many examples of African American English as I thought I would have. In addition, it seemed that I was not observing very many strategies in use by the teachers. I worried that I wouldn’t have enough data. When I began to suspect that the students were code switching in their classrooms and wanted to expand my research, I was cautioned not to do so. I vacillated between worry and frustration until I realized that I, indeed, had plenty of data to analyze. It wasn’t until I began the process of analysis, however, that I realized how complicated the issue of Afi'ican American English really was. My inexperience in qualitative research was apparent. I was reminded of Edward’s definition of a “cognitive knot” as “a moment of cognitive disequilibrium, containing possibilities for the regrouping, hypothesis testing, and intellectual comparison of ideas” (Edwards, 1998, p. 187.) I encountered several “cognitive knots”, in this process which was an uncomfortable experience for me. I was reminded by a colleague that working through such knots is actually an indicator of working within one’s own zone of proximal development. Part of the knotty contemplation during the work of data collection, analysis and writing was due to the heteroglossia I experienced (Bakhtin,1988). The voices of my research participants, theorists and scholars in my literature review, my committee, my role models, my colleagues, and the future readers of my work reverberated in my brain with my own voice and thoughts. I was ever so aware of how different eyes and ears 193 would engage and question my work. In the end, it was the voices of my former Afiican American English speakers that anchored me. I was eager to begin critical discourse analysis. Once I began transcription of the interviews, however, I realized that I needed to engage in critical discourse analysis on my own responses to what the teachers had said. Believing myself to be an objective interviewer, I was amazed at some of my own discursive moves. In the interview with Maiah, I sometimes sounded as if I was aligning myself with her by my assertions of “yes” and “uh, h ” when I meant to simply encourage her to talk. After Maiah or Lauren responded to the questions about language resources and home literacy practices, I moved into the teacher role, instructing them about scholarly work they did not know. With Sheri’s interview, I engaged in some discussion as well as asking questions. My present role in life as a professor who believes in collaboration was readily apparent. Also, as I worked with the critical discourse analysis, I felt intrusive and a little guilty. The teachers had made themselves vulnerable to data collection. I not only invaded the ecology of their classrooms, but I may have altered it by my presence. Then I spent months dissecting what was said there and shared my work in this manuscript. In the end, I am very grateful for the opportunity to have observed in these classrooms and to have learned what I have. Furthermore, I realized that linguistically, I am in a somewhat similar position to the students in the study. While they are appropriating mainstream English, I am appropriating the discourse of the academy in my Ph.D. program and in my professorial position. I am conscious of what I say and how I say it; I find myself code switching into more academic language and formal register when I am speaking with my colleagues and 194 my professors. As I spent many years learning how to communicate well with young children, I sometimes find the dialect shifting process laborious and uncomfortable. At the same time, I have become aware of my own tendency to use nonstandard words and word combinations: “gonna,” “gotta” and whadyathinkof?” On the other hand, I’ve become aware of my own position of power as a Ph.D. candidate and professor. Suddenly I seem to have become an expert regarding young children; the gulf between the status of an early childhood teacher and a professor is a considerable one. It is easy to be pulled into dominant Discourses even when one is acutely aware of them. Finally, I cannot conclude this discussion without discussing my own color-blind racism. I am passionate about teachers needing to cross cultural borders in order to ensure educational equity for students of color. Although I believe I am quite sensitive to the insidious nature of racism, I needed to constantly question whether or not I was interpreting teacher and student behavior accurately. Conferring with the chair of my committee and my colleagues was immensely helpful to me. I was cautioned not to look at research participants through judgmental eyes and was also reminded of my own participation in racism. It is easy to pick out the prejudice in others while ignoring that which lives within oneself. Racism has so pervaded our reality we are not aware of it. Even though I am offended by racialized comments, I am often stunned by the first thoughts that come to my mind when I see a group of young Black males walking through the mall or driving in a car pulsating with rap music. I am not free of blame. 195 As White reformers, we need a community of racial-consciousness seekers in order to become aware of and accountable for the racism within ourselves and our institutions. In closing this section of the chapter, I will share a story from my theoretical memos. It exemplifies the injustices of urban education and my personal responses to it. The Code of Silence at Douglas School “I have found that the warm physical environment and the fiiendly secretary at Douglas offer a somewhat illusory perception of it, for there is what I call a code of silence that seems to permeate the culture of the school. I notice this in the hallways, the classrooms I pass and in the classroom in which I collect data. Children are continually told that there is no reason for them to talk and that silence is good. Usually when I come into Maiah’s classroom, the children are filing in fiom recess break. I have learned not to say “hello” to the children, for they are reprimanded if they answered me. This afternoon, I arrived at Douglas after having watched Barak Obama take oath on Inauguration Day on television. It was a moving experience to see an Afi'ican American finally having voice as the President of the US; I had planned my day around this event. Just after I walked into the building, I turned the corner where the kindergarteners were lined up. The principal and another person were bringing big cookies and juice boxes around to classes. I was thrilled for the children to have a celebration on this historic day. The young children were standing in a line and talking a little among themselves. No disruption was observed. The principal said loudly, “I am so disappointed. We have a treat today and our kids don’t know how to stand in line quietly. The classroom teacher said, “Well, maybe we just need to do without.” The principal 196 looked at me and quickly smiled, a smile I could not return. I’m sure I looked at her with consternation. She looked away. I walked into Maiah’s classroom which was empty. I waited for the children to come in. I soon heard Maiah’s voice saying, “No talking in the hallway. Go to your seats quietly when you enter the classroom. Voices off. No talking.” The children entered the classroom and were continually silenced. The principal soon came in with the treats. The cookies were given with a caution: “Voices off. There is no reason for any talking.” Although usually the children carried on a little banter in spite of the warnings to be quiet, this time the treats were solemnly devoured in silence. Were the children aware of the profound impact this day would have on history? Were they willing to be quiet and reflect upon the implications for the country of a Black president? Or, were they thinking that a momentous celebration needs not only food but also shouts of joy and exuberation of dance in order to be complete? I had entered the school fighting back tears of joy on a new day for African American voices. I left the school fighting back tears of sadness for the voices silenced there. Conclusion This study has examined language-in-use in three first grade classrooms in an urban school district. It sought to discover how the teachers scaffolded African American English speakers into mainstream English through proximal processes in a classroom mesosystem where the two linguistic systems met. Three levels of qualitative analysis were completed: deductive and axial coding of the teachers’ responses to Afiican American English utterances during classroom 197 observations, deductive and thematic analysis of interviews and critical discourse analysis of both observations and the interviews. The results of analysis demonstrated that each teacher’s responses were unique. The teacher with an English as a second language background was aware of many features of African American English as well as the strategies needed for scaffolding her students into mainstream English. She was also cognizant of issues and ideologies around nondominant linguistic forms. Another teacher had little knowledge about Afiican American English and how to build upon the linguistic resources that its speakers bring to school. She believed that her job was to change the students’ language systems, although the children in her classroom were given little opportunity to talk. The third teacher-also had little knowledge of the dialect, but was enthusiastic and energetic, encouraging students to draw fiom her own rich vocabulary. Other key findings located responsibility for the difficulties that Afiican American English users experience in school in other systems outside the microsystem of the classroom and the home. Racism and ideology about the inferiority of nondominant language systems remains pervasive in the United States. The No Child Left Behind legislation is fueling excessive demands for assessment and use of standardized and non- culturally responsive curricula in school districts. The teachers in the study did not have knowledge, skills, nor voice to assess and advocate for developmentally appropriate curriculum and assessment. Nor were they able to implement effective, developmentally appropriate and culturally congruent classroom management approaches. Locating problems only in the dialect speakers and their families rather than also considering pedagogical strategies and the systems within which the speakers reside is a 198 near-sighted perspective with the potential for long-range deleterious effects. Unfortunately, this stance is all too common in dominant culture thinking; it stands in direct contrast to the praxis of many educators who embrace social justice and bring culture into the classroom in order to inform practice. It is hoped that teachers in the future will embrace linguistic differences in the classroom and build upon the language and literacy practices found in communities in order to expand the verbal repertoires of Afiican American English speakers into communicative competence. In order to do so, it is necessary to acknowledge dominant ideologies in our society that harmfully affect students’ well-being. Furthermore, we must work to promote social justice in educational systems and classroom communities 199 APPENDIX A Codebook 200 Codebook Code Strategy BCE builds upon cultural experience C corrects CAAR corrects AA rhetoric CC co-construction of knowledge CFC contrasts final consonants CHEO children help each other CL clarifies Colloq colloquial expression DN teacher uses double negative DVPT L developmental (used to indicate a developmental rather than AAE issue in the child’s speech.) ENC encourages ENT enthusiasm ET excessive talking EXP expression 201 FOAFC focus on articulation of final consonant FOFS focus on final sound FOH focus on hearing FOMS focus on making sense F OOFC focus on omitted final consonant FOOL focus on omitted “L” FOOW focus on omitted word FOP focus on possession FOPl focus on plural FOPr focus on pronunciation FOPro focus on pronoun FOPS focus on plural “s” FOPu focus on punctuation FOS focus on sound FOSS focus on student story FOSOS focus on stretching out sounds FOSp focus on spelling FOSVA focus on subject/verb agreement FOS/W C focus on slang/word combination FOtb focus on “to be” form FOth focus on “th” FOthR focus on th replacement 202 FOVC focus on verb choice FVT focus on verb tense FOW focus on writing F OWC focus on word choice FOWComb focus on word combination H humor IDN ignores double negative IFS ignore final vowel sound INVT incorrect verb tense IOA ignores omitted article IOAd ignores omitted adverb IOCon ignores omitted consonant IOFC ignores omitted first consonant IOf‘mC ignores omitted final consonant IOl ignores omitted “l” IOP ignores omitted possessive IPC ignores pronoun choice lOPr ignores omitted preposition IOPS ignores omitted plural “S” IOR ignores omitted “R” lOS/S ignores omitted sound/ syllable 203 IOtb ignores omitted “to be” form IOV ignores omitted vowel IOVb ignores omitted verb IOW ignores omitted word Ipronunc ignores pronunciation IS ignores slang ISES ignores sentence structure IS/W C ignores slang /word comb( E.g., “’cuz”) Itb ignores “to be” form IthR ignores th replacement IV C ignores verb choice IVS ignores vowel sound IVT ignores verb tense [W C ignores word choice IWComb ignore word combination [W P ignores word pronunciation IW Prep ignores wrong preposition IWR ignores word replacement LP language play M teacher mispronounces 204 Mtb teacher misuses “to be” form NR no response OFC teacher omits final consonant Otb teacher omits “to be” form P praise QA questions article use QFS questions final sound QP questions phrasing QVT questions verb tense QVU questions verb use QWU questions word use R repetition RA re phrases adverb RCU repeats child’s utterance RCW reads/repeats what child wrote RFC rephrases final consonant 205 Rh rhyme ROL rephrases omitted “L” RP rephrases preposition RPh rephrases phrase RSS rephrases skipped sound/syllable RSVA rephrases subj ect/verb agreement Rtb rephrases “to be” form RthR rephrases th replacement RVME rephrases verb in ME (mainstream English) RVS rephrase vowel sound RVT rephrases verb tense RW rephrases word RWA rephrases with article RWC rephrases word combination RWP rephrases with possession RWPS rephrases with plural “s” RWtb rephrases with “to be” form RAAER responds to AAE Rhetoric RQ responds to question RTAD responds to topic associative discourse RTW responds to writing 206 RVE responds to voiced expression S teacher uses slang S/W C teacher uses slang/ word combination (E.g., “’Cuz,” “gonna” “lookit” ) St teacher uses storytelling SW scaffolds writing TE teacher error TQBS turns question back to student TP teaches punctuation TVT teaches verb tense VM voice modulation W warmth WC word combination AAE Communicative Style AAEWC AAE word choice (“Girll”) AAEx AAE expression E.g., “What m I going to do with you, girl!” Col colorful 207 Mu melodic/musical Pas passionate STGE story telling with great expression 208 APPENDIX B Interview Questions for Teachers 209 Interview Questions for Teachers Identifying and Demographic details: QMPPP!‘ How long have you taught at this school? How long have you taught First Grade here? Have you taught at different schools? What can you tell me about the neighborhood of your school Are some of the children bussed into your school? What can you tell me about the demographics of your school population? Questions pertaining to research 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. What are your opinions and thoughts about Afi'ican American English? What is your opinion on children speaking Afiican American English in the classroom? How much do you know about Afiican American English? How would you describe Afiican American English? Is it necessary to explicitly address language issues in literacy teaching and learning? What kind of language strengths do the African American children bring into your classroom? What kind of and literacy practices do the African American children bring into your classroom? How do you think you usually address uses of African American English in the classroom? Does your school have a policy about the use of Afiican American English in the classroom? What are some of the most effective ways to help Afiican American English speakers learn mainstream English How do you decide which strategy to use when? What are the kinds of issues you struggle with around the use of Afiican American English in the classroom? 210 I9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36 Do you find that the Afiican American English-speakers answer your questions in a way that surprises you? Do they tell stories in a way that is different from the Euro American kids? Do you think that children may be codeswitching in your classroom? Please tell me what you know about these things: Incorrect use of prepositions (eg. “in” for “on”) Changing b/w “th” sound and “ ta” or “da” Communal story telling Call and response style of worship entering into the classroom Please talk to me about the movement needs of African American children How much talking do you prefer to allow while the children write at the tables during the writing conferences? Do you think it serves any purpose? How much multicultural literature do you use? Are there other ways you incorporate African American culture into the classroom? Do the children work in groups, or with partners at all in your classroom? Do they get any other opportunities to talk in your classroom? What do you believe about building upon the language the child brings from home? What do you believe about student/teacher relationships? How do you build relationships with your students? How has No Child Left Behind affected your classroom practice? Tell me how you feel about all the assessments you need to do? How do these affect your teaching? Do you feel you are teaching to the test? Can you speak to the stress you may feel in the school district? How has your teaching changed as a result? Do you feel that your literacy curriculum is developmentally appropriate? How much freedom do you feel you have in lesson planning? Can you share with me what your students’ literacy scores are like? 211 APPENDIX C Research Participant Information and Consent Form 212 Research Participant Information and Consent Form You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Negotiating Dialect: How Four First Grade Euro American Teachers Facilitate Standard English Learning with Afiican American English Users Researcher and Title: Susan K. Verwys, M.A., Ph.D. candidate Department and Institution: The Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: xxxxx 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: You are being asked to participate in a research study of how First Grade Euro American teachers facilitate Standard English learning among low-income Afiican American English speakers. This study is being conducted as doctoral dissertation research for the completion of my Ph.D. in the Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a First Grade Teacher in Grand Rapids Public Schools who works with Afiican American English users. Furthermore, you indicated interest in participation in the study after you received my initial letter and we talked about your participation in the study either in person or on the telephone. From this study, I hope to learn more about how Euro American early childhood teachers facilitate Standard English acquisition among those who speak Afiican American English as well how children learn a secondary dialect. In addition, I hope that the study will contribute to existing understanding on how Euro American teachers can best engage in literacy learning with diverse learners. Four teachers and the African American English speakers in their classrooms are being asked to participate. Your participation in this study will take approximately three months. 213 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO: I will come into your classroom once a week from approximately October 20, 2008 through January 20, 2008, to observe and audio record student-teacher interactions during Writer’s Workshop conferences you hold with Afiican American English speakers. I will be unobtrusive so as not to interrupt your normal classroom routine. After completion of the observations, I would like to meet with you once to interview you about your work. As the observations and the interviews will be audiotaped, I will share the transcriptions with you so that you can confirm/correct their accuracy. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: A potential benefit to you for taking part in this study is gaining greater awareness of the ways you intentionally facilitate Standard English learning among Afiican American English speakers. Your participation in this study may also contribute to a greater understanding in both research and teaching communities about how Euro American teachers can become more effective in teaching African American English speakers, especially in the area of literacy. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS: I realize that you and your students may not feel comfortable at first with the tape recording. This unease will most probably pass as the observations become routine. You do have the right, however, to request that the recorder be turned off at any time and I will honor your request. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Information about you will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law, although it may be difficult to guarantee your anonymity as each of the studied classrooms are part of the Grand Rapids Public School System. Names of all the participants will be removed and replaced with code identification. Audio taping of the Writer’s Workshop conferences and teacher interviews will be necessary in order to accurately record what is said. Please indicate whether or not you are in agreement with audio taping. I agree to allow audio taping of the Writer’s Workshop conferences. [:I Yes El No Initials I agree to allow audio taping- of the interview. [:1 Yes E] No Initials 214 Please indicate whether or not you are in agreement with the results of this study being published or presented at professional meetings. D Yes [I No Initials The tapes and transcripts will be stored in my office at Calvin College in a locked filing cabinet. My advising professor and I will be the only person to have access to the data. The data will be destroyed after three years. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW ' Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. ' You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. I You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. ' You will be told of any significant findings that develop during the course of the study that may influence your willingness to continue to participate in the research. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: For participating in the study, you will receive a $25.00 gift card to Shulers Books. ' 8. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS If you have concerns or questions about this study, please contact: Susan K. Verwys at xxx If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e—mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. 9. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. Signature Date You will be given a copy of this form to keep. 215 APPENDD( D Parent/Guardian Information and Consent Form 216 Parent/Guardian Information and Consent Form Your child and his/her teacher are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researcher any questions you may have. Researcher and Title: Susan K. Verwys, M.A., Ph.D. candidate Department and Institution: The Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: xxxx 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: a. I am a Michigan State doctoral student who is researching different cultural dialects in classroom settings to see how Standard English is taught during reading and writing lessons. 2. HOW MY RESEARCH WILL BE CONDUCTED: a. I will be visiting Mrs. classroom from approximately October 20, 2008 through January 20, 2009. I am planning to watch, listen and tape record student and teacher interactions during the time of day when teachers individually talk with students about their writing. I will not be interacting with the children and they will not be identified by name or voice in my study. I will be happy to share the results of the study with you if you would like me to. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: Hopefully my research will benefit teachers become more effective as they encounter cultural dialects during reading and writing instruction. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS: I can assure you that your child will not face any risk due to this study. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTLALITY: Your child will not be identified by name in the study. Instead, s/he will be identified by a code. His/her privacy will be protected; I will not discuss your child with anyone but the teacher. Information about your child will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law; I will be the only person to have access to the data. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymous. 217 I will need to tape record the teacher/child interactions so as to be accurate in my descriptions. Please indicate whether or not you agree to taping of the interactions. 0 I agree to allow audio taping of the interactions E] Yes D N o Initials Please note: The tapes will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in my ofiice and destroyed after 3 yrs. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW I Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. I You may change your mind at any time and withdraw your child from the study at any time. I Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from this study will not make any difference in your child’s education or educational evaluation. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: Your child will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. 8. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS If you have concerns or questions about this study, please contact the researcher, Susan K. Verwys at xxxx If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research Protection Program at 517-355- 2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. 9. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. Your signature below means that you choose not to allow your child to participate in this research study. If that is the case, please return this form to your child’s teacher by (date) Your Signature Date 218 APPENDIX E Assent Script for First Grade Afiican American English Speakers 219 Assent Script for First Grade African American English Speakers IRB #08-497 Researcher and Title: Susan K. Verwys, M.A., Ph.D. candidate Department and Institution: The Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: xxxx Susan: (to child): Hi. I am studying how children and teachers talk about kids’ writing when they meet to discuss it. I would like to visit your classroom and watch, listen and tape record you and your teacher while both of you talk about your writing. I will not be talking to you while you speak with your teacher, nor will I hurt you in any way. I promise I will not use your name in any of my reports. You may also say “Stop listening (or watching or taping) ” at any time. Your parent/guardian has indicated that they have. no problem with my watching, listening and tape recording you and your teacher talking together. I) Are you 0.K. (or “cool ”) with my listening and watching you?__ 2) Are you 0.K. (or “cool ”) with my tape recording what you say? _ If child says no to #1 and/or #2, s/he will be excluded from the study. 220 REFERENCES African American Vernacular English (AA VE). Multicultural Topics in Communication Sciences & Disorders. Retrieved on 6// 19/09 from i.com/nationa1/32902 bush27.shtrnllticsd.or d o_ku.php?id=aave). Agencies (2004, February 24). Bush accuses Kerry of waffling on issues. About China Daily. Retrieved on July 15, 2009, from http://www.chirflailv.com.cn/enAish/doc/Z004-02/24/content_308774.htm Allington, KL. (1980). Teacher interruption behaviors during primary grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, l-37. Au, K. H., & Mason, J .M. (1981). Social Organizational Factors in Learning to Read: The Balance of Rights Hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (1), 115-152. An, K.H., & Raphael, TE. (2000). Equity and literacy in the next millennium. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (1), 170-188. Baker, J. (2002). Trilingualism. In L.Delpit & J .K. Dowdy (Eds), The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom. (pp. 49-61). New York: The New Press. Ball, A. F. (1992). Cultural preference and the expository writing of Afiican-American adolescents. Written Communication, 9 (4), 501-532. Ball, AF. (1996). Expository writing patterns of African American students. English Journal, 85 (1), 27-36. ' Ball, A. F. (2002). Three Decades of Research on Classroom Life: Illuminating the Classroom Communicative Lives of America’s At-Risk Students. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 26, 71-111. Ball, A. , & Ladner, T. (1997). Dispositions toward language: Teacher constructs of knowledge and the Ann Arbor Black English Case. College Composition and Communication, 48, (4), 469-485. Banks, J.A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., & Hawley, W., (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, (3), 196-203. Baratz, J .C. & Shuy, R.W. (Eds). (1969). Teaching Black Children to Read. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 22] Baurnerind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88. Bedrova, E., Leong, D., Paynter, D.E., & Semenov, D. (2000). A framework for literacy instruction: Aligning standards to developmental accomplishments and student behaviors. (Rev. ed.). Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved on 8/8/09 from http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/Literacy/4006CM_EL_Framework.pdf Berdan, R. (1980). Knowledge into practice: Delivering research to teachers. In M.F. Whiteman (Ed.), Reactions to Ann Arbor: Vernacular Black English and education (pp. 77-84). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Blake, R., & Cutler, C. (2003). Afiican American English and variation in teachers’ attitudes: a question of school philosophy? Linguistics and Education, 14 (2): 163-194 Blommaert, J. ,& Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447-466. Bohn, AP. (2003). Familiar Voices: Using Ebonics Communication Techniques in the Primary Classroom. Urban Education, 38; 687-707. Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Brown, R. (Ed.). Knowledge, education, and cultural change: papers in the sociology of education. London: Tavistock Publications. Bourdieu, P. (2006) Language and Symbolic Power. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds), The Discourse Reader (2"ded.). New York: Routledge. Original Source: Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Edited by John B. Thompson. Darnbridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell, 1991. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. (2nd ed.). Lanharn, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Boykin, W. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro American children. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 57-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bowie, R.L., & Bond, Carole, L. (1994) Influencing teachers’ attitudes toward Black English: Are we making a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 112- 118. 222 Bredekamp, S., and Rosegrant, T. (Eds). 1992) Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children. (V 01.1). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds), International encyclopedia of education (2“‘1 ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643-1647). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science. Bronbenbrenner, U., & Morris, RA. (1998). The ecology of developmental process. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Hand book of child psychology: Vol. I . Theoretical models of human development (5th ed.) pp. 993- 1028. New York: John Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U., Ed. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cahill, R., & Collard, G. (2003). “Deadly ways to learn”. . .a yarn about some learning we did together. Comparative Education, 39 (2), Special Number (27), 211-219. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. (2"d ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cazden, CD. (2003). Teacher and student attitudes on racial issues: The complementarity of practitioner research and outsider research. In S. Greene & D. Abt-Perkins (Eds), Making race visible: Literacy research for cultural understanding, pp. 35-50. Charity, A.H., Scarborough, H.S., & Griffin, D. M. (2004). F arniliarity with school English in Afiican American children and its relation to early reading achievement. Child Development, 75 (5), 1340-1356. Clay, M.M. (1998). By diflerent paths to common outcomes. York, ME : Stenhouse Publishers. Collins, J .P. (1996). socialization to text: structure and contradiction in schooled literacy. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds). Natural histories of discourse (pp. 203 - 208). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Connor, C.M., & Craig, H.K. (2006). Afiican American preschoolers' language, emergent literacy skills, and use of Afiican American English: A complex relation. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49 (4), 771- 792. 223 Craig, H.K., Connor, C.M., & Washington, J .A. (1998).Socioeconomic status and gender influences on children’s dialectal variations: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research; 41 , (3) 618 — 627. Craig, H.K., Connor, C.M., & Washington, J .A. (2003). Early positive predictors of later reading comprehension for Afiican American students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 3143. Craig, H.K., & Washington, J .A. (2004). Grade-related changes in the production of Afiican American English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 4 7, 450-463. Creswell, J .W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and missed methods Approaches. (2“d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cunningham, R, Moore, 8., Cunningham, J ., Moore, D. (2000). Reading and writing in elementary classrooms: strategies and observations. New York: Longrnan. Delpit, L. (2003) Language Diversity and Learning. In A. Darder, M.P. Baltodano, and RD. Torres (Eds), The critical pedagogy reader, pp. 324-337. New York: Routledge. Delgado, R. (Ed.). (1995). Critical race theory?: The cutting edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Delpit, L. (1998). What should teachers do? Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. In T. Perry& L. Delpit (Eds), The Real Ebonics debate: Power, language and the education of African-American children. Boston: Beacon Press. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58 (3), 280-298. Delpit, L. (1993). Other People ’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press. Delpit, L. (2002). No kinda sense. In L. Delpit, & J. Kilgour Dowdy, (Eds). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom. NY: The New Press. Derman-Sparks, L., & Brunson Phillips, C. (1997). T eaching/learning anti-racism: A developmental approach. New York: Teachers College Press. De Vries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children. New York: Teachers College Press. 224 Dyson, AH. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies, in childhood and school cultures. New York, Columbia University: Teachers College Press. Edwards, C. (1998). Partner, nurturer, and guide: The role of the teacher. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forrnan (Eds), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach - advanced reflections (pp. 179-198). Greenwich, CT, Ablex. Edwards, RA. (2004) Children ’s literacy development: Making it happen through school, family, and community involvement. Boston: Pearson Education. Elkind, D. (2005). Early childhood amnesia: Reaffirming children’s need for developmentally appropriate programs. Young Children, 60 (4), 38-40 F airclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Harlow, England: Longrnan Group Unlimited. Fields, M.V., & Fields, D.M. (2007). Constructive guidance and discipline: Preschool and primary education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Fiske, J. (1994). Media matters: Everyday culture and political change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Fogel, H., & Ehri, LC. (2000). Teaching elementary students who speak Black English Vernacular to write in Standard English: Effects of dialect transformation practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 212—235. Fogel, H. & Ehri, LC. (2006). Teaching Afiican American English forms to Standard American English-speaking teachers: Effects on acquisition, attitudes, and responses to student use. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (5). 464-480. Foster, M. (1989). ‘It’s cookin’ now’: A performance analysis of the speech events of a Black teacher in an urban community college. Language in Society, 18, 1-29. Foster, M. (2001) Pay Leon, pay Leon, paleontologist: Using call-and response to facilitate language mastery and literacy acquisition among Afiican American students. In S.L. Lanehart (Ed.). Sociocultural and historical contexts of African American English (pp. 281-298). Philadelphia: John Benjarnins. Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Ed.), New York: NY: The . Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Gall, M. D., Gall, J ., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th Ed.). Boston: A & B. 225 Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research & practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, J. (1989). What is literacy? Journal of Education, 171 (1 ), 18-25. Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J .P. (2001) Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction and what is literacy. In E. Cushman et al (Eds). Literacy: A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St.Ma1tins Godley, A., Sweetland, J ., Wheeler, R., Minnici, A., Carpenter, B. (2006). Preparing teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35 (80),30- 37. Goodwin, M.H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Green, S. & Perkins, D.A., Eds. (2003) Making race visible: literacy research for cultural understanding. New York: Teachers College Press. Hale-Benson, J. E. (1982). Black Children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles. (Rev. ed.) Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hale, J .E. (2001). Learning while Black: Creating educational excellence for Afiican American children. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Haley, A. (1974). Roots: The saga of an American family. New York: Dell Publishing. Harris-Wright, K. (1999). Enhancing bidialectalism in urban Afi'ican American students. In C.T. Adger, D. Christian, & 0. Taylor (Eds). Making the connection: Language and academic achievement among Afi'ican American students (pp.53- 59). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems. Hart, B., & Risely, TR. (1995). Meaningful difi’erences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Heath, SB. (1983). Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Henry, F., & Tator, C. (2002). Discourses of domination. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Hollie, S. (2001). Acknowledging the Language of African American Students: Instructional Strategies. The English Journal, 90 (4), 54-59. 226 Holquist, M. (1988) The dialogic imagination: four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Hoover, M. R. (1998). Ebonics: Myths and Realities. In T. Perry & L. Delpit (Eds), The real Ebonics debate: power, language and the education of Afi'ican-American children. Boston: Beacon Press. Hymes, D.H., Ed. (1964). Language in culture and society; a reader in linguistics and anthropology. New York: Harper & Row. Hymes, D. (1985). Introduction. In C. Cazden, V.P. John, & D. Hymes, (Eds), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. xi-xvii). New York: Teachers College Press. lsenbarger, L., & Willis, A. I. (2006). An intersection of theory and practice: Accepting the language a child brings into the classroom. Language Arts, 84 (2), 125-135. Jones, R. L. (1996). Handbook of Tests and Measurements for Black Populations. Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry. Johnson R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 1 18(2): 282—292. Karnberelis, G., & Perry, M. (1994). A microgenetic study of cognitive reorganization during the transition to conventional literacy. In D.F. Laney (Ed.). Children ’s emergent literacy: From research to practice (pp. 93-123). Westport, CT: Praeger. Katz, L. (Summer, 1988) What should young children be doing? American Educator, 28- 33,44-45. Kostelnik, M.J., Soderman, A.K., & Whiren, AP. (2004). Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education. (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River: New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Kozol, J. (2005). The Shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Crown Publishers. ' Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city; studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 227 Labov, W. (2001). Applying our knowledge of African American English to the problem of raising reading levels in inner-city schools. In S. L. Lanehart (Eds). Sociocultural and historical contexts of AAE (pp. 299-317). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ' Labov, W. (2003). When ordinary children fail to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 1, 128-131. LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837 — 857. Lawson, J. (1986). A study of the frequency of analogical responses to questions in Black and White preschool-age children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 379- 386. Lewis, S.A.R. (1980). Teacher attitude change: Does informing make a difference? In M.F. Whiteman (Ed.), Reactions to Ann Arbor: Vernacular Black English and education (pp. 85-92). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Luke, A. (1997). Theory and practice in critical science discourse. In L. Saha (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the sociology of education. Retrieved 7/09/09 fi‘om http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/Luke/SAHA6.html Lucas, C., & Borders, D. G. (1994). Language diversity and classroom discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. McAfee, O., & Leong, D. (2007). Assessing and Guiding Young Children’s Development and Learning. 4‘h Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Marshall, C. & Rossman, GB. (2006). Designing qualitative research. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McGregor, S.L.T. Critical discourse analysis: A primer. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM ,15, (1) Retrieved on July 17, 2009 from http://wwwkon.org/archivestorum/I5—I/mcgrggorcda.html, Spring, 2003 Meier, T. (2008). Black Communications and learning to read: Building on children’s linguistic and cultural strengths. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 530 — 555. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D, & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge’for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141. 228 Morgan, H. (1976). Neonatal precocity and the Black experience. Negro Educational Review, 27: 129-134. Murray, D. (1998). Ebonics: A case study in language, power, and pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 144-146. National Research Council. (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ogbu, J. (1999). Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a Black- American speech community. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 147-1 84. Otto, B. (2002). Language development in early childhood. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Palacas, A. L. (2001). Liberating American Ebonics from Euro-English. College English, 63 (3), 326-352. Perry, T., & Delpit, L. ( Eds). (1998). The real Ebonics debate: power, language and the education of African-American children. Boston: Beacon Press. Piestrup, A.M. (1973). Black dialect interference and accommodation of reading instruction in the first grade. Monograph of the Language Behavior Research Lab. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Ramirez, J .D. (2005). Ebonics: The urban education debate. J. David Ramirez, Inc.NetLibrary, ebrary, Inc. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=l Schsz7UMC&dq=How+do+Afiican+Am erican+Vemacular+speakers+legrn+how+to+speak+Standard+ErLglish%3F&lr=& source=gbs summary s&cad=0 on 4/5/08. Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications. Richardson, E. (1995, March 25). Coming from the heart: Black students on literacy experiences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC. Rickford, J.R., & Rickford, RJ. (2000). Spoken soul: The story ofBlack English. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rogers, R., Ed. (2004). An Introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Inc. Ross, S. (July 27, 2001). ‘Dictatorship would be easier,’ Bush jokes of his struggles. 229 Seattle Post, Nation/World. Retrieved on July 9, 2009 fromhttp://www.seattlepi.com/national/32902_bush27.shtml Secret. C. (1998). Embracing Ebonics and teaching mainstream English. In T. Perry and L. Delpit (Eds). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of African American children (pp.79-88). Boston: Beacon. Seigel, J. (1999). Stigrnatized and standardized varieties in the classroom: Interference or separation. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (4):701-728. Simpkins, G.A., Holt, G., & Simpkins, C. (1977). Bridge: A cross-cultural reading program. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Simpkins, G.A., & Simpkins, C. (1981). Cross cultural approach to curriculum development. In G. Smitherman (Ed.), Black English and the education of Black children and youth: Proceedings of the National Invitational Symposium on the King decision (pp. 221-240). Detroit: Center for Black Studies, Wayne State University. ‘ Smitherman, G. (1994). The blacker the berry the sweeter the juice: Afiican American student writers. In A. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds), The need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom and community (pp. 80-101). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Smitherman, G. (1997, 1986). T alla'n and testijying: the language of Black America. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Smitherman, G. (1998). Black English/Ebonics: What it be like? In T. Perry & L. Delpit (Eds), The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of Black children (pp. 29-37). Boston: Beacon. Smitherman, G. (2000). T alkin ’ that talk: Language, culture and education in A fiican America. London: Routledge. (Original work published by Houghton Mifflin, 1977) Smitherman, G. (2002). Toward a national public policy on language. In L. Delpit, & J. Kilgore Dowdy (Eds). The Skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom (166-178). New York: The New Press. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difliculties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Speicher, B.L. & Bielanski, J. R. (2000). Critical thoughts on teaching Standard English. Curriculum Inquiry, 3O (2), 147-169. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications. 230 Stephens, K (2000). A critical discussion of the New Literacy Studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48, (1), 10-23. Street, B. (2000). Literacy events and literacy practices: theory and practice in the New Literacy Studies. In M. Martin-J ones. (Ed.), Multilingual literacies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5 (2), 77-91. Stewart, W. (1969). On the use of Negro dialect in the teaching of reading. In J. Baratz & R. Shuy (Eds), Teaching Black children to read (pp. 156-219). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann. The Four Blocks, Grades 1-3. The Four Blocks Literacy Model. (n.d.). Retrieved on 8/01/09 from: http://www.four-blocks.com/l -3 .htrn The National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The Nation ’s Report Card. Retrieved on August 1, 2009 from http://ncesed.gov/nationsreportcard/ Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Thomas, R., & Rinehart, S. (1990). Young children’s oral language, reading and writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 5, (1), 5-26. Thompson, C.A., Craig, H.K., and Washington. J .A. (2004). Variable production of African American English across oracy and literacy contexts. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 3, 269-282. Torrance, N., & Olson, DR. (1985). Oral and literate competencies in the early school years. In D. R.Olson, N. Torrance & A. Hilyard (Eds). Language and literacy learning (pp. 256-284). New York: Cambridge University Press. United States Department of Education. Reading First. Retrieved on 6/ 24/09 from http://www.edgov/progr'ams/readirrgfirst/index.htrnl, van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum 231 Vygotsky, L.S. (I978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Washington, J. (2005). Race and Ethnicity. International Reading Association—National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Conference on Early Childhood Literacy Research: A Summary of Presentations and Discussions, pp. 15-16. Wiley, T.G. 1996). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems. Wiley, T.G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-Only and Standard English Ideologies in the US. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 511-535. Williams, R.L. (1997).The Ebonics controversy. Journal of Black Psychology. (23), 3, 208-214. Wolfram, W., Adger, C.T., & Christian, D. (2007). Dialects in schools and communities. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Woolley, M., Kol, K., & Bowen, G. (2009). The social context of school success for Latino Middle School students. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29 (I), 43-70. 232 828 31293 “1 "3 H6 ”0 m3 "0