Wojtek Sokolowski writes:
> ok, suppose that we all agree - and use all our time and effort to
> convince our so-called elected representatives - that ebonics is
> morally equivalent or superior (or whatever) to the so-called
> standard english.
As I understand it, so-called Ebonics was only ever meant *TO BE A
TEACHING TOOL FOR STANDARD ENGLISH*. Children were not going to be
taught a dialect that they already spoke, but rather *TAUGHT STANDARD
ENGLISH USING THAT DIALECT*. There's a paper at:
http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/VernacularToTeachStandard.html
(I just followed the link in Robert Chametzky's previous post)
That, among other things, describes three different pedagodic
techniques for using the vernacular -- in this case, Ebonics -- to the
standard form of a language. So the question Wojtek asked:
> Will that improve access to job market, decent housing,
> health care, or child care for the speakers of ebonics?
Should instead be:
> Will instruction in Standard English via Ebonics improve access to
> the job market, decent housing, health care, or child care?
Which simply becomes a question regarding the effectiveness of
teaching Standard English via Ebonics. There are no moral,
spectacular issues involved.
--
Curtiss