In my Linguistics class, we had a lecture from a visiting professor from Stanford which I thought was very relevant to Women's Studies. His focus of research is how linguistic background determines success in school. Specifically in Northern California, he has studied how white students consistently perform better on standardized tests than black students. In 1996, there was a huge controversy in Oakland over the school-board's proposal to recognize the fact that many students in their schools spoke Ebonics. People were outraged, thinking that the school board wanted to teach a rule-less, slang language in schools. This was a misconception in several ways; firstly, Ebonics is just as rule-based as any other spoken language. Additionally, the school board wanted to recognize the fact that their students spoke Ebonics so that they could be taught more effectively, they did not want to teach Ebonics.
The findings indicate that when students' linguistic background is taken into account, they perform much better on standardized tests. This works in several ways. There are bilingual readers in which texts are written in Ebonics and translated into "Standard American English." Also, there are translation practices in which students translate to and from "Standard."
This lecture opened my eyes to a concept I'd never consciously thought about. It reminded me of the white-privilege knapsack. A part of the white-privilege is knowing that standardized tests will most likely be culturally biased in your favor. I realize that the fact that the English I spoke at home is "standard" has given me an advantage in academics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I had never really thought about this idea in this context either. I feel as if it somewhat relates to our discussion in class on how not being able to speak the primary language influences how others may view a person. Regardless of how intelligent and gifted an individual may be, people automatically assume that he/she is not as smart because he may have some difficulty in communicating his ideas. With even more exposure to different cultures, hopefully this perception will change.
Surely, it is the privilege knapsack which allows our cultural background to accord with the language of standardized tests. However, I hesitate to call it the “white-privilege” knapsack. As we learned in class, there are many “knapsacks” that are unapparent in our everyday lives: physical and mental acuity, heterosexuality, being male, white, Christian, or well-educated. American education is another such knapsack, and the one into which I would put school or standardized test language. Although Ebonics is the most notable example, how many other dialects and slang languages are prevalent in United States schools? I would wager that there are thousands of Hispanic children raised in the States who speak with an accent—one that is potentially debilitating on tests—because that is how English was taught in their family. I myself am an immigrant whose native language is not English. My family speaks extremely accented English but I strove to learn standard grammar just like everyone else. I cannot justify catering to one group’s slang/dialect/what-have-you without considering others in a similar predicament. Furthermore, for better or for worse, America speaks Standard English— not Ebonics or Russian-tinted English (like my family)— so any program not designed to eventually break the habit will likely hinder students in the long run. If these programs want to teach how to “translate” out of Ebonics and encourage standard grammar then I support them. But printing two-type textbooks or standardized tests in Ebonics just to improve test scores is not only discrimination against speakers of other dialects, but also works to serve the school’s ranking, not the students.
Post a Comment