In reflecting on the education of the English language and the politics behind it, it’s honestly pretty difficult to align fully with just one of the two positions. The debate is over whether or not the English language should be taught in its standardized form in schools. The first side, which agrees that the English language should be taught in its standard form, argues that the language is rule-oriented and it’s an educator’s job to correct their students on the proper and improper ways of using it. The second side, which disagrees that English should be taught in its standard form, views standardized English as a lack of tolerance towards students’ individual cultural, social upbringings. They critique standardized English, believing that students have a right to their own forms of language as they’re not inferior. As opposite from each other as these two sides initially seem, after analyzing them both – they follow the same mentality, connecting them. This mentality surrounds around the connotation that has been established with standardized English – that because it has rules to follow, it’s this limiting constraint. In my view, just because standardized English has to be taught as it has a set of rules to follow, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s limiting or promotes a rejection of students’ individuality. In fact, I would argue that it opens up so many doors in terms of communication and all that can be done with it. I see the teaching of standardized English as a unification of students, providing opportunities for further communication and thus, a better understanding of one another amongst them. I believe that standardized English is only a rejection of students’ cultural, social upbringings if that implication is additionally communicated from the educators in their teaching of it.
In analyzing experts’ public stances regarding politics of English education – Professor Garrard McClendon’s push for “Ebonics” actually encapsulates the good, inclusive idea behind standardized English, although I don’t necessarily agree with the notion of specifically targeting African Americans with the education of it. Back in 2007, Fox News Chicago covered McClendon’s mission and gave him the opportunity to defend the idea behind it, despite all of the racist backlash it received. In him explaining his intent – the logic he follows is simple and doesn’t complicate itself. He explains that in school, it is an educator’s job to prepare their students academically for the adult world, which is correct. In doing this, it becomes an educator’s job to correct their students in areas where they are lacking, so it doesn’t make them lose out on later opportunities. If a math teacher can correct their student in telling them that two plus two does not equal five, then there shouldn’t be a problem with an English teacher correcting their students on their grammar. McClendon even goes as far as to question how a person can “refer to him or himself as a professional educator if [they’re] not willing to correct a person’s grammar.” (McClendon, Fox News Chicago) McClendon explains his mission’s significance in that “people are losing out on opportunities every day because of the way they speak.” (McClendon, Fox News Chicago) Regardless as to whether or not standardized English should be the professional standard (as educators have no direct control over this,) it should be an educator’s goal for their students “to speak so that [they] can gain enough skill with the language so that [they] can be accepted professionally. This is what’s accepted professionally.” (Cameron, Fox News Chicago) Nowhere in McClendon’s mission is there this unsubstantiated connotation that students must choose furthering their education over their cultural upbringings and deem them as insignificant. If anything, McClendon is trying to level the playing field and create this area of universal understanding for all students. The only flaw I find in his mission has to do with his belief that “African American children are suffering the most.” (McClendon, Fox News Chicago) I feel this ostracizing notion contradicts his overall, inclusive intent. Almost all subcultures within the English language speak different dialects that fall within bad grammar. Never in the teaching of its standard form should there be racial profiling or segregation, that defeats the purpose. Even though his focal point is very flawed, the underlying idea of his mission is still significant. In referring back to education overall, teaching students standardized English (when looked at from an unbiased standpoint,) is truly meant to be an inclusive thing, not a pressure of isolation. In contrast, students will feel isolated later in life when they aren’t granted the same professional opportunities that their peers are because they weren’t given the proper tools throughout their education.
However, just because it’s an educator’s job to teach their students, this doesn’t mean that they have the answers for everything and they can’t, in turn, learn from them. This is reflected in Professor Min-Zhan Lu’s pedagogy, influenced by her unique educational upbringing. Lu certainly did not have the typical upbringing of a successful professor in the United States which she is today, as she grew up in Communist China. The way in which her society was structured politically directly affected many individual dynamics throughout the country. One of the more significant dynamics were the school systems. Ever since the Communist Revolution of 1949, the material being taught in the Chinese schools was filtered through their new political values. Lu’s school system in particular, was attempting to create this overall collective identity amongst its students. The characteristics of this identity were only speaking standard Chinese, appreciating Communism, and celebrating only the working class. This collective identity was not something the school system simply taught and suggested as an ideal but, a conformation to it was forced amongst the student body. This forceful aura in which the Chinese schools created around education is what completely discouraged Lu’s individual values. Back at home, Lu’s parents instilled values of individualism, capitalism, a celebration of economic success, and an understanding of the English language within her. As these values clearly didn’t align with those of the school system’s majority, they were rejected and frowned upon within it. For example, Lu was made to feel as though her “parent’s choice of a family language [was] an Anti-Revolutionary act,” (Lu, From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle) and “alarmed that [she] had participated in such an act.” (Lu, From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle) She then felt obliged to “conceal [her] knowledge of English from [her] new classmates.” (Lu, From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle) Lu also describes how her “father’s job had put [her] in an unfavorable position,” (Lu, From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle) amongst not only her peers but, even her educators. Since her father was a medical doctor, making her family not part of the working class (in which the school systems idealized,) Lu was quickly “made to understand that because of [her] class background, she was excluded from that group.” (Lu, From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle) In later becoming an educator herself, Lu set out to ensure that no other student would feel a pressure to conform or this “double-identity” between their home and school lives ever again, thus forming her pedagogy. Within it, she advocates for a blending of students’ individual and educational discourses. To elaborate, in her teaching, she practices negotiating between what students are being taught in the classroom and what they know from home by applying them to each other. She invites her students to interpret what she’s presented to them in reflection of their personal upbringings, regardless if they’re conflicting or not. Lu’s pedagogy is significant in discussing politics of English education as it demonstrates the fact that it’s the outside implications in which an educator creates alongside teaching them the rules of a language that rejects student’s cultural, social upbringings. It’s not the teaching of the English language or the correcting of student’s grammar alone. Giving students the tools to adequately express themselves is not only harmless but, meant to be beneficial. It’s when educators imply that a student’s individual culture needs to be rejected in place of what they’re teaching them (which isn’t necessary) where the problem arises. Education is about the gaining of knowledge. Educators are teaching their student new skills – this doesn’t imply that everything they knew before is irrelevant and that they must work towards a new “collective identity.” This is why Lu’s “blending” emphasis is so significant as it still promotes educating students on the necessary skills they will need while welcoming what they individually can bring to the table.
In reflecting on the English language as a whole, it’s an important language in relation to the entire world. Even though it’s obviously not the native language of every single country, “research has shown how English is used as the world’s lingua franca, with bilingual speakers of English largely outnumbering speakers for whom English is a native language.” (Vettorel, Corrizato, pg. 488) English is spoken and taught all throughout the world, being valued in all kinds of education. In fact, in many foreign countries, individuals who are studying to be teachers must complete a varying extent of programs designed to educate them on the English language and its many dialects. Researchers have even kept track of how English has evolved, describing how “the plurality into which English has been developed has been extensively documented by studies.” (Vettorel, Corrizato pg. 488) Foreign countries are even accepting of the fact that the language has its many forms. Not only do they not critique it for its many dialects but, that’s what they define the importance of the language to be. Researchers have worked to analyze why a knowledge of English is considered so important for trainee teachers to possess and they have found its plurality to be the reason why. They explain that being accepting of the fact that a language can adapt itself to fit different subcultures promotes this inclusive/ open-minded attitude overall, encouraging them to bring this into their future classrooms. Many educators in foreign countries have “agreed on the importance of encouraging pluricentric approach in their didactic practices, fostering a broader view both linguistically and culturally.” (Vettorel, Corrizato pg. 501) The English language and the fact that so many different groups have been able to frame it to fit the various lifestyles of their subcultures is a beautiful thing. So much so, even other countries have acknowledged this. My overall point is that educating students on its standardized form does not take this away. If anything, it just promotes what the beauty is behind the language. In learning standardized English, students are being educated on the professional subculture that exists within the language. This not only is preparing the students appropriately for what’s expected of them to know in their futures but, opens up individuals’ minds more in communicating that there’s always more to learn about all the aspects of the world.
Works Cited
McClendon, Garrard. Fox News and Black English- Ebonics . YouTube, FOX News, 2007, www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_KKLkmIrDk.
Lu, Min-Zhan. “From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle.” College English, vol. 49, no. 4, 1987, p. 437., doi:10.2307/377860.
Vettorel, Paola, and Sara Corrizzato. “Fostering Awareness of the Pedagogical Implications of World Englishes and ELF in Teacher Education in Italy.” Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 6, no. 3, 2016, pp. 487–511., doi:10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.6.
Jenna's Blog 