There is no one AAV, everywhere you go in the U.S. the vernacular is a bit different.
The article dives deep into the linguistics of the issue but doesn't really look at the sociology of it. Arguing whether or not AAVN is "valid" misses the larger social argument against "ebonics" - does integrating an approach that codifies the incorrect grammar and diction of a disadvantaged social class institutionalize their disadvantage? I grew up speaking "redneck." So did my father. My grandparents spoke "redneck" until they died; my father, on the other hand, speaks "business English." Most people who grew up with heavy vernacular were forced to learn, at some point, that if they wished to get ahead they needed to learn to talk and write like the more successful castes. The author mentions that media isn't "integrative" or something like that, but anyone speaking any dialect can tell that they are deviating from the norm. They also have a constant reminder of the success of those who don't (on TV) vs. those who do (on the corner at the bodega). Those who speak AAVN are aware that they are speaking a dialect that is not its own mother tongue, that is not spoken by the majority of their countrymen. So what's the advantage of saying "there there it's okay" again? The author draws parallels between AAVN and French in that double-negatives are AOK in French. Russian has triple and quadruple negatives. Nonetheless, when a Russian student attends American schools, he will be corrected on his grammar, otherwise he'll never speak English properly... and isn't that the point? It is my (decidedly non-scholarly) opinion that the whole dust-up over "Ebonics" was because most outside observers saw a flagrant pandering to cultural "sensitivities" as an excuse to resist integration of a disadvantaged group of people. It would be another ten years before Michael Gerson coined "the soft tyrrany of lowered expectations" but that's what we're talking about here.
Lose if you play, lose if you don't, but maybe there's a middle ground? From the wikipedia article, since I'm not too familiar with this subject: It seemed like they were on the right track, or at least had decent intentions.So what's the advantage of saying "there there it's okay" again?
"maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language... and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English language skills."
You'd have an argument if the Oakland school board were "maintaining" instead of "injecting change." The full quote, same source:For students whose primary dialect was "Ebonics", the Oakland resolution mandated some instruction in that dialect, both for "maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language... and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English language skills." This also included the proposed increase of salaries of those proficient in both "Ebonics" and Standard English to the level of those teaching LEP (limited English proficiency) students and the use of public funding to help teachers learn AAVE themselves.
I was pointing out that they were toeing the middle line of encouraging teachers to instruct in a language the students were familiar with while also helping them to practice "business English." I don't have an argument about the ethics of treating that as the superior language to be taught, but you're welcome to inform me more on the matter.
I'm saying that a conscious choice was being made to teach a "language" that, by anyone's judgement, is a vernacular at best. And, as vernaculars are not taught at any other school in the US, the choice to do so was a flagrantly active choice. It in no way reflects "toeing the line."