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."