The “Zero T olerance” Approach to Language Variation

1. The “Zero Tolerance” Approach to Language Variation

2. By completing this module, we hope that you will have a better understanding of the “zero tolerance” approach to language variation in the classroom and why this approach can create barriers to effective teaching and learning. General Objective

3. However, we are using the term “zero tolerance” to describe how the same approach has been incorporated into the classroom as a type of coercion towards the use of any other dialect besides Standard English. (Ball & Muhammad, 2003) The Zero Tolerance Policy in Schools • In general, the zero tolerance policy in schools refers to a set of actions created to punish any infraction to the rules or norms of the educational institutions.

4. It also can be thought of as the traditional approach which attempts to correct, repress, eradicate, or subtract student language. (Wheeler & Swords, 2004) According to Rickford and Rickford (2007), “teachers have often sought to limit the linguistic variation of their students, deeming non-standard or vernacular varieties unacceptable for classroom (sometimes even playground) use, and eschewing literary materials or pedagogical approaches that refer to or use such varieties” (p. 276). The “Zero Tolerance” Approach to Language Variation

5. In other words, this approach refers to the fact that many schools throughout the country require students to only speak (and write) Standard English in the classroom, without paying special attention to language variation. Hollie (2001)speaks of it as an attempt to eradicate the language that most students, especially African American and other minorities, bring into the classroom. The “Zero Tolerance” Approach to Language Variation

6. The beliefs and attitudes expressed under the zero tolerance approach to language variation presupposes the existence of some sort of language prejudice. When describing the Language Prejudice view within the American culture, Birch (2001, 540-1) provided a list of language attitudes often held by those who use the zero tolerance approach. The Roots of the Zero Tolerance Approach

7. We have selected some of these language attitudes and we present them to you below. There is one proper and correct speech/writing; all else is defective and mistaken. [Standard English] is better then other varieties because it is more logical, grammatical, refined, melodious…. It follows rules. Dialects are problems to be overcome. Diversity creates misunderstanding. The Roots of the Zero Tolerance Approach (Cont’d)

8. [Standard English] is correct; anything else is “slovenly thinking,” “lazy,” “deficient, or “slang.” Use of anything beside [Standard English] is discouraged in school. It is “dumbing down” or “catering to.” Remediation must be widespread to teach everyone [Standard English]. The Roots of the Zero Tolerance Approach (Cont’d)

9. These language attitudes disregard the fact that “linguistic variation is the norm rather than the exception in human language use” (Rickford & Rickford). Although the decision of choosing Standard English as the only dialect of the classroom is often made by people with good intentions, it creates many challenges to those students who speak other English dialects. The school system tries to blame the students and their social environment as the causes for their academic failure, but often do not acknowledge the fact that these students speak a language variety different from the one that is taken as the norm in the educational setting. What is problematic about these views?

10. For many students, going to school is to cross the threshold of two different worlds with two different languages. Worse than that is the fact that the language that they bring with them is viewed by the school as anything but a language. Consequently, the school system reproduces the same negative stereotypes and stigmas associated with the non-standard dialects and their users. Not having their cultural background, which includes their language, integrated into the English arts curriculum is enough to lower AAVE speakers’ self-steam and set them for failure. What is problematic about these views? (Cont’d)

11. Consider the following dialogue extracted from Wheeler and Swords’ (2004) article: Student: Mrs. Swords, why you be teachin’ maf in da aftanoon? Mrs. Swords:Why do I what? Student: Why you be teachin’ maf in da aftanoon? Mrs. Swords: Why do I what? Student: Why you be teachin’ maf in da aftanoon? Mrs. Swords: We don’t say, “Why you be teachin’ mafin da aftanoon….” We say, “Why are you teaching math in the afternoon?” Looking at Some Examples

12. Discussing the example just presented, the authors report that correction, explicit or implicit, has proven to be inefficient. The insecurity of not being sure about the grammar rules of Standard English as demanded by the teacher of the example of the previous slide often makes students more silent and unwilling to speak in class. “…[W]hen an urban teacher tells minority-language students that their language is wrong and error-filled, she creates a seriously deleterious effect in the classroom” (Wheeler & Swords, 2004). Looking at Some Examples

13. I have to admit, I was always embarrassed by my father’s Bronx accent growing up. When he would say that he drove “trew da tunnel,” l would cringe. To me, it represented a lower-class way of speaking, when in fact it was just his accent. When a child speaks incorrectly in the classroom, they should not be “corrected” right there and then in front of everyone, but I do believe that they should be made aware of the mistake. Students learn so much of the “wrong” or unconventional way of speaking outside of the classroom (hallways, peers, and even their families) that they need a place to learn or at least hear English spoken correctly. Looking at Some Examples The next excerpt was posted on an electronic discussion board and was featured in Goodman’s (2006, p. 145) article:

14. The testimony just presented represents another good example of how the zero tolerance approach to language variation is expressed as a rationale that justifies its use. The idea is prevalent that there is a variety that is “incorrect,” “wrong,” and “unconventional” and it needs to be replaced by a type of “English spoken correctly.” As Wheeler and Swords put it, “English teachers routinely equate standard English with “grammar,” as if other language varieties and styles lack grammar, the systematic and rule-governed backbone of language” (p. 471). Looking at Some Examples

15. One of the principles of a language equality approach is the respect for the students’ cultural background, including their language, while engaging them into the process of using the linguistics skills that they already have to learn how to understand and use other dialects. In order to develop a useful framework for challenging the zero tolerance approach to language variation, we should incorporate in our discourse and practice language attitudes such as those described by Birch (p. 540-1) as characteristics of the language equality approach. We present a selection of these attitudes in the next slides. Advocating for Language Equality

16. Using a different dialect is not the same as making a grammatical error. No English dialect is inherently better than any other English dialect. All dialects follow rules, but the rules are different. Norms of writing are due to long-term social, political, economic, and gender privilege. Advocating for Language Equality

17. Dialect is unrelated to intelligence, morality, character, humor, and wit. Language changes. In time, speech diverges from the more conservative written language. Our culture should be as tolerant of dialect diversity as it should be of other types of diversity. Advocating for Language Equality

18. First, we need to embrace language variation as a positive aspect of a diverse society. Second, each and every language variety or dialect has its own grammatical rules, which are used and viewed by its speakers as part of a logical and efficient communication system. Third, we also need to remember that the notion of “error” in terms of language use often comes from an orientation which perceives Standard English as the only “correct” way of speaking. In other words, when students’ linguistic assessments are categorized as erroneous language, this usually means that they did not follow the rules of Standard English. What can we do?

19. As students try to apply the rules of their home dialect when using Standard English, they do not always realize that the rules change when one switches from one dialect to the other. In many cases, students do not know these rules because they do not make sense to them. One of the strategies to help AAVE speakers become bi-dialectal speakers is to teach them how to codeswitch from one dialect to the other whenever appropriate, that is taking into consideration the context, audience, and formality. What can we do? (Cont’d)

20. We hope that you have enjoyed going over this discussion on the “zero tolerance” approach to language variation in the classroom and that now you feel more confident about what it is and how to avoid it on your everyday practices as a DC Reads tutor and in other areas of your live. The goal now is that you engage into the application of this knowledge by demonstrating respect and consideration for any language variety and embrace linguistic diversity as a positive aspect of our society. Final Thoughts

21. Ball, Arnetha F. & Rashidah J. Muhammad. 2003. Language diversity in teacher education and in the classroom. In Geneva Smitherman & Victor Villanueva (eds.), Language diversity in the classroom: From intention to practice. 76-88. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Birch, Barbara. 2001. Grammar standards: It’s all in your attitude. Language Arts, 78. 535-542. Goodman, Debra. 2006. Language study in teacher education: Exploring the language in language arts. Language Arts, 84. 145-156. Hollie, Sharroky. 2001. Acknowledging the language of African American students: Instructional strategies. The English Journal, 90. 54-59. Rickford, Angela E. & John R. Rickford. 2007. Variation, versality, and contrastive analysis in the classroom. In Robert Bayley & Ceil Lucas (eds), Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods and applications. 276-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wheeler, Rebecca & Rachel Swords. 2004. Codeswitching: Tools of language and culture transform the dialectally diverse classroom. Language Arts, 81. 470-480. Reference List: