Ebonics / AAVE Policy Proposal California
Ebonics / AAVE Policy Proposal California
Ebonics / AAVE Policy Proposal California
NOTE: This proposal asks that AAVE/Ebonics be Included in Public and Private School
Programs that are Funded Through Federal, State, Local and Private Budgets.
Problem Statement:
(AAVE)speakers are at a severe educational disadvantage because they lack adequate proficiency
in standard English and current bilingual education and Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
policies exclude AAVE and Ebonics from current state and federally funded education programs.
Introduction:
In the following paper, I present a policy that allows speakers of African American
language, and based on current legislative policy, students who speak languages other than
English may be eligible for special programs to help advance their English fluency. Of more
immediate educational importance and as it relates to this policy proposal, efforts to increase
standard English proficiency among American slave descendants of African origin and those who
are native speakers of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) have never been fully
addressed. Yet, no fair-minded U.S. citizen would claim that Black students and other speakers of
AAVE are any different from other American students who are far more likely to succeed if they
can be helped to obtain greater standard English fluency. It is hoped that with the adoption of an
explicit language policy that addresses current issues in the field of language programming,
planning, and research, the philosophy and objectives of the program that relate to the language
In the first section of this paper, I begin with an analysis of the problem that concerns the
involved. I will then provide a brief background of language policy issues from both a State
(California) and federal level. In Section II of this paper, I will outline the existing language
policy and then review two previous bilingual education policies that addressed LEP students as
alternatives with respect to how those programs were effective toward improving English
proficiency amongst AAVE and Ebonics speakers. Each policy alternative will include the
activity of the policy and its budget. Finally, in Section II, the main focus of this paper, I will
development and Language Acquisition programs and policies and hopes for the future.
SECTION I
Problem Analysis:
The existing methods that are in place to address the lack of English proficiency within
the poor, African American communities at an educational level are currently not working. In
the U.S. Department of Education’s publication of Status and Trends in the Education
of Racial and Ethnic Groups reports that The National Assessment for Educational Progress
(NAEP) -- known as ‘the nation’s progress report’ -- creates a reading assessment in grades 4, 8,
and 12 that gauges student performance in reading for literary experience and reading for
information. The U.S. Department of Education’s publication explains that in 2007, over one-
half of Black 4th graders (54 percent) scored below the Basic achievement level in 2007. At the
12th grade level, only 16 percent of Black students scored at or above Proficient level, while
scored at or above Proficient level; thus the problem of African Americans performing at low
levels of reading and comprehension persists and, in fact, over time, the problem worsens and
Obviously, from the above mentioned statistics, the status quo with respect to teaching
African American children in American elementary, middle and high schools is far from
satisfactory. But while the massive educational failure within the African American community
could be considered a “wicked problem,” there are some ‘not-so’ “wicked” solutions that could
very well mitigate the problem. Granted, there currently exists many different creative and
potential solutions to the widespread African American underachievement. One of which
revolves around the linguistic approach, which will be addressed in this analysis. This approach
is predicated on the idea that African American students who speak traditional Black dialects of
the English language are less apt to do well in school because they generally cannot comprehend
standard English in terms of its deeper meanings, or ‘traditional’ and/or ‘standard’ meanings.
According to Dr. Pat Kuhl, co-director of the University of Washington’s Center for Mind, Brain
and Learning explains that by six months of age, infants develop a map in the auditory cortex of
the phonetic sounds in the native language their mother or caretaker speaks and by 12 months,
infants lose the ability to discriminate between sounds that are not made in their native language.
Thus, the idea that African American children’s issue with reading and writing is due to a
dialectical differentiation is not just hypothetical nor far fetched, it is, in fact, reality.
Unfortunately, however, the major dilemma with current California policies and mandates
regarding funding appropriation for public school classes that focus on students’ English
language proficiency is that these policies and mandates specifically exclude African American
individuals who speak Black Vernacular English or ‘Ebonics’ -- one of the very issues that is in
large part contributing to the continuation of African American students’ poor academic
performance as well as numerous other lasting impairments such has unemployment rates,
likeliness of imprisonment and teenage pregnancy. All of these issues have been proven to be
directly related and proportionate to academic achievement and graduation rates. The U.S.
Department of Education’s Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic
Groups reports that “In 2008, the unemployment rate was higher for Blacks (9 percent) [... and]
in general, lower unemployment rates were associated with higher levels of education for each
racial/ethnic group” (Aud, 2010). Furthermore, Children of parents with low educational
attainment, occupation, and income are more likely to have sex at an early age, not use
contraception consistently, and become pregnant or cause a pregnancy (Berglas, 2003). ???
concedes that “education affects the likelihood of individuals committing crime [and...]
(LaFree, 2003). Thus, there is much to gain from a policy that includes language development
support for the African-American demographic in that not only would this policy change
contribute to higher academic achievement in this demographic, but the positive effects of this
policy change will also manifest in other aspects of socio-economic concern regarding this
demographic.
Stakeholders:
Most understand Black Vernacular English to be spoken by individuals who are Black,
however, this is a misconception. While the terms Black Vernacular English and ‘Ebonics’ (a
blend of the words ebony and phonics to mean Black speech) may lead one to believe that
this dialect is restricted to Black people, just like Mongolians who are born and raised in Russia
speak russian as their first language, anyone outside of the Black ethnicity can speak Black
individuals who are native to southern states in the United States speak Black Vernacular English
or ‘Ebonics’ and exhibit the same patterns of consonant omission, the invariant ‘be’, or an
omission of consonant blends. Thus, while the Black demographic may be most heavily
impacted by this policy, Hispanics, Whites, Asian/Pacific Islanders and other demographics may
also present with literacy impairments due to having the Black Vernacular English/‘Ebonics’ as
their native language and by incorporating this dialect into the policy, these individuals will be
able to receive adequate and appropriate public school resources that address their specific needs,
concerns and impairments based on native speech. Furthermore, Local Education Agencies
(LEAs) are also stakeholders in this policy. Public schools are currently funded based on the
student body’s overall standardized test scores and academic achievement -- higher achievement
equates to higher government funding over time, while low achieving schools receive a decrease
in government funds. This means that not only are individuals stakeholders in this policy, but
public educational institutions have much to gain from a policy change that assists individuals
with language barriers and opportunity to overcome that barrier through language development
policies that include their native language/dialect. One could go further in arguing that
individuals interested in lowering unemployment rates as well incarceration and crime are also
stakeholders in this policy since research has proven to link these issues with academic
performance.
Policy Background:
The most noteworthy California Bill regarding this issue is the Assembly Bill 1206.
1997, this Bill explains that “existing law authorizes the offering of bilingual education in those
situations when this instruction is educationally advantageous to pupils” but goes on to amend
that Bill 1206 “prohibits school districts from utilizing, as part of a bilingual education program,
state funds or resources for the purpose of recognition of, or instruction in, any dialect, idiom, or
language derived from English.” Assembly Bill 1206 explicitly excludes Black Vernacular
English or ‘Ebonics’, defining its verbiage “derived from English” as “any dialect, idiom, or
language that has linguistic roots connected to English [...and/or] any dialect, idiom, or language
that has a syntax distinct from English, yet can be traced linguistically as derived from English.”
Although African Americans who speak African American Vernacular English are
ironically, bilingual programs of today are mostly a product of the Bilingual Education Act (Title
VII), which was passed as a part of the Civil Rights Title VI; a policy that prohibits
discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal
financial assistance. Although the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) enforces the Bilingual
Education Act, which requires that, when needed, schools must provide equal educational
as well as all other sub languages classified as dialects are specifically excluded from
participation, which means African Americans are thus excluded from these programs even
though statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Education clearly show they are, indeed, a
language minority in that they score extremely low in reading and comprehension proficiency as
summarized in the Problem Analysis section of this paper, which notes that over one-half of
Black 4th graders (54 percent) scored below the Basic achievement level for English Language
Arts (ELA) in 2007. Not only does the African American demographic exhibit a “need,” as the
OCR explains, in fact, African Americans perform lower than absolutely all other racial/ethnic
groups, including their Hispanic counterparts who are currently qualified recipients of state
SECTION II
Current Policy ‘As is’:
As is, Title III - limited English proficient (LEP) Student Subgrant Program is the current
policy that allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide supplementary programs and
services to LEP students, known as English Learners (ELs). The purpose of the subgrant policy
is to assist students to acquire English and achieve grade-level and graduation standards.
Additionally, as is, Education Code Section 305-306 explains that “all children in
California public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English [...and] children who
are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary
transition period not normally intended to exceed one year” (Martinez). Although Education
Code Section 305-306 provides all students with Limited English Proficiency supplemental
programs and instructional services for English language development, pursuant to Education
Code Section 30-30.5, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, bilingual education shall be
defined as a system of instruction which builds upon the language skills of a pupil whose
primary language is neither English nor derived from English,” defining a “primary language” as
any language other than English and other than any “dialect, idiom, or language that has
linguistic roots connected to English” or “can be traced linguistically as derived from English.”
Furthermore, Education Code Section 30-30.5 stipulates that “a school district shall not utilize,
as part of a bilingual education program, state funds or resources for the purpose of recognition
of, or instruction in, any dialect, idiom, or language derived from English” (Martinez). Thus, all
bilingual educational services are explicitly prohibited from including AAVE and/or Ebonics
speakers in federal or state funded public school LEP bilingual education programs without
in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups, in 2007, over one-half of Black 4th
graders (54 percent) scored below the Basic achievement level in 2007. At the 12th grade level,
only 16 percent of Black students scored at or above Proficient level, while 43 percent of
above Proficient level. According to the National Assessment for Educational Progress
(NAEP), the reading scale scores in 2009 for Black students are not measurably different from
the scores in 2007 and, in 2009, 16 percent of Black 4th graders performed at or above the
Proficient achievement level, which is the identical percentage for 2007. Thus, statistics show
that if no changes are made to current policies, there will be no measurable improvement in this
Activity:
Current bilingual programs are mostly a product of the Bilingual Education Act (Title
VII), which was initially created in 1968 and passed as a part of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was terminated in 2001 with the passage of No
Child Left Behind, which allows federal funding for bilingual education instruction in a student’s
native language. As a part of the federal NCLB Act, California Title III - LEP Student Subgrant
Program was implemented. Ultimately, however, California Education Code 30-30.5 was
amended in 2001, prohibiting AAVE and/or Ebonics speakers from participating in any and all
federally and/or state funded bilingual educational services since “a school district shall not
utilize, as part of a bilingual education program, state funds or resources for the purpose of
recognition of, or instruction in, any dialect, idiom, or language derived from English”
(Martinez).
Budget:
According to Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title III; Budget Item 6110-125-
0890(2), the federal apportionment for California Fiscal Year 2010-11 the funds available for this
program total $155,307,000 and amount to $102.60 per eligible student (Aud, 2010).
Policy Alternative I
dismantled most of the state’s bilingual programs. As the proposition is outlined, it’s
students in special classes almost entirely in English, whereas prior to this proposition’s
they were taught solely in their non-English primary languages, particularly Spanish.
Furthermore, this policy limits the amount of time students can be in these classes to one year
and limits the instruction method to an intensive, sheltered English immersion program.
Anticipated Outcomes:
Ron Unz, a former businessman who ran for Governor of California in 1994 and
sponsored many propositions promoting structured English immersion education, claimed that,
prior to Prop 227, bilingual education had a “95 percent failure rate” in teaching English
(Crawford, 2003). Unfortunately, however, there is no certain way to determine the impact Prop
227 had on student achievement because there has been no controlled scientific studies providing
statistical data quantifying and clarifying the proposition’s success rate -- or lack thereof. The
level of English proficiency amongst students did increase during the following five years,
however, the patterns of achievement were “virtually identical in schools that had retained
bilingual education under the new law, those that had eliminated it, and those that had never
offered it” (Crawford, 2003). Therefore, the official outcome and success of the proposition’s
Education, just 7.8 percent of English language learners were “redesignated” as fully English
Activity:
Proposition 227 was passed in June of 1998, and districts were required to implement it at
the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. Interestingly, because most schools were on summer
break until early September, many program facilitators only had a few weeks to create the new
programs, hire qualified teachers, notify parents, and complete other tasks associated with the
Proposition. In fact, according to one superintendent, the chief challenge of Proposition 227 in
the district was “the short timeline -- the speed with which it was ‘thrust upon the schools’”
(Crawford, 2003).
Budget:
Proposition 227 requires that $50 million a year be spent on individuals who pledge to
provide English tutoring to children in their community. Also, Proposition 227 passed despite an
aggressive and well-funded opposition. According to a spokesman at the initiative’s Los Angeles
headquarters, one side “spent $1.3 million and were probably outspent by a margin of more than
In December, 1996, the School Board of the Oakland Unified School District passed a
resolution declaring Ebonics as the potential primary language of the African American students
in Oakland’s schools. The resolution further declared Ebonics to be a language in its own right,
not a dialect of English, and proclaimed that students be taught in ways that would introduce
them to standard English. Oakland was one of 25 school districts voluntarily using California's
Standard English Proficiency program, or SEP, which dates to 1981. The state school board that
year formally recognized the need for targeted efforts to develop proficiency in standard English
Anticipated Outcomes:
Oakland’s program had success in boosting student test scores in reading. Unfortunately,
however, evaluations have included so few students that Oakland is not advertising their results.
Nationally, the limited research available suggests that approaches such as Oakland’s program
can work to boost English literacy, according to researchers such as John R. Rickford, a Stanford
University linguist. A widely cited study from the late 1970s tracked more than 500 students in a
few urban districts across the country for four months. The group that used a sequence of reading
materials that first used black English, then a transition dialect, and finally standard English
showed much greater progress in reading than the group that used standard remedial-reading
activities.
Budget:
Oakland’s Ebonics Resolution’s $400,000 budget came from state and federal
compensatory-education funds. Notably, however, program facilitators explained that the policy
was not an attempt to reallocate bilingual education funding. According to Oakland’s School
Board, they were fully committed to redirecting the funds it had during that Fiscal Year in order
to fund the program without requesting any State or Federal funds for the purpose of the
program.
Evaluation:
There are eight explicit criteria categories for evaluating Language Education programs
1. to assist all LEP and immigrant students to achieve at high levels in the core
academic subjects and achieve standards required in Title I, Section 1111(b)(1).
2. to develop high-quality language instruction educational programs designed to
assist state education agencies, local education agencies (LEAs) and schools in
teaching LEP and immigrant students;
3. to assist local education agencies to develop and enhance their capacity to
provide high-quality instructional programs designed to prepare LEP and immigrant
students enter all-English instruction settings;
4. to assist local education agencies and schools to build their capacity to
establish, implement, and sustain language instruction educational programs and
programs of English language development for LEP students;
5. to promote parental and community participation in language instruction
educational programs for the parents and communities of (Sec.1302 (b)) LEP
students;
6. to streamline language instruction educational programs that help LEP and
immigrant students develop proficiency in English while meeting challenging state
academic content and student academic achievement standards;
7. to hold local education agencies and schools accountable for increases in
English proficiency and core academic content knowledge of LEP students; and
V-1
8. to provide local education agencies the flexibility to implement the most effective
language instruction programs based on scientifically based research. P.L. 107-
110, Section 3102.
While most programs are evaluated based on this criteria, evaluating a the first two
policies based on these categories as the results relate to improving the quality of instruction in
Language Acquisition for Ebonics or AAVE Speakers would be a moot point since both policies
explicitly prohibit these individuals from participating in these programs. As a result of this
prohibition, the first two policies would receive zeros in all eight fields. The Oakland resolution,
however, could be evaluated based on this criteria because the resolution including the
stakeholders in the problem statement. For Oakland’s Ebonics Resolution I would give the
1. Excellent- assists “all” LEP students in that it redefines “primary language” as including dialects or
other languages with roots in English or another language so that, truly, “all” LEP students have access
to the program.
2. Excellent- The methodology Oakland’s Board of Education incorporated -- such as SEP pedagogy,
bidialectism, and transition dialects have proven to facilitate marked improvement in AAVE speakers.
3. Good- Oakland’s School Board proposed to identify key barriers to improving the quality of urban
education and developing strategies to overcome these barriers that take a systemic approach to school
reform.
4. Excellent- Oakland’s Board of Education proposed to expand funding for professional development
opportunities in order to continue to retool their teacher workforce and address the needs of an influx
of new teachers into their schools.
5. Fair- OSB proposed establish clear and measurable academic standards and public accountability for
progress toward those standards. I give this category a fair, however because I would like to know an
exact timeline and would critical about the ability to achieve that goal on a given timeline.
6. Excellent- Oakland’s goal is not to keep these students in Standard English Proficiency preparation
classes, but to actually equip students with English proficiency so that they can function in a normal
English classroom setting.
7. Excellent- Oakland explains their intent to institute professional standards for teacher and
administrators such as those developed by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards.
8. Excellent- The very nature and premise of Oakland’s resolution is to maintain flexibility and
innovation in its approach to education and employed the use of The Office of Education Research and
a school improvement program that allowed the district to address the particular needs of each district
and innovative methods of learning. Furthermore, the SEP program allowed for instructors to use
various methods and pedagogical approaches to curriculum, unlike other policies such as Prop 227.
The following language policy is an attempt to address the language deficiency for speakers of
AAVE/Ebonics through language teaching, access, use, rights, and learning within Unified
School Districts and academic institutions. To achieve this goal, the AAVE/Ebonics Policy
Whereas the purpose of the this policy is to provide English language instruction for SOAE
whose secondary language may be English, this language policy affirms the commitment of
providing quality English instruction while concurrently supporting the linguistic rights of the
SOAE constituency through application of the most current and effective pedagogy, research and
theory from the field of second language studies. Furthermore, the mission of this policy is to
include Speaker of African American Vernacular English/Ebonics into all federally, state, local
and privately funded Limited English Proficiency, Language Acquisition and ESL programs,
which serve to assist students in becoming more proficient in the English language within
Statement of Curriculum
Whereas the teaching of English as a second language is the primary mission of the policy, the
policy strives to empower its students with English language listening, speaking, reading, and
writing skills that provide them greater access to the dominant discourse of power, thereby
Whereas English is the predominant language of the United States as well as the instruction in
California school districts, the acquisition of English should not take necessary precedence over
the instruction with regard to use and maintenance of English. When applied in a pedagogically
justifiable manner to promote language learning, the use of languages and dialects other than
Statement of Constituency
The constituency consists of each educational enterprise, and the people who make up such an
Regarding students, the policy’s English Acquisition program is composed of students from a
the policy recognizes the existence of different categories of students with associated experiences
and needs who constitute the program, including students who speak various dialects and sub-
In recognizing such categories of students, this policy strives to utilize student experiences and
address student needs in manners most beneficial and meaningful to individual students as well
candidates who were enrolled in programs specifically in English or TESOL programs. The
policy relies on native speakers of English to fill its teaching positions. The policy maintains a
system of apprenticeship that orients new teachers to the program and familiarizes them with
Statement of Pedagogy
Whereas the policy is directed to provide a diverse student population with instruction in an
English Acquisition Program, which allows them to compete successfully in the academic setting
and in the greater society, the pedagogical practices of the policy should reflect such a charge.
Through graduate studies and apprenticeship, teachers should be trained in the most current,
accepted pedagogical practices from the fields of education and English Acquisition throughout
their terms of instruction and students should receive the benefits of this training.
Through implementation of this language policy, the policy seeks to a address and create a core
philosophy and practice regarding academic language support and acquisition. In doing so, it is
hoped that this policy serves as a model that consciously promotes linguistic rights while
Recommendations:
Given this proposal of an official language policy that includes SOAE, I would like to make the
following suggestions:
2. Make provisions to consistently educate current and future SOAE teachers about the
history, meaning, and intent of the language policy and about how the policy services
3. Make provisions to conduct thorough, periodic assessments of the language policy and
If this policy as is, is deemed inadequate, I suggest this language policy or the previous
Oakland Board of Education’s Ebonics Resolution be adapted to meet the desired needs of the
demographic outlined in this proposal. This approach would be more expeditious than
developing an entirely new language policy since much of the research and groundwork has
already been completed has laid in this paper and Oakland’s Resolution.
After implementation of the this policy, I suggest that provisions be made to assess the
implementation of the language policy from the viewpoints of those potentially affected by it: the
students, teachers and administrators of each academic institution as well as the other
stakeholders outlined in this proposal. A thorough assessment of this nature should combine
both qualitative and quantitative methods, and should address impacts and outcomes as well as
possible alterations. Additionally, given the worldwide status of ESL and applied linguistics, it
would be interesting to see if other IEPs follow the lead of this policy and implement similar,
explicit language policies. All of this information would also be a part of a thorough policy
assessment.
Conclusion:
My hope is that this language policy proposal is seriously considered for adoption or
adaptation by the State of California. Ultimately, millions of students enter school each year
with a language structure unique to many African-Americans. Whether we like it or not, this is
the reality. What the Oakland School Board did was acknowledge the statistics of English
language proficiency for an unserved population and adopt a strategy for teachers and parents
that will enhance this their ability to achieve the goal of teaching proficient standard English to
every one of its students. With the implementation of such a policy, school districts would create
an educational philosophy and objective to the greater educational community and would
position itself at the forefront of leading institutions in terms of articulating and practicing a
commitment to language theory, research, instruction and rights. Often misunderstood, this
action may be considered a bold step, but, moreover, the policy could prove efficient and
influential.
References:
Aud, S., Fox, M., and KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and
Ethnic Groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Berglas, N., Brindis, C., and Cohen, J., (2003). Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing in
Crawford, James. (2003). “Numbers Game: Challenging the Fallacies about Proposition 227”.
England.
Crawford, James. (1996). “Legislating Language, Mandating Inequality.” The World Paper.
Gizzi, John. (1998). “California Proposition 227 Wins, Rolling Back Bilingual Education”.
Haynes, Senator. (1997). Senate Bill 205. “Education: Equality in English Instruction Act.”
Legislative Counsel’s Digest. California Senate. 1997 Jan 28 / Last amended in Senate
Committee 1997 Mar 18. California Legislature Regular Session. Retrieved from
<http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_0201-
LaFree, Gary., Arum, Richard. (2003). Educational Resources, Racial Isolation and Adult
Imprisonment Risk Among U.S. Birth Cohorts Since 1910. U.S. Department of Justice.
Martinez, Assembly Member. (1997). "Assembly Bill No. 1206." Legislative Counsel’s Digest.
1997 Feb 28 / Amended in Assembly 1997 May 5. California Legislature Regular Session.
Retrieved from <ftp:www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_1201-
Pandey, Anita. (2000). Symposium on the Ebonics Debate and African-American Language
Similar to ESL Students?”. World Englishes, 19(1), 89-106. Retrieved from E-Journals
Ramirez, J., Wiley, T., Klerk, G., Lee, E., & Wright, W. (2005). Ebonics: The Urban
Rickford, John R. (2005). S.B. 205- Well-Intentioned But Uninformed. Ebonics: The Urban