Discussion Post for 9/11 Caroline, Melody, Steve, Marty & A.B

Today at my pre-practicum I was allowed to observe another veteran teacher in the history department. She was enthusiastic, witty, and extremely prepared. As she discussed topics such as the Black Death and Renaissance Art she switched between the use of “academic language” and “nonstandard English” (i.e. pursuit of knowledge vs. hot mess).  

While nonstandard English was used throughout her lesson, she emphasized the need for students to write “professionally.” In order to achieve this, she provided her students with sentence frames to describe and analyze art (i.e. One implication of this image from____. This represents the Renaissance ideas of ____.).  

My experience today made me think back to the Bell Hooks article (please see the two quotes listed below). I genuinely believe that Ms. P takes into consideration her audience. She knows she is not speaking to a group of art historians or adults.  However, this recognition does not keep her from expecting her students to produce college level work.

I’m curious to know if others agree or disagree with her approach? In a school setting should we encourage or discourage the use of nonstandard English when discussing content? If we think back to Teach Like a Champion and the clips Rick showed in class, wouldn’t it be fair to argue that Lemov would only promote academic language inside the classroom? What should we do? What are the front ends and back ends for encouraging/discouraging nonstandard English in the classroom?           

• “If I do not speak in a language that can be understood, then there is little chance for dialogue” (Hooks, 1989, p. 78).
• “We must be ever vigilant. It is important that we know who we are speaking to, who we most want to hear us, who we most long to move, motivate, and touch with our words” (Hooks, 1989, p. 78).