2011 Annual Business Meeting in Chicago, Illinois
Background
This resolution builds on 91探花鈥檚 longstanding policies on students鈥� right to their own language, including previous resolutions: [1] (2005), [2] (1997), [3] (1982), [4] (1974) and, in particular, the [5] and [6] resolutions opposing English-only practices that displace or denigrate students鈥� home languages. This resolution also builds on similar resolutions affirmed over the past four decades by the [7] (CCCC).
Because of continued misunderstandings in popular media and many school systems about the pedagogical importance of students鈥� (of all ages) opportunities to use home languages* in their classroom writing, this resolution is proposed to bring specific attention to the educational value of instructional practices that support students in drawing from the varied resources of their home languages to enrich their writing.
When students have opportunities to incorporate home languages in their construction of written texts, they (a) draw on a rich range of linguistic and cultural resources to express complex thought, (b) accelerate their acquisition of academic discourses, (c) develop multilingual abilities, (d) become more semantically and syntactically adept as they develop abilities in text comprehension and construction, and (e) enlarge their competency in public discourse. Importantly, they are afforded greater opportunities to develop writerly identities 鈥渞educ[ing] the distance between home and school, while helping [them] to become more invested in school learning鈥� (Yi, 2007).
The ability to incorporate both home language and the language of wider communication in writing is a valued skill beyond schools. Well-known authors regularly use these strategies to enrich and extend possibilities for expression in fiction and nonfiction texts (e.g., Alice Walker, Junot Diaz, Gary Soto, Sherman Alexie, Langston Hughes, Carolyn Forch茅, Toni Morrison, Amy Tan, Pedro Pietri, Joy Harjo, Pat Mora, Alma Flor Ada, as well as authors in the fields of science and law). In the same way, students and their audiences can benefit from opportunities and encouragement to draw on varied linguistic and cultural resources in their writing.
Such opportunities affirm student voice and address issues of identity, culture, and politics: When students鈥� home languages 鈥� spoken or written 鈥� are denied, their voices become muted and they become invisible in the larger society. Such 鈥渃ultural dissonance [causes them] to shrink away from formal education before they [can] fully develop鈥� (Gilyard, 1991). Be it therefore
* The term 鈥渉ome language鈥� denotes the language used in students鈥� family and community lives, such as African American聽 Vernacular English, Spanish, Mandarin, among many others.
References: Yi, Y. (2007). 鈥淓ngaging literacy: A biliterate student鈥檚 composing practices beyond school.鈥� Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 23-39. Gilyard, K. (1991). 鈥淰oices of the Self: A Study of Language Competence.鈥� In R. D. Abrahams (Ed), Cultural Diversity in American Education. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press (774鈥�778).
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, that the 91探花 Council of Teachers of English support
- policies and practices that affirm the student鈥檚 right to use his or her home language as well as the language of wider communication to enrich their classroom writing; and
- professional development initiatives that help teachers understand (a) how such practices promote students鈥� acquisition of academic discourses, competence in a repertoire of codes and discourses, ability to communicate complex thoughts, semantic and syntactic proficiency across codes, and positive writerly identities; and (b) how monolingual teachers or teachers who do not speak or understand a student鈥檚 home language can embrace and support the use of home languages in the classroom.
This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from 91探花.