The issue is not teaching grammar--I'm sure Vinsent has endured plenty of grammar lessons. The issue is teaching the difference between standard english and dialects such as ebonics. Either way, Vinsent's passage is pretty clever. Just curious--what grade did he score?

What I find interesting about this is Vinsent's conclusion that, because Pythagoras attempted to solve one of music's greatest puzzles, in addition to discovering the math that he did, that "he got to be bored as hell." And I really don't see how a academic and artistic achievement translates into not having "any friends as a little kid." So if the dude is actually doing something serious with his life instead of partying he must have issues, right?

I think this closing paragraph speaks to so much more than the lack of grammatical training in our youth. It really does point to the mindset that real achievement, academic or otherwise, is something that results from being abnormal, or worse, dysfunctional, and that any normal person would be out having FUN.

Oh dear me. Now you will know how strange I am for sure. I liked Vinsent's statement. First I decided to look past the grammar. I only wanted to ask him a question - Vinsent, does math have a connection to music? From there we would hopefully connect the two, V might decide to look past the day to day and understand and see more. As he sees more the grammar and approach grow with him. I have to hand it to you Chett, to me getting that statement out of the boy means you are taking him somewhere, he just needs to think a moment about where that might be.

I blog at Education Notes

Nancy - I don't know what you mean when you say "The issue is not teaching grammar." Of course the issue is teaching grammar. Differentiation between ebonics and standard English should be implied in any grammar lesson.

If a student comes out of a grammar lesson writing like this, then they have not taken a true grammar lesson.

Matt--What I mean is that "Differentiation between ebonics and standard English..." should not be "implied" it should be explicit. Teaching standard english through lessons that show students how to translate expressions into standard english could be very powerfully used. Understanding that the use of non-standard english not only serves to unify a social group but serves as a subtle rebellion is also very important. This is why I wrote that I'm sure Vinsent has had many grammar lessons. If he's attended k-12 schools in America, he's been exposed to written and spoken standard english. But the ability to explicitly move between standard and non-standard english when necessary, is not often taught explicitly. This ability is crucial if standard english learners are to be successful in the larger society, while still maintaining acceptance and identity in their communities. I know this from my own experience as a second language learner and as a teacher of second language learners and standard english learners.

I blog at Education Notes.

Yes, I guess we're trying to make the same point.

Let's ignore my "implicit" distinction. My point is that _any_ respectable grammar class would not let a student leave the classroom thinking that "Pythagoras had extremely to much time on his hands" is an acceptable sentence to write in a paper. You're right that the teacher may have to make explicit distinctions between ebonics and standard English if the student frequently mixes the two - but this is just what is expected of a teacher. I have difficulty believing that a teacher would not make such differences explicit for a student like Vinsent, but I guess I just came from a better school system. In my eighth grade grammar class, we had to write papers. Nobody would have passed the class if they didn't write a few lengthy papers which had very few grammar mistakes.

The solution to this? Well, if Vinsent came from bad grammar classes, then we need more competent teachers. At very least, we should train them (very very basic training), but I would prefer replacing a teacher who can't teach his/her students.

If Vinsent went to good grammar classes but never bothered to study, practice, or pay attention, well then the solution is to give him an F on this paper and make him take a grammar class.

Also, Nancy, I don't think you were suggesting this, but I just want to affirm that we don't need grammar classes titled "Ebonics and Standard English" and we don't need to pump funding into a training program. If the teachers are competent enough, all you have to ask them is to correct the mistakes the students make most frequently. These mistakes will just happen to be those related to ebonics-grammar in some classes.

I blog at Education Notes.

Some addition to my last paragraph there:

If the teachers are competent enough, all you have to ask them is to correct the mistakes the students make most frequently. This involves surveying the class's writing, determining what kind of mistakes they are making, and then explaining to the class why these mistakes are wrong. After that, they should probably practice fixing those frequent mistakes. None of this should be absent from a basic grammar class in the first place.

Matt, I don't think we agree because I think distinctions between standard and non-standard english should be made explicit so that students can learn to move between both with the respect and awe they both deserve, but you seem to take the position that one is correct and the other inferior. I disagree. Non-standard english is the result of a group of people's strong will to survive in a new place. Its hybrid roots are old and new country, and it is deserving of respect. By approaching language usage with respect, explicitly modeling how to translate non-standard english phrases into standard english, and playing with the language in class so that there is a comfort level about this dance of translation, are ways to get students to write effectively in standard english. Approaching language usage negatively by "correcting errors" and giving out "F" grades is not only not effective, it is marginalizing--actually a very effective way to ensure that non-standard english students reject standard english. Of course, this is not to say that we wimp out and refuse to give students the grades they deserve. Not at all. What I am saying is that I disagree that the teacher's approach should be one of teaching to correction, rather than teaching to dual language/translation. One is negative, demeaning, and a sure way to tune out students while the other is eye opening, affirming, and engages students in its practice.

You say that that the distinction between standard and non-standard english should be made but "this is just what is expected of a teacher." No, I don't think it is. Teachers teach grammar but take for granted that students understand the distinction. I work as a literacy coach and I can tell you that many, many teachers don't have alot of scaffolding skills or effective methods of differentiation. Most teachers don't understand the differences between standard and non-standard english--they only understand that a student's response was wrong or incorrect, they correct the student, and then are flabbergasted that the student continues to use the language incorrectly. There is nothing explicit about the hows or whys in the grammar classes, just a lot of "learn the grammar rules."

In a perfect world, all teachers would understand how to teach dual language/non-standard english speakers to use standard english. In this same perfect world, all students would have access to skilled teachers, all students would be equally prepared, and all students would be motivated to achieve. Ah, but this is not a perfect world. All teachers are not skilled, all students are not equally prepared, and all students do not have access to the "better school system" you claim to have come from. If teaching literacy skills were as simple, and implicit, as you claim it to be then this country would not be grappling with the impact of poor literacy skills as it is today. We wouldn't need school reform, NCLB, or any other initiatives, to get students literate.

And Matt I am not suggesting we have classes entitled "Ebonics and Standard English," just teachers who are trained in the differences between the two, and who possess a repertoire of lessons aimed at explicitly teaching and modeling the how to's. Oh yes, and little respect, understanding, and positive, affirming attitude toward students who struggle with learning standard english.

The blogger's statement that the members of the education community to which this student belongs were "simultaneously amused and horrified" led me to wonder what was so amusing about a horrific situation?

I am relieved, however, to find that there is a spirited discussion going on here besides the seemingly intended minstrelsy of the matter.