Policy Proposal for African American Vernacular English (AAVE)/Ebonics

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.

Please request permission to directly cite anything provided in this proposal.

Written By: Élice Hennessee

December 16, 2010

Problem Statement:

Many African-American students and African-American Vernacular English

(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

Vernacular English (AAVE) / Ebonics to receive Language Acquisition services in public

schools. Many educational policies and services are determined based on a child’s native

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

development and use will become more transparent and institutionalized.

In the first section of this paper, I begin with an analysis of the problem that concerns the

targeted stakeholders of the proposed policy followed by an explication of the stakeholders

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

anticipated outcomes of those policies based on the AAVE/Ebonic speaking demographic,

activity of the policy and its budget. Finally, in Section II, the main focus of this paper, I will

present the language policy proposal for speakers of AAVE/Ebonics followed by

recommendations for its implementation. I conclude the paper with a reflection of the

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

43 percent of White, 20 percent of Hispanic and 36 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students

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

becomes increasingly severe (Aud, 2010).

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...]

numerous studies recognize overall educational experience as a key determinant of imprisonment

(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

Vernacular English or ‘Ebonics’ as a native or second language. Particularly, commonly, White

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.

Successfully introduced by California State Assemblywoman Diane Martinez on February 28,

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

excluded from participating in English language development programs in public schools,

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

opportunities specifically for language-minority students, Black Vernacular English or ‘Ebonics’

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

funded language development programs in California through Assembly Bill 1206.

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

being legally punished as further outlined by California Education Code 30-30.5.

Anticipated Outcomes:

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s publication of Status and Trends

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

White, 20 percent of Hispanic and 36 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students scored at or

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

demographic’s reading achievement.

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

Proposition 227 was a highly politicized campaign in California. This proposition

dismantled most of the state’s bilingual programs. As the proposition is outlined, it’s

implementation requires teachers in California schools to teach limited English proficient

students in special classes almost entirely in English, whereas prior to this proposition’s

implementation, hundreds of thousands of students in California were placed in classes in which

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

modifications to bilingual education is still unclear. Though, according the Department of

Education, just 7.8 percent of English language learners were “redesignated” as fully English

proficient in 2002 (Aud, 2010 ).

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

2-to-1” (Gizzi, 1998).

Policy Alternative II:

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

for students who speak black 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

based on their overall performance goals. They are as follows:

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

following evaluation based on the above 8 criteria:

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.

SECTION III - English Language Acquisition Policy for Speakers of Non-English

as well as Speakers of AAVE/Ebonics (SOAE)

Introduction and Purpose

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

addresses the following issues:

• the primary mission of SOAE

• the curriculum of the policy

• linguistic rights of SOAE

• the pedagogical practices addressing SOAE

• future goals for this policy and SOAE

Statement of Primary Mission

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

traditional public and private academic classrooms.

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

enabling them to compete more successfully in a target social domain.

Statement of Linguistic Rights

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

English for the purpose of instructing SOAE in the classrooms in supported.

Statement of Constituency

The constituency consists of each educational enterprise, and the people who make up such an

entity: the program’s students, teachers, and staff members.

Regarding students, the policy’s English Acquisition program is composed of students from a

variety of cultures with diverse linguistic backgrounds, including AAVE/Ebonics. Furthermore,

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-

languages within other dominant languages.

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

as to the entire student population.

Regarding teachers, the policy will support hiring primarily from an experienced pool of

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

core SOAE philosophies and theoretical approaches, in addition to providing an ongoing

mentoring process for all of the teachers in the program.

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.

Statement of Future Goals

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

concurrently providing quality instruction in English Acquisition programs and English as a

Second Language to the highest degree possible.

Recommendations:
Given this proposal of an official language policy that includes SOAE, I would like to make the

following suggestions:

1. Adopt of adapt this proposed language policy for implementation

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

currently unserved demographics.

3. Make provisions to conduct thorough, periodic assessments of the language policy and

the students’ English language acquisition according to State academic standards.

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

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Berglas, N., Brindis, C., and Cohen, J., (2003). Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing in

California. California Research Bureau. p. 17

Crawford, James. (2003). “Numbers Game: Challenging the Fallacies about Proposition 227”.

The Bilingual Family Newsletter 20, no. 2. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon,

England.

Crawford, James. (1996). “Legislating Language, Mandating Inequality.” The World Paper.

Jul 1996: 1-3. Retrieved from MLA International Bibliography database.

Crawford, J. (2008). Advocating for English Learners: Selected Essays. Clevedon,

England: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from MLA International Bibliography database.

Gizzi, John. (1998). “California Proposition 227 Wins, Rolling Back Bilingual Education”.

Human Events. Human Events Publishing. provided by proquest Jun 12 1998

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-

0250/sb_205_bill_19970128_introduced.html> on 15 Oct 2010.

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-

1250/ab_1206_bill_19970505_amended_asm.pdf> on 13 Oct 2010.

Pandey, Anita. (2000). Symposium on the Ebonics Debate and African-American Language

TOEFL to the Test: Are Monodialectical AAL-speakers

Similar to ESL Students?”. World Englishes, 19(1), 89-106. Retrieved from E-Journals

database on 13 Oct 2010.

Ramirez, J., Wiley, T., Klerk, G., Lee, E., & Wright, W. (2005). Ebonics: The Urban

Education Debate. Clevedon, Engliand: Multilingual Metters. Retrieved from MLA

International Bibliography database.

Rickford, J. R. (1999). The Ebonics controversy in my backyard: a sociolinguist’s experiences

and reflections. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(2), 267–275. Retrieved from

Communication & Mass Media Complete database

Rickford, John R. (2005). S.B. 205- Well-Intentioned But Uninformed. Ebonics: The Urban

Education Debate (pp.149-151). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved

from MLA International Bibliography database.

Oakland, California Board of Education. “Ebonics Resolution”. 18 December, 1996. In

Editorial Projects in Education. Official Record. 1997.