Blog #2: Synthesis: SRTOL's Lasting Legacy

In an effort to post on time, I will make my comments brief and fill in more on iLearn:

The big questions I have are:

What Is the Lasting Impact of SRTOL?

The impact of SRTOL depends on who's perspective we look at. If we take the gaze of the typical community college English teacher in The San Francisco Bay Area, it feels liberating to have such an affirmation and it echoes everything I've read from Peter Elbow. It speaks to respecting *process* and not being concerned with mechanics... for in the final analysis, isn't use of AAVE or some other dialect simply a mechanical issue? The ideas and concepts a student writes about are the same and dialect does little to dilute what they have to say. As many authors have already said, if the ideas are clear, the argument precise, the structure easy to follow, then who cares whether "Johnny go to the store." or "Johnny goes to the store." We get the gist.
 
Can SRTOL be accomplished?

I believe it can. While I see a definite need for *understanding* EAE, it doesn't mean that I should teach it as the only acceptable method of speaking or writing in the classroom. I am not advocating shedding one's dialect over another and by inference, shedding one's identity. I'm simply offering another tool that a student can use toward their own individual goals.

Is it too simplistic?

Some would argue that it is. It is very easy to fall into a false sense of security and believe we are doing the right thing by allowing people to write in their own dialect. Some would argue that we do them a disservice and do little if anything to give them tools of empowerment. I think that if you are careful with your pedagogy, your curriculum will have room for everyone and we will still be able to provide the means to agency and self-efficacy.