I'm kind of confused what they mean by "use AAVE in the classroom". I think the school board probably meant one thing and the article meant another, and I actually can't tell what either meant.
I went into the article assuming it meant, "students can use AAVE when talking to each other, but still when answering questions they would have to use Standard English", which makes sense to me since they are arguing the language is separate like Portuguese is to Spanish. That being said, we don't really accept in the regular classroom a Spanish answer to a question, a Romanian one, etc. It would be absurd to require a teacher to speak every language.
Yet they went on to say some of the teachers spoke it natively and should not be policed around their usage of AAVE, as if arguing that the language should be considered acceptable as an answer. That isn't consistent with concluding that the language is a separate language. Spanish or other speakers go to ESL classes, and not answer in Spanish in their regular classes.
I guess I just wanted some consistency or definition in what they meant by that, as I'm confused as to what they are arguing in terms of what they wanted Oakland to do other than not call AAVE something from Africa.