Running head: THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 1

Linguistic Inequality and the Use of AAVE in Education

Sarah van Nostrand

Colorado State University

THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 2

Introduction

There is a distinct achievement gap occurring in U.S. schools between African American

children and their white, Standard English-speaking classmates. In fact, two-thirds of African

American inner-city students in the fourth grade were found to be reading well below grade

level, according to a national study by the Assessment of Educational Progress in the 1990s,

(Wolfram, 2000). It is clear that African American children, largely speakers of African American

Vernacular English (AAVE), are struggling in school. The U.S. educational system supports and

promotes the teaching of Standard English. Meanwhile, AAVE has been largely regarded as an

inappropriate and unsophisticated means to literacy and having no place in an American

classroom (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). However, as the data has shown, allowing only Standard

English to be taught in the classroom has not been effective in helping African American children

catch up or get ahead in school. Instead, it has had the opposite effect. Not only are African

American children continuing to fall behind academically, but there are serious psychological

and social implications from being denied access to their home dialect in the classroom as well

(Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). Therefore, the subsequent review of research centers around the

following hypothesis for a future study: By allowing, validating, and incorporating AAVE in

language education, African American children will perform better in school.

Review of the Literature

To begin, a review of the linguistic features of AAVE is necessary in order to understand

how it differs from the teaching of Standard English. Wardhaugh and Fuller (2015) break the

features of AAVE down into three main linguistic categories: phonological, morphological, and

syntactic. Within those categories they note r-lessness, final consonant cluster simplification or

deletion, s-marking, and the use of zero copula as the foremost linguistic features of AAVE. The
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 3

phenomenon, R-lessness, can be seen when the [ r ] is left out of the pronunciation of a word if it

is preceded by a vowel. This is also termed post-vocalic r-dropping, a feature commonly found in

speakers in and around the Boston metropolitan area. Final consonant cluster simplification, as

described in detail by Wolframs Detroit study (1969), often occurs in AAVE where

combinations of consonants at the ends of words are left off completely. The phenomenon, S-

marking, is common in AAVE as well, which involves adding, or marking, third-person singular

verbs by adding [ s ] to the end of the verb. AAVEs use of zero copula is perhaps best described

by Labov (1969), If you can contract be in standard English, you can delete it in AAVE, (p.

48). Thomas (2007) takes the linguistic features of AAVE a step beyond that of Wardhaugh &

Fuller. He includes the use of aint in place of didnt as being a significant lexical feature in

AAVE, as well as copula deletion, such as, We hungry right now instead of the Standard English

equivalent, We are hungry right now.

Thomas also brings into question the origin of AAVE and how its history can help

researchers better understand all of the linguistic variations. He notes that there is a continued

debate among sociolinguists of whether AAVE stemmed primarily from a plantation creole or

from working and listening to plantation overseers, or a combination of the two. Baughs (2007)

research on linguistic features of AAVE show that it did indeed stem from American plantations

in the southern United States. Perhaps the most interesting takeaway from his work is that in the

South, indentured servants made up a large percentage of slave overseers. These were the people

that had the most day-to-day interactions with the slaves. These indentured servants largely

lacked formal education, and most of them emigrated to the United States from Scotland and

Ireland. Baugh believes that the interactions between the slaves and their overseers is a driving

force behind the current linguistic features seen in AAVE today (Baugh, 2007). Regardless of its
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 4

origin, both Baugh and Thomas believe that the features of AAVE are highly systematic and

representative of a legitimate and recognized dialect of English. Therefore, strictly from a

linguistic standpoint, AAVE should be no less valued than the standard variety of English. This

viewpoint of equal valuation between variations of English will begin to diminish later on as

social and historical contexts are taken into consideration (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015).

As seen above, it is clear that AAVE is in fact an effective and authentic form of

language. There are those that have actively disputed this in the past, however, such as Bereiter

and Engelmann (1966). They believed that speakers of AAVE did not understand how to

properly use language, and so consequently, language was not particularly useful to them. They

even went so far as to view African American children as not being able to learn and process

information as well as their White peers, due solely to their speech. Bereiter and Englemanns

argument questioning the legitimacy of AAVE has, for the most part, been put to rest since the

1960s. An important example of the legitimatizing of AAVE is the Ann Arbor Decision of 1979.

This was a highly publicized court case where parents of African American students (all speakers

of AAVE) successfully sued a Michigan school for not recognizing AAVE as its own dialect, and

thus failing to create an atmosphere of equal opportunity for all of its students (Wardhaugh &

Fuller, 2015).

In another highly publicized case involving AAVE, in 1996, the Oakland School Board in

California decided to not recognize AAVE as a systematic variation of English, but instead,

recognize it as an entirely separate language, as discussed by Wardhaugh & Fuller (2015). They

called this language Ebonics, believing that it stemmed from other languages coming out of

Africa. The school board decided to treat African American children speaking AAVE the same

way they would treat a student whose native language was Chinese, for example, in an attempt to
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 5

teach them Standard English as an L2, or second language. Initially, there was a lot of support for

this movement from within the school board. However, in 1997, the term Ebonics was

abandoned after strong nationwide disapproval. Interestingly, Wolfram (2000) believes that it is

actually easier to teach a completely separate language than it is to teach one with only very

minor linguistic differences. In this sense, the Oakland School Board decision was thought to be

an easier way to teach Standard English, rather than recognizing it as its own variation of

English.

Despite the win for AAVE speakers back in 1979 and the overturning of the Ebonics program

by the Oakland School Board, today there are still barriers that are keeping AAVE from being

incorporated in the classroom. One of those barriers is, simply stated, racism. With racism comes

a monoglossic ideology that, similar to the Jim Crow Laws that operated under the separate but

equal mindset, believes languages should always be kept separate from one another and never

used or mixed in the same context. From an educational standpoint, this translates to teaching

exclusively Standard English, which keeps AAVE out of classrooms entirely. Siegel (2007)

expands on this idea by suggesting that choosing to teach only Standard English creates a

narrow-minded belief that ultimately leads to identifying any language variation that is not the

standard as being inferior. Alim (2005) is also aware of the danger of promoting a monoglossic

view. National institutions in the U.S. that influence the educational system have been guilty in

the past of this view, calling any form beyond the standard to be impure (p. 502).

Racist and monoglossic views both feed into this idea of linguistic inequality that Bonnin

(2013) describes. He explains how language has been, and continues to be, managed by the elite,

promoting conformity and homogeneity in language. Of course, this does not come close to

accurately representing the diverse student population in U.S. schools today. Wiley (1996) also
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 6

touches on how it is the elites in the educational system that control how literacy is distributed in

the United States, acting a sort of gatekeeper to ensure the longevity and purity of Standard

English. Literacy has, and continues to be, unequally available, despite the claims that it is

accessible to anyone and everyone (Wiley, 1996).

Another barrier of perhaps even more significance is that there are many language

educators that agree that AAVE is a legitimate variety of English that should be acknowledged,

but think they are doing their students a favor by leaving it out of the language classroom. Jeff

Siegel (2007) states that the vernacular is seen as the greatest barrier to the acquisition of the

standard, which is the key to academic an economic success, and therefore the vernacular must

be avoided at all costs, (p. 67). Educators are torn between trying to honor their students home

dialects while simultaneously trying to lift them out of poverty by teaching them Standard

English, which is the best way they know how. This common viewpoint among teachers is

precisely why there continues to be nearly no language programs that incorporate AAVE in

formal education today (Siegel, 2007).

Samy Alim (2005) furthers this point and discusses the asymmetrical relationship

between AAVE (among other home dialects) and Standard English. He believes it can be

incredibly challenging for educators to try to create equal learning opportunities for all students

through the teaching of Standard English while still valuing the lesser language (p. 502).

Simply admitting that there is a lesser language can be damaging for those students that speak

non-standard varieties. Teachers are likely to genuinely believe that, on a cognitive level, AAVE

is not limiting, but that on a social level, it absolutely is. If educators are attempting to create an

environment of social equality, then in this view there is no space for AAVE (Wardhaugh &

Fuller, 2015).
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 7

AAVE may now be widely seen as equal to Standard English on a linguistic level, but

socially they are hardly valued the same. So in this sense, teachers are correct. In terms of

linguistic inequality, this unequal valuation of Standard English and AAVE promotes a myriad of

other economic, cultural, and social inequalities that speakers of AAVE are forced to grapple

with, (Bonnin, 2013). James Sledd (1969) discusses learning Standard English (as a native

AAVE speaker) as being unilateral. He writes that linguists are quick to identify all languages as

equal, but that that is an unrealistic assessment that looks at languages purely from a linguistic

point of view. Sledd argues that sociopolitical and historical factors lead AAVE to be less valued

than Standard English. This unequal valuation can be seen in Labovs study (1969) on the social

stratification of English in New York City speech. He concluded that people valued certain forms

of language and dialects more than others, despite the idea that all languages and dialects are

supposedly equal. This devaluing of certain ways of speech is due primarily to social

circumstance (Labov, 1969). Mackey (1978) agrees with Labov and Sledd, making the blunt

assessment that Only before God and linguists are all languages equal, (p. 7). It is undeniable

that there are social restrictions to AAVE, and therefore it is understandable to a certain level

why language teachers (who have AAVE speakers best intentions in mind) would want to cut it

out of the classroom entirely, in order to focus on the standard variety that is more likely to raise

their social status and economic opportunities later in life.

To summarize what has been stated in this review thus far, AAVE is a legitimate and

systematic variation of English. Therefore, on a technicality, it is linguistically valued as equal to

Standard English, but is in fact very much devalued in social and historical contexts, as well as

within the U.S. education system as a whole. There are several reasons why AAVE has not been

incorporated in language education in United States. These include views that AAVE is a
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 8

deficient form of language, racist and monoglossic ideologies that begs Standard English is

superior and all languages should be kept separate, and educators believing that they are helping

their student speakers of AAVE advance themselves in the world by teaching only Standard

English. The fact of the matter is that African American children are still doing poorly in school,

and so the problem has not yet been solved. Siegel (2007) holds nothing back in his assessment

of the handling of African American children in school:

Everyone knows that the methods currently used to teach reading, writing, and language

arts to African American children is an abysmal failure. This failure is not a result of

minority dialects being allowed in the classroom. Rather, it is a result of their being

excluded from the classroom and from the educational process in general (p. 67).

Moving forward, researchers look toward ways to incorporate AAVE in education. Blake

& Van Sickle (2001) are strong proponents of the incorporation of AAVE in the classroom. They

believe that employing a curriculum that acknowledges and makes use of AAVE speakers prior

experiences and knowledge leads to an easier transition toward Standard English down the road,

as well as overall improvement in academic achievement. Their reasoning is simple: value

students home dialects and identities, and their motivation for learning will rise.

Wolframs (1999) views align closely with those of Blake and Van Sickle. He argues the

importance of recognizing ethnic identity, particularly for AAVE speakers, and believes the best

way to achieve that is through the use of dialect awareness programs in schools. Of course, this

will require a complete overhaul of the current educational system in the United States, moving

from a system that ranks, sorts, and excludes students toward a system that acknowledges the

linguistic inequality that is in place and actively work to replace it with a more pluralistic

approach to language education (Boyd, 2006).

THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 9

Lastly, in support of the use of AAVE in the classroom, Boyd agrees that students who

grow up speaking variations of English other than the standard, such as AAVE, bring important

cultural practices that all students can benefit and learn from. The concern is whether or not

teachers and school administrators will be able to acknowledge this due to the political agendas

attached to education today. Boyd argues that often these rich and diverse experiences are not

being recognized and that conventional Standard English policy is undermining these students

cultural capitol (p. 337). If teaching is indeed a political act, it is precisely those teachers and

school administrators that must advocate for equality, inclusion, and social justice in their

schools. Not only will this help speakers of AAVE catch up with their native Standard English-

speaking classmates academically, but it will also serve to help protect their cultural identities. If

student speakers of AAVE feel that their home dialect is being valued, their self-esteem and

confidence will increase as well (Boyd et al., 2006).

Wolframs (1999) study on the use of dialect use and awareness programs in schools is

very promising, though it is important to note that so far only short-term studies have been

carried out to test the success and effectiveness of these programs. Dialect awareness programs

allow speakers of AAVE, as well as speakers of other non-standard variations of English, to

make use of their vernacular in the classroom. These programs promote the understanding of

linguistic variation in language and value and respect the diversity that non-standard variations

of English bring to the table. Alim (2005) supports Wolframs framework for dialect awareness,

noting that it excites and motivates AAVE speakers because it encourages them to get back into

their communities to investigate and gather local speech data. The idea that these students can

then bring this data back to their classroom to help shape their curriculum is groundbreaking in
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 10

language education. Understandably, student response has been overwhelmingly positive to these

programs.

The United States education system is continuing to fail its African American students.

They are reading below grade level and their overall academic achievement is well below the

national average. This country must take steps to first respect AAVE as a legitimate dialect of

English, as well as recognize that, though linguistically equal, there are social restrictions and

limitations tied to it. Indeed, Standard English may still be the key to economic and overall

academic success down the road, but the path to get there must change. Teachers and educators

cannot continue to deny AAVE in the classroom. Total immersion in Standard English is not

effective. Exposure to the standard is of course necessary, but allowing speakers of AAVE to

value their native dialect is vital (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). Constant correcting of AAVE will

not motivate students to learn the standard.

Conclusion

Language educators have the responsibility to educate themselves on these important

issues surrounding AAVE. These include understanding the damaging psychological implications

of denying a students home dialect, how students motivation to learn will be greatly diminished

if their native speech is devalued, and the idea that total immersion is not effective in teaching

Standard English to AAVE speakers. With this knowledge, teachers and school administrators

can begin to incorporate these home dialects more and more into their language teaching.

Arguably the most effective way to do this is through the implementation of dialect awareness

programs whereby students can utilize their AAVE to help eventually lead to the use of the

standard. This protects home cultures and identities while motivating students more to learn

Standard English. Of course, this is not a simple fix. More challenging than implementing these
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 11

dialect awareness programs is finding a way to overhaul the education system and change the

mindsets of the elites that have fought to maintain these social stratifications. Educating teachers,

as mentioned above, is one important part of that. However, ultimately, long-term studies must

be conducted to better assess the effectiveness of dialect awareness programs in the United

States. If they turn out to be as positive and successful as predicted, then mindsets may begin to

shift, and African American students may begin to see a more pluralistic educational landscape

where they can thrive.

Implications

The use of AAVE in education is an important topic for me to study in regard to how it

may inform future decisions that I make as a language educator. While I may not be teaching

AAVE-speaking students directly, I do plan to teach students that are non-native speakers of

Standard English. Having a clear and in-depth and understanding that linguistic variations exist

between native and non-native speakers of Standard English, and that those variations should be

valued as a part of that individuals identity, will go a long way in teaching English as a second

language. This research has informed me that the more I can accept and incorporate language

variation into my language classroom, the more successful students will be in learning the

standard variety down the road.

References
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 12

Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting issues and
revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher, 34(7), 24-31.

Baugh, J. (2007). At last: Plantation English in America: Nonstandard varieties and the quest for
educational equity. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(4), 465-472.

Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool.
Prentice-Hall.

Blake, M. E., & Van Sickle, M. (2001). Helping linguistically diverse students share what they
know. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(5), 468-475.

Bonnin, Juan Eduardo (2013). New Dimensions of Linguistic Inequality: An Overview.

Language and Linguistics Compass 7(9): 500-509.

Boyd, F. B., Ariail, M., & Williams, R. (2006). Real Teaching for Real Diversity:
Preparing English Language Arts Teachers for 21st-Century Classrooms. English Education,
38(4), 329-350.

Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula.
Language, 715-762.

Mackey, W. F. (1978). The importation of bilingual education models. Georgetown University

Round Table on Language and Linguistics: International dimensions of bilingual education,
1-18.

Siegel, Jeff (2007). Creoles and Minority Dialects in Education: An Update. Language and
Education 21(1): 66-86.

Sledd, J. (1969). Bi-dialectalism: The linguistics of white supremacy. The English Journal,
58(9), 1307-1329.

Thomas, E. R. (2007). Phonological and phonetic characteristics of African American vernacular

English. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 450-475.

Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). West
Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). Englishonly and standard English ideologies in the US. Tesol
Quarterly, 30(3), 511-535.

Wolfram, W. A. (1969). A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Urban

Language Series, No. 5.

Wolfram, W., Thomas, E. R., & Green, E. W. (2000). The regional context of earlier African
THE USE OF AAVE IN EDUCATION 13

American speech: Evidence for reconstructing the development of AAVE. Language in

Society, 29(03), 315-355.