—————
STOP TEACHING STUDENTS TO ‘SPEAK AMERICAN!’
Racial and language biases and microaggressions are so ingrained within the American education system that there are recognized patterns amongst what identifies as lingual “imperfections,” essentially referring to different versions or dialects of English. Speaking or writing in anything other than “standard” English bears an association with a lack of intelligence or potential for academic success. Unsurprising though extremely unfortunate, this practice of rejection of difference is one we see in so many American systems, including the media, entertainment, professions, and especially in education. Particularly concerning as formal education takes up the bulk of American youths’ upbringing and formative years, the institution of “right,” “wrong,” and strict structure within English has an influential impact on the quality of education for those whom English is a second language or those who speak different versions of it.
The existence of “perfect” English is quite a ridiculous and restrictive notion that only serves to widen the gap of equality in learning. Karen Leung is a student of the Early Childhood Education teacher preparation program at Western Washington University. In her TED Talk, “Embracing Multilingualism and Eradicating Linguistic Bias,” she questions,
“The United States does not have an official language, so why are there so many people out there who think that there is? and why are people…told to speak ‘American’ when American isn’t even a language in and of itself?” (Leung).
Leung highlights a familiar unfounded expectation in America. “Speak American” is an entitled demand from those who fail to understand the diversity and flexibility of the English language. “American” is not a language, and absurdly, when used, refers to standard white English, which is not the official language in America. Leung points this out to emphasize to those who demand “American!” that the perpetuation of a specific dialect and labeling it as correct in the context of this country does not make sense and should be recognized and questioned. Writer and journalist Robert MacNeil notes an interesting metaphor that encapsulates the nature of the English language:
“English is like an English park, which is laid out seemingly without any definite plan, and in which you are allowed to walk everywhere according to your own fancy without having to fear a stern keeper enforcing rigorous regulations. The English language would not have been what it is if the English had not been for centuries great respecters of the liberties of each individual and if everybody had not been free to strike out new paths for himself” (MacNeil).
A large part of what makes English what it is, is that the language exists and thrives without the need for structure and is malleable and susceptible to change. The white English asserted as standard simply would not have come to be if it were not for centuries of change within the language. The idea of “perfect” or “proper” English is used as a means to impose a sense of superiority, establishing and aggravating discriminatory based attention on lingual differences and supposed deficiencies. There is not one box to encase the language within nor a single trajectory of which the language follows. While subjected rules may be prevalent in the English of modern American systems, the language has a history of growth and development due to absorption and acceptance of an everlasting change.
The acceptance of the structures and grammar rules of standard English was not present throughout the development of the language. For example, double negatives, double comparatives, and “misuse” of verbs, as asserted by MacNeil, are accepted and revered within old English but are rejected within various dialects of the language currently. He writes,
“I find it very interesting that these forms will not go away and lie down. They were vigorous and acceptable in Shakespeare’s time; they are far more vigorous today, although not acceptable as standard English. Regarded as error by grammarians, they are nevertheless in daily use all over the world by a hundred times the number of people who lived in Shakespeare’s England” (MacNeil).
Black English adopts a lot of these defined “errors” and as a result, is deemed “incorrect” and “unprofessional” within American systems. The standardization of English and implementation of homogenizing rules provide the underlying implication that there is a singular most proper way to speak and write in English. This idea is ingrained into American education and is the basis on which students are assessed and criticized. Forced to succumb to this societal ideal of “perfection,” students who exhibit these lingual differences themselves, are taught, and in a considerable sense, brainwashed and begin to despise it early on. Established essayist and professor of Black English June Jordan clarifies the damning effect of a lifelong educational rejection of Black English on her Black student body. After given a widely-appraised text of Black English, her student reacted,
“‘It don’t look right, neither. I couldn’t hardly read it.’ At this, several students dumped on the book. Just about unanimously, their criticisms targeted the language. I listened to what they wanted to say and silently marvelled at the similarities between their casual speech patterns and Alice Walker’s written version of Black English. But I decided against pointing to these identical traits of syntax, I wanted not to make them self-conscious about their own spoken language-not while they clearly felt it was ‘wrong’” (Jordan).
As emphasized by MacNeil, there are texts greatly respected within English education, such as Shakespeare’s works, that share similar grammatical qualities to English dialects, like Black English, commonly used today. However, it is disheartening to note that these versions of English are neither as revered nor usually textually represented as much as they should be. The students’ reactions are very telling as they reveal Black students’ discomfort with seeing their own language on paper. American education is to blame for pushing the idea that versions of English—other than the “standard”—are improper and wrong.
English Language Learners (ELLs) have faced a great deal of language discrimination to a heightened degree. Preference for American ideals within the education system is apparent through the prioritization of English speaking students over ELLs. Numerous studies have assessed the usefulness of ELLs present within the same classrooms as primarily English-speaking students almost as if given the conclusion that ELL students are burdens, they should be cast into separate classrooms for only the good of the “perfectly speaking” students. Rosa Minhyo Cho, professor at Sung Kyun Kwan University, studies differing test scores dependent on the intermingling of ELLs with primarily English speaking students in her research paper, “Are there peer effects associated with having English Language Learner (ELL) classmates? Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K).” She concludes,
“that primarily English speaking non-ELL students who have ELL classmates experience approximately a 3.1 percent and a 2.4 percent of a standard deviation decrease in reading and math test score gains, respectively, compared to other non-ELL students who do not have ELL students as classmates” (Cho).
Non-ELL students when learning in the same classrooms with ELLs experience a decrease in reading scores and an increase, though lesser, in math scores. From a strictly number-based interpretation, Non-ELL students’ reading development is somewhat hindered by the proximity of ELLs throughout their education. However, the value and importance of this conclusion are questionable not in its numerical accuracy, but rather whether the education system appropriately assesses a student’s reading comprehension and skill. American standardized testing in reading is a product of what is the American ideal for the English language. Who is to say that primarily English speaking students are hindered when quite reasonably, it can be gathered that these test scores are not accurate in terms of, again, the diversity and flexibility of this language. Yet another study explored in the research paper, “Assessing school supports for ELL students using the ECLS-K” by Wen-Jui Han and Beatrice L. Bridglall, assesses the impact of non-ELLs on ELLs. However, this study focuses more on the academic catch-up and success of ELL students in association with the presence of non-ELL students given the proper resources and attention. Han and Bridglall gathered,
“Overall, children who spoke a non-English language at home and attended either a high- or low ELL school tended to close the initial reading score gap with English-speaking/no ELL children from K to 5. However, given their significantly lower reading scores at kindergarten entry and their similar growth-curves over time, these two groups were not able to fully close the score gap by fifth grade relative to their English-speaking/no ELL peers. In contrast, despite starting with significantly lower math scores in kindergarten, these two groups fully closed the gaps in math with their English-speaking/no ELL peers by fifth grade. This promising result indicates that ELL children were performing on par with or even surpassing their English-speaking peers if the resources were in place to assist them” (Bridglall, Han).
This study reveals that ELL students are not doomed from achieving the American idea of educational success. Given support, ELL students reach nearly the same level of test scores in reading over the span of grades K to 5. If this is possible, why are ELL students so greatly disadvantaged within this education system. It comes down to neglect, lack of resources, care, representation, and understanding. In the presence of those who society deems as academically superior, these students can prosper, but instead, ELL students are judged for their lingual differences and detrimentally underestimated and unsupported.
Many factors must be addressed when bringing about linguistic diversity, acceptance, and change into American education. In her keynote speech, UnboundED’s founding CEO Kate Gerson provides the statistic that 49% of students in America are people of color whereas only 18% of teachers in America are people of color (Gerson). This wide gap in representation further proves the need for change in American education. Diverse teaching staff can allow for cultural and lingual understanding between students and staff and introduce new perspectives on the teaching of a singular version of English when there are many. A change in staff can increase the support of ELL students’ education by the hiring of trained professionals and experts whose jobs are to care about and remain attentive to the needs of ELL students. This would also alleviate the need for a single teacher to cater to students at different levels of their English education.
From such a young age, children are formally taught a singular way of English. Reversing the closed-mindedness perpetuated in restrictive systems will take a willingness to diverge from traditional teaching practices and instead, the exploration and acknowledgment of the existence of the issue. Walt Wolfram, a sociolinguist, takes record of students’ and teachers’ reactions to the implementation of a language curriculum that analyzes and utilizes sources deriving from multiple dialects of English. This exposure and academic respect of difference caused students to note that
“‘dialects aren’t sloppy versions of Standard English’ and that ‘they follow specific patterns that are logical.’ They came to understand ‘there are tons of stereotypes, which are almost always wrong’ and that ‘dialects represent people’s culture and past.’ As one student put it, ‘[Dialects] are special and hold customs of how people live’” (Wolfram).
Dialects constantly bear an unfair comparison to the imposed standard. Each dialect is correct in its own right, carrying its own structures alongside history, culture, and human difference and personality. Being exposed to linguistic diversity allows students to become more open-minded when it comes to defining and understanding English. Dialects aren’t nonsensical or incorrect; they all follow patterns and are all correctly English. Teachers even took notice of the effect of this type of language curriculum:
“One said the examination of dialect differences ‘has proven to be empowering for my minority students. For many of them, this is the first time they have been told in a school setting that their dialect is valid and not ‘broken.’’… ‘the recognition of language patterns and governing rules made the students feel for the first time that their varied use of ‘standard’ English did not indicate a lack of intelligence.’ … ‘to understand language is not only to know how to speak and write ‘Standard English’ correctly but also to value the rich tapestry of language in all its forms’” (Wolfram).
Understanding the English language as a singular and rigid entity is to not understand English at all. Both students who speak different variants of English and ELL students are made to feel as though they are academically lacking. This academic scrutiny comes from a vantage point of privilege and discrimination. A lack of willingness to understand and accept the differences of students should not be normalized. They should not be made to feel as though they are unintelligent or wrong or “broken” because they are taught within a system that punishes and stamps down what is a defining characteristic of this country—diversity. America’s inhabitants are diverse, but its systems coerce uniformity instead of acceptance and growth. Change is possible within American education systems only when its issues are acknowledged and English is truly understood and respected as a language of diversity and validity in all forms.
—————
