Shahna Shajnin
Professor Colombo Russell
ENG 110
November 15 2025

The world is considered a melting pot, with millions of people immigrating to America and integrating themselves into its culture. Along with luggages and big dreams, people carry along their culture, religious beliefs, and their powerful language. Language is the root to connection as it provides a means of communicating with one another and holds a piece of one’s origin. Many African Americans speak a dialect of English known as African American Vernacular English (AAVE), which varies from standard English conventions. Due to its variance from typical grammatical English, educators emphasize the use of standard English in a professional setting while keeping the AAVE dialect for solely at-home purposes. This essay will examine how promoting “standard American English (SAE)” within the U.S., grounded in the ideology of a “correct” dialect, disadvantages AAVE speakers by stripping them of their cultural identity and affecting their academic performance.

According to Wheeler, AAVE is “…a variety that has set phonological (system of sounds), morphological (system of structure of words and relationship among words), syntactic (system of sentence structure), semantic (system of meaning) and lexical (structural organization of vocabulary items and other information) patterns…” (Wheeler, 3). Notable characteristics of the dialect include its use and omission of the auxiliary verb “to be,” which differs from standard English and its use of double negatives. For instance, in AAVE, the verb “to be” can be removed to indicate the present tense (Coleman, 11). In AAVE, the sentence “he is walking to the store,” would be “he walkin’ to the store,” effectively eliminating the verb to be. In addition, when talking about a habitual activity in the present, the verb “to be” is left unconjugated in AAVE (Coleman, 11). For example, the sentence “she is usually cooking” will be “she be cookin’” in AAVE. Double negatives are also used in AAVE for emphasis purposes. An example in AAVE is “I don’t hear nothing,” where both “nothing” and “don’t” are negatives. With such grammatical ideas in mind, a clear distinction can be drawn between AAVE and SAE.

Through US school systems, educators have enforced conformity to SAE at the cost of students’ AAVE and its cultural significance to them. In his article, “Negotiating African American Language, Identity, and Culture in the Urban Classroom, Karl Lyn conducts a research study that involves two predominantly Black high schools. His study takes statements from both educators and students to convey their beliefs on SAE and their level of comfort within the classroom. Ms. Davis, an 11th-grade English literature teacher had stated, ““I have my students read challenging texts because I don’t want them to just grasp the content, but I want them to adopt the skills and language these writers use to articulate themselves. So I also correct my students when they don’t use standard English and top-tier language”” (Lyn, 3). In this statement, Ms. Davis reveals that SAE is considered the normal and “top-tier language,” and therefore, her students must conform to the standards set by the language. She also emphasizes her need to correct them, reflecting that Ms. Davis thinks AAVE is an “irregular” form of language that has no space to be explored within a classroom setting. This mindset glorifies SAE and downplays the importance of the other culturally-rich dialect, leaving students feeling out of place. Moreover, Ms. Davis’s beliefs indirectly relate to the racist ideology that Black people’s language and cognition are inferior to those of Whites (Lyn, 4). Likewise, research has shown that “the language that African American children speak in the classroom is devalued in the school setting because of its lack of conformity with the teachers’ language and language expectations” (Champion et al., 3). These findings reveal that bias plays a role in devaluing dialects within the classroom, rather than Black students’ “inability to speak properly.” Furthermore, this detail conveys that a “standard English” classroom has continued to be prioritized, which impacts students of other backgrounds. Thus, maintaining standard English has the potential to disregard African American identities while projecting personal prejudice into the classroom.

James, a student in the class, explains his perspective: ““I don’t like that I feel like I have to correct myself every time I speak. And we can barely speak without her correcting us…We spend so much time on language, that we barely get to understand the actual book…”” (Lyn, 8). Through his statement, James reveals a level of discomfort with the way Ms. Davis’s classroom operates. Specifically, her attitude negatively connotes AAVE and discourages James from expressing his cultural identity. Ms. Davis’s focus on proper SAE within the classroom ultimately causes Black students to conform to the “standard” she enforces, so students like James are forced to speak a certain way to get their ideas across without criticism. As a result, this represses his expression of his typical dialect. Ms. Davis’s approach to education ultimately demotivates students from participating in class as their cultural values aren’t being respected properly. Additionally, Mathew, another student participant within the study, states, ““When people talk about the way I speak, or when teachers try to correct me, it’s because they want me to talk and sound white. And I’m not white, so I shouldn’t be penalized for not trying to fit into the way that white people talk”” (Lyn, 10). Through Mathew’s perspective, the divide between AAVE and SAE is classified based on race, where each race speaks a different dialect of English. To students who speak AAVE, speaking SAE prevents them from being able to express themselves, as they’re forced to conform to how “white people talk.” Mathew rejects the standard norm and decides to continue implementing AAVE, his native dialect, into his speech. By doing so, he actively goes against the standards of a “typical” classroom. Therefore, Mathew attempts to preserve his identity and present to others that language can be implemented in a way to embrace pride in one’s culture. Having a classroom where all dialects are equally respected and improved upon would allow students like Mathew and James to feel comfortable in a learning environment, without feeling the need to “change” themselves. Similarly, well-known writer Jake Seliger comments on the stigma around certain languages: “The fact is, language changes over time like any other fashion. If you don’t like a particular grammar or a particular fashion that is a matter of taste” (Seliger). For Mathew, using SAE is unpleasant as it doesn’t enable him to fully express himself and his identity. AAVE is a language that is more comforting for him, and ultimately, he has a “taste,” for it. Relating back to Ms. Davis, her disdain for AAVE can be rephrased merely as a “matter of taste,” where she prefers what she knows and forces conformity of SAE onto her students. 

Along with this, teaching SAE in US schools negatively affects AAVE speakers by contributing to a decline in academic performance. For example, in the study titled “Phonological awareness skills in young African American English speakers,” Mitri and Terry sought to determine the relationship between AAE (African American English speakers) and how well they can notice patterns within the English language, including letter-word recognition, phonological knowledge, and vocabulary. For the study, 119 African American children in grades ranging from Kindergarten to 2nd grade were involved. Three variables were measured, including spoken dialect use, phonological awareness measures, and vocabulary and reading skills (Mitri and Terry, 560). Through the experiment, researchers determined that differences lie within AAVE and SAE speakers, especially when it comes to phonological awareness and reading tasks (Mitri and Terry, 562). Specifically, a negative correlation was found between AAVE speakers and these skills, which results due to the “mismatch” between SAE and AAVE. For students who typically speak AAVE at home, it becomes difficult to adjust to the strict grammatical and phonological rules that govern SAE, and therefore, students find it difficult to adjust their dialect to conform to the established “standard.” Researchers also noticed that AAVE speakers were inclined to give answers that were dialect-sensitive. These findings suggest that due to the testing structure provided within schools, students have a harder time scoring well in comparison to SAE speakers. Surprisingly, the study determined that most children met the developmental standards for their age group, but dialect differences ultimately affected the performance of AAVE speakers (Mitri and Terry, 567). Comparably, Nesbitt, a Master’s student in Psychological Sciences, discusses similar findings. In particular, she emphasizes that most standardized assessments measure the proficiency of SAE speakers (Nesbitt, 12), which indirectly penalizes students who speak cultural dialects. Due to this, most standardized testing presses a “construct across diverse groups of people” (Nesbitt, 13) by giving SAE speakers an upper-hand while posing a disadvantage to others. Such assessments tend to disregard cultural differences and consequently, cannot be a reasonable measure of intelligence nor serve as an indicator for remedial classes. 

Aside from these constructs, educator bias also plays a role in declining academic performance of AAVE speakers. Nesbitt continues to describe a study conducted by Johnson and VanBrackle, where written tests incorporating components of AAVE, SAE, and ESL (English as a second language) would be scored. Each of the 9 essays given to graders had the same amount of errors and only differed in the language. Nesbitt reveals that written responses utilizing AAVE made it 6.1 times more likely to receive lower scores when compared to passing SAE written responses (Nesbitt, 52-53). These studies showcase how educators devalue the use of AAVE, which results in assigning lower scores to written tests using AAVE. When compared to exams with ESL characteristics, AAVE was more predominantly criticized, leading to grades marked as “failing.” In such scenarios, AAVE students are forced to conform to SAE in order to receive higher grades within a classroom setting. Ultimately, this strips cultural dialects away from students in order to be considered a “high performing student.” For this reason, academic performance of AAVE speakers begins to depend upon the biases of educators, leading to a decline. In addition, according to Champion, educators fail to establish proper expectations for AAVE speakers. He cites one study where it was found that holding high expectations for students causes them to work harder, and consequently their academic performance improves. Educators’ expectations can manifest within the classroom as calling on students in class and having strict standards on performance (Champion et al., 3). In the case of speakers from different cultural backgrounds, it was found that teachers lack expectations for them within the classroom, preventing crucial teacher-student interactions. These negative attitudes towards AAVE speakers contribute to a decline in academic progress and a lack of motivation to improve as they are not held to the same standards as their English-speaking peers. This phenomena, also known as the Pygmalion effect, instills the mindset that only SAE use is rewarded by educators, which disconnects AAVE speakers from their identities by creating an unsupportive learning environment.

Racial biases in education systems have led teachers to neglect AAVE as a dialect, but incorporating AAVE and SAE during learning can uplift students’ cultural identity while meeting academic requirements. In particular, Harris and Schroeder, professionals within the Psychology department, determined that “culturally sensitive interventions must understand that AAVE use connects…speakers with their communities and cultures” (Harris and Schroeder, 196). When getting rid of AAVE from classroom settings, educators are actively severing ties between students and their backgrounds. Such measures stigmatize one’s cultural dialect, while instilling confusion and a fear of expressing themselves in public settings. In order to remedy SAE proficiency, Harris and Schroeder suggest that teaching SAE as a second language, while continuing to involve AAVE within the learning environment (Harris and Schroeder, 196) allows students to continue appreciating their dialect while learning skills associated with SAE. Aside from this, code-switching, the ability to switch language and style of speaking based on the context, encourages students to take on SAE as “another language,” while Vernacular English remains as their primary language. Teaching during the “critical period,” where children are more sensitive to their environment, will support development as they move from one language to another. Specifically, it will guide cognition and speech as they continue to develop, making it easier to grasp SAE and AAVE later on.

In essence, SAE has been used to limit AAVE speakers’ capabilities in an academic setting while disposing of their cultural background. In US school systems, teachers expect SAE usage only, which puts down AAVE students and their dialects by preventing them from free expression in the classroom. As a result, students become demotivated from providing their input, conditioned by negative responses to their dialect. Academically, AAVE speakers have difficulty navigating between AAVE and SAE, leading to decreased scores. Educators also play a role in declining performance, as they treat AAVE students with less expectations and bias. Having programs available for students to learn SAE and maintain their AAVE in educational settings has the potential to mitigate this disconnect. Educators should also be more culturally perceptive to the variety of dialects within a classroom by remaining respectful while continuing to engage students with SAE.  

Works Cited

Champion, Tempii, et al. “Future Educators’ Perceptions of African American Vernacular English (AAVE).” ResearchGate, unknown, 2025, www.researchgate.net/publication/267802506_Future_Educators%27_Perceptions_of_African_American_Vernacular_English_AAVE. Accessed 15 Nov. 2025.

Coleman, Luke. “View of Our Language Belongs in Our Learning.” Iu.edu, 2025, journals.indianapolis.iu.edu/index.php/ENGAGE/article/view/26531/24861.

Harris, Yvette R., and Valarie M. Schroeder. “Language Deficits or Differences: What We Know about African American Vernacular English in the 21st Century.” International Education Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, Mar. 2013, https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n4p194.

Lyn, Karl O. “Negotiating African American Language, Identity, and Culture in the Urban Classroom.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 53, no. 8, Aug. 2022, p. 002193472211150, https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347221115035.

Mitri, Souraya Mansour, and Nicole Patton Terry. “Phonological Awareness Skills in Young African American English Speakers.” Reading and Writing, vol. 27, no. 3, June 2013, pp. 555–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9458-z. Accessed 19 Jan. 2021.

Nesbitt, Jaylin. Writing While Black: African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Perceived Writing Performance . 12 May 2022, commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article.

Seliger, Jake. “On Standard English, African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Dialects, and Efficiency.” The Story’s Story, 4 Dec. 2009, jakeseliger.com/2009/12/04/on-standard-english-african-american-vernacular-english-aave-dialects-and-efficiency/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2025.

Wheeler, Rebecca. “‘So Much Research, so Little Change’: Teaching Standard English in African American Classrooms.” Annual Review of Linguistics, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 367–90, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040434. Accessed 25 Sept. 2020.Classrooms.” Annual Review of Linguistics, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 367–90, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040434. Accessed 25 Sept. 2020.