by Siena Santos Edmunds
Siena is a biology major on the pre-medical track living in Wellfleet, Massachusetts. Her essay grew out of her own experience, as she found the language she used with her peers “seemed to me to be filled with all the best modes of storytelling and socializing,” but it seemed to her that her teachers “didn’t always hear what I did and thus missed out on what the language I use has to offer.” Siena is also passionate about social justice, especially in the realm of education. Her mother lacked access to school in her home country of Brazil, and that has allowed Siena to develop a deep appreciation of her own educational opportunities.
It is the responsibility of teachers to alter their teaching style in order to engage and support students who speak dialects that are underrepresented in academia. In school, I internalized that those who spoke standard English were more intelligent. This is quite monumental to me now, as I am able to better understand where this belief stemmed from. As a child, I was affected by biases subtly fed to me through shows, movies, and other media outlets. I learned that assimilating to the culture dominant on television and in my environment is better in all regards. Now that I am older, I am able to understand the systemic structures that perpetuate this idea. I am able to recognize the socio-political aspects that infiltrate and dictate success in a learning community. I believe that the most important things teachers can do to enhance the learning environment for everyone are to acknowledge the biases they themselves carry, and the biases that are ingrained in the teaching style and curriculum used.
Starting at a young age, kids are able to harness language and develop linguistic skills outside of school that is considered elementary at best. Terry Meier, a current professor of Language and Literacy at Wheelock College composed “Why Can’t She Remember That?”, an article that explores “the importance of storybook reading in multilingual, multicultural classrooms”. In it, Meier describes how “children use language in powerful ways” across cultures by referencing a few of the linguistic abilities adopted by the kids from the language around them at home (243). Meier includes the language practiced at home and the ethnicities of the children to bring to attention how language skills are formed and adopted across cultures. Meier then goes on to claim that books are the key to gaining linguistic ability and understanding the power of language (244). Meier acknowledges that linguistic skills and the means of learning them differ across cultures. However, by solely focusing on books as a way to advance linguistic skills, Meier is creating a hierarchy in the classroom, where those that use books at home will have more practice and a better chance to succeed The children with this advantage are likely to be part of the dominant culture since not every culture had storybooks as part of their customs (244). From my experience, and as authored by Meier, the kids who benefit would be those where books were read at home, and who spoke “Standard English” or practiced similar reading/speaking habits at home. I had trouble in the classroom when we began to read because I didn’t practice reading at home and portions of the class would be reading alone. This put me further behind as I wasn’t used to reading and therefore wasn’t able to partake in learning activities in the classroom.
Meier unknowingly describes the practice of code-switching, one that forces students to switch from the language and linguistic skills they use most to a standard English in places seen as more professional, resulting in the loss of already established linguistic skills in students. Vershawn Ashanti Young, a professor and author of subjects of African American studies surrounding language and sociolinguistics, authored the article “Nah, We Straight: An Argument Against Code-Switching,” which explores the important but often overlooked and/or misunderstood difference between code-meshing and code-switching. Code-switching was defined in the article as “the use of more than one language or language variety concurrently in conversation (Auer)” (49). Code-meshing, on the other hand, was defined as “Blending dos idiomas or copping enough standard English to really make yo’ AAE be Da Bomb” (50). By this definition, Young sees the potential of code-meshing to elevate one’s language with the use of another. Young draws parallels between code-switching and the arguments “used to support segregation” as well as a “separate but equal” mentality when it comes to language in the professional world (53). Lee & Handsfield, both professors of teaching and learning, co-wrote “Code‐Meshing and Writing Instruction in Multilingual Classrooms”, an article that like Young’s, explicitly articulates a connection between language and power. In contrast, Meier doesn’t see the full effects of the teaching practices she sees as best, and in doing so is in disagreement with Young and Lee & Handsfield’s connections between socio-political aspects/power and cultural divides.
Young claims that teachers are stuck using the same mode of language teaching that is recognized as code-switching. Young says that those in support of code-switching are in fact supporting the ideology that two dialects aren’t compatible in the same space. This practice in the classroom has forced students to either ditch their dialect and conform to standard English and risk feeling disconnected from themselves or resist and don’t do well academically. This is often witnessed in classroom settings by teachers chastising students for “not speaking right” or demanding students only speak English. Not only do teachers chastise students but they also allude explicitly or otherwise that those speaking standard English will be more successful in all categories. Young invalidates this concept of code-switching early in his essay and leans to a more useful practice known as code-meshing; one that he claims will allow students to be more successful using language by recognizing the linguistic skills one primarily uses and meshing together other dialects in meaningful ways (60). In recognizing how these two seemingly similar, albeit substantially contrasting, concepts differ it allows for teachers to make choices in the classroom that better the classroom for everyone and not just students of one particular dialect.
Meier proves that it doesn’t just take the observance of cultural or socioeconomic differences but the acknowledgment of how the classroom isn’t calibrated to account for them. This is shown by Meier’s acknowledgement of the students first language as well as the means kids have of learning language across cultures and socio economic statuses (242). However, by teaching in a way that forces kids to solely read and interact with language in one focused way that only highlights standard English skills, Meier isn’t fully understanding of the many ways in which language can be learned and thus is neglecting skills learned otherwise. For example, some communities may learn language skills primarily through speech patterns learned at home, due to possible lack of books available, lack of books authored in their dialect, or other reasons. Due to their modes of learning language, the language they speak may primarily be used for social interaction and be successful in skills towards emoting. This skill is often seen in black communities who use African American Vernacular English (AAVE). By Meier forcing students to primarily read books to enhance their language skills , those who use AAVE and other dialects are unfamiliar with the language of books and are forced to lose the skills they have by not practicing them and invalidating their language. Young, as well as Lee & Handsfield, both credit this to a concept called dominant language ideology, a concept defined by linguist Rosina Lippi Green as “a bias towards a spoken language that is imposed by dominant institutions, whose language is primarily spoken by the upper middle class. And the way that speakers of this language communicate dictate the correct modes of communication” (Young 68). This bias creates spaces where languages that aren’t seen as standard are frowned upon and seen as lesser languages resulting in biases that uphold attitudes about the speakers of those languages being seen as uneducated and in turn discriminated against.
Language bias exists in all professional settings. However, I believe it to be most at work in schools. It is there where all students begin interacting with language in ways that are seen as either right or wrong and it is there where students are introduced to the language biases of the world. The extent at which teachers are aware of their biases and how it affects their students is only meaningful when they have taken action to change. Of course, they aren’t to blame for all the biases in the education system but they are an example of how deeply the system is engrained with biases and prejudices. Because of this, teachers are often unaware of their biases and may unintentionally impose dominant language ideology that forces students to assimilate and let go of their background in order to be successful in institutions imposing a standard language. The problem is most at work when the teachers are unaware of the biases that invade classrooms and thereby impose the dominant language ideology onto students, therefore, in the case of unawareness being a prominent factor for this unjust education system, awareness is the solution.
This ideology is a disservice to the ability of kids and all people to use language in much more powerful ways than realized in a majority of classrooms today. Language needs to be recognized and understand for all it is, an amazing tool for which communication is made possible. However, Young would argue that when languages are put together, the “powerful ways” cultures use language differently can be used together to elevate one’s language (65). This is where the concept of code-meshing is put to use. Lee & Handsfield are in agreement with Young that code-meshing is of utmost importance in the classroom and offer multiple strategies of code-meshing in the classroom of young students that still use similar activities as now, but with space for students and teachers to explore language. An example of one such activity, described by Lee and Handsfield, was a Mother’s Day cards activity that had sentence starters in dominant English with a fill-in-the-blanks for the students. The teacher then wrote verbatim what the student said, allowing for the meshing of the student’s language and dominant English (161). This not only celebrates the student’s voice and language but allows for students to learn how seamlessly mesh dialects. Another example was students had access, as well as completed activities, centered around bilingual books (162). This highlights not only the cultural aspects that the books hold but also a longer narrative for students to practice code meshing activities. This is a better alternative to Meier’s approach of storybook reading to practice what was unrecognized by Meier as dominant language skills (245). Although Meier does bring in the topic of representation of characters in books, I urge teachers to also find representation of languages in books with published authors who use code-meshing of non-dominant dialects.
I started my research on teaching styles of classrooms with diverse students in hopes of determining a way for teachers to change their teaching style to better aid those students. However, looking back, I realize that the importance lies more in the invisible factors that teachers carry with them to their classrooms every day more than their teaching styles. I believe it is of utmost importance for teachers to confront their biases before they get into the classroom that pertains to any language or learning difference between kids. This is necessary for all teachers not just those who may have students of a different background, language, or learning history than their own. I urge teachers to do some learning of their own of different dialects and do not call upon students to teach you their language. That isn’t their job. It is the responsibility of teachers to learn and understand just how beautiful dialects are and that the language we speak is real and is everything a language should be.
Work Cited
Lee, Alice Y., and Lara J. Handsfield. “Code‐Meshing and Writing Instruction in Multilingual Classrooms.” Reading Teacher 72.2 (2018): 159-68.
Meier, Terry. “”Why Can’t She Remember That?” The Importance of Storybook Reading in Multilingual, Multicultural Classrooms.” Reading Teacher 57.3 (2003): 242-252.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “”Nah, We Straight”: An Argument Against Code Switching.” JAC 29.1/2 (2009): 49-76.