1115035

research-article2022
JBSXXX10.1177/00219347221115035Journal of Black StudiesLyn

Article
Journal of Black Studies

Negotiating African
2022, Vol. 53(8) 780­–795
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
American Language, sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00219347221115035
https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347221115035
Identity, and Culture in journals.sagepub.com/home/jbs

the Urban Classroom

Karl O. Lyn1

Abstract
The dominant privilege that is ascribed to Standard American English within
American classrooms presents socio-cultural challenges for many Black
students who speak African American Vernacular English (AAVE). This study
will examine the ways in which race, language, and power intersect in the
classroom to shape Black students’ academic performance and self-concept.
Grounded in critical race theory, this study includes qualitative interviews
with Black students at two urban high schools in south Los Angeles. A
thematic analysis of these interviews will reveal how the stigmatization of
AAVE in urban schools compels Black students to adopt dominant ideologies
and practices that isolate them from their cultural subjectivities. Findings
from this study call educators to develop a culturally relevant pedagogy that
empowers Black students to utilize and access their socio-cultural capital in
and out of the classroom.

Keywords
African American language, Black student development, African American
education, culturally responsive pedagogy, African American culture and
identity, critical race theory

1
The University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

Corresponding Author:
Karl O. Lyn, The University of Massachusetts Amherst, 145 University Drive #3571,
Amherst, MA 01002, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Lyn 781

Language, Race, and Identity

Language and identity are intrinsically linked together, thus, the ways in
which an individual speaks is reflective of their social and cultural subjectivi-
ties. However, for many Black people in the United States, speaking in
African American Vernacular English (AAVE) presents significant chal-
lenges particularly within academic contexts. The dominant privilege that is
ascribed to Standard American English (SAE) within American classrooms
disparages non-standard dialects of English, which ultimately affects the
social and academic experiences of Black students who speak in AAVE. This
paper will examine the ways in which Black high school students have nego-
tiated their language within their classrooms, as well as how educators can
adopt a pedagogy that supports Black students’ academic performance and
identity development. With this purpose, this paper explores students and
teachers’ perspectives and experiences through analyses of qualitative inter-
views at two urban high schools in south central Los Angeles.
A thematic analysis of these interviews will reveal critical factors that
advantage and disadvantage Black students who speak AAVE in their class-
rooms, and ultimately implores educators to consider a more culturally rele-
vant and affirming pedagogy for Black youth. Culturally relevant pedagogy,
as introduced by Ladson-Billings (2005), is a form of teaching that yields
academic success, fosters students’ social awareness, and helps students
develop positive cultural identities. Previous research studies commonly
advocate for teachers to use culturally relevant pedagogy as a framework for
improving student-teacher relationships, classroom management skills, and
the academic achievement gap between white students and students of color.
However, such research excludes language as a critical aspect of culture that
shapes teaching and learning within the classroom. Building on the work of
Ladson-Billings, I contend that educators should employ what I call an
agency pedagogy in which teachers view students as agents of their culture
while providing students with the capacity for cultural and linguistic sub-
jectivity. This research is part of a growing body of research that focuses on
the relationship between language, culture, and Black identity within urban
classrooms.

Historical Context
Black students’ current experiences with using AAVE within their classrooms
cannot be critically engaged without aligning it with the collective experi-
ences of Black people during the enslavement period. Throughout the Trans-
Atlantic slave trade, Black people grappled with maintaining their language,
782 Journal of Black Studies 53(8)

identity, agency, and culture. White colonizers and enslavers violently forced
Black people to renounce their indigenous languages and other cultural tradi-
tions to assume Eurocentric cultural, psychological, and linguistic doctrine.
White enslavers tortured and murdered Black people to sustain white domi-
nation, while also terrorizing Black people into accepting this oppressive vio-
lence as a normal and necessary process (Holloway, 2010). Despite this white
terrorism and imposed hegemony, Black people managed to retain and utilize
a wide range of cultural traditions and expressions such as family patterns,
religious belief systems, culinary skills, artistic creativities, and languages
(West, 2000). Although many Black people preserved such customs through
the enslavement period, many feared the effects of white terrorism and there-
fore suppressed their cultural and linguistic customs to socially and physi-
cally survive in a white supremacist country. This same quandary exists for
Black Americans today, but instead of assimilating to Standard American
English as a means of physical survival on the plantation, it is a means of
academic survival within the classroom.
While Black people have a long history with cultural and linguistic oppres-
sion in the United States, many Black people have preserved their cultural
and communicative traditions by using AAVE. Linguists and cultural anthro-
pologists have agreed with the ethnolinguistic theory that AAVE is a combi-
nation of West African language traditions and English vocabularies (Dillard,
1972; Mufwene, 1998). Since Black people were taken from various regions
of the African continent from which different tribes spoke different lan-
guages, they developed a language that merged the linguistic structures of
West African languages and the English language to effectively communicate
with one another within the United States. This merging of languages reflects
the process of creolization that many African descendants practiced to create
new varieties of culture and communication (Dillard, 1972). Additionally,
Black people developed multiple linguistic traditions for private and public
discourses as a critical means of resistance. For example, enslaved Black
people encoded their language when speaking to other Black people so that
white enslavers could not comprehend their messages of solidarity and rebel-
lion (Marable, 2007). Similarly, AAVE is an intentional and culturally spe-
cific mode of communication that Black people have adopted to express their
sentiments and agency both privately and publicly.

Educational Context
While scholars have studied the historical significance of AAVE, others have
studied language and culture more broadly in the context of American class-
rooms. While many educational reformers agree that schools should be a
Lyn 783

place of social, academic, and intellectual freedom for students, many Black
students are confined and subjugated on cultural grounds (Ladson-Billings,
2005; Morris, 2015). For example, students are often penalized for speaking
non-standard English within the classroom, which limits their expression and
renders many students’ home language subordinate to their teachers’ lan-
guage (Ladson-Billings, 2005). This type of linguistic and cultural restriction
reinforces a white power structure within American school systems that
reduces Black students’ self-concept and agency. One reason that educators
have prioritized SAE within their classrooms is because it is a means of
unifying each American citizen through a common language regardless of
background (Delpit, 1992; Smitherman, 1986). This notion suggests that
enforcing SAE is not oppressive, but rather serves as a unifying medium for
all American students. However, this justification of SAE is culturally oppres-
sive as it only burdens non-white people with the obligation to divest from
their language and culture.
Moreover, many people believe that Black students often use AAVE due
to their poor social class and lack of education (Dillard, 1972; Smitherman,
1986). This belief conveys to Black students that the communicative tool that
they use to navigate and negotiate the world is broken, wrong, and inferior.
This notion reflects a larger racist ideology about Black people’s cognitive
capabilities; historically, white people believed that Black people were intel-
lectually inferior to them because of genetic differences. These beliefs laid
the foundation for attitudes and policies that denigrated Black people such as
segregation laws and under-resourced schools (Prendergast, 2003). Therefore,
deducing that Black people speak AAVE because they are uneducated or of a
lower social status reproduces the white supremacist ideology that Black
people are cognitively and genetically deficient simply because they deviate
from white norms and standards.
Similarly, other educators have privileged SAE in American schools by
connoting that SAE is an academic language while other non-standard forms
of English are merely conversational languages that do not belong in aca-
demic settings (Martin & Rose, 2007). The notion that non-SAE languages
do not belong in academia reinforces a false narrative that AAVE is not used
to engage in intellectual and scholarly discourse. However, Black people’s
intellectual engagement is not limited to one form of language, which allows
AAVE speakers to be just as academically capable as their counterparts who
speak SAE. These Eurocentric ideals about Black people and language do not
merely limit Black students’ identity expression, but it also limits the ways in
which they understand themselves, their agency, and their social position in
school and society.
784 Journal of Black Studies 53(8)

Methods and Theoretical Framework

This research explores students and teachers’ perspectives and experiences
through analyses of qualitative interviews at two urban high schools in south
central Los Angeles. A thematic analysis of these interviews will reveal
critical factors that advantage and disadvantage Black students who speak
AAVE in their classrooms. The data collection for this research consisted
of purposeful sampling in which carefully selected schools, classes, and
participants were chosen that would best fit the focus of this study. Parker
High School and Anderson High School, both of which have been given
pseudonyms to protect the identities of the participants, were chosen because
both schools contain a predominantly Black student population and are
located within predominately Black and linguistically diverse communities.
Specifically, Parker High School has a 95% Black student population, while
Anderson High School has a 98% Black student population. To centralize
Black students’ voices and experiences, it was important to include in this
study qualitative interviews from Black AAVE speaking students. Therefore,
student participants were chosen based upon their self-identification as both
Black and AAVE speaking. Prior to conducting research, I had contact with
the principal and vice principal at each school who approved of my methods
of research after explaining the purpose and goals of this research project. As
a result, I had the opportunity to explain my research purpose to students, and
distribute a questionnaire to students in which they could indicate their par-
ticipation interest and whether they identified as Black and an AAVE speaker.
One-on-one open-ended interviews were conducted with eight students from
each school to elicit reflective and extensive responses. I conducted inter-
views with three students from a United States history course, and five stu-
dents from an English course per school as this happened to be the breakdown
of students who volunteered to participate in this study.
Additionally, I also interviewed the student participants’ history and
English teachers as this study seeks to grasp the pedagogical approaches to
teaching in predominately Black and linguistically diverse classrooms.
Interviews with teachers illustrated their sentiments toward, and approaches
to enhancing Black students’ social and academic performances as it con-
cerns language. This study follows two English teachers and one history
teacher who agreed to share their perspectives, experiences, and practices
related to teaching Black AAVE speaking students. The first teacher partici-
pant, Ms. Davis, is a white 11th-grade English literature teacher who has
taught at Anderson High School for 4 years. The second participant,
Ms. Jones, is an African-American 11th grade history teacher who has taught
at Parker High School for 2 years. The third participant is Ms. Bailey who is
Lyn 785

an African-American 11th-grade English Language teacher who has taught at

Parker High School for 3 years. Each interview with teachers and students
ranged from 30 minutes to an hour and were transcribed verbatim.
Lastly, this study is theoretically informed by critical race theory and
agency reduction formation theory. Critical race theory, as Bell (1995)
describes, helps to recognize racism as an enduring and integral part of
American life to appropriately guide action geared toward racial equity. One
premise of critical race theory is that the historical context of racism influ-
ences present social conditions and outcomes (McDougal, 2014). Thus, this
research will call attention to the ways in which current classroom structures
and teaching practices resonate with racist educational traditions that have
historically disenfranchised Black people. Moreover, critical race theory
assumes that white people accept equality so long as it does not diminish the
power and privilege to which they are accustomed (McDougal, 2014). With
this understanding, this research critically examines the viewpoints and ten-
sions that teachers share about their policies and politics around language in
their classrooms. Agency reduction formation theory pertains to the ways in
which Black people are compelled to distance themselves from their cultural
and collective identity (McDougal, 2014). Since the language in which one
speaks is an extension of one’s identity, this theory helps to examine the
intrinsic connection between AAVE and Black students’ self-concept.

Empowered Voices: A Thematic Analysis

This section presents analysis and discussion of four themes that emerged
from the interviews relating to the ways in which teachers and students grap-
ple with language within their classrooms. Each theme is named and quoted
based on a phrase or sentiment that the student participants expressed them-
selves. Labeling each theme in the words of student participants serves to
advance an essential goal of this research: to validate and center the voices
and experiences of Black students who speak AAVE, and ultimately highlight
their agency that goes unrecognized in their schools and society. The first
theme that is discussed is entitled “We Can Barely Speak.” Within this theme,
an analysis of teachers’ pedagogies and students’ experiences illuminate the
ways in which teaching that emphasizes SAE impacts Black students’ content
knowledge and expression. Following this theme is “Nothing Wrong With
How I Speak.” Here the analysis of classroom expectations and students’ cor-
responding responses reveal the significance of sociolinguistic freedom
within the classroom. The next theme that is examined is “Sounding White”
in which students illuminate the racial implications of SAE and AAVE, and
ultimately demonstrate the ways in which AAVE is a performative language.
786 Journal of Black Studies 53(8)

Lastly, the theme entitled “In My Own Words” is discussed. This theme sug-
gests a pattern whereby learning is facilitated through code switching between
languages, and explores its impact on identity expression and academic con-
fidence. These themes were isolated in this way to capture the nuanced lin-
guistic and cultural attitudes of teachers, as well as Black students’ cultural
and linguistic realities.

“We Can Barely Speak”

While teachers have sought to foster academic achievement, effective com-
munication, and literacy skills within their classrooms, the ways in which
they implement and measure these goals differ per teacher. Teachers have
individually and collectively designed lesson plans and modified their peda-
gogies in ways that privilege their respective educational and personal val-
ues. One teacher participant, Ms. Davis, is a white, middle-class 11th-grade
English literature teacher who has taught at Anderson High School for 4 years.
Ms. Davis’ teaching practices represent the ways in which teachers have pri-
oritized SAE in their classrooms. Ms. Davis states,

“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” (Field notes, 2019).

Ms. Davis’ assertion that students should focus on the language through
which content is delivered rather than the content itself is indicative of the
way she values language. As Ms. Davis suggests, students are compelled to
consider authors’ language and terminology as they read challenging texts.
However, as students reflect on language within their assigned readings, they
are also compelled to reflect on their own language as Ms. Davis corrects
their AAVE with SAE. By correcting her students’ language to “standard
English and top-tier language,” Ms. Davis suggests that AAVE is an improper
way of speaking. Ms. Davis’ notion that AAVE is not top-tier language sug-
gests that there are myriad tiers of languages in which SAE is positioned at
the top tier, while other forms of language are relegated to lower ranking
tiers. This linguistic hierarchy can have significant implications as it relates
to Black students’ social and educational experiences. Specifically, this peda-
gogical practice leaves Black students feeling limited in their expression and
in their content knowledge. One of Ms. Davis’ students, James, reveals this
sentiment as he shares his experience within the class:
Lyn 787

“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. Every time somebody say
something, she has to fix what they said. . .We spend so much time on language,
that we barely get to understand the actual book that we’re supposed to be
reading” (Field notes, 2019).

James’ effort to self-regulate his speech before his teacher demonstrates the
constant anxiety around language with which Black AAVE speaking students
often face. According to James, he is restricted in his self-expression because
he feels compelled to filter and adapt his speech to the satisfaction of his
teacher. Morrison (1994) acknowledges this connection between language
and speaker when she states, “there are certain things that I cannot say with-
out recourse to my language” (Morrison, 1994, p. 27). Morrison’s assertion
resonates with James’ narrative as he is restricted from accessing his lan-
guage and therefore struggles to effectively convey his thoughts and feelings.
This contention demonstrates the ways in which Black students who speak
AAVE are compelled to alter their speech in a manner that is suitable for their
teachers, leaving them with minimal access to cultural expression and auton-
omy. Furthermore, James also suggests that the excessive class time spent on
language denies him the ability to effectively learn the content of the reading
materials. With this assertion, James is not only restricted in his speech, but
also restricted in his ability to learn class content. Both Ms. Davis and James’
accounts reveal the ways in which teachers’ classroom objectives and prac-
tices can generate contention within a culturally and linguistically diverse
classroom. Ms. Davis’ emphasis on authors’ language is valuable because it
enables students to critically think about language, rhetorical strategies, and
syntax in literature. However, teachers should also find ways to implement
instructional strategies that welcome these educational opportunities without
limiting students’ linguistic customs of expression.

“Nothing Wrong With How I Talk”

Although some teachers emphasize SAE to enhance students’ way of speak-
ing, other teachers have privileged SAE over AAVE to prepare students for
their futures. For many Black people, the mastery of SAE is a requisite for
successful survival and upward mobility in American society (Smitherman,
1986). From this viewpoint, the pressure placed upon Black students to
instinctively speak SAE extends beyond the classroom to ensure basic living
and navigating within the larger American society. Thus, educators have
propagated SAE within their classroom structure, curriculum, and objectives
to prepare students for immediate and long-term success. Ms. Jones, a Black
11th-grade U.S history teacher, exemplifies this approach within her class-
room. Ms. Jones asserts,
788 Journal of Black Studies 53(8)

“I push language in my class because the state exams and SATs they have to
take don’t have Black vernacular. If they spoke in the way that they talk with
their friends they wouldn’t do well. It’s the same thing in the real world.
Whether they go to college or go in the workforce, the reality is that that they’re
going to have to speak and write in Standard English to be successful at
whatever they end up doing” (Field notes, 2019).

As shown through her reasoning, Ms. Jones immerses her students in SAE as
a means of preparing them for successful future endeavors and interactions.
Ms. Jones equates mastery of SAE with upward mobility, and she identifies a
societal reality that warrants Black people to renounce AAVE and subse-
quently adopt SAE to become successful. However, it is important to consider
that this reality that Ms. Jones describes may not be consonant with the reality
that her students currently experience. This opposition is shown within a stu-
dent participants’ response when asked about his perception of AAVE.
Malcolm states, “African American Vernacular English is all I know. It’s how
I grew up talking” (Field notes, 2019). Malcolm’s response directly challenges
Ms. Jones’ assertion that mastering SAE will prepare them for reality. Although
a reality exists in which Black people are burdened with the responsibility of
linguistic assimilation, it is not the only reality in which Black people live and
know. As Malcolm reasons, his reality has always consisted of the free and
fluid use of AAVE, the language to which he has been accustomed to his entire
life. Thus, both Ms. Jones and Malcolm’s understanding of language produces
an ideological contention in which the societal reality that Ms. Jones describes
is inconsistent with Malcolm’s cultural and lived reality. Therefore, if the goal
of instructors is to prepare students for success in and out of the classroom, it
is important for them to evaluate how students define success for themselves,
as well as the cultural realities that students bring with them into the class-
room. It is also important to consider the reality of systemic racism that func-
tions to restrict African Americans from obtaining success, regardless of what
form of speech they use. With this consideration, the high priority on SAE
would be reduced, empowering students to impose their realities in the class-
room, and on the larger society in which they live.
Moreover, a personal account from another student participant, Tyra,
exemplifies the ways in which AAVE speaking students have resisted such
SAE imposition. Tyra affirms,

“I just stop talking, because I know that I’m not going to say what I want to say
without being interrupted and corrected. It’s not worth going through all that.
Plus, there’s nothing wrong with how I talk” (Field notes, 2019).

Tyra’s statement illustrates the ways in which she refuses to accept SAE as
her primary mode of communicating, while also placing value on the AAVE
Lyn 789

in which she feels most comfortable speaking. By asserting that there is noth-
ing wrong with her language, Tyra affirms that AAVE is a valid and suitable
mode of communication, rejecting the widely held notion that AAVE is a
deficit language (Rickford, 1999). Moreover, Tyra’s decision to remain silent
rather than speak SAE exhibits the ways in which she resists the linguistic
hegemony of the classroom to ultimately preserve her identity. Through
silence, Tyra communicates her disfavor toward the linguistic status quo that
her teacher upholds within her classroom. However, by Tyra using her silence
as a strategy of protest, she renders herself vulnerable to further repression.
Lorde (2017) challenges silence as an effective form of resistance when she
states, “In the cause of silence, each of us draws the face of her own fear of
contempt, censure, or some judgement. . .” (p. 83). With this reasoning,
Tyra’s silence can be viewed as simply a result of feeling afraid of her teach-
er’s criticism and disapproval. It is with this self-inflicting silence that Hooks
(1994) affirms, “It is, in the end, destructive to withhold or hide speech in
secrecy or silence” (p. 64). From this viewpoint, it is more dangerous to sup-
press one’s voice even as a tactic for resistance. Thus, teachers must empower
Black students to use language as a device through which they can amplify
their voices opposed to concealing them.

“Sounding White”
Another way in which students have rejected the dominant privilege that
teachers assign to SAE is through their racial consciousness regarding lan-
guage. Specifically, students have identified different forms of language with
specific racial identities. For example, many Black students have refused to
learn or speak SAE because they view the language as “white folk talk”
(Labov, 2001, p. 306). In this way, SAE is often associated with whiteness in
the same way that AAVE is associated with Blackness; therefore, Black stu-
dents’ resistance to SAE may derive from their desire to not sound white. One
of the student participants exhibits this view as he reflects on his perceptions
of SAE. Mathew 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” (Field notes, 2019). Mathew reveals the ways in which
racial classifications of language manifests within the classroom. Mathew
associates SAE with the common speech of white people, which prompts him
to reject the use of SAE and ultimately embrace AAVE. Moreover, Mathew’s
overt rejection of sounding white demonstrates the ways in which he aims to
actively maintain and convey his own Black identity within school.
790 Journal of Black Studies 53(8)

Although Mathew contends that his AAVE is met with opposition and cor-
rection, he rejects the expectation of conformity and assimilation that are
imposed on Black youth within the classroom and the wider society. This
rejection of SAE as a means of rejecting a white identity confirms the notion
that when one uses AAVE, one shows a direct connection to a Black identity
and experience. Therefore, Mathew’s use of AAVE to express his racial pride
correlates with the notion that “speech is more than mere utterances, rather it
is also performative in that to say something is to do something” (Austin,
1962, p. 157). In other words, language can function as a social action based
on the disposition and intention of the speaker. For Mathew, his use of AAVE
is a significant part of how he performs his Blackness. Therefore, Mathew’s
intentional decision to communicate in AAVE to proclaim his Black subjec-
tivity highlights AAVE as a cultural and linguistic representation of Blackness.
In this way, Mathew’s speech is an illocutionary act in which to speak in
AAVE is to exhibit pride in Black identity and culture. Thus, if AAVE is a
critical part of Black identity expression as Mathew illustrates, then teachers
must recognize AAVE as a cultural device rather than a social impediment. In
this way, students such as Matthew can feel socially valued and culturally
affirmed without feeling the need to reciprocate contempt for other languages
and ways of speaking.

“In My Own Words”

While some Black students have fully resisted their teachers’ SAE imposi-
tion, others have reconciled both AAVE and SAE in their classrooms through
the process of code-switching. Code-switching is the modification of one’s
behavior, language, or appearance to adapt to different social norms and cul-
tures (Krichevsky, 2015). Black students who speak AAVE practice code-
switching by alternating between AAVE and SAE depending on the social
norms of their environment. Within the classroom, teachers have espoused
cultures that privilege Eurocentric ideals of literacy and discourse, which
compel Black students to code-switch from AAVE to SAE. However, some
teachers grasp the cultural significance of languages and subsequently
attempt to teach students SAE by integrating students’ customary ways of
speaking. This form of instruction is exemplified through the classroom prac-
tices of Ms. Bailey, a Black 11th-grade English Language teacher at Parker
High School. Ms. Bailey maintains,

“Something that I really push for my students is expanding their vocabulary. I

distribute a list of terms and phrases every week with the informal term or
Lyn 791

phrase that they may be familiar with on the left-hand side, and the formal
version of the term or phrase on the right-hand side. We go over it together in
class and discuss the differences in meaning and context” (Field notes, 2019).

Ms. Bailey’s weekly practice of teaching students SAE demonstrates the

ways in which she incorporates her students’ most familiar language as a
method of teaching. Opposed to other pedagogies of teaching SAE that reject
the use of AAVE, this pedagogy makes room for AAVE into the classroom.
Ms. Bailey instructs her students to juxtapose the terms and phrases that are
used in AAVE with their SAE versions. Instead of using expressions such as
correct or incorrect to classify the two languages, Ms. Bailey uses the terms
“formal” and “informal” to indicate the contexts in which the juxtaposed
languages may be accepted or discouraged. By teaching students to shift their
language according to formal or informal settings, Ms. Bailey teaches her
students the fundamental practice of code-switching. In this way, Ms. Bailey
uses code-switching as an academic tool to equip Black students with the
ability to alternate between AAVE and SAE.
Additionally, Ms. Bailey’s students can view their speech as equally
important to SAE, which positively shapes their academic experience and
self-concept. This sentiment is shown through a personal account of one of
Ms. Bailey’s students. John states,

“I like that we get to see how the things we say all the time have other
versions that sound more formal but mean the same thing. We all know the
meaning of the terms; we just use different words for them. . . It helps me
because when I try to use big words in my essays, I think about it in my own
words first, and then I remember what the formal version of it is” (Field
notes, 2019).

While Ms. Bailey still teaches SAE, John is less resistant toward learning
because he can maintain and utilize his language throughout his learning
process. John states that when he writes essays, he first considers his pri-
mary language, which then helps him to remember the SAE variations. In
this way, John could use his own voice and linguistic understandings before
adopting SAE. John’s personal account provides insight on how students
can possess positive attitudes toward not only their language, but also their
overall educational experience when their home language is integrated
within the curriculum. Ms. Bailey’s pedagogical choices of teaching lan-
guage provide students the capacity to expand their knowledge in ways that
prompt them to value their voice, culture, and identity in and out of the
classroom.
792 Journal of Black Studies 53(8)

A Pedagogy of Agency
As shown through the personal accounts and classroom practices of the stu-
dent and teacher participants of this study, Black students who speak AAVE
are greatly affected by the stigma of having to negotiate their language in and
out of the classroom. By examining students’ experiences and sentiments, it
is clear the ways in which a teacher’s pedagogy greatly influences students’
identity expression, academic achievement, and self-concept. Specifically,
Black students who speak AAVE are predisposed to teaching styles that affect
their ability to verbally express their ideas, identities, and cultures. Peck
(1998) considers this relationship between pedagogy, culture, and language
when she states, “culture should be our message to students, and language
our medium” (Peck, 1998, p. 30). Peck recognizes the need for culture to be
an integral part of teachers’ instruction. She implies that language is a signifi-
cant means by which culture is imparted. In the same way that many students
impart their cultural understandings through AAVE, teachers must convey
their understanding of their students’ cultures through their pedagogies. Thus,
it is imperative to examine and reimagine a pedagogy that deliberately cen-
ters Black students’ identities, voices, expressions, and cultures.
Teaching and empowering Black students necessitates a new approach
to teaching that validates students in who they are, rather than who their
teachers expect them to be. It is with this position that I posit an approach to
teaching called agency pedagogy in which Black students are viewed and
positioned as meaningful agents of their culture, language, and identity
within their classrooms. The term agency has commonly been positioned as
a lens, framework, or individual and collective practice (McDougal, 2014).
However, it is important to expand this concept of agency to be a pedagogical
practice with which educators can engage to support students’ autonomy and
cultural competence within schools. Marable (2007) defines agency as “a
culturally intelligible way of understanding oneself. . . and encourages us to
celebrate the cultural power and capacities of persons” (p. 112). Marable’s
definition of agency provides a necessary framework for understanding
agency as a pedagogy. In a similar way as Marable suggests, agency peda-
gogy seeks to ensure that students are provided with the capacity to under-
stand, develop, and express themselves autonomously, while honoring
students’ cultural, individual, and collective expressions of self-determina-
tion. With this function, agency pedagogy provides teachers with a different
worldview and approach to teach and support Black students. Through an
agency pedagogy, teachers can access and utilize strategies to effectively
empower Black students who speak AAVE and encourage their cultural and
linguistic agency in any context.
Lyn 793

Moreover, agency pedagogy is concerned with abandoning traditional

teaching practices that devalue aspects of Black identity and culture to teach
in a manner that empowers Black students to holistically express their unique
identities. In this way, agency pedagogy is not merely a culturally relevant
pedagogy that improves Black students’ educational experiences, but also a
transformative practice that is rooted in Black liberation. When teachers
employ agency pedagogy, they provide the necessary conditions for Black
students to practice their freedom of identity expression within and beyond
the classroom. This emancipatory nature of agency pedagogy follows in the
tradition of abolitionist teaching that emphasizes educational freedom rather
than educational survival. According to Love (2019), abolitionist teaching
requires teachers to be dedicated to anti-racist structures and practices to
ensure that Black students can be free from, rather than merely survive,
repressive educational systems. In the same way, agency pedagogy calls for
teachers to become active participants in the destruction of oppressive teach-
ing and learning processes to create new possibilities for Black students to
value their culture in school without repressive opposition.
To understand the ways in which agency pedagogy is an effective and
pragmatic means of teaching AAVE speaking students, it is important to
delineate tangible and practical methods of its application. One way in which
teachers can engage with this pedagogy is simply allowing students to express
their sense of self through their home language without being reprimanded
for it. If their language does not hinder teaching and learning, it is not an
effective use of class time to correct students’ speech. This suggestion is dif-
ficult for most educators such as Ms. Jones who believes that it is part of a
teacher’s responsibility to prepare students for the real world. However, it is
important to welcome students’ autonomous modes of self-expression as this
would also be a means of preparing students for their own realities, as well as
for a world in which they are capable of autonomous self-expression. In this
manner, teachers can empower students to use their voices, leaving no stu-
dent feeling as if they must be silent whether it be out of fear or protest as
shown through Tyra’s personal account.
Moreover, teachers who employ an agency pedagogy permit their students
to demonstrate their content knowledge in diverse ways. Opposed to restrict-
ing students in the ways in which they communicate their knowledge, teach-
ers can foster a classroom climate in which students can construct and
produce knowledge in various ways. To empower students in this way, teach-
ers should emphasize class content, but allow students to decide how best to
learn and impart that content. Integrating and prioritizing student voices
within the teaching and learning process ensures that teachers actualize the
belief that students are agents of their learning. This approach would mitigate
794 Journal of Black Studies 53(8)

Black students’ negative attitudes toward their teachers and learning pro-
cesses such as the ones held by James. Instead of James feeling restricted in
content knowledge, an agency based approach to teaching would permit him
to actively participate in the ways in which he best learned the subject matter.
If Black students such as James are afforded a variety of options to learn
content and demonstrate their understanding, he and other students can
express their agency by shaping their education in ways that are culturally
relevant to their lived experiences and learning styles. Therefore, an agency
pedagogy suggests that rather than completely immersing students into SAE
as demonstrated by Ms. Jones, educators should immerse themselves in the
culture of their students by constantly considering and integrating student
voices throughout instruction.
If teachers are interested in meeting the needs of Black students who speak
AAVE, educators must adopt a comprehensive understanding and positive
attitude toward non-standard languages and the students who use them. The
basic premise of agency pedagogy values the knowledge, culture, and identity
that students bring into the classroom, and provides them with the capacity to
access and utilize unique practices of self-expression and self-determination.
It compels educators to view students as agents of their culture, language,
identity, and education. Forcing students to speak in a prescriptive way that
opposes their preferred identity expression is reminiscent of forcing enslaved
Black people to renounce their native languages to adopt the language of their
oppressors. The work of agency pedagogy seeks to resist these oppressive
practices to ensure that Black students can preserve and express their cultural
and linguistic customs in school and society. When educators understand that
Black students’ culture and language are simply different rather than deficient,
they can start to employ a balanced approach to teaching that adequately
serves and empowers Black youth.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

ORCID iD
Karl O. Lyn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4836-0289
Lyn 795

References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bell, D. A. (1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory. University of Illinois Law
Review.
Delpit, L. D. (1992). Education in a multicultural society: Our future’s greatest chal-
lenge. The Journal of Negro Education, 61(3), 237–249.
Dillard, J. L. (1972). Black English: Its history and usage in the United States. Random
House.
Holloway, J. E. (2010). The African American experience from 1400 to the present.
New World African Press.
Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom.
Routledge.
Krichevsky, J. (2015). Other people’s English: Code-meshing, code-switching, and
African-American literacy. Composition Studies, 43(2), 234–237.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Blackwell.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). The dream keepers: Successful teachers of African
American children. Josey-Bass.
Lorde, A. (2017). Your silence will not protect you. Silver Press.
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the
pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Marable, M. (2007). Race, reform, and rebellion: The second reconstruction and
beyond in Black America, 1945–2006 (3rd ed.). University Press of Mississippi.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause.
Continuum.
McDougal, S., III. (2014). Research methods in Africana studies. Peter Lang.
Morris, M. W. (2015). Pushout: The criminalization of Black girls in schools. The
New Press.
Morrison, T. (1994). Conversations with Toni Morrison. University Press of Mississippi.
Mufwene, S. S. (1998). African-American English: Structure, history, and use.
Routledge.
Prendergast, C. (2003). Literacy and racial justice: The politics of learning after
Brown v. Board of Education. SIU Press.
Peck, D. (1998). Teaching culture: Beyond language. New Haven Teachers Institute.
Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American vernacular English. Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Smitherman, G. (1986). Talkin and testifyin: The language of Black America. Wayne
State UP.
West, C. (2000). Race matters. Beacon Press.

Author Biography
Karl O. Lyn is a doctoral student in the W.E.B Du Bois Department of Afro-American
Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research falls at the intersec-
tion of race, education, and social inequality. He examines the ways in which African
American students and their cultural capital are included or excluded within schools
and society.