# data[].attributes.body
This 1974 case proved that the same teachers and the same materials does not equal an equal education for all students. This meaningful case was a catalyst for bilengual education improvements, therefor it is very important to know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LAU ET AL. v. NICHOLS ET AL.
No. 72-6520
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
414 U.S. 563
December 10, 1973, Argued
January 21, 1974, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY:

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

DISPOSITION:

483 F.2d 791, reversed and remanded.

SYLLABUS:

The failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program and thus violates ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," and the implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pp. 565-569.

Douglas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, Marshall, Powell, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 569. White, J., concurred in the result. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 571.

Opinions

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The San Francisco, California, school system was integrated in 1971 as a result of a federal court decree, 339 F.Supp. 1315. See Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215. The District Court found that there are 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry in the school system who do not speak English. Of those who have that language deficiency, about 1,000 are given supplemental courses in the English language. n1 About 1,800, however, do not receive that instruction.

note1 A report adopted by the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco and submitted to the Court by respondents after oral argument shows that, as of April 1973, there were 3,457 Chinese students in the school system who spoke little or no English. The document further showed 2,136 students enrolled in Chinese special instruction classes, but at least 429 of the enrollees were not Chinese but were included for ethnic balance. Thus, as of April 1973, no more than 1,707 of the 3,457 Chinese students needing special English instruction were receiving it.

This class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students against officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District seeks relief against the unequal educational opportunities, which are alleged to violate, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment. No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioners ask only that the Board of Education be directed to apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation. The District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or of ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, which excludes from participation in federal financial assistance, recipients of aid which discriminate against racial groups, 483 F.2d 791. One judge dissented. A hearing en banc was denied, two judges dissenting. Id., at 805. We granted the petition for certiorari because of the public importance of the question presented, 412 U.S. 938.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that "every student brings to the starting line of his educational career different advantages and disadvantages caused in part by social, economic and cultural background, created and continued completely apart from any contribution by the school system," 483 F.2d, at 797. Yet in our view the case may not be so easily decided. This is a public school system of California and ï¿½ 71 of the California Education Code states that "English shall be the basic language of instruction in all schools." That section permits a school district to determine "when and under what circumstances instruction may be given bilingually." That section also states as "the policy of the state" to insure "the mastery of English by all pupils in the schools." And bilingual instruction is authorized "to the extent that it does not interfere with the systematic, sequential, and regular instruction of all pupils in the English language."

Moreover, ï¿½ 8573 of the Education Code provides that no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from grade 12 who has not met the standards of proficiency in "English," as well as other prescribed subjects. Moreover, by ï¿½ 12101 of the Education Code (Supp. 1973) children between the ages of six and 16 years are (with exceptions not material here) "subject to compulsory full-time education."

Under these state-imposed standards there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.

Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. We do not reach the Equal Protection Clause argument which has been advanced but rely solely on ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, to reverse the Court of Appeals.

That section bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." The school district involved in this litigation receives large amounts of federal financial assistance. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which has authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting discrimination in federally assisted school systems, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1, in 1968 issued one guideline that "school systems are responsible for assuring that students of a particular race, color, or national origin are not denied the opportunity to obtain the education generally obtained by other students in the system." 33 Fed. Reg. 4956. In 1970 HEW made the guidelines more specific, requiring school districts that were federally funded "to rectify the language deficiency in order to open" the instruction to students who had "linguistic deficiencies," 35 Fed. Reg. 11595.

By ï¿½ 602 of the Act HEW is authorized to issue rules, regulations, and orders n2 to make sure that recipients of federal aid under its jurisdiction conduct any federally financed projects consistently with ï¿½ 601. HEW's regulations, 45 CFR ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(1), specify that the recipients may not

"(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;
. . . .
"(iv) Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program."

note2 Section 602 provides:
"Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . ." 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1.

Discrimination among students on account of race or national origin that is prohibited includes "discrimination . . . in the availability or use of any academic . . . or other facilities of the grantee or other recipient." Id., ï¿½ 80.5 (b).

Discrimination is barred which has that effect even though no purposeful design is present: a recipient "may not . . . utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination" or have "the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin." Id., ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(2).

It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program -- all earmarks of the discrimination banned by the regulations. n3 In 1970 HEW issued clarifying guidelines, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, which include the following:

note3 And see Report of the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco, Bilingual Education in the San Francisco Public Schools, Aug. 9, 1973.

"Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students."

"Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of national origin-minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational deadend or permanent track." Respondent school district contractually agreed to "comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation" of HEW (45 CFR pt. 80) which are "issued pursuant to that title . . ." and also immediately to "take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement." The Federal Government has power to fix the terms on which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed. Oklahoma v. CSC, 330 U.S. 127, 142-143. Whatever may be the limits of that power, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 et seq., they have not been reached here. Senator Humphrey, during the floor debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, said: n4

note4 110 Cong. Rec. 6543 (Sen. Humphrey, quoting from President Kennedy's message to Congress, June 19, 1963).

"Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination." We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE concurs in the result.

Concurring Opinions

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in the result.

It is uncontested that more than 2,800 schoolchildren of Chinese ancestry attend school in the San Francisco Unified School District system even though they do not speak, understand, read, or write the English language, and that as to some 1,800 of these pupils the respondent school authorities have taken no significant steps to deal with this language deficiency. The petitioners do not contend, however, that the respondents have affirmatively or intentionally contributed to this inadequacy, but only that they have failed to act in the face of changing social and linguistic patterns. Because of this laissez-faire attitude on the part of the school administrators, it is not entirely clear that ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, standing alone, would render illegal the expenditure of federal funds on these schools. For that section provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

On the other hand, the interpretive guidelines published by the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, clearly indicate that affirmative efforts to give special training for non-English-speaking pupils are required by Tit. VI as a condition to receipt of federal aid to public schools:

"Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students." n1

note1 These guidelines were issued in further clarification of the Department's position as stated in its regulations issued to implement Tit. VI, 45 CFR pt. 80. The regulations provide in part that no recipient of federal financial assistance administered by HEW may "Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program; [or] "Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program." 45 CFR ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(1)(ii), (iv).

The critical question is, therefore, whether the regulations and guidelines promulgated by HEW go beyond the authority of ï¿½ 601. n2 Last Term, in Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369, we held that the validity of a regulation promulgated under a general authorization provision such as ï¿½ 602 of Tit. VI n3 "will be sustained so long as it is 'reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.' Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 280-281 (1969)." I think the guidelines here fairly meet that test. Moreover, in assessing the purposes of remedial legislation we have found that departmental regulations and "consistent administrative construction" are "entitled to great weight." Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205, 210; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 433-434; Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1. The Department has reasonably and consistently interpreted ï¿½ 601 to require affirmative remedial efforts to give special attention to linguistically deprived children.

note2 The respondents do not contest the standing of the petitioners to sue as beneficiaries of the federal funding contract between the Department of Health, Education,and Welfare and the San Francisco Unified School District.

note3 Section 602, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1, provides in pertinent part:
"Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . ."

The United States as amicus curiae asserts in its brief, and the respondents appear to concede, that the guidelines were issued pursuant to ï¿½ 602.

For these reasons I concur in the result reached by the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in the result.

I join MR. JUSTICE STEWART'S opinion and thus I, too, concur in the result. Against the possibility that the Court's judgment may be interpreted too broadly, I stress the fact that the children with whom we are concerned here number about 1,800. This is a very substantial group that is being deprived of any meaningful schooling because the children cannot understand the language of the classroom. We may only guess as to why they have had no exposure to English in their preschool years. Earlier generations of American ethnic groups have overcome the language barrier by earnest parental endeavor or by the hard fact of being pushed out of the family or community nest and into the realities of broader experience.

I merely wish to make plain that when, in another case, we are concerned with a very few youngsters, or with just a single child who speaks only German or Polish or Spanish or any language other than English, I would not regard today's decision, or the separate concurrence, as conclusive upon the issue whether the statute and the guidelines require the funded school district to provide special instruction. For me, numbers are at the heart of this case and my concurrence is to be understood accordingly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview of Lau v. Nichols decision of the United States Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Educators need to know what happens in the world of the children with whom they work. They need to know the universe of their dreams, the language with which they skillfully defend themselves from the aggressiveness of their world, what they know independently of the school, and how they know it.
- Paulo Freire (p. 72-73)

The Benefits of Home Visits

A home visit program can show that teachers, principals, and school staff are willing to "go more than halfway" to involve all parents in their children's education. These visits help teachers demonstrate their interest in students' families and they provide opportunities for teachers to understand their students better by seeing students in their home environments.

Home visits are not meant to replace parent-teacher conferences or to discuss children's progress. When done early, before any school problems might arise, home visits signal that teachers are eager to work with all families and avoid putting parents on the defensive. Teachers who have made home visits say they build stronger relationships with parents and their children and improve attendance and achievement. In this regard, Mary, a 1st and 2nd grade teacher who has been visiting the home of her students before the first day of school, writes:

...[H]ow I address my fear about the first day of school is to face it, as you suggest, I spend the week before the first day of school visiting my students' homes, meeting the students and their families. I can't wait for the first day of school, and so I go out and read the students in their neighborhoods, their homes, with their families. That way I know where my students are coming from, literally I know who their people are. I know the names their families call them. I know what they are proud of and what worries them, I begin to trust these families. My students and their families begin to trust me. (Nieto, 2009, p. 12)

Home visits are not a new concept. Head Start teachers have been using them for many years and in the last few years an increasing number of schools and districts have established successful home visit programs that have yielded many positive returns. Regardless of whether their schools have established a home visit program, many teachers of English language learners have been using home visits as a way to learn about their students and their home environments and to establish a much-needed connection with families and communities.

Several key components combine to create successful home visits: planning, arrival, departure, and post visit. These important aspects are explained below.

Planning

Prior to visiting students' homes, it is important to consider a few items. Remember that this might be an opportunity to help a parent such as Ms. Astorga feel more comfortable when visiting the school her children attend.

Este es mi cuarto año en los EE.UU. y sólo he ido a la escuela para matricular a mis hijos. No me siento a gusto en la escuela...tengo un poco de miedo de no hacer las cosas bien y de no entender lo que me dicen. Y mis hijos me dicen que mejor no vaya pues a lo mejor meto la pata.
This is my fourth year in the U.S. and I have only been to the school to register my kids. I don't feel at ease in the school-I am afraid of not doing the right thing or misunderstanding what they say. My kids tell me not to go because if I do I might make a mistake.

- Ms. Astorga, parent from Chile

Tips for success

Determine the purpose(s) of the visit such as learning more about students and exploring ways that the school and teachers can better serve families.

Schedule a home visit 7 to 10 days in advance.

Communicate the purpose of your visit and approximately how long the visit will last (30 to 45 minutes).

Follow up with a brief written note indicating the exact date and time of the meeting, preferably written in the family's home language.

If possible, learn the names of family members.

Learn a few words of the family's first language, even if they're only "hello" and "thank you." This shows you care enough to make an effort and may help break the ice.

Ask another adult to accompany you to your first home visits, preferably someone who speaks the home language of the families.

Consider that some parents may be familiar and comfortable with home visits, having experienced them in their countries of origin. Others may not be familiar or comfortable with the idea.

If parents have difficulty scheduling a time to meet with you, it may be because some parents work 2 or more jobs.

Begin making home visits prior to the start date of school. This may help lower the anxiety level of your students and will help you become aware of your students' English language proficiency levels.

Know where you are going (that is, have a map or GPS device).

Leave a schedule of home visits with the school staff.

If possible, bring a small gift, such as a little bag of cookies, a children's book, or a notebook as a token of appreciation.

If you will need the services of a translator/interpreter, consider asking fewer questions. Since questions and answers have to pass through the translator/interpreter, they will probably require twice the amount of time.

Arrival

Instantly when we rang the doorbell we were greeted by four bright smiling faces-dad, mom and Rocio and Laura (ages 8 and 10). Both parents came up to us and shook our hands, and the girls curtseyed and giggled in their beautiful fancy dresses. Though I was still a bit shy and awkward at first, my fears were dismissed as soon as I realized how kind and inviting the family truly was.
- Roxana, 3rd grade teacher

Tips for success

Be on time.

Dress appropriately - err on the side of formal attire.

Be aware of and look for cultural expectations in the home. For example, in some cultures it is expected that people entering the home will remove their shoes and walk about the home in socks or in special footwear provided by the host.

Introduce yourself and the adult accompanying you.

Begin by establishing rapport through small talk.

Conversation starters: "Tell me about your child." "What does your child like best about school?""What are schools like in _______ (country of origin)?" "Tell me about _______ (siblings or other family members)."

While you are encouraged to do more listening than talking, you could also talk about your school's routines, classroom curricula, or teacher expectations among other topics.

If you're nervous, remember, the family you are visiting is also probably nervous.

Bear in mind that in many cultures, teachers are more highly respected than in the U.S. It is a significant event to host a teacher in families' homes.

Don't be afraid to look foolish while trying to bridge the language gap. If necessary, try drawing pictures or acting out what you mean.

During the conversation, maintain eye contact with the family even if you are speaking through a translator/interpreter.

Avoid taking notes or recording the conversation when visiting the family. This can be perceived as rude or threatening.

Avoid talking about negative things.

While in a family's home, put on your anthropologist's lens. This means trying to view the host home from the perspective of those living there.

Show respect and empathy.

Smile. Be aware, however, that some Eastern European families may perceive smiling as a sign of insincerity. Observe the family and adjust your behavior accordingly.

Departure

I invited the family to come to the literacy night next week at the school and asked the dad if he would read a picture book in Spanish for the kids. He agreed. Wow, was I wrong in thinking that this family was not interested in the education of their kids!
- Geoffrey, 2nd Grade teacher

Tips for success

Lay the groundwork for future events, such as parent teacher conferences, upcoming fairs, or literacy nights.

Invite families to participate.

Provide families with information on how to contact you, including your telephone number, email address, and classroom or office hours.

Share information about community and school resources.

Post Visit

I learned tons from this visit. My "Russian" student is actually Ukrainian. The family moved from a part of the Ukraine where half the people speak Russian and half speak Ukrainian. Both parents grew up there, and both were educated in schools where a few classes were taught in Ukrainian.
- Katia, 6th Grade teacher

Tips for success

Take a few moments away from students' homes to write down a quick summary of the visit.

Educators who work with ELLs and immigrant families talk about the power of home visits in these videos.

Resources

Edutopia: This 6-minute video showcases how a struggling school in Sacramento improved student achievement and developed lasting partnerships with parents by establishing a home visit program.

About the Authors

Dr. Gisela Ernst-Slavit

Dr. Gisela Ernst-Slavit is a professor and associate dean in the College of Education at Washington State University Vancouver. She investigates second language development, academic language pedagogy, and language teacher education using ethnographic and sociolinguistic perspectives. In addition to being the author of many research and practitioner articles, she is coauthor or coeditor of nine books. Her most recent work includes a 7-book series, Academic Language in Diverse Classrooms, co-edited with Margo Gottlieb and published by Corwin. Dr. Ernst-Slavit is a native of Peru who grew up speaking Spanish and German at home and English in school.

Michele R. Mason

Michele R. Mason obtained her Ph.D. Degree in Language, Literacy, and Technology with an emphasis on English language learners from Washington State University Vancouver. Her research interests were ESL pedagogy and the role of classroom discourse in L2 development. Sadly, Dr. Mason passed away in 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making Your First ELL Home Visit: A Guide for Classroom Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educators need to know what happens in the world of the children with whom they work. They need to know the universe of their dreams, the language with which they skillfully defend themselves from the aggressiveness of their world, what they know independently of the school, and how they know it.- Paulo Freire (p.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home Visits: Getting to Know Families' Homes and Neighborhoods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colorín Colorado is a national multimedia project that offers a wealth of bilingual, research-based information, activities, and advice for educators and families of English language learners (ELLs). Colorín Colorado is an educational service of WETA, the flagship public broadcasting station in the nation's capital, and receives major funding from the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act was created to meet the needs of EBs/ELs that were not previously met. This act is important to know as an educator, to see the specific needs that are now required to be met for these students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) | U.S. Department of Education

# data[].attributes.body
This video is an overveiw of the ESL program. This video is valauble to parents, students, and teachers to better understand the goals and function of the program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Presented by Default Presenter Produced on: 6/29/2022

# data[].attributes.body
This image shows how students are placed into language programs.

# data[].attributes.body
This video makes the Langauage Acquisition Device easier to understand and also mentions other first langauge acquisition theories, which is helpful.

# data[].attributes.body
This study dives deep into langauge leanring and processing. I chose this source to include because it will help teachers know how their students are functioning to better teach and form curriculum.

# data[].attributes.body
Language is a complex thing to understand, this video is a great tool when breaking down what makes a language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Level Of Linguistics | Phonetics | Phonology | Morphology | Syntax | Semantics | Pragmatics |

# data[].attributes.body
This lesson is a great tool to see how langauge can be taught and to better understand laguage structure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the six types of syllables found in English orthography, why it’s important to teach syllables, and the sequence in which students learn about both spoken and written syllables.

# data[].attributes.body
This website breaks down language variation in a way that is easy to follow. I love the comic that shows how English differs depending on where it is spoken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Teaching Linguistics and English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A dialect is a variety of a language spoken by a group of people that is systematically different from other varieties in both structure and lexical features. All speakers of a language speak a dialect of the language. Variation is a natural part of language. The term accent, however, refers to differences in pronunciation. Many dialects involve accent or phonological differences, but they also involve morphologic, syntactic, and lexical differences.

Standard English is the target variety of English taught in education. It is also the language of the wider communities, media, and government. Nonstandard varieties are linguistically equal to standard varieties on both a structural and communicative level. However, they are often viewed as "bad," "uneducated," or "ungrammatical." These judgements about prestige are often socially and politically motivated. Linguistically all varieties are all equal. Speaking a nonstandard variety may be warranted in different contexts as speakers use language to express membership in a social group, to show solidarity, or to display cultural pride.

Speech communities are groups of speakers who share linguistic norms. They involve speakers who share a common region, race, or ethnicity. More specifically, communities of practice are people who come together for a purpose (e.g. a college). Language contributes to shaping this group's identity. Many factors such as age, gender, socioeconomic class, race, geography, and ethnicity effect language variation within speech communities.

Code-switching (or mixing) occurs when a speaker moves from one language to another or from one variety to another depending on the social situation. Code-switching is the result of a language-contact situation where speakers of two different languages come into contact over a purpose. Although, code-switching is often viewed as insufficient bilingualism, it actually requires a high proficiency in both languages.

All speakers of American English speak a dialect of American English. Few people speak pure Standard American English. Some speakers' dialect is closer to Standard American English, but it still may have accent or distinctive features. In addition, many people control more than one dialect as the result of schooling, working, relocation, etc.

American English includes both regional and social dialects. The map at the top of the page highlights a few of the United States regional dialects (northern, southern, midland, western). These large regional dialects also include smaller dialect regions within them. For example, New York City is its own dialect area within the northern region.

Social and cultural factors can create distinct speech communities as well. These dialects may include local variation, but generally are spoken by members of the social group regardless of location. Examples include: Standard English, African American English, and Chicano English.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A dialect is a variety of a language spoken by a group of people that is systematically different from other varieties in both structure and lexical features. All speakers of a language...

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this image as a tool because it is a great example of langauge variation between 2 different countries.