Responses to "Other People's Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom" by Lisa Delpit

Delpit’s book so far has been an eye-opener. In the second chapter, she proposes that teachers should stop focusing on fluency in black learners and begin focusing on skills. She further states that these skills must be taught/learned “within the context of critical and creative thinking.” (19) She also makes a case against the Process approach to literacy development, referring to it as “the white folks’ project.” (17)

I’m not completely clear on the differences between a writing-process approach and a skills-oriented program. Perhaps in this case (as in many cases) an integrated approach would be most suitable. I hope you touch on the differences between these approaches tonight!

In the third chapter, Delpit talks about the “silent dialogue” (21) between white and minority educators. She makes the distinction between listening and hearing, and says that white educators don’t usually hear their black colleagues. She also presents a discussion on power, and among the five aspects of power she mentions, the following stands out:

5. Those with power are frequently least aware of—or at least willing to acknowledge—its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence. (24)

This goes back to Howard’s discussion of the “Luxury of Ignorance,” so apparently there is some credibility to this concept. This is not only a race issue; this is true in many realms, from academia to the corporate world.

This chapter also deals with the codal differences between races—that black teachers are more direct, and may even seem “authoritarian” (33) to white teachers, while white teachers ask questions more indirectly, which may confuse black children.

When Delpit brings up the point that educators act as gatekeepers (in particular, for admittance into teacher education programs), she draws a conclusion that I have a hard time agreeing with:

“We cannot justifiably enlist exclusionary standards when the reason this student lacked the skills demanded was poor teaching at best and institutionalized racism at worst.”(38)

The above places no responsibility on the student to learn the material necessary to gain admittance to this program. Furthermore, one may infer from this that anytime a minority student fails, the blame lies with the teacher. True, institutions may at times be racially/culturally biased, but there is a standard that everyone is expected to live up to, and we can’t lower those standards based on racial performance.

However, I agree with the following statement Delpit makes on page 38:
A white applicant who exhibits problems is an individual with problems. A person of color who exhibits problems immediately becomes a representative of her cultural group.

This again goes back to what Howard was saying in the previous book, about certain people being labeled “A credit to your race.”

In the chapter on language diversity and learning, Delpit makes a statement that I don’t really understand:

“While form is important, particularly in the context of social success, it is considerably less important when concern is lodged instead in the area of cognitive development.” (49)

I understand that it is important for children of all cultures to be able to use Standard English. I don’t understand why Standard English shouldn’t be a part of a learner’s cognitive development.

However, this chapter was the most informative in terms of my profession. I was fascinated by reading that as long as a child understands the concept of what he’s reading, the way he says it isn’t so important, for example, when a black child read the word “brother” as “bruvver,” and when the child responded to “How are you?” with “I be’s fine.” In both cases, the children understood the situation and what was required of them, but they maintained their cultural norms—the maintenance of which is supposed to be a huge factor in removing (or at least weakening) the affective filter. I especially agree with the notion that educators should not “confuse dialect intervention with reading instruction” (as in the case of the Ph. D. candidates and “the language of Atlantis”). (60)

Delpit suggests that “all we can do is provide students with the exposure to an alternate form…” (54) Is she saying that children should not receive explicit instruction in Standard English? This time she places the responsibility on the learner to decide when and if to use the “alternate form.” It also seems that calling this “book language” (67) is misleading, because the name implies that this form is not spoken.

My question is, if a learner chooses not to use Standard English in a situation that requires it (say, for admittance into a teacher education program) is it then the fault of institutional racism, or does the student at this point have to take responsibility for their own misuse of form?

In part two of Delpit’s book, she primarily focuses on multicultural perspectives, both from abroad and from students and teachers of color in the states. She recounts at length her experiences in Papua New Guinea, in which there was controversy regarding the teaching (and requirement) of English in the school system there. One school, the Vilis Tokples Pri Skul, set a good example by allowing its students to learn about their customs in traditions, and by teaching students to first become literate in their own language, before moving on to English. This concept of L1 literacy before L2 acquisition was discussed in our Methods class last semester.

However, one parent from the village states that “it is more important to teach them to be proud of themselves, and of us” than to teach children to read and write. (89) I would agree that it is important to be proud of one’s heritage, but how would a white teacher teach black pride? Surely black students would dismiss or ignore any white educator’s attempt to teach them about their culture, and why they should be proud of who they are. Delpit recounts that in the school in Papua New Guinea, educators were mostly concerned with social and moral education. I think this is great, because there doesn’t seem to be room in American schools for this type of education.

In the next chapter, Delpit writes that “Literacy can be a tool of liberation, but equally, it can be a means of control.”(94) She does like to be negative, doesn’t she? Literacy, in my opinion, opens more doors than it closes. She also says “The practice of literacy, typically a solitary endeavor…can also promote alienation in communities…Growing up, I remember being admonished to ‘put that book down and go outside and play with your friends.’” (94) I wasn’t aware that in many communities, reading is viewed as detrimental to one’s social health. She stresses that in order to understand the context in which reading is taught, it’s more important for people to interact “with people rather than with books.” (95) This further supports her idea of connectedness. Perhaps this is why many children at the Tokples School didn’t enter primary school until age seven.

In the chapter on Teacher’s Voices, she includes several personal narratives from minority teachers and education students. This is a bit tedious, as they all said basically the same thing: That they couldn’t identify with educators who were not of the same ethnic background, and that they had a hard time understanding why their white colleagues were so attached to teaching from the book. It’s noteworthy that the most current of these stories is from 1985, with the majority coming from 20-30 years ago. Times have changed a lot since then! While I agree that teachers should not be “married” to their texts, it is necessary (due to state guidelines and standardized testing) to complete a certain amount of material each semester/year. I’m sure many teachers would like to throw the book out the window, but this just isn’t practical. One extreme example of this is when I was teaching in China. Parents paid a lot of money for their children to come to our school to study English, and if we didn’t finish the textbook they had to buy, we teachers caught hell from disgruntled parents: “I paid for 12 lessons and you only taught 10!” was often heard in the hallways.

In the final chapter in part two, she writes that the vast majority of minority teachers do not cite external sources of knowledge as a basis for their own teaching. Many remember the way they learned, and teach to their own learning style. Some consider their own concerns and decide what to teach based on those. Delpit suggests that most white teachers think about a teacher that inspired them (or some other external source), and aspire to that level of greatness. I don’t believe either way is better or worse. In fact, there are many different learning styles, and just because you are a visual learner does not mean you should teach that way—you’d be leaving a large portion of your students out in the cold!

One complaint of minority teachers is that some feel “threatened by…words, all those uppity words.” (122) This is part of Standard English at a professional or academic level. I’m sorry if some teachers feel threatened when they hear unfamiliar vocabulary, but as educators, it’s our job to learn new “words” and not to complain or be irritated simply because we don’t use those “words” at home.

Delpit finishes by suggesting that we establish “special, institutionalized mentoring relationships between university professors and students of color.” (123) I’m concerned however, that if professors begin to cater more to their minority students than to their white students, the non-minority students may feel slighted, which is what Delpit is trying to prevent (granted, in students of color). She does however go on to add that we need to cater to all students. Another surprising suggestion she makes is “reducing isolation (by) organizing students into cohorts, teams or support groups.” (123)

This sounds a lot like segregation, which is what civil rights activists fought so hard to end all those years ago. I believe that such action may actually be detrimental to students by lowering the standards to their instruction.

One example of this is the graduate cohort students here at Tech (the Taiwanese). The notes they receive from their professors are simplified, and instruction is dumbed down. If one or more of them lacks sufficient English to complete a task, there’s no problem because the other students can do his work for him. In this case, the poor student will never improve his spoken English, and the students as a whole will not learn proper note-taking skills or how to follow a lecture. They need to be held to the same standards as mainstream grad students if they are to gain the maximum benefit of earning a degree here.