Delpit’s and Haberman’s views differ
on the role that teaching methods play in influencing the learning success of
‘urban’ or non-White students. They
place quite different emphasis on pedagogy’s importance versus other factors
that impact these students’ learning.
Delpit minimizes the role of specific
pedagogy (p.282): “my charge here is not
to argue the best instructional methodology; I believe that the actual practice
of good teachers of all colors typically incorporates a range of pedagogical
orientations.” She states simply that
students should be engaged in ‘meaningful communicative endeavors’ (p.
296). Much more important in her
analysis are the sociological/political reasons why a non-white students’
learning can be at odds with a White teacher’s teaching. I think she makes the point than an
understanding of these underlying dynamics will improve the efficacy of any
pedagogical method, especially the “progressive education strategies imposed by
liberals” that are sometimes perceived
by minority or poor parents as ‘plots' to keep their children out of the power
structure (p.285).
She helps readers see how
non-membership in the American power structure works to the disadvantage of
non-White kids in classrooms taught by White teachers. She is rigorous about labeling specific
groups and carefully dissecting out cultural differences that impact student
learning and success. This was a bit
startling to my liberal-minded thinking (touché, Delpit!) at first. After I got over my initial defensiveness, I
realized that her points were very effectively made precisely because she was
so direct in culturally labeling the groups and the traits she was trying to
distinguish. I agree that belonging or
not belonging to the culture of power makes a huge difference in the starting
point that a student has in a class. I
agree with her that all students need to be taught the “clues” to function
effectively in the power structure they will encounter as citizens, but that
non-White students might require attention in specific areas to bridge from
their home backgrounds to the dominant culture.
For example, in a constructivist learning situation, I think students
who’ve not had practice originating and investigating their own questions (per
Duckworth, etc) or who’ve been directed authoritatively in tasks, may need
specific guidance at times it they are to succeed in this pedagogy. Peer-peer learning may need to be buttressed
with more teacher-student interaction. Explicit instruction on fundamentals may
be necessary. Since reading Delpit, I
have been so much more aware of the indirect, veiled statements we use with our
son when exercising parental authority.
I have been trying to use more authentic questions (Wolf) and direct
commands and finding it is (surprise?!) more effective in getting his
attention. But I realize how very deeply
ingrained the veiled pattern of communication and authority is for me. Additionally, due to my membership in the
majority power culture, I have certainly misunderstood the use of authoritarian
directives in cultures not my own. I can
see I will need to situationally adjust these perspectives to be an effective
teacher.
In contrast, Haberman asserts the
superiority of the “Good Teaching” pedagogical method over the pedagogy of
poverty. I found his analysis thin in comparison with Delpit’s. I felt he was prescribing a solution without
analyzing deeply what specific student needs he is trying to
address. Delpit argues, “It is impossible to create a model for the
good teacher without taking issues of culture and community context into
account” (p.291). Yet this is precisely
what Haberman does – he makes sweeping generalizations about urban students and
classrooms. He lumps the learners he
concerned about into a vague category, ‘urban’, that blurs the specific
cultural differences that might exist in this wide-ranging group - the kind of
differences Delpit describes so explicitly -- differences that may be crucial
to effective teaching. Also he suggests
the 12 core functions of urban teaching
(p. 119) are distinctly ‘urban’ when, certainly many of these teacher
activities are (and must be) performed across in classrooms that are not in
urban settings. Finally, he seems
unconcerned with really understanding the students themselves: he gives barely
a paragraph and a half (p.123) to a (second-hand) portrayal of very negative
attributes of these students with no analysis of their culture or community to
enlighten our understanding of the origin or utility of these characterizations
to the students. Because he offers
little evidence to back up these characterizations, I found myself yearning for
the insightful cultural specifics Delpit offered that are requisite to
successful implementation of any pedagogy.
At first reading, I (liberal White)
found myself agreeing that his “Good Teaching” model looks like it would be
effective and would inspire and motivate any student. But compared with Delpit, he was quite unconvincing that his preferred
method would succeed in meeting the cultural needs of the urban
population. By not examining the fit
between student needs and teaching methods, his argument for the Good Teaching
model seemed too theoretical, even doomed if , indeed, “even the need for lessons with specific
purposes” is transcended (p.127). I
found his outlook on reform discouraging, especially for teachers: ‘the whole school community, not the
individual teacher, must be the unit of change” (p. 123). Haberman also
asserts the poverty pedagogy persists because urban students ‘work at it!” But he doesn’t delve into why they
do. Delpit, I think, would say urban students
adhere to the poverty pedagogy because other approaches are too often
implemented by White teachers who do not teach non-White students skills and
content in culturally understandable ways that allow them to bridge to the
power culture. In the end I felt
that Haberman’s argument for progressive instruction was idealistic because it
seemed to ignore the cultural differences and needs affecting effective
implementation.
Delpit’s article related to the
various readings we have done on misconceptions. Not only do we have schema and misconceptions
about subject matter but this also…people! These articles also related well to
material we have read in our Multicultural Education class. Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
similarly examines the assumptions and behaviors Whites exercise because of
their membership in the power structure.
Because patterns of communication, speaking rights and logistics of
interaction between teacher-student and student-student are all school-based
practice for life, the teacher’s attention to cultural differences that affect
a student’s participation in the classroom school is extremely important. As Cazden points out (p.69) “for some children, there will be greater
cultural discontinuity, greater sociolinguistic interference, between home and
school.” The new understanding I got
from Delpit about reaching non-White students will be more useful to me as a
teacher than Haberman’s more theoretical arguments.