Delpit

I think the problem that I have with so many of the articles we've read is that they do a great job of laying out a problem, explicating it, providing examples, etc., however, when it comes time to start proposing solutions, they are so freaking idealistic that I lose all faith in the buildup they gave me. Delpit's articles are no different. Her speech is all about helping kids, but I had a hard time seeing past the condescension. They want to teach all children how to read, but reject the system that proves effective because of the unfair power dynamic it presents (after all, it's important they learn how to read WITHOUT hurting their feelings). They agree that children need different instruction based on their home life, but shudder at the idea of physically classifying them like that in the public setting of school.
I also have a problem with the issue of race that I feel the second article projects on some of the scenarios mentioned. The black student in the "process" writing class, for one. What did it matter that the crappy teacher was white, and the good teacher was black? That seems like a case of competence versus incompetence and I feel like she was grasping to pull a race issue from it. Similarly, I think the differences in rhetoric style she suggest have far more to do with class than color, as I have had black teachers who were soft-spoken and used the "upper-middle class" suggestion technique of instruction, and white teachers who were no nonsense. I have a hard time being optimistic about issues like this, as I see the endless cycle of "benevolence" and hypocrisy regarding race and education to be almost inescapable at this point. We don't want to treat anyone differently, but we want them to have equal opportunities to learn. But they have different backgrounds which necessitates different forms of instruction (ie: treating them differently).