Brandt: "Sponsors of Discourse"

In Deborah Brandt's essay "Sponsors of Literacy", there is a great deal of analyzing literacy and how it compares to socio-economic status and other economic factors. I especially was drawn to her two examples of Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez, who grew up in the same city and went to the same college, but ended up with two very different views and ideas of literacy. Branch's "sponsor" included his parents and their abilities to provide the best of the best for him, unlike Lopez's parents, who provided adequate, but not nearly as prosperous tools for her to expand her knowledge. Here, Brandt explains that differences occur not only due to how "one social group's literacy practices may differ from another's, but how every body's literacy practices are operating in different economies, which supply different access routes, different degrees of sponsoring power, and different scales of monetary worth to the practices in use" (Brandt 561). I thought this was particularly important not just for the lives of Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez, but for thousands of others who are growing up in different areas of a city or state, and how one's education and literacy will differ from someone else who had greater opportunities at their school and from their parents.

Delpit: "The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse"

In Lisa Delpit's essay, "The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse", there is an argument that Gee's idea of discourses send racial messages to African-Americans and their ability to engage in certain discourses. First off, I found it ironic that Delpit referred to two of the writers we read about in class (Hooks and Rose).   But more seriously, I have to say I agree with her findings. I think the most important part that she realized was that the learning of the discourses doesn't have to heavily rely on the student, and that the teachers play a huge role in removing the sense of racism and inability that some students may encounter when trying to become part of a discourse.

Deplit does this by first saying "teachers must acknowledge and validate students' home language without using it to limit students' potential" (553). She is accurate by saying that students may learn best by using their home language, and that shouldn't be denied in the classroom because that isn't what is used in other discourses. I like her idea of "adding" (533) to a students home discourse.

Her second rule of thumb for teachers is that "[teachers] must understand that students who appear to be unable to learn are in many instaces choosing to "not-learn"...choosing to maintain their sense of identity in the face of what they perceive as a painful choice between allegiagne to "them" or "us" " (533). I almost think this goes with the first part Delpit explained, as the best way to get students able to learn is to let them use their own home discourse mixed with the discourse the teacher is trying to teach. Its important for students to gain a sense of security from a teacher. Security in the discourse comes from a teacher who isn't going to judge a student because he uses his home discourse over the one the teacher wants the student to learn.

Delpits final idea is that teachers should "acknoweldge the unfair "discourse-stacking" that our society engages in" (554). I like that she wants teachers to realize when they are "stacking" and when they are "mixing" discourses, because there is a difference. Discourses are better learned when they are mixed in to a student's home discourse.

Gee: Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics

I found James Paul Gee's essay titled "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics" and "What is Literacy?" very interesting in how he gives another meaning to the word discourse. Discourse isn't just something we say, it's what we represent ourselves as. After reading the entire essay, I think that the most substantial thing that stood out to me the greatest was that Gee discussed how language isn't "just how you say it, but what you are and do when you say it" (Gee 525).
How many times have we all noticed someone saying the complete opposite of what they are doing? We title people like those hypocrites, and while Gee wasn't getting at that, I thought it was a comparable word. Like Gee goes on to explain, we can see how this "language" affects interviews, work, home, school, friends, and other social affairs (Gee 525-26). I had never thought of "language" this way; I had always thought of it in terms of the dictionary defintion. Its interesting that language is more than just grammar and sentences. It's actions and representations of a person, and this idea lead into Gee's idea of "Discourses" (Gee 526).