Blog Post #4

 REFLECTION:

Reading Lisa Delpit’s The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children made me reflect on my experience in a second-grade classroom and the way I communicated with students. At first, I would ask questions like, “Are we supposed to be doing that right now?”, assuming that prompting students to think about their behavior would guide them toward the right choice. But I quickly realized that this approach wasn’t effective. Some students wouldn’t respond or seemed unsure of what I was asking. Instead, I needed to clearly tell them what to do: “Please sit down and start your work.” or “We raise our hands before speaking.”

Delpit’s argument helped me understand why direct communication was necessary. She explains that not all students enter the classroom already familiar with the unwritten “codes of power” that govern academic and social success. These rules—how to participate in discussions, how to structure written responses, even how to interact with authority figures—aren’t always explicitly taught, yet they shape how students are judged in school and beyond. Simply expecting students to pick up on these expectations through indirect cues leaves some of them at a disadvantage. It reinforced what I had experienced firsthand: clarity and authority in instruction are not about control but about ensuring that all students understand what is expected of them.

This also made me think about how dominant cultural norms influence teaching. Many educators—especially those from white, middle-class backgrounds—advocate for student-centered learning that encourages discovery and self-direction. But as Delpit points out, this approach doesn’t always serve students of color, who may benefit more from direct instruction that makes expectations clear. I had always thought that asking guiding questions rather than giving direct instructions was a more respectful way to interact with students, but Delpit’s argument helped me see that withholding direct guidance can actually create barriers for some learners rather than empowering them.

Reflection/Questions/Comments to Share

One point I want to raise in class is how we can teach students the “codes of power” while also encouraging them to challenge those codes. Delpit argues that explicit instruction is necessary for students to navigate dominant systems, but how do we ensure that this doesn’t turn into simply enforcing conformity? 

 Delpit, “The Silenced Dialogue” 

Blog Post #3

 ARGUMENT:

This author, Christine Sleeter, argues that ethnic studies curricula are essential for student engagement

and academic success, particularly for students of color, because they provide a counter narrative to the

Euro-American dominated mainstream curriculum.

Sleeter explains that the traditional U.S. school curriculum is deeply rooted in Euro-American

perspectives, which marginalize the histories and contributions of people of color. While textbooks have

become more inclusive since the Civil Rights Movement, they often present a sanitized version of

history that downplays systemic oppression and reduces racial minorities to supporting roles in a

White-dominated narrative. This approach fails to engage students who do not see their own histories

and lived experiences reflected in what they learn. Ethnic studies, however, challenge this by centering

the voices, intellectual contributions, and historical struggles of marginalized communities. These

programs not only provide a more accurate account of history but also encourage critical thinking by

examining issues like colonialism, racial identity, and systemic oppression.

Beyond their social and political significance, ethnic studies courses have been shown to improve

student engagement, academic performance, and graduation rates. Research demonstrates that when

students, particularly students of color, take ethnic studies courses, they become more invested in their

education because they see themselves reflected in the curriculum. This sense of belonging and relevance

motivates them to succeed. Despite the clear benefits, ethnic studies remain controversial, with critics

arguing that they promote divisiveness or anti-American sentiment. However, as Sleeter points out,

these criticisms ignore the fact that the mainstream curriculum already centers one perspective while

minimizing others. Ethnic studies do not erase history, they expand it, offering students a fuller, more

complex understanding of the world they live in.

Reflection/Questions/Comments to Share

Sleeter’s argument raises an important question: if ethnic studies programs demonstrably improve

student outcomes, why do they continue to face resistance? Many opponents claim that these courses

are “political” or “divisive,” but isn’t the exclusion of diverse perspectives from the standard curriculum

just as political? It seems that the real controversy is not whether ethnic studies are beneficial, but

whether those in power are willing to acknowledge the full truth of history and its lasting impact on

society. Additionally, how can educators push for the implementation of ethnic studies in schools that

resist them

The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies

Blog Post #2

The text criticizes the traditional system of education, but particularly the inclination to rely more on tests in measuring student competence and ability. The author affirms that though learning institutions provide essential skills, most of their structures are outdated, shaped by historical contexts that prioritized sorting students rather than guaranteeing the development of deep understanding. Tests, according to the article, don't actually gauge long-term retention, learning potential, or thinking processes, but instead serve to function as a sorting device for students that can limit their potential future prospects. The article further discusses the effects of politics and economics on the development of tests, referencing the arbitrary nature of changing standards and how these influence the assessment of student success. While the author acknowledges the diagnostic value of competent tests, they prefer a more critical approach to interpreting scores and teaching based on them.