Paper 1

Being that I was born African American, a woman, and into a lower income family I’ve always been aware that the process of upward mobility would incur many challenges. I would have to smarter, stronger, better and work twice as harder in order to obtain the level of success I desired. Those individuals who support my quest continue to make me aware of the challenges so as I do not loose my motivation, it’s sometimes unspoken and until reading Gee and Delpit, something I thought academic professionals were unaware of. It was quite interesting to see the connection of upward mobility and literary discourse from the prospective of academic professional, especially Gee as he explicitly correlates literary discourse and upward mobility, ‘…the mastery of which, at a particular place and time, brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social “goods” (money, prestige, status, etc.),” (Gee, 528). Gee also maintains that the acquisition of literary discourse can be difficult for minorities and women as it conflicts with the discourse the values, beliefs and ways of being they were born into, thus making it increasingly difficult to acquire social ‘goods’ and status. “I argue that a when such conflict or tension exists, I can deter acquisition of one or the other or both of the conflicting Discourse, or, at least, affect the fluency of a mastered Discourse on certain occasions of use,” (Gee, 528). What I seek to explore more is role culture and socioeconomic status play on literary discourse and subsequently upward mobility?

Brandt

When I think of a sponsor typically what comes to mind are institutions and persons who financially back other persons and institutions in need. I often associate such sponsored relationships as commercial sponsors and television and radio programs or large corporations and athletic events. However, sponsors as Brandt describes them are people, institutions, materials, and motivations which enable, support, teach, model, as well as conversely regulate, suppress and withhold literacy. “intuitively, sponsors seemed a fitting term for the figures who turned up most typically in people’s memories of literacy learning: older relatives, teachers, priest, supervisors, military officers, editors, influential authors,” (Brandt, 557).

When I recall the countless people and figures in my life who severed as sponsors for my literacy the most significant were my grade school Urban Day, my fifth grade teacher Ms. Stillman, and author and poet Maya Angelou. However the most significant sponsor in accordance with Brandt’s description is Wisconsin’s School Choice program. “The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is a tax-payer funded voucher program for low-income students to attend City of Milwaukee private schools, including religiously-affiliated programs,” (www.schoolchoicewi.org). This form of sponsorship is an explicit political one, as it is mostly supported by republican officials. Highly controversial as it is debated as to whether it perpetuates inequities in school funding, a claim which aligns with Brandt’s ideology that “despite ostensible democracy in educational chances, stratification of opportunity continues to organize access and reward in literacy learning,” (Brandt, 559).

For me sponsorship from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program afforded me the opportunity to study with highly qualified teachers, in a comfortable learning environment and with the latest in learning technologies and tools. For students of Milwaukee Public Schools it meant cutbacks, increase class sizes, lack of access to basic necessities. In high school my brother and I choose different paths for school, I stuck with Choice Program and choose to attend Messmer High School, my brother instead choose to attend our neighborhood school Custer High School. The differences were literarily night and day, his schools expectations for literacy were low compared to the high demands of Messmer. His course work was always a grade level behind and due to lack of funding there weren’t enough textbooks available for him to bring his textbooks home. In this situation although my sponsorship afford me quality education and great opportunities, at the same time it weakened the opportunities of others.

Delpit vs. Gee

What I find interesting of both James Paul Gee  and Lisa Delpit's interpertation of literacy is the intergration of psychological components in their discussion of acquiring discourse. Each hold their own asseration as to how literary discourse is acquired, though both Gee and Delpit's theories can be traced to psychological influence on learning. Learning is highly debated and much reasearch has gone into understanding exactly how humns learn. There are a number of learning theories throughout history that have helped shape the public views on learning and classrooms of today, however Gee and Delpit graso two very differing theories.

Gee maintains that literary discourse is not somehing that can be overtly taught in a classroom setting, it instead is acquired throughout ones life and is greatly influenced by environmental factors such as race, religion and other socioeconomic determinants. Literary discourse is a way of being, a way of talking, moving, dressing and thinking; in essence your culture which greatly influences what one consideres proper social behavior. This makes it almost impossible for minorities and people of low income families to acquire the discourse of the dominant group in society, which Gee appoints white and middle class. This closely relates to the sociocultral theory of personality which emphasize social and cultural determainant such as a families socioeconomic level and size, ethnic identification and your parent's education level.

Delpit's argument against Gee downplays social and cultural influence on learning and instead maintains that literary discourse can be acquired by members of the non-dominant group if they are so willing to learn and have a vaild support system. She chronicals intellectuals of African American decent who have done such and emphasizes the influence their will and the will if their teachers have on their success. This directly related to the Existential-Humanistic personality theories which stress free will. "Humans may be thrown by circumstances beyond their control into certain conditions of life,but how they value, interpret, and respond to those conditions is a matter of personal choice," (Olson & Hergenhahn, 5).

Although their are certain aspects of Gee's theory I do agree with, my thoughts on the acquistion of literary discourse resonates more with Delpit. Though social and cultural determinants have some lever of influence on one's ability to learn and succeed, the greatest influence on such is our will and drive to want to learn and succeed.

My Definition of Literacy

On the first week of class we were asked to describe something we felt we were literate at. From that I describe my newly acquired literacy in servicing home mortgages; for literacy for me meant something that was of significant understanding so much so that you could simplify and complicate each subject matter. Literacy for me is also having the ability to engage in discourse with a peer who is as equally knowledgeable in such subject. Using my example of home loan serving, the manner in which I speak of home loan serving with a fellow co-worker includes words and phrases not understood by anyone else.

One example of literacy that was used by a classmate, was motherhood. It was described as being something that was almost innate, in that it came with ease and an understanding of what needs to be done but that was in no way a indication that one knew everything there was to know about being a mother. I logged this definition of literacy, into my definition of literacy as well. Being literate in a particular subject does not mean you know everything about that subject. In fact being literate in a subject can also mean that you are in a constant state of learning, yet instead of knowing all he the answers, you simply know which questions to ask!