Are "Other People's Children" constructivist learners too?

In her book, Other People's Children, Lisa Delpit (1996) described how popular progressive pedagogies of that time like Whole language, while claiming to represent the best learning of all students, did not in fact match the learning needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students with whom she worked. She linked those pedagogies to dominant culture norms and argued that this type of mismatch is pervasive whenever dominant culture educational institutions teach children from nondominant communities. Despite the interest Delpit generated, current progressive pedagogies like Constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1993), which make similar "universalized" claims, have simply taken the place of the ones Delpit critiqued. Why is the field of education drawn to these pedagogies? Why do these pedagogies seem animated by such strikingly similar values and beliefs? The answer lies in an understanding that both learning theory and learning processes are inextricably and profoundly rooted in culture (Hollins, 1996; Nieto, 1992; Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986).

**********

   Why do the refrains of progressive educational
   movements seem lacking in the diverse harmonies,
   the variegated rhythms, and the shades of tone expected
   in a truly heterogeneous chorus? (Delpit,
   1996)

WE WONDER HOW much has really changed since Lisa Delpit published Other People's Children to much interest and acclaim in 1996. In it, she described how popular progressive pedagogies of that time--open classrooms, whole language and process writing--while claiming to represent the best learning of all students, did not in fact match the learning needs of the African-American students and other culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students with whom she worked. She linked those pedagogies to dominant culture norms and argued that this type of mismatch is pervasive whenever dominant culture educational institutions teach children from non-dominant communities. She also described how the views and perspectives of educators of color, when they differ with the assertions and beliefs of accepted pedagogy, are often discounted and ignored by the mostly European-American educational establishment. She referred to this as the "silenced dialogue."

In spite of the concern and interest Delpit's work generated, we see the "silenced dialogue" continuing to pervade thinking in the field of education. The embrace of "universalized pedagogy" by researchers and educators that Delpit described continues today with Constructivism and others. (1) We view these types of pedagogy as "universalized" because they purport to represent the best learning of all children.

Universalized theories are naturally attractive to progressive educators in their promise that, because all humans learn in fundamentally similar ways, all children will naturally flourish in classrooms based on certain "ideal" learning dynamics regardless of race, ethnicity, or class. However, we believe that the very concept of universalized best practices is really a chimera in light of the wide body of research that conceptualizes learning as a profoundly cultural process (Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986).

Across the globe, whether in the home, local community, school, religious institution, or society-at-large, education serves to orient children to distinct worldviews consistent with the unique goals, histories, and material realities of those cultural entities (Canagarajah, 1999; Delpit, 1996; Freire, 1970; Ogbu, 1994). Therefore, educational "best practices" must be predicated on a set of cultural ideals, beliefs, and values that are grounded in a particular context (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Philips, 1983). We are most attracted to ways of thinking that affirm and embellish the culturally influenced ideals, beliefs, and values we already hold.

However, many CLD students come to our nation's schools from communities that have their own learning traditions and preferences (Canagarajah, 1999). These may be in fundamental disharmony with the beliefs and values of the latest pedagogical theory used in our classrooms (Fu, 1995; Heath, 1983; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nieto, 1992; Scollon & Scollon, 1981). Ironically, a universalized educational orientation may prevent caring educators from recognizing the actual learning needs and strengths of "other people's children."

As educators of English language learners, specializing in the teaching of multicultural populations, we feel obligated to draw educators' attention to how CLD students may be disadvantaged in classrooms embracing universalized theory. Our goals are threefold: (a) encourage educators to understand that learning processes are inextricably enmeshed in cultural practices; (b) encourage educators who currently adhere to universalized pedagogies to take on the challenge of investigating the cultural roots of their most cherished theories as well as the beliefs and values that animate their own teaching practices; (c) encourage educators to create more equitable classrooms by bridging the complex mismatches between their own preferred ways and those of their CLD students. We look forward to the day when our nation's schools as well as educational theory and research reflect, as Delpit eloquently wrote, "... the diverse harmonies, the variegated rhythms, and the shades of tone expected in a truly heterogeneous chorus."