Gee vs. Delpit

Gee introduces us to the ideas of primary and secondary discourses, what Delpit essentially calls home and dominant discourses, respectively. However, Delpit takes these discourses a bit further. Gee says that a secondary discourse is any that is not your primary discourse (the one you use at home, that was acquired subconsciously). However, for Delpit, a dominant discourse is a secondary discourse that carries some sort of power or control with it. They are both generally attached to some sort of instituation. Gee also tells us that "acquisition" of a discourse is a subconscious process. There is no forward, official teaching of it. However, Delpit responds that acquisition of a discourse is indeed a conscious action. It is what Gee would call "learning". Delpit again takes Gee's argument to a new level. She says that discourses can be acquired and used to "cheat" the system, or, in other words, that we can use dominant discourses to benefit our own situation, to assist with our own purposes. Gee addresses this to some extent in his discussion of literacies, but I believe discourse is a more proper term for it. I feel that I side more with Delpit in this argument. I feel it is important for us as future teachers to understand varying home and dominant discourses, and that it is part of our responsibility to teach our students how to become successful within these various discourses. They may not have to fully adopt them, but knowing how to use them and work within them may be important for their futures. I also agree very much with Delpit's "not-learning" and "not-teaching" ideas. We must be aware of students who are resisting learning, and even more so, we must be aware of what within ourselves or our lessons or our language is cauing this resistance so that we may be able to change it. Not teaching, as Delpit discusses, is just not an option. We must provide our students with as many skills as we can that they may need for the "real world," not just the ones we feel are relevant in our own lives and beliefs.
This may raise questions regarding what extent we have to go to in order to keep students from decing to not learn. We also must ask how much of the superficial features we need to teach our students in order for them to have the tools they need to be successful without putting all the time into that subject and neglecting the other important parts of language classes.
I would definitely like to learn more about ELL's at some point. I have had a few classes that focus on how to help them, but it's always beneficial to know more. Multi-literacies can always be elaborated on as well for it seems that there are never ending possibilities within that subject.