Literacy in Theory - the Ideological Model

Brian Street and other scholars support the ideological model of literacy. Followers of the ideological model contend the following:
1. Literacy is a social and community activity--not simply an academic one.
2. "Literacy can only be known to use in forms which already have political and ideological significance" (Street 8). In other words, literacy is never neutral.
3. Literacy instruction--what is being taught to whom--depends on aspects of social structure such as stratification.
4. There are multiple literacies instead of one literacy.
5. They focus on the overlap between oral and literate cultures instead of perpetuating the myth of "the great divide."
6. They investigate the role of literacy teaching in social control and "the hegemony of the ruling class." (Street 8)

Literacy in theory takes a critical approach. Scholars who follow this model question the power structure inherent in the values and functions of literacy. Jonathan Kozol, for example, in Illiterate America, claims that our stratified economic system needs illiterates to perform the jobs that no one would want to perform given other opportunities. A high illiteracy rate serves the purposes of capitalism. The people at the top of the social hierarchy, according to Kozol, purposefully keep the poor and uneducated classes at the bottom so that the former may remain at the top.

Similarly, Catherine Prendergast questions “who benefits" from the current stratification of our society based on literacy levels. She claims that the current system keeps minorities--particularly African Americans--in the lowest rungs of society. Furthermore, she asks, "How do people use the literacy they have acquired to address the persistence of racial discrimination in the face of formal equal protection under the law?" (Prendergast 4)

The goals of followers of the ideological model do not correspond with the goals of the participants of literacy in practice. From my experience tutoring at the Tolton Center and what I have heard of the experiences of my classmates who tutor at similar adult literacy sites throughout Chicago, literacy in practice always tries to be neutral. Neither teachers nor students discuss how literacy acquisition perpetuates the stratification of our society. Literacy in practice also defines literacy as academic--not social. Literacy is part of the classroom and separate from daily activities. Is literacy in practice shortchanging the student by forgetting to examine the sociopolitical implications of the literacy system?