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?
Showing posts with label Brian Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Street. Show all posts
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Literacy in Practice - the Autonomous Model of Literacy
Perhaps the disconnect between literacy in theory and literacy in practice is that while theorists usually agree with Brian Street’s ideological model, those personally and actively involved in the practice of literacy acquisition (students, teachers, tutors, etc.) follow something closer to Street’s autonomous model. In this post, I will briefly describe the autonomous model of literacy and then write about some Tolton Center students and teachers that unknowingly but wholeheartedly follow this model.
Although Street and other literacy scholars have been very critical of the autonomous model, my aim is not to criticize those who follow that model here. I have seen the effects of literacy in the self-esteem of Tolton Center students. I am not about to criticize a model that serves to increase the self-respect of adults who have been beaten down by the hegemonic system in which the live. I simply want to raise awareness of the difference between literacy in theory and literacy in practice.
According to Street, the autonomous model of literacy “assumes a single direction in which literacy development can be traced, and associates it with ‘progress’, ‘civilization’, individual literacy and social mobility… It isolates literacy as an independent variable and then claims to be able to study its consequences. These consequences are classically represented in terms of economic ‘take off’ or in terms of cognitive skills” (Street 2).
In other words, the autonomous model sees literacy as the key to upward social mobility and critical thinking. It emphasizes the idea of “the great divide” between those who are literate (who by this model can develop logical and abstract thinking skills) and those who are not (who by this model cannot). The autonomous model claims that literacy learning is politically neutral; that literacy is a technical skill devoid of sociopolitical implications. (Street 21) The model also emphasizes the inherent value of literacy.
Street writes that those who follow the autonomous model believe that “there are functions of language that are significantly affected by the mastery of a writing system, particularly logical functions. Written forms, they argue, enable the user to… maintain social or interpersonal relations between people” (Street 20).
I observed this kind of thinking about literacy when talking to two of the teachers at the Tolton Center. Again, let me stress that I do not disagree with how these teachers do their jobs. I admire their passion and dedication. What I want to do is ask what model of literacy could work better to satisfy the needs of urban minority communities.
[Brock]
Brock has been a math teacher at the Tolton Center for 7 years. He works with students who have not received any formal math instruction in many years, preparing them to pass the math portion of the GED test. Brock teaches algebra, geometry, fractions, decimals, percentages, conversions… the math skills that students are supposed to learn in four years of high school. Brock knows that some of these skills have practical uses in his students’ lives, while others are simply used to pass the GED test. Still, he is dedicated to his cause because he believes that literacy will improve the lives of the students.
“[These skills will] change the way they’ll communicate. They’ll be able to stay on topic… they’ll be able to have conversations about To Kill a Mockingbird… It’s going to open a new door to meeting new people… a door to the world. They’ll gain relevance in the world.”
Brock believes in cultural literacy; the idea that you need to know certain things to keep up with what is going on in your society. He believes that literacy helps makes you into a productive citizen.
[Janet]
Janet is the language arts teacher at Tolton. She also believes in cultural literacy and tries to incorporate some social skills into her teaching.
“We don’t expect to provide [students] with everything they should have. There are too many variables. We help them pass the GED and attach some social skills like the ability to work as a team, to have manners, to have etiquette. These are all parts of what it takes to succeed.”
She also believes that the literacy skills she is teaching will help her students adapt to the increasing competitiveness in today’s workforce.
“Literacy gives you the ability to be competitive in society…. in employment, in understanding what society needs… the expectations they must meet from employers. Are you able to think critically, not just to believe people’s words blindly?”
I think that Street would disagree with Janet and say that “faith in the power and qualities of literacy is itself socially learnt” (Street 1). He may say that literacy has no inherent value. However, I have seen that Janet’s approach works with her students. Her students see her as a teacher, mentor, and parent figure. With a heavy hand, she encourages them to learn the skills—to play the game—that will get them further up the socioeconomic ladder.
Although Street and other literacy scholars have been very critical of the autonomous model, my aim is not to criticize those who follow that model here. I have seen the effects of literacy in the self-esteem of Tolton Center students. I am not about to criticize a model that serves to increase the self-respect of adults who have been beaten down by the hegemonic system in which the live. I simply want to raise awareness of the difference between literacy in theory and literacy in practice.
According to Street, the autonomous model of literacy “assumes a single direction in which literacy development can be traced, and associates it with ‘progress’, ‘civilization’, individual literacy and social mobility… It isolates literacy as an independent variable and then claims to be able to study its consequences. These consequences are classically represented in terms of economic ‘take off’ or in terms of cognitive skills” (Street 2).
In other words, the autonomous model sees literacy as the key to upward social mobility and critical thinking. It emphasizes the idea of “the great divide” between those who are literate (who by this model can develop logical and abstract thinking skills) and those who are not (who by this model cannot). The autonomous model claims that literacy learning is politically neutral; that literacy is a technical skill devoid of sociopolitical implications. (Street 21) The model also emphasizes the inherent value of literacy.
Street writes that those who follow the autonomous model believe that “there are functions of language that are significantly affected by the mastery of a writing system, particularly logical functions. Written forms, they argue, enable the user to… maintain social or interpersonal relations between people” (Street 20).
I observed this kind of thinking about literacy when talking to two of the teachers at the Tolton Center. Again, let me stress that I do not disagree with how these teachers do their jobs. I admire their passion and dedication. What I want to do is ask what model of literacy could work better to satisfy the needs of urban minority communities.
[Brock]
Brock has been a math teacher at the Tolton Center for 7 years. He works with students who have not received any formal math instruction in many years, preparing them to pass the math portion of the GED test. Brock teaches algebra, geometry, fractions, decimals, percentages, conversions… the math skills that students are supposed to learn in four years of high school. Brock knows that some of these skills have practical uses in his students’ lives, while others are simply used to pass the GED test. Still, he is dedicated to his cause because he believes that literacy will improve the lives of the students.
“[These skills will] change the way they’ll communicate. They’ll be able to stay on topic… they’ll be able to have conversations about To Kill a Mockingbird… It’s going to open a new door to meeting new people… a door to the world. They’ll gain relevance in the world.”
Brock believes in cultural literacy; the idea that you need to know certain things to keep up with what is going on in your society. He believes that literacy helps makes you into a productive citizen.
[Janet]
Janet is the language arts teacher at Tolton. She also believes in cultural literacy and tries to incorporate some social skills into her teaching.
“We don’t expect to provide [students] with everything they should have. There are too many variables. We help them pass the GED and attach some social skills like the ability to work as a team, to have manners, to have etiquette. These are all parts of what it takes to succeed.”
She also believes that the literacy skills she is teaching will help her students adapt to the increasing competitiveness in today’s workforce.
“Literacy gives you the ability to be competitive in society…. in employment, in understanding what society needs… the expectations they must meet from employers. Are you able to think critically, not just to believe people’s words blindly?”
I think that Street would disagree with Janet and say that “faith in the power and qualities of literacy is itself socially learnt” (Street 1). He may say that literacy has no inherent value. However, I have seen that Janet’s approach works with her students. Her students see her as a teacher, mentor, and parent figure. With a heavy hand, she encourages them to learn the skills—to play the game—that will get them further up the socioeconomic ladder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)