MAY-LA1.

QXD

372

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 372

Literacy Ideologies: Critically

Engaging the Language
Arts Curriculum

Literacy Ideologies

Literacy ideologies can allow us to critically reflect on our

beliefs about literacy and the curriculum materials

Karen Cadiero-Kaplan

and processes used and promoted in schools.

There can be no disinterested, objective,

and value-free definition of literacy: The
way literacy is viewed and taught is
always and inevitably ideological.
Auerbach (1991, p. 71)

As elementary school teachers, my

colleagues and I rarely had time to
reflect on the ideology, value, or
politics of the language arts curriculum, but we discussed how our own
beliefs about literacy and language
development were not reflected in
the materials or teaching methods
we were encouraged to use. Such
conversations led us to ponder why
one reading curriculum or teaching
method was promoted over others
and to note that these policy reforms reflected dominant political
structures. At no point during these
conversations did we discuss the
ideologies that informed our beliefs
or the ideology of the curricula and
educational processes that were
considered the best method to
teach language arts.
Using critical literacy as a lens of
analysis, this article addresses the
questions of how literacy is defined, by whom, and for what purposes. Ideological constructions of
literacy can allow us to critically

Language Arts,

Vol. 79

No. 5,

reflect on our beliefs about literacy

and the language arts curriculum.
As teachers and teacher educators,

it is imperative that we understand

not only our own ideology toward
literacy but that of the curriculum

May 2002

Copyright 2002 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 373

materials and processes that are

utilized and promoted in our
schools. For it is ideology that has
the most profound impact on
policy and curricula decisions
made from the federal, state, and
local levels of schooling.

In this article, I address the normative assumptions that are present

within the language arts curriculum,
our teaching methods, and educational policy. My premise is that
any methodological approach to
what it means to be a literate
person is based on an ideological
construct that is inherently political.
As a result, ideological constructions of literacy can position literacy for either of two purposes. First,
a critically progressive ideology
toward literacy values individual
empowerment and personal voice,
basic morality and skill (Luke,
1988, p. 17). A critical whole lan-

Kincheloe (1998) defines curriculum

in terms of the history of the word.
The noun curriculum is derived
from the Latin verb currere, which
means running a racecourse, an
action. In education, the word is reduced to the noun form, the

Mainstream educators forget that

curriculum is an active process; it is
not simply the lesson plan, the district guidebook, the standardized test,
the goals and milestones, or the textbook. The curriculum, Slattery continues, is a holistic life experience,
the journey of becoming a self-aware
subject capable of shaping his or her
life path (p. 129).

When applying this interpretation

to the literacy curriculum, it is easy
to see how the noun form flourishes in the instructional practice
of tracking or ability grouping.
When students are grouped according to their reading or language
proficiency levels, their level dictates which curriculum they will
receive. As a result, there is no exploration of self or other, but a
well-worn track narrowed by
checkpoints, limits, and a defined
end. Additionally, and most importantly, such groupings are a form
of social control that functions
to provide differential forms of
schooling to different classes of
students (Giroux, 1983, p. 47).
To connect school literacy ideology
to curriculum, the common curricula orientations of functional literacy, cultural literacy, and
progressive literacy are first critically examined. The intent isnt to
dismiss these forms of literacy engagement, but to analyze their
common historical positions within
schools. The second section of this

My premise is that any methodological approach

to what it means to be a literate person is based
on an ideological construct that is inherently political.
track. This difference in definition
implies that curriculum, as commonly used, is dictated and static,
not fluid or changing. According to
Kincheloe (1998), who references
Patrick Slattery,

article articulates critical literacy as

a schooled ideology and argues for
literacy as social action. The final
section presents examples of critical
literacy engagements by elementary
school teachers.

373

Literacy Ideologies

According to Galindo (1997), ideologies are systems of ideas that

function to create views of reality
that appear as the most rational
view; a view that is based on
common sense notions of how the
social world ought to be (p. 105).
Within any approach to literacy is
an assumption of normative practice, that is, what counts as literacy
pedagogically, socially, and politically. Since the 1700s schooled
literacy ideologies have fueled educational and political debates about
what it means to be a literate
person in school and society. This
notion is particularly important
when considering the cultural diversity of students today, as these ideologies of schooled literacy are not
part of all communities and, more
often than not, are acquired outside
ones cultural or social environment.
Still, the success or failure of many
children and school literacy programs is determined by such definitions of normative practice
(Powell, 1999).

guage approach toward reading instruction reflects this ideology when

students learn to read by reading
literature and other authentic materials drawn and related to their
personal experiences. Such classrooms engage children in dialogue
to critically examine and challenge
the content of texts and discourses.
This approach is designed to serve
the interests of children and their
historical context and place in the
world. The second approach focuses on rudimentary functional
job skills with a need to educate
literate citizens able to compete in
the labor market (Luke, 1988). This
ideology is reflected when reading
skills instruction concentrates on
teaching sounds, symbols, and
direct comprehension of text
through skill and drill processes
that focus on understanding rules,
comprehending factual information,
and being able to follow directions.
This approach is designed to maintain the industrial, social order of
society (Luke, 1988). Both of these
ideological constructions toward
literacy are reflected in the language arts and reading curricula in
most elementary schools.

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 374

SCHOOLED LITERACY
IDEOLOGIES

374

Every teacher who faces a classroom is

facing many layers of historical assumptions about how literacy should be defined. A teacher . . . is not just teaching
reading or writingsome absolute
mental activity. Teachers are teaching
contingent definitions and constructions
of reading and writing.

Literacy Ideologies

Myers (1996, p. 60)

A FUNCTIONAL LITERACY ideology is reflected in a curriculum that teaches

students the skills deemed necessary
to successfully participate in school
and society specifically, skills to be
a productive citizen or member of
the workforce and, as such, to support marketplace ideologies (Apple,
1995; Kelly, 1997). A functionally
literate person is generally considered an individual who can read
and write well enough to understand signs, ads, newspaper headlines, fill out job applications, make
shopping lists, and write checks
(Williams & Capizzi-Snipper, 1990).
This is considered to be a fourth- to
sixth-grade level of competency.
The functionally literate curriculum
was originally defined under the
premise of English for All and focused on sequential reading skills,
grammar skills, and some of the
basic cultural information usually
found in literature with a emphasis
on decoding and analyzing parts of
texts-as-objects (Myers, 1996,
p. 34). This is similar to the popular
reading program, Open Court, which
includes direct systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and
phonics and grade-appropriate decodable text (American Federation
of Teachers, 2001).
Reading focuses on decoding words
and analyzing text by answering
specific reading comprehension
questions orally and in writing.
Comprehension is the ability to understand vocabulary, directions, and

Language Arts,

Vol. 79

No. 5,

meaning from text (Oakes, 1985;

Shannon, 1989). As such, functionally literate curricula and instructional practices are pre-packaged
and restrictive; with a pedagogical
focus that is individualistic, behaviorist, and competitive (Kelly, 1997,
p. 10). Such instruction does not encourage students to challenge texts
or ideas and further reduces literacy
to a primary skill learned in parts.
Such teacher-directed processes
negate processes of critical thinking,
culture, and power. At the same
time, they support a societal structure focused on increasing the labor
force with a goal for capital accumulation (Giroux, 1983). In the Open

The functional
approach does little
to engage texts and
stories critically or to
engage the historical
and lived contexts
of student lives.

1995). This curriculum is traditionally found in schools with large

numbers of at-risk students and
English language learners (ELLs). In
classrooms where functional literacy
curricula are used exclusively, teachers focus on basic skill instruction
including phonemic awareness,
spelling, and specific reading skills
(Giroux, 1983; Oakes, 1985; Apple,
1995). Students need these skills in
order to read and write; however,
strict use of the functional literacy
curriculum reinforces job-related
skills and behaviors. Direct instruction techniques, including scripting
for teachers and set benchmarks and
goals, reinforce such skills. Further,
a functional approach reinforces
students compliance with classroom
rules and procedures using praise
and rewards.

Court reading program, for example,

students learn to read and write by
completing activities focused on
comprehension, discreet vocabulary,
and specific ideas and concepts
(American Federation of Teachers,
200l). The emphasis is on learning
to read, not reading to learn, and
thus the functional approach does
little to engage texts and stories critically or to engage the historical and
lived contexts of student lives.

One noticeable and disturbing distinction in schools that utilize solely

functional literacy curricula is that
student representation tends to fall
along ethnic and class lines, in that
the majority of students tend to be
ethnic minorities or from poor or
working-class neighborhoods
(Giroux 1983; Oakes, 1985). As
Williams and Capizzi-Snipper (1990)
note, functional literacy all too
often becomes the schools tacit educational objective for non-native
English speakers (p. 6). Primary
language and nonstandard English
discourses of minority groups and
the poor are identified as deficits or
deprivations that need remediation rather than differences of
value (McLaren, 1988a).

Functional literacy prevailed during

the Industrial Revolution and is
equated with the school as factory
model (Myers, 1996; Giroux, 1983).
However such literacy instruction
continues to be part of most curricula and has recently gained conservative support with state standardized
testing and the back to basics
movement (Luke, 1988; Apple,

A CULTURAL LITERACY ideology focuses on the teaching of morals

and values, with a curriculum that
includes the classics or Great
Books (Bloom, 1987; Hirsch, 1988;
Ravitch, 1985; Myers, 1996). In
contrast to a functional ideology, a
cultural ideology places priority on
the information readers bring to
discourse. To comprehend written

May 2002

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 375

and oral discourse, members of a

society need common background
knowledge that allows them to
comprehend the messages con-

valued hierarchically in society

(Leistyna, Woodrum, & Sherblom,
1996, p. 334). So, what the cultural
ideologue refers to as cultural

veyed through conversation, newspapers, and other media that report

historical events or engage ideas
from world literature and history
(Hirsch, 1988; Williams & CapizziSnipper, 1990). There is specific
cultural knowledge that all Americans need to know to be successful, competent citizens. The
cultural literacy curriculum is
found in the core knowledge approach, which is based on the
premise that in order to be successful, students must have core
knowledge in one grade to grow
and understand new and more
complex information in upcoming
grades (Hirsch, 1988). A student
who does not have the core knowledge in one grade may struggle
academically in future grades because she or he is informationally
deprived (Butterfield, 2000).
Individuals who promote a cultural
literacy ideology (Bloom, 1987;
Hirsch, 1988; Bennett, 1995) assume
that this knowledge is part of the
upper-middle-class culture. As a
result, those from lower socioeconomic classes or ethnically diverse
groups must learn this cultural
knowledge to be successful in
school, have access to the mainstream culture, or acquire cultural
capital. Cultural capital are those
forms of cultural knowledge, such
as language, modes of social interaction, and meaning, [that] are

knowledge is defined by the critical

theorist as cultural capital.
According to Hirsch (1988), cultural literacy constitutes the only
sure avenue of opportunity for disadvantaged children, the only reliable way of combating the social
determinism that now condemns
them to remain in the same social
and educational condition as their
parents (p. xiv). It is believed that
by gaining this knowledge students
from marginalized communities, including those who speak a language
other than English, will be more
successful participants in oral and
written discourses of the mainstream culture (Bloom, 1987; Hirsch,
1988; Williams & Capizzi-Snipper,
1990). While this concept seems altruistic providing all with a common
ground for communication it is
problematic as it negates individual
and community experiences. Further, common knowledge is defined
by a select group of individuals,
such as Hirsch and others of the politically conservative elite (Macedo,
1994). The common knowledge advocated by this group consists of a
descriptive list of the information
actually possessed by literate Americans (Hirsch, 1988, p. xiv). Gee
(1990) states that
cultural models are the basis on
which choices about exclusions and
inclusions and assumptions about
context are made; every word in the

However, it is this process that the

ideology of cultural literacy advocates. To be culturally literate students are taught common core
values, morals, and culture, specifically the dominant culture through
mainstream history and the Great
Books (Giroux, 1996). Critical theorists deem this curriculum as closed
and elitist; its pedagogy is authoritarian, humanist, and universalizing (Kelly, 1997, p. 10). The teacher
is the authority who relates the
human condition through historical events and figures. These cultural universals, as articulated by
Hirsch in his series of curriculum
guides, include many historical
events, artistic contributions, and
people, such as World War II, the
Beatles, and Ty Cobb; however, he
leaves out a number of events, contributions, and people, such as the
Asian Exclusion Act, Georgia OKeeffe, and Chief Seattle. Simonson
and Walker (1995) point out that
Hirsch knew his list of cultural literacy would not please everyone,
but that he didnt acknowledge why
this was so. He does not acknowledge his own biased position as an
eastern U.S., Eurocentric, white
male (Simonson & Walker, 1995).
Thus the cultural literacy canon
fails to acknowledge that most
Americans are now aware of the
contributions of repressed cultures,
more alert to how history has been
rewritten and molded to the vision
of the majority population, and accustomed to the notion that culture,
like language, changes and that we
ought to be accustomed to those

375

Literacy Ideologies

The cultural literacy curriculum is found in the core

knowledge approach, which is based on the premise
that in order to be successful, students must
have core knowledge in one grade to grow
and understand new and more complex
information in upcoming grades.

language is tied to a myriad of interconnecting cultural models. It is entirely unlikely that anyone could
overtly teach the whole network of
cultural models for any one culture.
It is also unlikely that anyone learns
any very significant cultural model
just by overt instruction, by being
told about it. (p. 90)

MAY-LA1.QXD

376

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 376

Literacy Ideologies

changes (Simonson & Walker,

1988, pp. xxi). Rather than include
rich cultural diversity, the cultural
literacy canon limits diversity by articulating a curriculum that can be
invoked as an argument for the reproduction of societys cultural elite
(Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993). By
promoting a social hierarchy where
select intellectuals, their professional colleagues, and the economically privileged become the only
individuals deemed fit to determine
the cultures sacred canon of knowledge, the elite assure their position
and status.
The cultural literacy curriculum reflects an ideology based in Western
traditions, an ideology that not only
attempts to control the spaces where
knowledge is produced but to legitimate certain core knowledge. Such
literacies link to positions of power.
As Giroux (1983) states, reading in
Western traditions is a process of
learning that reduces classroom content to that deemed appropriate to
the well-educated citizen (p. 212).
Within this conservative perspective
the individual experience, if different from the one articulated by the
power elite, is not valued. Thus, the
knowledge defined as literate by
proponents of cultural literacy promotes a national image of cultural
and social harmony. This curriculum
sends the message to students that
in our society, despite our countrys
ebbs and flows, everything works
out for the good of our citizenry.
Histories of womens rights, labor,
and immigration, class and political
discontent, challenges to capitalism,
and the continuous struggle over
the purposes of the nation are deemphasized (Coles, 1998).
The cultural literacy curriculum is
designed to prepare students for
positions of power and rejects individual experience while discrediting or ignoring the influences of
popular cultures, ethnic cultures,

Language Arts,

Vol. 79

No. 5,

and racially diverse cultures

(Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993). The
individuals for whom this curriculum is designed are not the ones
receiving it because students lacking such cultural knowledge are
often found in schools that focus
on functional literacy, where the
emphasis is on skill and drill. The
ideology of cultural literacy, while
advocating for the disenfranchised,
is positioned to maintain societal
inequity. This elitist ideology
deems alternative cultural and linguistic discourse communities
within society as illiterate, because
literacy is determined solely on the
basis of knowing and being able to
converse, read, and write about
those topics that make one literate
(McLaren, 1988a). This ideology
does not dismiss the ideology of
functional literacy. On the contrary,
those advocating for a cultural literacy recognize that the functional
skills of decoding and comprehension are necessary for students to

The cultural literacy

curriculum reflects an
ideology based in
Western traditions, an
ideology that not only
attempts to control the
spaces where
knowledge is produced
but to legitimate
certain core knowledge.
be successful in reading and accessing cultural knowledge.
As Hirsch (1988) states, [cultural
literacy] takes no position about
methods of initial reading instruction beyond insisting that content
must receive as much emphasis as
skill (p. 1). Therefore, cultural lit-

May 2002

eracy does little to address the ideology that underlies functional literacy. Rather it indirectly supports
methods that maintain the status
quo. Cultural literacy, in contrast to
progressive literacy, values individual experience as a mode of acquisition of skills and knowledge.
A PROGRESSIVE LITERACY ideology advocates personal discovery with a
curriculum that is student centered
and liberal (Kelly, 1997, p. 10).
Such literacy can be seen in elementary classrooms through the use
of writers workshop and the language experience approach, where
students engage in writing from a
personal perspective emphasizing
content over form (Edelsky, Altwerger, & Flores, 1991).
The goal of progressive literacy
teachers during the nineteenth century was to integrate literacy instruction into the curricula based on
childrens interests, needs, and inclinations: that is to make literacy a
natural consequence of childrens
study of their physical and social
environment (Shannon, 1989,
p. 10). This curriculum is based on
democratic ideas postulated by
Dewey (1916) that include free interchange of ideas between students
and educators and student-centered
curriculum. Such a curriculum attempts to affirm and legitimize the
cultural universe, knowledge, and
language practices that students
bring into the classroom (McLaren,
1988a, p. 215). A progressive literacy ideology requires students and
teachers to engage in the process of
learning to read and write based on
themes and topics of interest to students, with vocabulary related to
their lives (Shannon, 1989). The
whole language curriculum is progressive, based on constructivist and
cognitive views of learning that
contend that children actively seek
and construct knowledge and come
into the classroom environment

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 377

viduals are the decision makers

about what they read, write, and
learn, and further that individuals
will learn to read and write by
being supported in actually reading
and writing whole texts not by
being required to do limited activities with bits and pieces of language (Weaver, 1998, p. 7). In
contrast to functional literacy, which
reduces reading to a technique of
learning to read, progressive forms
of literacy support a process of
reading to learn. Thus literacy, in
all its discourses of reading, writing,
listening, speaking, and thinking,
develops in an integrated manner
(Au, 1998). The transformation of

Students involved in a critical literacy curriculum read

the world and the word, by using dialogue to engage
texts and discourses inside and outside the classroom.
to complex reading tasks in comparison to superficial text comprehension
(Macedo, 1991). The mastery of technical skills of decoding and comprehension are not ignored, but skills are
developed with the explicit recognition of the importance of some form
of shared cultural knowledge
(McLaren, 1988a, p. 215). Where the
functional approach supports teaching the parts that make up the whole,
a whole language theory believes that
the parts are more meaningful when
learned in relation to other parts,
where the whole is the discourse.
This method exemplifies a constructionist view of learning, according to
which concepts and complex processes are constructions of the human
brain; therefore, research suggests,
the greater the intellectual and emotional involvement in learning, the
more effective the brain learns, uses,
and retains what is learned (Weaver,
1998, p. 7).
Accordingly, a progressive ideology
supports whole language beliefs that
literacy is best developed when indi-

literacy skills into literate behaviors

and ways of thinking depends on a
community of talkers who make the
text mean something (Brice-Heath
in McLaren, 1988a, p. 215).
While a progressive ideology
values the learner as a knowing
subject and provides a space for individuals to construct meaning, it
fails to examine questions of cultural and political context. Such
practices, while designed to empower, are not transformative because they ignore students cultural
capital (Freire & Macedo, 1987). A
progressive ideology is appealing,
but its equally important to note
that it is politically neutral. From a
critical perspective this can be
problematic because it fails to
question or critically engage the
sociopolitical context of the curriculum along with the socially
constructed literacies of students. If
we agree that literacy is socially
constructed and dependent on a
variety of social contexts, then to
conceive literacy as a single, indi-

vidual idea is misguided and potentially dangerous (Powell, 1999).

Therefore, progressive ideologies,
while valuing the knowledge of the
individual, still support a curriculum that remains apolitical and
critically unexamined (Freire &
Macedo, 1987; McLaren, 1988b).

CRITICAL LITERACY AS
SCHOOLED IDEOLOGY
While progressive literacy instruction is
informed by linguistic theory, critical
pedagogy is informed by political debate.
Powell (1999, p. 99)

The ideology of CRITICAL LITERACY is

defined by Kelly (1997) as a literacy of social transformation in
which the ideological foundations
of knowledge, culture, schooling,
and identity-making are recognized
as unavoidably political, marked by
vested interests and hidden agendas (p. 10). This literacy expands
on the progressive notion of personal discovery by placing both the
teacher and student in a historical
context and advocates the interrogation of the curriculum, which
is that of the everyday world
(Macedo, 1994; Kelly, 1997; Powell,
1999). Students involved in a critical literacy curriculum read the
world and the word, by using
dialogue to engage texts and
discourses inside and outside the
classroom.
Aronowitz and Giroux (1993) apply
the critical literacy perspective to the
canons of cultural literacy and
remind us the democratic use of literary canons must always remain
critical . . . and must justify themselves as representing the elements of
our own heritage (p. 38). It is within
this critical approach that literacy
curricula are most powerful and
transforming because texts and discourses of cultural literacy are placed
within a historical and cultural context that provides a sense of place

377

Literacy Ideologies

with innate goals and curiosities

(Nicaise & Barnes, 1996).
Constructivist approaches view social
discourse as part of learning and
view students as agents over their
learning (Randolph & Everston, 1994;
St. Pierre-Hirtle, 1996). Unlike cultural or functional ideologies that
define set skills or knowledge bases
to access literacy, a progressive approach values the literacy or knowledge discourse the individual brings
to text, as seen in whole language
learning (Edelsky et al., 1991). Within
a progressive paradigm, reading is
viewed as an intellectual process,
where access to background knowledge facilitates progress from simple

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 378

through historicity. Within a critical

environment, historicity allows students to read any text or discourse
from the perspective of their lives in
relation to their present experience
(McLaren, 1988a; Darder, 1991).

378

Literacy Ideologies

A critical approach to historicity requires students (and teachers) to

read history as a record told from
one perspective that can be examined from other perspectives (Apple,
1995; Freire, 1998). Through this
critique, students (and teachers) uncover the myths of civilization that
place the cultural literacy canon in
real-world contexts, and that are
transformed, rather than revered. We
need to widen our definition of literacy to reveal the hegemonic power
structure and to value the discourses
of traditionally marginalized groups.
We do this when, along with our
students, we question readings of
the world and word through critical
dialogue, when we identify and reflect upon those ideological and
social conditions that serve to profit
a few at the expense of many
(Powell, 1999, p. 20) and when
being literate is more than the ability to decode, comprehend, or critique. Critical literacy empowers us
and our students to actively participate in a democracy and moves literacy beyond text to social action.
Based on this review of schooled literacy ideologies, critical literacy is
not a schooled ideology since it is
designed to engage the individual in
questioning the historical, political,
and social intent of a text. I contend, however, it is within the context of schools that such
questioning and reflection most
naturally occur. In elementary
school children are exposed to the
functional, cultural, and progressive
literacy ideologies. A critical ideology can only enhance students
sense of place in the world through
critique, dialogue, and reflection
on their learning processes. In this

Language Arts,

Vol. 79

No. 5,

sense critical literacy is a schooled

concept and should be considered in
any discussion surrounding literacy
curriculum and practice.
Interestingly, we do not typically
view literacy as both pedagogy and
social action, but as a method that
is apolitical. Schools have not traditionally been encouraged to teach
all discourses; rather they have been
commissioned to teach a particular
discourse, or form of literacya literacy that is sanctioned by dominant groups (Powell, 1999, p. 13).
Understandably, schools have not
readily promoted critical literacy.
Such processes reveal the underlying hegemony of literacy practices
and further, work to unveil the

Interestingly, we do
not typically view
literacy as both
pedagogy and social
action, but as
a method that
is apolitical.
structures of repression and domination within school practices and
curriculum (Giroux, 1987).
Thus, literacy curricula decisions are
often the result of conscious choices
tied to the political and economic
structures of a country. However, the
ideological position often remains
unexamined. Administrators and
classroom teachers implement the
language arts curricula but dont
engage in a critical analysis of the
ideology that directs the curricula
and recommended teaching processes. Such curricula, however, are
inherently ideological in that they
are qualified by the context of
assumptions, beliefs, values, expectations, and related conceptual material that accompany their use by
particular groups of people in partic-

May 2002

ular socio-historical circumstances

(Knoblauch & Brannon, 1993, p. 15).
As such, the manner in which literacy and language are taught is
based in an ideology that clearly defines literate acts through reading,
writing, and engagement with text
(Powell, 1999). Therefore, teachers
and educators must not confuse
what is with what must be and
must recognize that common practices come not from divining decree,
but from choices made sometime,
somewhere (Hinchey, 1998, p. 7),
within specific historical and cultural contexts that support both
political and economic structures.
Teachers can analyze and engage
in unveiling their ideological approach and that of their curriculum
and practice through critical
literacy practices.

CRITICAL LITERACY AND

CLASSROOM PRACTICE
The production of knowledge is a relational act. For teachers this means being
sensitive to the actual historical, social
and cultural conditions that contribute
to the forms of knowledge and meaning
that students bring to school.
Freire and Macedo (1987, p. 15)

In response to conservative ideological policies and views toward literacy, many teachers and researchers
have articulated critical practices
and policies for literacy. Powell
(1999) states, what is needed in our
society is a different definition of
literacy, one that acknowledges the
hegemonic power structure and that
values the discourses of groups that
traditionally have been marginalized (p. 20). Critical teachers and
teacher researchers have risen to this
challenge by valuing student voice,
linguistic diversity, cultural pluralism, and democratic schooling while
emphasizing literacy and biliteracy
as processes of empowerment. Children as young as four and five years
old can engage in critical dialogue

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 379

Critical teachers promote classrooms

that value student voices, experiences, and histories as part of the
course content. At the core of such
practice, or praxis, is Freires (1998)
concept of conscientization: the
ability of teachers to take on both
exposition and explanation as elements of critical dialogue. Teachers

Defining Praxis
Praxis is a continuing process of critical reflection and action that is more
than good practice or action based on reflection (Freire, 1972). Praxis is creative action involving a commitment to human well-being, the search for
truth, and respect for others. A continual interplay between thought and
action involves interpretation, understanding, and application. Praxis is
always risky. It is directed at other human beings and requires that we make
a wise and prudent practical judgment about how to act in a particular situation (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). For Freire, praxis is involvement in the experience of oppression, helping the oppressed to transform oppressors through
reflection and action.
Further Reading
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and
Action Research. London: Falmer.
This account of praxis in education discusses a critical approach to
theory and practice, action research, educational reform, and the role of
the profession.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
Freires seminal work on transforming education. Chapter 3 focuses
specifically on dialogue and praxis.
Valli, L., & Price, J. (2000). Deepening Our Understanding of Praxis: Teacher
Educators Reflections on Action Research. Teaching Education, 11(3),
267278.
Case studies of teacher candidates in varying school settings provide
contrasting lenses on praxis within the context of action research.
Karen Smith

provide critical classroom activities

that help students analyze their own
experiences so as to illuminate the
processes by which those experiences
were produced, legitimated, or disconfirmed (McLaren, 1988b, p. 217).
Teachers are no longer dispensers of
knowledge, promoting only one
canon or belief, but agents of
change, assisting students in seeing
themselves within the larger historical, political, cultural, and economic
structures where student voices exist.
Such activities can be engaged in
classrooms where students feel safe

and teachers support student engagement of texts. Lee (1998) relates a

story of a teacher who read a picture
book to her class titled Brides of
America. One girl responded, This
book is wrong because my mother
isnt there and she is American. You
should throw the book out. According to Lee, This girl had learned
how to read words, but she also had
learned to read herself into the picture (p. 171). Though the girl saw
the book as incomplete it remained
in the classroom, but the children determined that the title should be

379

Literacy Ideologies

on issues of race and skin color. In a

kindergarten class in Los Angeles, a
student tells his teacher in Spanish,
Maestro, my mom is giving me pills
to turn me white (Segura-Mora,
2001, p. 18). The teacher, Alejandro
Segura-Mora, not wanting to show
how Ernestos comment saddens or
alarms him, responds by asking why
Ernesto would want to be white.
Ernesto replies, because I dont like
my color. Segura-Mora continues,
I think your color is very beautiful
and you are beautiful as well
(p. 18). Segura-Mora uses the book
Nina Bonita as a vehicle for students
to explore issues of whiteness. He
first covers the title of the book and
asks if the black girl on the cover is
pretty. Many students dont believe
she is pretty due to the darkness of
her skin. After reading the story to
the children he revisits the earlier
discussion of what is pretty.
Segura-Mora also uses a version of
The Ugly Duckling in which a black
swan believes that to be beautiful he
must be white in order to engage
students in a discussion of how an
authors background and perspective
inform values of whiteness. The
literature and activities open a dialogue on color and representation
that continue throughout the school
year. Segura-Mora shows us that
rather than ignoring or avoiding
issues of race and color, which many
teachers find volatile or fear addressing, it is possible to bring them
into the classroom and curriculum
using literature to create an avenue
for engaging student voice, history,
and experience.

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 380

Defining Conscientization

380

Literacy Ideologies

Conscientization can be defined

as self-determination. This idea
is linked to Paulo Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed and refers
to developing a consciousness
that is understood to have the
power to transform reality.
Further Reading
Brizuela, B. (1998). Cultural Action
for Freedom: Editors Introduction. Harvard Educational Review,
68(4), 471475.
Freire, P. (1998). Cultural Action
and Conscientization. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 499521.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to
Transgress: Education as the
Practice of Freedom. London:
Routledge.
Karen Smith

changed to Some Brides of America

or European American Brides. Lee
concludes that real literacy consists
of both reading and writing ourselves, and our communities, into the
texts . . . and that even with very
young children, we cannot afford to
become so bogged down in grammar
and spelling that we forget the whole
story (p. 171).
Shor (1992) advocates participatory
problem posing as a way to transform academic knowledge into
themes accessible to students. Such
a curriculum involves a two-way
transformation of subject matter
and discourse (p. 77). The teacher
introduces the subject matter as a
problem for students to reflect on in
their own language. Students, who
come to class with their own uni-

Language Arts,

Vol. 79

No. 5,

verse of words, themes, and experiences, are challenged to go beyond

themselves, into a new territory not
generated from their backgrounds.
The role of the teacher is to be a democratic problem poser.
Such praxis and conscientization on
the part of teachers are one key to
implementing a critical literacy curriculum. Reflection must occur not
only during the process of dialogue
with students but with ourselves and
our peers. Real change and empowerment can and does occur, but can be
difficult, not because of the work it
entails, but because it challenges us
to deal with uncomfortable, threatening, tension-producing concerns that
are personal as well as social in
nature (Walsh, 1996, p. 227).
In order to truly change literacy
curricula in our schools, we must
engage in critical dialogue not only
with our students, but also with
each other and school administrators. In doing so, we become activists for democratic schooling,
facing both the risks and rewards of
such an endeavor. The course may
be arduous, but it is only through
such activities that the hegemonic
structures of ability grouping and
special pullout for remediation can
be revealed and dismantled. Once
such oppressive tracks are removed,
then more students may have the
opportunity to explore, create, critique, and transform curriculum
within environments that encourage
individual voices through dialogue,
reflection, and action.
In the end, critical teachers and
teacher educators must also consider
the place of functional skills within a
critical paradigm. While it is important to stress whole language processes, methods of engaging
students lives and text critically, and
the use of dialogue and reflection,
we must be cognizant to also teach
students to be successful in the skills

May 2002

and strategies required on schoolmandated tests and standards-based

outcomes. Delpit (1995) cautions adherents of process approaches to literacy to be careful not to create
situations in which students ultimately find themselves held accountable for knowing a set of rules about
which no one has ever directly informed them (p. 31). Critical teachers who continually engage process
over outcomes may do their students
a grave disservice if they suggest,
even implicitly, that the code or
product is not important, since
standardized tests of reading are the
measure students have to contend
with. As Delpit (1995) points out,
students will be judged on their
product regardless of the process
they utilized to achieve it (p. 31).
Thus, functional and cultural literacy
curricula materials and processes
whose political ideologies have been
revealed through critical engagement
have the potential to demystify textual codes so children who can read
the world will be able to read the
word and connect it to their world
and beyond. Teachers and students
will further engage the world and the
word to redefine cultural literacy by
including the culture of the many as
opposed to the few.
References
American Federation of Teachers. (2001).
Seven promising programs for reading
and English language arts: Open Court
collections for young scholars (OC).
Retrieved January 10, 2002, from http://
www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/seven/
oc/index.htm
Apple, M. (1995). Education and power. New
York: Routledge.
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1993). Postmodern education: Politics, culture and
social criticism. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and
the school literacy learning of students
of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297319.

MAY-LA1.QXD

3/29/2002 9:32 AM

Page 381

Hinchey, P. (1998). Finding freedom in the

classroom: A practical introduction to
critical theory. New York: Peter Lang.

Hirsch, E. D. (1988). Cultural literacy: What

every American needs to know. New York:
Vintage Books.
Kelly, U. A. (1997). Schooling desire: Literacy,
cultural politics, and pedagogy. New York:
Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. (1998). Pinars currere and
identity in hyperreality: Grounding the
post-formal notion of intrapersonal intelligence. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum
towards new identities (pp. 129142).
New York: Garland Press.
Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1993). Critical teaching and the idea of literacy.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lee, E. (1998). Spelling and social justice. In
E. Lee, D. Menkart, & M. Okazawa-Rey
(Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays: A
practical guide to K12 anti-racist, multicultural education and staff development
(pp. 171172). Washington, DC: Network
of Educators on the Americas.
Leistyna, P., Woodrum, A., & Sherblom, S.
(1996). Breaking free: The transformative
power of critical pedagogy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks and ideology: Postwar literacy instruction and
the mythology of Dick and Jane. New
York: Falmer Press.
Macedo, D. (1991). The politics of an emancipatory literacy in Cape Verde. In C.
Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the
other (pp. 147159). Westport, CT: Bergin
& Garvey.
Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of power: What
Americans are not allowed to know. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Machado, A. M. (1996). Nina bonita Illus. R.
Faria; trans. E. Iribarren. Brooklyn, NY:
Kane/Miller.
McLaren, P. (1988a). Culture or canon? Critical pedagogy and the politics of literacy.
Harvard Educational Review, 58(2),
213234.
McLaren, P. (1988b). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York: Longman.
Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Nicaise, M., & Barnes, D. (1996). The union
of technology, constructivism, and
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 205212.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools

structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Powell, R. (1999). Literacy as a moral imperative: Facing the challenges of a pluralistic
society. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Randolph, C. H., & Everston, C. (1994).
Images of management for learner centered classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 16(1), 5563.
Ravitch, D. (1985). The schools we deserve:
Reflections on the educational crises of
our times. New York: Basic Books.
Segura-Mora, A. (2001). What color is beautiful? In Rethinking our classrooms, 2
(pp. 1821). Milwaukee: Rethinking
Schools.
Shannon, P. (1989). Broken promises: Reading instruction in 20th century America.
Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Simonson, R., & Walker, S. (1988). The Graywolf annual five: Multi-cultural literacy,
opening of the American mind, St. Paul,
MN: Graywolf Press.
St. Pierre-Hirtle, J. (1996). Constructing a
collaborative classroom. Learning and
Leading with Technology, 23(7), 1921.
Walsh, C. (1996). Making a difference: Social
vision, pedagogy, and real life. In C. Walsh
(Ed.), Education reform and social change:
Multicultural voices, struggles, and visions (pp. 223239). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weaver, C. (1998). Reconsidering a balanced
approach to reading. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Williams, D., & Capizzi-Snipper, G. (1990).
Literacy and bilingualism. White Plains,
NY: Longman.

Author Biography
Karen Cadiero-Kaplan is an assistant
professor in the Department of Policy
Studies in Language and Cross Cultural
Education at San Diego State University.

381

Literacy Ideologies

Auerbach, E. (1991). Literacy and ideology. In

W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual review of applied
linguistics (pp. 7185). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, W. J. (Ed.). (1995). The childrens
book of virtues. Needham Heights, MA:
Simon & Schuster.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has
failed democracy and impoverished the
souls of todays students. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Butterfield, B. K. (2000). A teachers perspective on what students know and
should know about common knowledge.
ERIC Document #446144.
Coles, G. (1998). Reading lessons: The debate
over literacy. New York: Hill & Wang.
Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the
classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. Westport, CT: Bergin &
Garvey.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other peoples children:
Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York: New Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education.
New York: Free Press.
Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B., & Flores, B. (1991).
Whole language: Whats the difference?
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom:
Ethics, democracy and civic discourse.
New York: Rowan & Littlefield.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy:
Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Galindo, R. (1997). Language wars: The ideological dimensions of the debates on
bilingual education. Bilingual Research
Journal, 21(2/3), 103141.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacy. New York: Falmer Press.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in
education: A pedagogy for the opposition.
Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. (1987). Literacy and the pedagogy
of empowerment. Introduction in P.
Freire & D. Macedo, Literacy: Reading the
world and the world (pp. 129). Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. (1996). Living dangerously: Multiculturalism and the politics of difference.
New York: Peter Lang.