Ideology in Literacy Teaching: Phonics and the Bot
The autonomous model of literacy continues to dominate educational policy—from phonics laws to AI restrictions—because it offers simple solutions to complex problems and reinforces existing power structures. But literacy isn't a neutral technical skill; it's a social practice embedded in cultural contexts and power relations.
Think of an assault rifle. One can perceive this weapon as an autonomous tool, neither good nor bad in itself. Or one can conceive of this weapon in the hands of a necessarily ideological human, potentially good or bad depending on its use and context. To say that humans are ideological means that they have values, beliefs, and cultural frameworks that inform their actions and interpretations. The question for society is this: Do we outlaw such tools? Which tools? Under what circumstances? How?
Like literacy itself, AI tools for reading and writing don't exist in a vacuum—they embody particular values and operate within social power structures. By recognizing the ideological nature of all literacy instruction, we can develop approaches that acknowledge both the technical aspects of reading and writing and their social dimensions. Only by rejecting the autonomous myth can we prepare students to become "text actors" capable of critical engagement with the world—whether they're sounding out words or evaluating AI-generated content.
How Phonics Laws and AI Restrictions Share a Flawed Vision of Literacy
Although the distance between state-mandated phonics programs and policies banning AI tools in classrooms seems vast, these issues are bound together by a strong, consistent theme: the persistent belief that literacy is an autonomous process like guns and language machines. Both approaches treat reading and writing as neutral technical skills that can be mastered through prescribed methods, isolated from social contexts and power relationships. This autonomous model of literacy has dominated educational policy for decades, shaping everything from the Common Core State Standards to current debates about AI in writing instruction—and it's fundamentally misguided.
The "Autonomous" vs. "Ideological" Models of Literacy
Literacy scholar Brian Street identifies a crucial distinction between the "autonomous" and "ideological" models of literacy. The autonomous model—championed by figures like David Coleman, architect of the Common Core State Standards—treats reading as a universal, mechanical process divorced from cultural context. As Lindy Johnson (2014) revealed in her critical discourse analysis, an interesting piece of research methodologically, Coleman positioned himself as an expert "discourse technologist" while dismissing teacher expertise when he modeled a “Core-style” reading lesson using MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham jail as the text. Coleman gave everyone the benefit of hearing how his exemplary mind tussled with the complexity of the text in a sort of “you can do this, too, with enough practice” way:
"What you have effectively done as a teacher when you do this is you've replaced the letter from Birmingham Jail with a simpler text, your summary, that now kids will quote back to you. And because of the overwhelming power of self love, those answers are of course correct."
Coleman's approach embodies what Johnson calls the "technologisation of discourse"—a process where outside experts design seemingly neutral teaching techniques that normalize certain ideological perspectives. His insistence that students should focus only on "the text itself" without making connections to their lives or background knowledge presents literacy as an autonomous skill rather than a socially-situated practice.
Beyond the Four Corners of the Text: Students as Writers Across Contexts
Yet research consistently shows that effective literacy development happens across multiple contexts. In "Writing Beyond the University," Yancey and colleagues demonstrate how college students perceive "recursivities" between their academic writing and self-motivated writing projects. Their case studies reveal three student writers who found meaningful connections between classroom assignments and personal writing:
Chris saw a "two-way street" between his academic papers and self-motivated music reviews
Bushra applied academic writing skills to books she authored in her native language
Mel positioned self-motivated writing at the center, informing all other writing spheres
These findings challenge Coleman's isolated view of text, showing how literacy flourishes when students make connections between different writing contexts and purposes.
From Critical Reading to Social Action
The limitations of the autonomous model become even clearer in Cervetti and Pearson's (2023) article proposing a fifth role for readers: the "text actor." Building on Luke and Freebody's Four Resources Model (code breaker, meaning maker, text user/analyst, and text critic), they argue that students should learn to "leverage social and textual critique to imagine new possibilities and act on those possibilities in the world outside the text [emphasis added]."
Their examples—fourth graders campaigning against bullying, third graders advocating on immigration policy, first graders promoting composting in their community—show how literacy instruction can empower students to address real-world problems. This approach directly counters Coleman's insistence that reading should remain confined to "the four corners of the text." Let’s instead confine Coleman to the four corners of the text if this is his preference.
The Classroom Reality: Ideology Masquerading as Science
In classrooms across America, the autonomous model manifests through mandated phonics programs touted as "the science of reading." Teachers are increasingly required to follow scripted autonomous lessons and decontextualized phonics drills that claim scientific neutrality while modeling and enforcing particular ideological views about literacy. Behind these "cheerful worksheets" lie troubling ideological assumptions: that literacy begins with breaking away from meaning rather than making meaning; that knowledge flows one-way from teacher to student rather than through participation in joint activity; that standard English pronunciation represents correctness while other dialects signal deficiency.
These phonics mandates are presented as objective and neutral, but they establish ideological parameters about what counts as literacy, who holds knowledge, and how learning should occur. The autonomous model of literacy isn't just wrong—it's a power play disguised as science. What makes this framing particularly insidious is how it leverages the cultural authority of "science" to shut down debate. Johnson's analysis reveals how Coleman employs what she calls "dialogically contracting language" that initially appears open to teacher input but gradually closes off alternative viewpoints. By positioning phonics instruction as "settled science," proponents eliminate space for questioning the underlying values and assumptions of their approach.
Navigating New Frontiers: AI and Writing Instruction
As if these debates weren't complex enough, the emergence of generative AI presents new challenges for writing instruction. AI language output is, in fact, autonomous literacy, purely mechanical, emotionless, painless, thoughtless, controlled by the corporation that made it. How do we integrate an autonomous literacy machine into the work of human beings with their unavoidably ideological literacy practices? The CSU Generative AI Committee report acknowledges both concerns and opportunities, proposing principles that emphasize "human-led and human-centered" applications of this technology—in other words, ideologically aware and socially-situated literacy practices.
Central to this balance is maintaining human-led responsibility for AI-generated content, though whether the writers of the report were clear on the differences between autonomous and ideological literacy practices is open to question. Interestingly, many of the recommendations from this report fall back on autonomous power relations unlikely to have any transformative effect. For example, lecturers must emphasize that students must engage actively in writing processes, using AI solely as a corrective or feedback tool rather than a replacement for original thought. Why? Because it’s a rule. That’s not good enough if the goal is to teach students how to enact AI as human-led responsible behaviors as opposed to surveilled behaviors.
It is clear that regulating literacy by fiat works only in autonomous mode wherein students are on remote control like machines themselves. Some of the more participatory recommendations are potentially helpful. Structured exercises where students compare AI-edited drafts with their own work foster metacognitive analysis of stylistic and logical improvements. This example aligns with the CSU principle that users must “take full responsibility for GenAI-generated materials” by providing mentored opportunities to gain awareness of what AI actually does as a machine, the good and the bad.
Moving Forward: Rejecting the Autonomous Human Literacy Myth
The evidence clearly shows that effective literacy instruction requires rejecting the autonomous model that underpins phonics mandates and accepting AI as an autonomous machine which is not responsible for its actions no more than a hammer or a nail. AI complicates matter because it generates 100% autonomous literacy according to its training and tuning in the manufacturer’s specifications—precisely the opposite of human literacy. Because it simulates, hallucinates, and just guesses the next word, it can’t be completely trusted. Wisely, philosophers have cautioned across timed that what cannot be trusted all the time cannot be trusted any of the time.
The following emerge from this rumination on the intersection of phonics instruction, the autonomous model of literacy, and AI. I’ve been working hard to evoke a debate in this forum. I would benefit tremendously from hearing more from readers. Maybe my comparison of phonics instruction with an assault rifle will reel in a few thoughts.
Recognize literacy as both skill and social practice - Technical aspects of reading like phonics matter, but they must be taught within meaningful contexts. If we can’t teach whole language, we must teach the whole student.
Value connections across writing contexts - Students benefit when they can draw connections between academic writing and self-motivated projects. Schools would do well to offer more guided opportunities for self-motivated writing where the writer’s intention is strong.
Empower students as knowledge creators - Literacy instruction should position students not just as consumers of texts but as producers who can use reading and writing to create new knowledge and effect change. Making a real difference in the world, if even just a small difference, can be worldview changing.
Maintain critical awareness of power - We must acknowledge how literacy practices are shaped by and contribute to power relations in society. Learners need opportunities to interrogate how literacy is power and to build the capacity to speak truth to power.
Adapt thoughtfully and collaboratively to technological change - New tools like AI require us to balance innovation with careful consideration of equity and ethics. We are at a crossroads with AI. How we prepare this first-generation of young people to go to school with AI will have implications extending well into the future.
References
Bleakney, J., Moore, J. L., & Rosinski, P. (Eds.). (2022). Writing beyond the university: Preparing lifelong learners for lifewide writing. Elon University Center for Engaged Learning.
Cervetti, G. N., & Pearson, P. D. (2023). Disciplinary reading, action, and social change. The Reading Teacher.
CSU Generative AI Committee. (2024). CSU Generative AI Committee Report. California State University.
Johnson, L. L. (2014). David Coleman and the technologisation of the Common Core: A critical discourse analysis. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(1), 197-223.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect, 5, 7-16.
Street, Brian. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press.
Street, B. (2001). The new literacy studies. In E. Cushman, G. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 430-442). St. Martin's Press.
Street, B. (2003). What's "new" in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77-91.
Yancey, K. B., Hart, D. A., Holmes, A. J., Knutson, A. V., O'Sullivan, Í., & Sinha, Y. (2022). "There is a lot of overlap": Tracing writing development across spheres of writing. In J. Bleakney, J. L. Moore, & P. Rosinski (Eds.), Writing beyond the university: Preparing lifelong learners for lifewide writing (pp. 74-90). Elon University Center for Engaged Learning.
Terry - I don't pretend to have your pedagogical expertise or scholarship when it comes to literacy instruction. However, as a classroom teacher who has worked with 5th - 12th graders for 30 years, I do know something about teaching reading and the importance of moving from decoding to comprehension. In the example you give, it is unclear to me the point of the Letter from a Birmingham Jail activity critique. What grade level and for what purpose was that text being used? In a history class, as an example of a certain style of writing for a particular audience? Just as a text in and of itself devoid of context? It strikes me that perhaps what age level and how that text was being used would make a big difference with respect to the goals of the activity. I do think encouraging students to connect the text to their own lives and the outside world is critical, but they also need to know stuff, especially the historical context in which King was writing, to get the most out of that piece. Also, I am curious about the notion of learning to read for the purpose of social action - is this the primary reason we are teaching students to read for comprehension? Perhaps, but given the dismal recent reading scores across 4th and 8th grade, don't we first want them to be able to read a newspaper and actually understand what's happening in the world to be able to know what social action to take? I guess as a lifelong reader, I am so generally distressed by the lack of interest of many students in long form reading - whether it's books, articles, or other challenging texts - that much of this seems so divorced from reality. How can we get students to want to read? And how can we get them to want to write? One idea I have which would likely never fly is get them to write their own Substacks and see what takes off. I find the one thing students love to do is read and critique each other's work! Keep up the good work - I'll try to follow it.