The developing framework helps pave the way for a more socially-based understanding of literacy, while also attending to important political and ideological dimensions. One must also look at the school context. Research from the sociology of education suggests that literacy and education in general are inherently political (Giroux, 1988) and serve as a form of control to maintain social and economic inequalities (Key, 1998). According to Giroux (1988):

To be literate is not to be free; it is to be present and active in the struggle for reclaiming one's voice, history and future. Just as literacy does not explain the causes of massive unemployment, bureaucracy, or the growing racism…literacy neither automatically reveals nor guarantees social, political or economic freedom. (p. 65)

Literacy in school contexts is shaped around the roles of the teacher and the learners. It is recognized that most teachers belong to the dominant white middle class and are socialized along these mainstream lines. Holyfield (2002) believes that teachers need to move past the notion that society and schools are neutral and recognize the existence of various classes while understanding the effects of attitudes, beliefs and values. White middle class ideology pervades policy, curriculum and instruction.

By placing the concept of voice in the context of power relations, it helps explain practices of individuals within these institutions. Although institutional discourses may be challenged, many have simply grown to become hegemonic practices that are recognized as part of the institution (Stuckey, 1991). For example, schools as societal arrangements establish institutionalized roles which impose limits and conditions for the formation of subjects including literacy. Important questions comprising the discourse include who is to remain silent and which topics are not to be spoken. Classroom practices embody unequal power relationships and reproduce these social inequalities (Rist, 1970; Tett & Crowther, 1998).