Successful School Subject Literacies within the 
Context of Disadvantage

Bill Atweh, Robert Bleicher, Clare Christensen and Colin Lankshear
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology




Research into literacy and school subject performance focuses 
overwhelmingly on identifying and addressing risk factors associated 
with under-achievement.  Strenuous efforts are devoted to diagnosing 
the "causes" of literacy failure that is pattered by ethnicity, social 
class, gender and other variables.  This paper explores the possibility 
that equal or even greater insights into and potential benefit for 
school attainment may be achieved by investigating instances of 
successful school literacies practices within contexts officially 
designated as "disadvantaged".  It is a preliminary report which deals 
with six case studies comprising triads built around successful 
students in English, Science, Physics, Home Economics, Mathematics and 
Economics at a secondary school in Brisbane.  Each of the triads 
consists of a student identified by their teacher as highly competent 
in the literacy of a given subject, one of their teachers and one of 
the students" caregivers.  Interviews with all triad members, classroom 
observations and journal-keeping by students are the main data 
collection techniques employed.  The aim of the study is to develop 
contextualised theories to explain phenomena of success in 
disadvantaged settings and to identify social and pedagogical factors 
associated with success.  This paper will report the findings of the 
present study, and comment on how they compare with those international 
studies of scholastic success in contexts of disadvantage.



Literacy as social practice

At a theoretical level this study is informed by several key ideas 
 derived from recent studies of literacy as social practice.  Until 
 comparatively recently, educationists tended to think of literacy - or, 
 more typically, of reading-writing - as either a skill or as a tool or 
 technology.  As a skill, "literacy" denoted the ability to encode and 
 decode print.  As a technology, literacy was construed (in the West) as 
 alphabetic print.  Hence, to be literate was widely seen in terms of 
 having at least a minimal facility with print technology.  
Within these conceptual parameters people could be seen as having 
 either more or less of "it" (i.e., literacy/facility-skill with print), 
 or as being more or less able to use "it" more effectively.  The 
 (highly) literate person was one who possessed mastery and fluency.  
 The low literate or illiterate person was one who lacked control of or 
 skill with print.
Conceived in these terms, literacy could further be seen as being 
 employed and demonstrated within diverse domains: in business, work, 
 religion, leisure and academic study, among others.  To all intents and 
 purposes, however, literacy was conceptualised as comprising one and 
 the same "thing" - for everyone.  Objective variations in literacy were 
 seen as existing around uses to which this unitary phenomenon was put, 
 and degrees of facility or competence in using it.  From an educational 
 standpoint, students were taught to read and write, from whence they 
 could proceed to employ their literacy in the study of subjects (or 
 disciplines).  
During the past two decades, however, the study of literacy from a 

 social perspective has emphasised the enormous variety of literacies 
 that exist.  Rather than being seen as a universal or singular 
 phenomenon with a diverse range of uses and domains of application, 
 literacy is now widely seen as "many".  What were previously viewed as 
 different uses of the same thing are now seen as comprising different 
 literacies.  As Street (1984) puts it, "Literacy is a shorthand for the 
 social practices and conceptions of reading and writing" (p.1).  As 
 social practice in its own right, and as an integral component of 
 larger social practices, reading-writing takes many forms.
There are two points to be made here.

(i)First, from an ontological standpoint, literacy/language must be 
conceptualised as social practice; not as a technology or as a skill 
that somehow is incorporated within social practice.  When human beings 
speak, visualise, read and write they are involved in practices of 
giving, taking and making meanings.  These are necessarily social: as 
Wittgenstein argues (1953) there can be no such thing as a private 
language - in his technical sense of "private language".  Meaning is 
inescapably social: both as (generic) phenomenon and in particular 
instances.  Moreover, in making, transmitting, and sharing meanings 
humans are necessarily engaged in practice - in forms of social 
activity.  There is "work" to be done, or being done, whenever and 
wherever meanings are in operation.
(ii)Language and literacy "acts" are generally embedded within larger 
social practices of which they comprise a necessary integral component. 
 In writing this paper, for example, the literate act is housed within 
a larger set of social practices, including the social practices of 
participating in an academic conference, doing research, demonstrating 
accountability for funding research, etc., which are, in turn, part of 
a still larger social practice of functioning as academics.

These points can, perhaps, best be clarified by reference to James 
 Gee's distinction between Discourse (with an upper case "D") and 
 discourse (with a little "d").  Discourses, with a capital "D" (Gee, 
 1990, 1992) are ways of 
 thinking-believing-acting-interacting-speaking-listening-valuing-reading 
 -writing at appropriate times and places with appropriate objects so as 
 to signal membership in (to be "in synch with") a particular social 
 group.  They are saying(writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing 
 combinations.  What we are (our identities) as individuals and members 
 of groupings is a function of the Discourses we participate in.  There 
 are many Discourses, ranging from (certain sorts of African-Americans, 
 boardroom executives, feminists, doctors, physicists, academics, 
 students, parents, street gang members, and so on (cf. Gee & Lankshear, 
 1995).  
Lower case "discourses" are the language bits of Discourses.  They are 
 connected stretches of language that make sense: like stories, essays, 
 reports, conversations, arguments, recipes, different types of forms 
 and so on.  The form and substance of discourses will vary to a greater 
 or lesser extent from Discourse to Discourse.     
Hence, the accountant qua accountant reads and writes in very different 
 ways from the priest qua priest; the scientist from the preschool 
 teacher; the graffiti writer from the computer programmer, and so on.  
 Their respective purposes, activities, roles, and identities - 
 including the multiple beliefs, values, theories, aspirations, etc., 
 they hold to - vary: as do their conceptions and practices of reading 
 and writing, and the (kinds of) texts and literate artifacts they 
 create and exchange.
Indeed, as Gee's work also makes clear, matters are even more complex 
 than this.  His example of linguistics as Discourse, and of being a 
 linguist demonstrates this added complexity.  The larger Discourse of 
 linguistics contains many sub-Discourses, different socially accepted 

 ways of being a linguist.  But the master Discourse [of Linguistics] is 
 not just a sum of its parts [i.e., its sub-Discourses, such as 
 sociolinguistics, Chomskyist linguistics, Hallidayan linguistics, 
 etc.]; it is something over and above them.  Every act of speaking, 
 writing and behaving a linguist does as a linguist is meaningful only 
 against the background of the whole social institution of linguistics, 
 and that institution is made up of concrete things like people, books 
 and buildings; abstract things like bodies of knowledge, values, norms 
 and beliefs; mixtures of concrete and abstract things like 
 universities, journals and publishers; as well as a shared history and 
 stories. (Gee, 1990, p. 143; bold added).  
Hence, the cost accountant qua cost accountant may read and write very 
 differently from the tax accountant; the liberation theology priest 
 from more conservative priests; and the theoretical scientist from the 
 laboratory or applied scientist.  And within theoretical science, 
 literacies may vary considerably as theoretical paradigms and the sorts 
 of problems that are framed for investigation vary.

The construction of school subject literacy

This has significance for our present concern with school subject 
 literacies, and the significance is complex.  When we speak here of 
 "school subject literacies" we have in mind the idea that different 
 school subjects will be associated with more or less 
 different/distinctive literacies: what is read and written, how it is 
 read and written, and why it is read and written will vary to a greater 
 or lesser degree.  It is worth looking at this in a little detail, in 
 relation to school subjects and school subject literacies.  This can be 
 done by reference to Economics, one of the school subjects addressed in 
 our study.
Paraphrasing Gee, we can say that the larger Discourse of Economics 
 contains many sub-Discourses, different socially accepted ways of being 
 an economist.  There are, for example, such variants as classical/neo 
 classical economics, political economy, Keynesian economics, 
 Friedmanite economics (monetarism) and so on.  Behind all these 
 variants, and making them recognisable as ways of being economists and 
 of "doing" Economics, is the social institution of economics.  The 
 social institution of economics includes, of course, 
 school/classroom-based study of Economics as a subject.  As a school 
 subject, Economics may be seen as the first formal stage of 
 apprenticeship to the Discourse of being an economist: of thinking 
 about economic issues and problems in some of the ways "proper" 
 economists do; of being introduced to elements and versions of economic 
 theory; etc.  There are, of course, many facets of Economics and being 
 economists that the study of Economics as a school subject does not 
 (necessarily) include.  Indeed, much - if not most - of what students 
 do and be in respect of school-based study of Economics, is confined to 
 conceptions and practices of reading and writing (about) economics.  
 That is, to a large extent, engaging in Economics as a school subject 
 will be very much a matter of engaging in a literacy practice: in some 
 construction or other of Economics as a bounded set of reading and 
 writing activities.
It is the fact that those Discourses and social institutions 
 represented (and, to that extent, prioritised and legitimated) within 
 school curricula are constituted largely - if not exhaustively - as 
 school subject literacies that underlies and defines the focus of our 
 research.  Among the main functions of school identified by 
 sociologists, selection for scarce social places and opportunities 
 ranks high.  Whatever else schools must do in societies like our own, 
 they must differentiate between students, selecting some for higher 
 status and rewards and others for lower status and rewards, and do this 
 in a way that appears legitimate and that, in turn, can help serve to 

 legitimate the principle and reality of social stratification, as well 
 as extant hierarchies.  To date, the principle means of measuring 
 student performance and selecting accordingly has been on the basis of 
 students" written work.  Hence, it is both appropriate and important to 
 investigate the constitution of school subjects as literacies, and to 
 understand the conditions under which school subject literacies are 
 practised successfully.
Other insights from the study of literacy as social practice assume 
 relevance at this point.  The first of these concerns the fact that 
 literacies are constructed within sites of social practice.  They are 
 not transcendent or given.  They are, precisely, social constructions.  
 We are interested in knowing how particular school subject literacies 
 are constructed on particular sites and what forms they take.  
 Something of the variety among school subject literacies and the 
 significance of this variety is evinced by a New Zealand classroom 
 ethnography (Jones, 1986, 1991).
Alison Jones studied two "ability streams" of students at the same 
 school grade level.  One was a low-to-middle stream class comprised 
 almost entirely of students from Pacific Island migrant working class 
 families: 5M.  The other was a top stream comprised overwhelmingly of 
 students from white middle class (especially professional and business) 
 families: 5S.  Jones observed closely these students in their 
 classrooms during two years, the second being the year of their first 
 national certification exam - School Certificate.
Both groups believed strongly that school success was the route to good 
 life chances, and that success in academic exams involves a combination 
 of ability and hard work.  Both groups wanted to succeed in School 
 Certificate and both expressed commitment to working hard.   Indeed, 
 Jones found that both groups did work hard.  What she also found, 
 however, was that the two groups had very different views of the work 
 to be done, and that these corresponded to very different views of how 
 to operate language within learning.
The 5M students drew on discursive experiences which emphasised, among 
 other things, strong deference to authority.  The saw the teacher as 
 the authority on school knowledge.  As a result, they worked from a 
 view of academic and exam-oriented literacy that amounted to getting 
 the teacher's knowledge down as notes to be learned up later.  These 
 students made sure their notes were always up to date, neat, and 
 typically ornately illustrated.  They spent much time putting together 
 their "notes".
This conception of academic literacy had some interesting - and 
 unfortunate - features.  Firstly, it contributed to the production of a 
 distinctive pedagogy in 5M classrooms.  Jones shows how the respective 
 beliefs and values of 5M students and teachers interacted to produce 
 culturally this particular pedagogy and its consequences.  Basically, 
 the pedagogy consisted of the teacher dictating notes.  5M students saw 
 this as the teacher's proper role: imparting knowledge.  If she 
 departed from this role - e.g., by involving the class in discussion, 
 comment, questioning, etc. - the class would "play up".  The teacher 
 would have to come back to dictating in order to restore control and 
 get students "on (some acceptable) task".  On the other hand, whenever 
 the class did get briefly into question-based pedagogy, the teacher 
 would typically simply ignore wrong or inappropriate answers offered 
 (seriously) by the students, and revert to giving the right answers 
 herself, or putting her own words into students' mouths - seemingly as 
 the only way she could see of making up for the massive gaps evident in 
 these students' curricular knowledge.
The dictation literacy-pedagogy was, of course, compatible with 
 students involving themselves in inappropriate activities during class 
 time.  So long as someone was taking notes, that could be borrowed and 
 written up later, other students could read or daydream as they wished, 
 or catch up on other notes!  Moreover, students often took notes down 

 inaccurately.  In the first place, it seems that much curricular 
 knowledge was far from their previous experience (as evident in a 
 student suggesting with full seriousness and sincerity that they shut 
 the windows to keep germs out).  They often had little notion of what 
 was being spoken about (e.g., in Economics and Science).  In addition, 
 however, they had no apparent idea that claims advanced as 
 knowledge/information should be checked for accuracy and sense against 
 recognised authoritative sources.  Yet this is an essential aspect of 
 enacting the appropriate "saying/writing-believing-valuing-doing" 
 combinations involved in academic-exam literacy specifically, and 
 academic Discourse generally.
In almost exact contrast, the 5S students would punish the teacher if 
 she dictated notes at any length.  Also, they would challenge her if 
 they thought her information or point of view might be mistaken.  5S 
 saw the teacher as just one of the resources available to them for the 
 purpose of getting the knowledge they needed.  Moreover, they knew the 
 knowledge required for scholastic success (particularly in "prestige" 
 subjects) goes far beyond merely absorbing and repeating information, 
 but includes also developing and defending viewpoints via structured 
 argument, taking detached positions, analysing and synthesising 
 information from diverse sources and perspectives, displaying flair, 
 and so on.  Consequently, for them hard work involved very different 
 language and literacy practices from those of 5M.  They insisted on 
 classroom language being a medium of discussion, debate, and the 
 development and rehearsal of views and positions.  They would question, 
 probe and challenge, and remain on task in this mode.
The 5M students almost universally failed School Certificate, while 5S 
 passed.  This is part of a well known pattern.  Moreover, to the extent 
 that students like those in 5M secure passes in competitive exams at 
 all, they are very often in low status subject areas.  Within prestige 
 subjects particularly, like English and the sciences, exam success is 
 tied closely to abilities, attitudes, and dispositions that go far 
 beyond the mere recall and reproduction of information.  Scholastic 
 achievement draws heavily on discursive practices and associated 
 language uses which emphasise developing positions and viewpoints by 
 argument and debate; amassing evidence in support of one's position; 
 demonstrating flair in arguing a point of view; manipulating and 
 relating abstract ideas; and assuming detached standpoints when matters 
 of objectivity or hypothesis arise.
Jones' study provides a clear indication of the range of constructions 
 of literacies within classroom settings and in the context of studying 
 school subjects.  In understanding the dynamics involved in the social 
 construction of varying school (subject) literacies it is important to 
 observe the operation of two competing tendencies: two "moments" in a 
 truly dialectical process.  The tendency toward normalising or 
 standardising school subject literacies, represented by state and 
 national syllabi, common examinations and assessment procedures, 
 national statements and profiles, etc., comprises one "moment".  In 
 other words, these elements tend toward constituting a standard or 
 "normal" range of reading and writing practices in the name of studying 
 (or "doing") particular school subjects.  That is precisely the point 
 of syllabi and common assessment mechanisms: to ensure that as far as 
 possible students are receiving and benefiting equally from an equal 
 education.  This tendency is "met" by what might be called the "local" 
 tendency to subvert normalisation or standardisation, inherent in 
 differential teacher worldviews, knowledges, values and commitments, as 
 well as by localised differences present in student backgrounds, 
 community values, parental experience, and so on.
In the case of the divergent subject literacies constructed in the 5M 
 and 5S classrooms respectively, the elements comprising the "local" 
 tendency were very strong.  In the first place, the cultural 
 commitments of the Pacific Island groups represented in 5M emphasise 

 respect for and deference to authority as personified in elders 
 generally and, in particular, elders occupying high status social roles 
 - like teachers.  In addition, the 5M teachers exemplified a set of 
 principles and commitments that further exacerbated the tendency toward 
 constructing subject literacies for "low ability" students which 
 feature student dependence on the teacher's words and on a generally 
 passive learning style.  These teachers wanted the best for 5M and saw 
 the only means available, given time constraints and examination 
 demands, as "banking" knowledge into students (cf. Freire, 1970).  In 
 some cases, the same teachers who played an active role in constructing 
 an active and critical pedagogy and literacy with 5S students were 
 instrumental in constructing an entirely different school subject 
 literacy with 5M students.  In so doing, these teachers, together with 
 the other 5M teachers, unwittingly affirmed and reinforced student 
 dependence on "teacher words" and rote learning, and effectively "voted 
 against" the pursuit of literacies marked by understanding, 
 argumentation, abstraction, and taking up positions.  5M teachers and 
 students were very much caught in a logic of being between a rock and a 
 hard place.
The divergent subject literacies constructed and operated within 5S and 
 5M classrooms respectively reflect and contribute to the ongoing 
 process of creating and legitimating social and cultural stratification 
 among different groups within the one complex society.  A growing array 
 of studies point in their own way to the nature and role of different 
 constructions of school literacies as a central medium generating 
 social, political, and economic inequality (cf. Heath, 1983; Gee, 1990, 
 1993; Edelsky, 1991; Searle, 1984, 1993; Hirshon, 1982; Shor, 1980; 
 Gowen, 1992; Hull, 1993; Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba, 
 1992; Anderson & Irvine, 1993; Luke, 1988; Green, 1990; Kantor, Green 
 et al, 1992; Baker & Freebody, 1989).
Two further points need to be made here.  The first concerns "success", 
 or what constitutes "successful practice" of school subject literacies. 
  The second concerns "educational disadvantage".  In many situations 
 these points become related in classroom practice.
The point about "success" parallels the point just made about the 
 construction of school subject literacies within a dialectic of 
 normalising and differentiating tendencies.  Within contexts of 
 objective educational disadvantage, where "failure" rates by official 
 criteria and standards are high, and where "self-esteem" levels may - 
 subsequently - be (perceived as being) low, teachers and others 
 involved in the educational enterprise often frame "success" in terms 
 they deem appropriate to their own settings.  These terms may be very 
 different from those of "official" statements and measurement schedules 
 (see Levett & Lankshear 1990 for a detailed account of local 
 constructions of "success" within a secondary school with a high 
 proportion of ethnic minority students who were objectively 
 disadvantaged in educational terms.  The local construction of 
 "success" was very different from "official" views, as embedded in 
 moderated national examinations).  This being so, it is important in a 
 study like ours to look closely at how "success" is defined and 
 operationalised - with particular emphasis on teacher constructions. 
The matter of educational disadvantage with specific regard to literacy 
 can, once again, be made most clearly by reference to a distinction 
 employed by Gee, between primary Discourse and secondary Discourses.  
Humans encounter and develop their primary Discourse through 
 "face-to-face communication with intimates" (Gee, 1990, p.7), or what 
 sociologists call primary socialisation.  Primary Discourse is grounded 
 in oral language, our primary - first - use of language.  Through the 
 process of enculturation among intimates we learn to "use language, 
 behaviour, values, and beliefs to give a ... shape to [our] experience" 
 (Gee 1990).  Although each person encounters just one primary 
 Discourse, primary Discourses and language uses vary across 

 socio-cultural groups distinguished by race, ethnicity, social class, 
 and so on.  Thus the particular shape given to experience within 
 primary Discourse varies socio-culturally.  
Secondary Discourses are developed "in association with and by having 
 access to and practice with ... secondary institutions" beyond the 
 family or primary socialising unit: e.g., schools, churches, 
 workplaces, clubs, bureaucracies and professional associations (Gee, 
 1990, p.8). Secondary institutions require us to communicate with 
 non-intimates in ways and for purposes beyond those of our face-to-face 
 world.   Secondary uses of language are those developed and employed 
 within our multiple secondary Discourses.   Secondary uses of language 
 include classroom talk, filling forms, interviewing, writing letters, 
 inputting data, running stock inventories, writing policy, translating, 
 and so on.  
One potent source of educational disadvantage which is increasingly 
 subject to research concerns the mismatch between the primary and 
 secondary Discourses and discourses of certain groups and individuals 
 and the "mainstream" or "official" Discourses and discourses of school. 
  From this perspective it can be argued that 5S have control of the 
 "official/mainstream" school subject literacies and 5M do not, and that 
 this is very much a result of different discursive histories operating 
 across the different social groups in question.  
The modes of speaking, writing, and thinking required for successful 
 practice of school subject literacies defined in "official" terms 
 generally come easily - or, at least, much more easily - to students 
 from social groupings represented in 5S than to those in 5M.  Growing 
 evidence from studies across a range of disciplines indicates that the 
 primary Discourses, cultural capitals, and family resources of students 
 like those in 5S position them advantageously to master the dominant 
 literacy of writing exams, and to enjoy maximum opportunities to learn 
 in classroom settings those "meta level competencies" tested in 
 scholastic exams (compare Wells, 1985; Emmitt & Pollock, 1991; Gee, 
 1990, 1991; Nash, 1993).
The underlying factor here is that dominant social and cultural groups 
 have been able to establish their language, and their knowledge 
 priorities, learning styles, pedagogical preferences, etc., as the 
 "official examinable culture" of school.  Their notions of important 
 and useful knowledge, their ways of representing truth, their ways of 
 arguing and establishing correctness, and their logics, grammars and 
 language are established as the institutional norms by which academic 
 and scholastic success is defined and assessed (Luke, 1993; Heath, 
 1983).  This is not necessarily a conscious process, far less a 
 conspiracy.  It is simply what tends to happen, with the result that 
 the Discourses and discourses of dominant groups become those which 
 dominate education, and become established as major legitimate routes 
 to securing social goods (like wealth and status).  As a result, 
 educational success is patterned along distinct lines of prior 
 discursive experience associated with membership of particular social 
 groups.

Factors associated with success in the context of disadvantage

A literature search revealed only a small number of studies focussing 
 on the factors which promote the success of students from disadvantaged 
 backgrounds.  The factors or influences discussed in these studies can 
 be grouped into three categories: environmental or institutional, 
 interpersonal and intrapersonal (Van Tassel-Baska (1989).

Environmental or institutional factors  
Environmental or institutional factors include the school and the 
 classroom, the family system and religious affiliation.  Durkin (1984) 
 reviewed the literature related to "schools that work" or are 

 successful in teaching poor minority children to read and described the 
 attributes of successful schools as: having strong leaders, good 
 programs and high expectations of student success.  In some schools 
 support programs based on a deficit model of disadvantage have been 
 established.  Blake (1985) found that support programs in themselves 
 were insufficient to affect students' chances of success, that rather 
 "positive environmental qualities" of the institution were vital.  
Family systems and religious affiliations were investigated by Ginsburg 
 and Hanson (1985) in an exploration of the influence of values on the 
 educational success of disadvantaged students.  Values of parents and 
 students and their peers were considered.  The findings were that 
 belief in personal responsibility for success, religious conviction and 
 parental involvement and expectations were highly significant factors 
 influencing success in the face of disadvantage.  A main conclusion was 
 that parental involvement with students and their schooling was 
 critical and that parents have been an under-utilised resource in 
 education.

Intrapersonal characteristics 
Intrapersonal characteristics were explored by Wells and Schwartz 
 (1989) in a study of 60 "successful" subjects from disadvantaged 
 backgrounds.  They concluded that paths to success were very varied but 
 that people from disadvantaged backgrounds shared similar personality 
 traits and experiences, whereas those from advantaged backgrounds have 
 more diverse characteristics.  In agreement with Ginsburg and Hanson 
 (1985) Wells and Schwartz reported that the success of subjects from 
 disadvantaged backgrounds was related to values associated with 
 personal responsibility for success and religious conviction.  
Other intrapersonal influences described in the literature were a high 
 need for achievement, expectancy of success, determination, a strong 
 inner sense of self and of how to handle problems, the ability to 
 postpone gratification and to maintain control over emotions and the 
 ability to be socially responsive in appropriate ways.

Interpersonal influences
The most significant of interpersonal influences was considered to be 
 the relationship of parents to the child and to his or her education 
 (Durkin 1984, Goldberg 1990).  In a case study of a highly successful 
 poor Afro-American, Goldberg reported that the subject believed 
 strongly that the relationship between school and family was "at the 
 heart of a poor child's success or lack of it" (p.41).  Taylor (1991) 
 also considered parental involvement in early schooling to be critical, 
 along with early childhood education, successful early peer 
 relationships and culturally compatible classrooms.  In many cases the 
 "significant other" in the child's life was not a biological parent but 
 a member of the extended family, for example a grandparent.
Relatively little research has been done on the influence of teachers 
 in classrooms.  Rist (1970) and Durkin (1984) reported on the influence 
 of positive teacher expectations on a child's chances of success.  
 Similarly Pedersen, Faucher and Eaton (1978) claimed from case studies 
 of three adults that the teacher was more significant for school 
 achievement and vocational success than such variables as gender, home 
 stability, completeness of family and geographic mobility.
Several writers reject the deficit model of disadvantage and focus on 
 the advantages that disadvantage can provide.  Moses (1985) described 
 the "creative manipulation of the environment of disadvantage" and 
 pointed out how many children "achieve a significant sense of 
 accomplishment and fulfilment because of their inventions, which were 
 necessitated by economic need" (p.338).  Impoverishment itself can be 
 seen as a motivator, inspiring some to achieve in order to escape its 
 limitations.  In addition family relationships are often very strong, 
 with material advantage never having the chance to become a cementing 

 factor.  Family members are valued more for themselves and what they 
 are able to accomplish.  
Blake (1985) saw disadvantaged students as bringing new perspectives to 
 traditional academic material and Van Tassel-Baska (1989) cited a study 
 by Csikszentmihalyi and Beattie (1979) which demonstrated that the 
 difference between successful and unsuccessful poor immigrants was "the 
 interpretation they rendered to poverty" (p.23).  As also reported by 
 Moses (1985) in the context of education, successful immigrants were 
 highly motivated by their adverse circumstances.
Important influences on the chances of success of students from 
 disadvantaged backgrounds have thus been identified in the literature.  
 The relationship of parents or 'significant others' to the child and 
 their schooling is widely agreed to be the most influential factor and 
 attention is drawn to the lack of use of parents as a resource in 
 education.

This study

In the account that follows we try to accommodate and build upon these 
 theoretical insights, paying special attention to the construction of 
 school subject literacies and notions of "successful practice" within 
 one secondary school.  In addition, we address aspects of educational 
 disadvantage, although our inquiry and findings here are strictly 
 limited and merit considerable further development.
During the past two decades literacy scholars, in the US and the UK 
 particularly, have made considerable advances in understanding the 
 disjunctions that occur for many students between the literacies of 
 their homes and communities and those of their classrooms 
 (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Edelsky, 1991; Gee, 1990, 1991; Graff, 1979, 
 1982; Heath, 1982, 1983; Street, 1984). Moreover, the significance of 
 this disjunction for educational underachievement patterned by social 
 class and ethnicity, is becoming increasingly clear (Hunter & Harman, 
 1979; Lankshear, 1990; Lankshear & Lawler, 1989).
These advances in (mainly) overseas knowledge have generated a sense of 
 urgency among Australian educationists and policymakers about the need 
 to generate good research into home and community literacies, and to 
 harness this research to developing classroom pedagogies and to 
 improving the preparation of language and literacy educators 
 (Australia's Language, 1991; Christie, 1991).  While some large and 
 potentially very important studies of the interface been literacy and 
 educational disadvantage are currently underway in Queensland (e.g., 
 Freebody, in progress), there are important gaps in understanding that 
 need to be addressed by smaller and closely focused studies.  These 
 gaps are in two main areas.
Firstly, studies of the school-community literacy interface tend to 
 focus on, at most, two of the three "agencies" involved in the 
 equation: students, parents and teachers.  Delgado-Gaitan's important 
 work (1990), for example, emphasises teachers and parents at the 
 expense of the students themselves.  Moll's (1992) work leaves the same 
 gap.  Heath's landmark ethnography (1983) made teachers aware of home 
 literacies, but failed to make parents/caregivers aware of school 
 literacies.  And Meyers' (1992) excellent investigations of the 
 literacies of disadvantaged students leave teachers and parents out of 
 the picture.
Secondly, local research into literacy and disadvantage focuses 
 overwhelmingly on underachievement (Freebody, 1993; Bull and Anstey, 
 1992).  Strong efforts are being made to diagnose "causes" of literacy 
 failure that is patterned by ethnicity, social class, and other 
 variables of disadvantage.  Diverse reasons and causes have been 
 advanced for patterned underachievement, ranging from deficit models to 
 theories of structured discrimination. Pedagogical implications 
 intended to mitigate the factors at work in the patterning of 

 underachievement have been suggested accordingly.  Unfortunately, to 
 date there has been no comparable effort to complement this research by 
 addressing cases of school literacy success on the part of objectively 
 disadvantaged students.  Given current emphases on investigating higher 
 performers and best practices in other areas - e.g. economic production 
 - in the hope of providing exemplars for others to learn from, it is 
 timely to introduce this focus to the study of literacy and 
 disadvantage.
This study will investigate socio-cultural and pedagogical factors 
 associated with instances of successful practice of school subject 
 literacies at senior secondary levels, within contexts officially 
 designated as "disadvantaged".  It differs from previous studies in 
 that it involves case studies of successful school subject literacies 
 using triads consisting of successful students in a variety of 
 subjects, one or more of their primary caregivers and one of their 
 teachers.  This papers forms a preliminary analysis of the data.  In 
 particular, it aims to consider evidence from the data on some 
 contextual factors related to success, the construction of subject 
 literacy in the various subjects and the practices employed to achieve 
 literacy.


Design
Participants

The school
A large secondary school on the southern outskirts of Brisbane was 
 selected for this study.  This school has a significant ethnic/racial 
 mix and a high representation of low-socioeconomic students.  It is 
 classified by the State Department of Education as a disadvantaged 
 school.  Two of the investigators had prior contact with the school in 
 form of research consultancies.

The students, teachers and caregivers  
Six teachers from the school volunteered to join the study.  They 
 represented the subjects areas of Catering, Economics, English, 
 Mathematics, Physics and General Science.  Each teacher nominated one 
 student from their class whom they considered as highly successful in 
 literacy in their subject area.  Students were chosen from Grades 10, 
 11 and 12.  Care was taken in selecting an overall sample with wide 
 representation of gender and ethnic background.  The students were 
 accepted into the program only after at least one of their primary 
 caregivers agreed to participate in the project as well.  Hence, six 
 triads were formed consisting of the student, teacher and one of the 
 caregivers.  Table 1 summarises the background information about all 
 the participants.

Instruments

Interviews  
There were four types of interviews used in this study:  structured, 
 semi-structured, and unstructured individual interviews, and 
 semi-structured group interviews  (Cohen & Mannion, 1985).  All 
 interviews were conducted at the school during lunch breaks.  Some 
 parent interviews were conducted outside school.  Interviews were audio 
 taped and later transcribed.  In general, interviews lasted 
 approximately 45 minutes.  

Questionnaires   
Three questionnaires were used for collecting background information 
 about the different participants in the triads, one each for students, 
 teachers, and caregivers respectively.

Diaries
Students were asked to keep a daily journal of any experience they had 
 that was related to literacy in the subject area.  They were provided 
 with a portable tape recorder and a blank tape for each week of the 
 study.  They were asked to talk into the tape recorder at least once a 
 day to record comments from parents/guardians, teachers or friends 
 about performance in the subjects at school, and feelings toward school 
 work, teachers actions and parents comments.  Diaries were collected 
 weekly and transcribed.  Diary entries were often used in unstructured 
 interviews with students as a starting point for discussion.

Classroom observations  
A non-intrusive and non-structured classroom observation was conducted 
 in each of the six classes.

Procedures

A letter was sent to the school explaining the aims of the project and 
inviting teachers to volunteer.  A meeting between the participating 
teachers and the research team was then held.  In this meeting the 
details of the project were discussed.  Special attention was given to 
the selection of the students for the study.  Teachers were asked to 
nominate a highly successful student in their subject area.  No other 
criteria were given.  The participating students were nominated by 
their teachers and approved by the school principal.  Just before the 
data collection was organised a meeting of the research team and the 
students was held.  The aims of the project were discussed and the 
requirements for data collection agreed to.  This was followed by 
individual interviews with each person of the triad.  Student diaries 
lasted four weeks.  Tapes were collected on Friday of every week and 
were transcribed forthwith.  During the four weeks one classroom 
observation was conducted.  During the second week a second individual 
interview was conducted with each student and in the third week they 
participated in a group interview with the researchers.  The final 
individual interviews with the students were delayed because of exams 
and holidays.  These were conducted about two months after the end of 
the study.  


Results
Aspects of motivation

In the group interview, we asked students about the role of ability in 
 determining success in a school subject.  They all agreed that interest 
 and hard work determine success, whereas ability makes the task a 
 little easier.  We then asked what factors motivate success in a 
 subject area.  Not all students were motivated by the same drives.  For 
 example, Brian remembered wanting to be a chef from a very early age.  
 His choice of pursuing courses in Catering was, in one sense, 
 determined by his interest and desire to get a job in that field.  He 
 was aware  that hard work and motivation contributed to his success in 
 Catering.  As Brian put it, "everybody can do it if they put their 
 heads to it."  Renata chose Economics because she has always liked 
 social sciences as they allow one to understand the world.   She is 
 aware of the need for school subjects for getting ahead in life and is 
 keen herself about going to university, but her primary motivation was 
 intrinsic interest in Economics.  Her secondary goal in life was to 

 make lots of money.  Interestingly she did not make a direct connection 
 between her choice of subject and this aim in life!  A similar pattern 
 occurred with Scott.  He had chosen Mathematics because it is related 
 to his chosen career in architecture.  Scott never talked in terms of 
 an intrinsic interest in Mathematics.  He expressed, rather, that his 
 strongest motivation for wanting to succeed in Mathematics was due to 
 the desire for career satisfaction as an architect.  His secondary 
 motivator was to make lots of money (similar to Renata's).  Yet he did 
 not connect the job to the making of money directly.  Rather, he viewed 
 the job as providing enough money to make investments in a franchise in 
 order to make "lots of money".  He was also motivated by the fear of 
 failure.  The feeling of not understanding something left him with a 
 dread of failing the exam.   Marta's success in English seems also to 
 have been partly conditioned by her personal interest in it.  She also 
 noted that it would be useful for her chosen field of psychology.  She 
 also tried to relate the subject matter of English to her life and 
 found that this made her understanding of both much easier.  Coming 
 from a non-English speaking background, she considered learning a 
 second language as a  challenge.   Finally, both Helen and Ann regarded 
 their science subjects as vehicles for university entry and, hence, 
 better jobs.  Neither really showed any genuine interest in the 
 subject.   
It should be highlighted that the careers these students aspired to 
 were outside their normal experience.  When asked if they knew anyone 
 in their family who was good in that area, or had encouraged them to do 
 well, most could only identify their parents and teachers.  No one knew 
 a person in the chosen career.  The following exchange with Scott is 
 indicative:

Interviewer:[Do your parents] encourage you to [go to university]?
Scott:Yes.  They want me to go right through.  The same with my 
 [younger] sister.  But my sister, .... she does gymnastics.  She sort 
 of, more want to .....  she does not want to have a degree or anything. 
  I think she just wants to live like a normal person, she reckons ...  
 like have a normal job and that.
Interviewer:Normal, meaning ...?
Scott:Not having, like, a degree or anything. 

This section of interview transcript illustrates how alienated students 
 were from the world of  higher education and professional careers.  
 This was not the only case of such alienation.  In the group interview, 
 students were asked to imagine what the life of a professional person 
 in their subject area (eg. a scientist , mathematician or an economist) 
 would be like.   Ann offered, "a scientist is someone who is always 
 doing experiments."  When asked what  it takes to be good at doing 
 experiments, she replied, "reading instructions."  Scott described 
 mathematics as getting "harder and harder" from high school to 
 university.  He continued, "every couple of years they find something 
 more that you've got to learn."  Marta identified the difference 
 between a writer and a student of English as "they [writers] build 
 their character up as they learn new things."  In all these comments 
 there was no attempt to describe professionals as inventers of 
 knowledge.  The agency in knowledge construction was always in the 
 third person.
Student ideas of success and achievement were usually qualified.  
 Although achievement was valued, maximising achievement by extending 
 one's ability was not evident.  Often ambition was not at the top of 
 the list.  Marta, for example, was satisfied getting an Overall 
 Position (OP level) in the top ten.  Failing that, she would return the 
 next semester and try again.  Self assessment by these students was 
 often reserved.  Many were surprised and excited that they had been 
 chosen for the project.  They were aware of the selection criteria.  

 When asked if she received the best marks in the subject, Marta 
 remarked,  "I do not know about the best mark, but I get good marks, at 
 least".  When asked about the theory part of Catering and why some 
 students found it difficult, Brian observed that, "they are just lazy." 
 If they did the work they would succeed in it.  He attributed his high 
 achievement in the subject to hard work rather than ability or manner 
 of understanding.  In conclusion, although some students were motivated 
 to achieve in their subject by their own personal interest, all six saw 
 education as a pathway to better jobs.  
Another aspect of motivation for this group of students  was the role 
 of the home.  Five of the six came from  two parent families.  Ann came 
 from a single parent family where the father had made an extra effort 
 to provide a feeling of security and continuity in the family.  With 
 the exception of one triad, they were working class families with an 
 income of at least $20,000.  Most of these parents had left school 
 before graduating from high school.  They often felt inadequate to 
 provide academic assistance to their children.  However, they were all 
 rather closely involved in the education of their children.  All six 
 students talked about the encouragement and approval their parents gave 
 them and of parents monitoring their progress.  Scott, for example, 
 indicated that his parents wanted him to do his best.  Even in subjects 
 and or specific exams in which he did not achieve well, they were not 
 disappointed, if they were satisfied that he had tried his hardest.  
 Renata discussed her parents checking on her assignments and taking her 
 to library, but noted, "they do not push!"  Marta's parents took 
 education very seriously.  They often discussed her career plans with 
 her.  They broached the possibility of Marta going back to her country 
 of origin to work.  But she said they are not pushy about it.  Brian's 
 mother indicated that, although she was not particularly happy with her 
 son's choice of a non-traditional male career, she was happy as long as 
 her children were doing their best in whatever area they chose.  Ann's 
 father left school after Year 9 and had a variety of jobs.  He wrote on 
 the questionnaire, "very early in my working life I realised the 
 advantages of academic achievement."  He has strongly encouraged and 
 supported his children in their education and it seemed likely that 
 some of Ann's motivation stemmed from acceptance of her father's 
 values.  In conclusion, although the families of these students 
 included very few with university education, the parents believed in 
 and valued education as a vehicle for getting ahead in life.  
 Interestingly, they did not push it.  Even in cases in which they 
 claimed no knowledge of the subject matter, they kept up-to-date with 
 their child's performance at school.  


Construction of literacy

The data suggest that  literacy is constructed differently in the 
 different subjects.  Furthermore, different sets of students and 
 teachers tend to develop this construction along various lines.
Marta's English teacher viewed literacy as involving two components,  
 composition and comprehension.  A highly literate person in English was 
 one who could "compose with very deliberate control over what we might 
 call the textual features of a piece of written text."  Of similar 
 importance was the ability "to comprehend with subtlety and 
 sensitivity."  This included "the ability to read  between the lines, 
 so to speak," and "to understand features such as symbolism or 
 metaphorical language."  Control over textual features involved 
 traditional skills such as grammar, spelling, punctuation and so on.  
 In the process of writing, the teacher stressed the importance of 
 planning.  Even from short plans a student could produce a coherent and 
 sustained piece of writing.  Yet, the teacher also valued the student 
 finding her/his own voice as a measure of mature literacy.  

Marta also valued finding her own voice.  She valued spontaneity in 
 writing and was less bound by conventional criteria than by her own 
 will, wishes and desires.  Her uncompromising style was carefree and 
 creative.  Her description of her writing process revealed a clear 
 sense of audience.  In school work, the audience was the teacher.  She 
 paid close attention to his view of the genre, as Marta put it, "what 
 is to go in and not to go in."  She took seriously her teacher's 
 comments on her essays.  She was conscious of the role of the various 
 segments of essays.  Hence, with the exception of the stress on 
 planning there did not seem to be great incongruence between the 
 student and the teacher's views of literacy in English.
Renata's Economics teacher viewed literacy as involving understand of 
 jargon.  It involved the use of language to express opinion on the 
 subject.  Literacy involved the  ability to apply academic concepts to 
 the real world.  Understanding involved higher-order skills such as 
 organisation, analysis and synthesis.  The teacher valued research 
 skills in the acquisition of knowledge.  He attempted, in his teaching, 
 to stress process along with content.  
For Renata, literacy was the skills one used for clear communication.  
 She stressed the importance of accuracy in spelling, grammar and 
 punctuation.  She attempted to observe the conventions and rules for 
 academic work.  Tidiness and being logical and systematic in 
 development of ideas were important.  In writing, Renata often was 
 conscious of her audience.  Her audience was an uninformed person who 
 needed detailed and careful explanation.  She stressed the use of 
 diagrams and graphs where appropriate.  Renata's conception of literacy 
 was at variance with her teacher's in that she did not stress the 
 higher-order skills of organising, analysis and synthesis.
Brian's Catering teacher saw literacy as manifested in the choice of 
 more complicated and unfamiliar recipes to carry out and in the 
 modification of  a recipe.  A literate person sought new knowledge with 
 confidence.  This was achieved by asking for more explanation from the 
 teacher or external readings.  Language literacy and numeracy were 
 important prerequisites, but not sufficient, for Catering literacy.  
 There was a need for visualisation of the final product, not merely 
 following recipe instructions.  
Brian's view of literacy was quite different from the teacher's.  To 
 him, a successful student was one who can do the work that is required 
 of him.  Literally following recipes was the procedure for success.  
 The motivation was getting good marks.  Hence, the game was knowing 
 what the teacher wanted and trying to achieve it through hard work.  
 Understanding, according to Brian, was the same as memorising.  When 
 asked about modifying recipes, he said that he had often done that at 
 home to try it out.  If it worked, he would bring it to class.  Even if 
 he did not get good marks, Brian would still be pleased with his 
 achievement.  Hence, while the teacher viewed literacy as being able to 
 be more creative, Brian interpreted it as the ability to follow recipes 
 and learn the materials presented.
Scott's teacher interpreted literacy in Mathematics as the ability to 
 read word problems, understand what they were asking for,  and being 
 able to abstract the mathematical situation out of them.  Being good in 
 a subject was not the same as being literate in it.  Literacy in 
 mathematics involved more than following procedures.  It involved being 
 able to understand them.  Mathematical ability involved the application 
 of  procedures and concepts to new situations.  Literate students 
 attempted challenging and novel problems.  Scott's teacher 
 differentiated between numeracy and literacy in mathematics.  He used 
 the term numeracy to denote low-level numerical skills required in 
 day-to-day living such as calculating percentages and understanding 
 graphs.  While literacy included the ability to be critical about the 
 meaning of and to provide reasons for mathematical assertions, the 
 teacher also acknowledged the importance of familiarity with the 

 standard terminology of mathematics as part of mathematical literacy.  
 Mathematical symbols were a shorthand system to read and write 
 mathematics.  
Scott also aimed at full understanding.  Understanding to him was the 
 ability of being "able to do it."  He was not perfectly clear about 
 what he meant by understanding.  However, he noted a difference between 
 lower and abstract mathematics.  In lower mathematics, "you do it until 
 you understand it."  In higher mathematics "you need to understand it 
 in order to do it".  Higher mathematics was more than simply knowing 
 which formula to use.  Like his teacher, Scott saw understanding as the 
 ability to use mathematics in novel situations.  The role of 
 demonstrating mathematical assertions was simply to reduce the memory 
 load of formulas.  Similarly, definitions were not as important as 
 solving problems.  Moreover, mathematical knowledge was very 
 hierarchical.  To be successful in higher mathematics, one needed to 
 have done well in primary school.  
Ann's science teacher played down the difference between science 
 literacy and general literacy.  Science literacy involved, "using 
 language written or spoken in order to receive information, process it 
 and re-transmit information, the basis of communication."  The only 
 difference was that science used some technical language.  This 
 language was optional to science.  He asserts, "I think that science 
 can be written without using a language of its own...you can just pick 
 another word out of the English language and not use the one that is 
 really put aside by science for describing that situation."  The 
 teacher was aware of the unequal access to power that exclusive 
 scientific language could lead to.  This de-stressing of the technical 
 language of science was intended to increase its accessibility for 
 students.  As examples of using science in everyday life, the teacher 
 used examples such as understanding how to operate a VCR and 
 "understanding little bits about the technology bases type accidents."  
 Science literacy was narrowly defined and did not include the 
 development of a critical awareness of the nature of science and its 
 limitations and its role in society.  
While Ann described science as, "just a subject that you do at school," 
 she also felt it "gives you bits of knowledge about everyday life."  
 She saw learning science as memorising information, particularly the 
 meanings of words and she rarely mentioned understanding.  The source 
 of almost all her learning was the textbook, and when this failed, she 
 sought answers from her father or teacher.  She did not value 
 discussion, saying, "because if you do that, then you're just talking 
 about, you know you're not learning all the other stuff."   Her view of 
 science literacy closely reflected that of her teacher.  This view was 
 a narrow one, amounting to a view of science as technical knowledge.  
 Ann's teacher praised her use of the textbook, attributing her success 
 to this and her strong motivation.  As he put it,  "Ann has just 
 discovered how to use the textbook.  She's one of the few people that 
 has learnt how to teach themselves."  He did not appear to provide 
 students with experiences of extended writing, discussion of science 
 issues or independent research and gave students few experiences of 
 science beyond the classroom.  It is not surprising that Ann's view of 
 science was similarly limited.
Helen's Physics teacher saw Physics literacy as requiring a combination 
 of a "good brain that works" and high motivation.  To be truly literate 
 in Physics meant to be good at mathematics.  A literate Physics student 
 went beyond the teacher's explanations to ask, "what if this happens or 
 what if that happens."  A successful student  listened closely to 
 teacher explanations, and made them his/her own by challenging prior 
 conceptions and entering into serious classroom discussions with the 
 teacher.  As students and teacher "argued backwards and forwards" the 
 new concepts become more familiar and began to "belong to the student 
 as their own intellectual property."  One mark of a student that is 

 recognised as being literate in Physics was for other students to 
 regularly ask for their help and advice about how to do problems.  Only 
 after attempting understanding from reading the text and trying 
 problems, did a literate student ask questions of the teacher.    
Helen's conception of Physics literacy was that concepts needed to be 
 understood.  This was achieved by two methods, doing experiments and 
 solving problems.  Experiments helped Helen to understand the concepts 
 explained in the text book and by the teacher.  The bottom line for 
 being literate in Physics was to understand how to solve the problems, 
 as these were the basis for understanding the concepts of Physics.  To 
 do the problems, required good mathematical skills and knowledge.  
 Helen's view on being literate in Physics did not differ from her 
 teacher's. 
Do teachers construct their views of subject literacies and practices 
 according to their perceptions of the type of students they teach?  In 
 this study there was evidence of this in three out of six triads.  
 Ann's Science teacher tried to minimise his use of the technical 
 language of science.  He became aware of "the narrow vocabulary that 
 the kids come with" and saw coping with the technical language of 
 science as perhaps beyond their language capabilities or at least as a 
 barrier to their understanding of science concepts.  Whilst in one 
 sense he may have been successful in making science more accessible to 
 them, in another sense he may have limited their access to formal 
 science that is valued in higher education and science related careers. 
  Similarly, Renata's Economics teacher was conscious of the "basic 
 literacy shortfall" of her students, referring to the students' limited 
 vocabulary as a barrier to "getting through to the level of analysis".  
 She has adapted her teaching style to this, using a more "traditional" 
 approach than she would like to.  On the other hand Marta's English 
 teacher modified his earlier traditional approach to a more progressive 
 one to meet the needs of his students.  He implied that these 
 progressive practices did not form "good teaching in literature" but 
 they were more suitable for this school.  

Developing literacy

The practices of the students, teachers and parents to develop 
 literacies varied across students and subject areas.  However,  it was 
 possible to identify three types of practices that most students got 
 involved in, and most teachers identified as relevant, to literacy in 
 their area.  This was not to say that all participants followed similar 
 practices in developing literacy.  Within the general broad categories, 
 there were significant variations in how that practice was actualised.

Seeking understanding  
The teachers and students identified some basic skills such as reading 
 and writing, knowledge of rules and technical terms as essential 
 components of literacy that they desired.  However, in all cases there 
 were attempts to go beyond these basic skills, towards understanding.  
 As discussed above, not all students and their teachers viewed 
 understanding in the same way.  However, in all cases there was an 
 attempt to develop a deeper knowledge of the area studied.  
Scott identified a struggle to reach understanding of the higher more 
 abstract concepts of Mathematics.  His conception of understanding was 
 not well articulated.  However, lack of understanding manifested itself 
 to Scott as lack of ability to do the more difficult exercises, and led 
 to severe anxiety.  Scott was quite determined to reach this 
 understanding which he perceived as a prerequisite for getting good 
 marks.  Many of his practices aimed at this.  Similar views were 
 expressed by Helen.  Understanding in Physics was measured by the 
 ability to solve unfamiliar problems.  Doing experiments helped Physics 
 students understand the concepts explained in the book or by the 
 teacher.  Scott dismissed the possibility of doing concrete 
 demonstrations of mathematical ideas because the equipment was too 
 expensive. 
Brian's work in Catering demonstrated attempts at understanding as 
 well.  To him, understanding was a prerequisite for remembering.  
 Later, he asserts that remembering and understanding are the same 
 thing.  He noted that he could remember things that were important to 
 him.  This is why motivation was very important in performance.  
 According to Brian, understanding and remembering in a subject such as 
 Catering were only achieved through effort and did not depend on 
 ability or prior learning.  
Renata identified seeking understanding as a valuable aim in studying 
 Economics.  She identified certain essential communications skills for 
 learning economic concepts.  However there were situations in which she 
 could not answer the teacher's questions.  This was a sign of lack of 
 understanding.  When this happened Renata acted immediately to improve 
 her understanding by asking questions and reading more.  Economics, 
 according to Renata, enabled one to understand the social life around 
 us.  Hence, understanding of its concepts was essential.  
In discussing her literacy in English, Marta demonstrated a sound 
 meta-language for her subject literacy.  For example, she was aware of 
 the different components of writing that facilitated effective 
 communication.  She revealed a good understanding of the different 
 parts of an essay.  She was aware of the difference between description 
 and evaluation.  She understood the rules of effective writing, but was 
 also able to reject them for the sake of creativity.  
Ann did not seem to differentiate between understanding and memorising. 
  Her view of learning was to repeat the content over and over again.  
 She often asked a sibling to test her on her knowledge.  If she used 
 metacognition at all to aide in memorising that was not clear from the 
 interviews.

Practices
The students employed a variety of techniques to achieve high results 
 in their subject areas.  These variations were due to differences in 
 their aims, interests, confidence, teachers' views and so on.  In 
 seeking deeper understanding, most students demonstrated considerable 
 effort.  All students were quite conscientious about their school work 
 and motivated to do well.  Renata engaged in multiple readings of the 
 material in order to make sense of it.  She engaged in practices such 
 as taking notes and summarising.  As mentioned above, Ann spent 
 considerable time going over the material "over and over again."  Scott 
 attempted to do his homework day by day as soon as he got home, "while 
 the information was fresh in my mind."  He was very conscientious about 

 not falling behind in content.  Brian was self-motivated to do 
 considerable outside searches for recipes.  He attempted to give the 
 teacher a draft of his assignment for comments.  To achieve literacy in 
 Physics,  Helen felt that she needed to do 2 to 4 hours of homework 
 each week.  To prepare for an exam, 3 to 4 hours were necessary.  She 
 attempted all assigned homework problems and asked for teacher help the 
 next day if necessary.  She believed it was important to listen 
 attentively to teacher explanations and write down good lecture notes.  
 These notes were rewritten neatly into an exercise book each night 
 along with problems to be done as homework.  To be literate in Physics, 
 for Helen,  meant also doing experiments.  This involved several steps: 
  using equipment effectively, collecting good data, analysing and 
 interpreting that data.  To be literate at doing experiments, meant 
 that she needed to read the experiment description prior to the 
 experiment and understand what she would be doing.  It also meant 
 measuring things properly, recording data neatly and accurately, and 
 drawing correct graphs.  Marta often searched for, and employed  
 exemplars of the genre of writing she was engaged in.  In her writing 
 Renata made use of quite a variety of drafts to reach the final 
 version.  She also used the read-to-self-aloud method of studying to 
 increase understanding.  Hence, all students made considerable effort 
 to achieve well in the subject.  
At times effort was not deemed to be sufficient.  Students did request 
 assistance.  Very few students used research to solve their problems.  
 Renata reported the use of multiple resources such as notes, textbooks, 
 magazines, reference books and encyclopedias.  Most other students did 
 not hesitate to ask for help.  Since most parents were not able to 
 provide assistance, students asked their teachers.   All students had a 
 very good relationship with their teachers.  Scott requested help from 
 a variety of mathematics and science teachers on the same problem.  The 
 multiple views received increased his chances for understanding.  
 Textbooks in some subjects, such as mathematics, were often used by 
 students and teachers as a source of exercises and not for explanation. 
  Scott complained that these textbooks sounded like they "were written 
 in Chinese."  Brian and Marta often used the teacher to edit/check the 
 material to be submitted for assessment.  

Quality work
The last group of practices that can be identified are those related to 
 thorough and detailed work that these students were able to produce.  
 Brian and Scott were described by their teachers as very thorough in 
 the conduct of their studies and in the final work produced.  Brian 
 took great care in structuring his notes and assignments well.  He 
 usually typed his notes taken in class as soon as he got home.  In 
 doing his assignments, he used previous marked assignments as a guide.  
 He read his assignment sheet very carefully to identify the 
 requirements.  Similar practices were reported by Renata.  Stephen's 
 tidy and neat notebook gave the impression that he re-copied all his 
 notes at home.  Both students were described by their teachers as 
 systematic and thorough in their work.  Ann was similarly thorough in 
 her approach to memorising science.  She worked at this consistently 
 throughout the semester, making lists of terms and writing extended 
 answers to revision questions.
Renata paid attention to tidy presentation and emphasised the 
 importance of being well organised.  She tried to pretend to be another 
 person, reading the material to see if it made sense.  She allowed a 
 long time for completing assignments.  

Conclusions and Discussion

There are several observations that can be made from the above 
 analysis.  As the study proceeded, the concept of disadvantage turned 

 out to be more problematic than first conceived.  The school was chosen 
 primarily because it was officially designated as disadvantaged.  All 
 the students rejected this label.  They equated disadvantaged with 
 having a bad reputation.  They believed that their school's bad 
 reputation had been created by a past history of severe discipline 
 problems.  In 1994 such problems no longer existed.  Scott asserted, 
 "it takes five minutes to ruin someone's name, but to get it back ... 
 it takes years."  Students were quick to point out the advantages of 
 attending their school.  They all felt that they had the opportunity to 
 learn and succeed without the pressure of professional parents or a 
 school hierarchy.  This naturally raises the question of the difference 
 between officially labelled disadvantage and experienced or perceived 
 disadvantage.   Moreover, there is the difference between school and 
 personal disadvantage.  These students came from working class 
 families.  They did not represent the most economically disadvantaged 
 sector of society.
These problems notwithstanding, there was a real sense in which these 
 students could be described as disadvantaged.  This was in relation to 
 their aspirations to achieve academic success and pursue professional 
 careers.  Student comments made it clear that they were not familiar 
 with the demands of university studies or the work of professionals in 
 their subject areas.  Students did not know, nor had much contact, with 
 professionals working in careers related to their school subjects.   
 Their knowledge was restricted to what they did in their school 
 subjects.  They imagined professionals as doing similar work, only 
 involving concepts and procedures that were "harder."  They had no 
 concept of generating knowledge.  This was reinforced by the fact that 
 their teachers did not make direct connections to the kind of work they 
 did in their school courses and the work professionals did in that 
 area.  Education, for these students, was a means to get ahead in life 
 and join more privileged groups of society, and not to participate in 
 the culture of their parents and peers.
Construction of school subject literacies varied from one triad to 
 another.  This variation was a function of the subject matter, its 
 traditional role in society, and the aims and values of individual 
 students and teachers.  Student and teacher views coincided more often 
 than not.  In general, school subject literacy was seen as the ability 
 to absorb and regenerate knowledge or as the ability to solve more 
 difficult problems.  The general aim of teachers and students was to 
 attain an understanding of the subject matter as well as to be able to 
 follow its procedures.  Yet this understanding was short of being a 
 generator of knowledge.  Several researchers have conceptualised a 
 differential curriculum as exhibited between elite schools, that stress 
 higher order skills and abstract knowledge, and disadvantaged schools 
 that stress low level skills and routine knowledge (Anyon, 1981;  
 Willis, 1977).  This was not evident in this study.  This could be 
 because of the working class family background of these particular 
 students.  However, even within this group of students, school subject 
 literacy was seen as different from literacy needed by professional 
 scientists, economists, writers and so on.  Teachers did not explore 
 such differences in their teaching and students remained ignorant of 
 the implications.  Hence, here too, the lack of cultural capital 
 (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) is evident.
Practices that students and teachers followed to achieve literacies 
 varied from one triad to another.  However, there was a strong tendency 
 for students to accept  teachers as the authorities of knowledge and 
 use them as a source of understanding.  Few teachers and students used 
 independent research to generate knowledge and understanding.  With the 
 inability of parents to assist, most students asked the teacher for 
 help.  Arguably, this is part of the self-image of teachers and part of 
 the role that society expects of them.  However, this was not balanced 
 by an emphasis on self-reliance as a source of knowledge construction.  

 Cooper, Atweh, Baturo and Smith (1993) studied the interaction between 
 students and teachers in mathematics classrooms in low and high 
 socioeconomic schools, and found a clear distinction between the amount 
 of self-reliance of students in both schools.  In these six case 
 studies there was a definite culture of reliance on the teacher for 
 development of school literacies.
One factor perceived by students and parents as important for 
 development of high achievement in school was a stable and supportive 
 family setting.  All parents valued the educational achievement for 
 their children and were directly involved in the supervision of their 
 work.  They all provided a supportive, yet non-pressuring atmosphere 
 for academic achievement.  This observation coincides with other 
 studies reported above.  
While the factors that motivated the students for success varied form 
 one case to another, all students had a belief in their ability to 
 succeed.  They attributed their success to determination and hard work. 
  They all aspired to professional careers and valued school as a 
 vehicle to attain them.  They had good relationships with their 
 teachers.  From the small sample used in this study, it is not possible 
 to make claims about the role of these factors in generating successful 
 achievement.  Yet, these factors coincide with evidence from prior 
 research and commonsense expectations.   
Finally, we need to reflect on our practice, and possibly our own 
 literacy, as researchers.  We regard this study as a pilot study with 
 the aim of developing instruments and procedures to better understand 
 literacy in the context of disadvantaged.  Upon reflection, we conclude 
 that modifications in our research design will result in a greater 
 density of data from which we can make more grounded generalisations 
 about factors leading to success in school achievement within the 
 context of a disadvantaged school.  For example, the student diaries 
 could be better structured and utilised to reach deeper understanding 
 of how students develop their subject area literacies.  The majority of 
 diary entries were in the form of stating the amount of homework that 
 the students had to do every day.  These needed to be discussed in more 
 detail with students in order to obtain data on specific problems they 
 faced and how they dealt with them.  Likewise, we were interested in 
 classroom interactions between students and teachers, and observed 
 classes in progress.  However, most classes were observed only once. 
 These observations were not discussed with the student or the teachers. 
  We see the observational component as a potentially rich source of 
 data that could help extend our knowledge base of what counts as 
 literacy in various subject areas.  Such data could also be better 
 integrated with the other data collected in the study and help develop 
 more reliability in terms of triangulation.  Finally, the rush of four 
 continuous weeks visiting the school to collect data and the time lag 
 for transcribing recorded interviews did not always allow for 
 substantial time to share results and obtain reactions from students, 
 teachers, and caregivers.  In follow-up studies, we hope to use 
 alternating weeks to allow for transcribing.  A longitudinal study is 
 also planned so that we can follow students throughout their two year 
 senior secondary school career.   One focus would be to follow the 
 cycles of how literacy is constructed in the classroom and how the 
 views of the teacher and students conflict and merge over time.

References
Anderson, G., & Irvine, P. (1993). Informing critical literacy with 
ethnography. In C. Lankshear & P. McLaren (Eds.) Critical Literacy: 
Politics, Praxis and the Postmodern (pp. 81-104). Albany, NY.: State 
University of New York Press. 
Anyon, J. (1981).  Social class and school knowledge.  Curriculum 
Inquiry, 11, 3-42.
Baker, C. and Freebody, P. (1989) Children's First Schoolbooks, Oxford: 

Blackwell.
Blake, J. Herman (1985) Approaching Minority Students as Assets.  
Academe, 71(6), 19-21.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1977).  Reproduction in education, 
society and culture.  London: Sage Publications.
Cooper, T., Atweh. B., Baturo, A., & Smith, R. (1993).  High 
intellectual functioning, empowerment and oral communication in 
mathematics instruction.  In M. Stephens, A. Waywood, D. Clarke & J. 
Izard, Communicating Mathematics: Perspectives from classroom practice 
and current research. (pp. 1-25). Victoria: Australian Council for 
Educational Research.: 
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Beattie, O. (1979) Life themes: A theoretical 
and empirical exploration of their origins and effects.  Humanistic 
Psychology, 19(1), 45-63.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990) Literacy for Empowerment: The Role of Parents 
in Children's Education, London: Falmer Press.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. and Trueba H. (1991) Crossing Cultural Borders: 
Education for Immigrant Families in America, London: Falmer Press. 
Durkin, D. (1984) Poor black children who are successful readers. Urban 
Education, 19(1), 53-76.
Edelsky, C. (1991) With Literacy and Social Justice for All, London: 
Falmer Press.
Emmitt, M. and Pollock, J. (1991) Language and Learning, Melbourne: 
Oxford University Press.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gee, J. (1990) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in 
Discourses, London: Falmer Press.
Gee, J. (1992) "Literacies: tuning into forms of life" Education 
Australia 19, 13-14.
Gee, J. and Lankshear, C. (1995) "The new work order: critical language 
awareness and fast capitalist texts", Discourse: The Australian Journal 
of Educational Studies 16, 1 (forthcoming).
Ginsburg, A. & Hanson, S. (1985) Values and educational success among 
disadvantaged students, Decision Resources Corp. Washington, DC for 
Department of Education, Washington, DC.  
Goldberg, M. (1990) Portrait of James P. Comer, Educational Leadership, 
September 1990, 40-42.
Gowen, S. (1992) The Politics of Workplace Literacy, New York: Teachers 
College Press. 
Green, J. (1990) "Reading is a social process", Selected Papers from 
the 15th Australian Reading Association Conference, Canberra: ARA, 
104-123.
Heath, S.B. (1982) "What no bedtime story means: narrative skills at 
home and school", Language and Society 11, 1, 49-76.
Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways With Words, Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press.
Hirshon, S. (1982) And Also Teach Them to Read, Westport, Connecticut: 
Lawrence Hill and Co.
Hull, G. (1993) "Hearing other voices: a critical assessment of popular 
views on literacy and work" Harvard Educational Review 63, 1.
Jones, A. (1986) At School I"ve Got a Chance: Ideology and Social 
Reproduction in a Secondary School.  Unpublished PhD thesis, University 
of Auckland.
Jones, A.  (1991) "At School I"ve Got a Chance" Culture/Privilege: 
Pacific Islands and Pakeha Girls at School, Palmerston North: Dunmore 
Press.
Kantor, R. Green, J. Bradley, M, and Lin, L. (1992) "The construction 
of schooled discourse repertoires: an interactional sociolinguistic 
perspective on learning to talk in preschool", Linguistics and 
Education 4, 131-172.
Levett, A. and Lankshear, C. (1990) Going for Gold: Priorities for 
Schooling in the Nineties, Wellington: Daphne Brasell Press.

Luke, A. (1988) Literacy, Textbooks and Ideology: Postwar Literacy 
Instruction and the Mythology of Dick and Jane, London: Falmer Press.
Luke, A. (1993) 'shaping literacy in schools: an introduction", in L. 
Unsworth (ed) Language as Social Practice in the Primary School, South 
Melbourne: MacMillan, 3-53. 
Moses, E. Gnanaraj (1985) Advantages of Being Disadvantaged: a Paradox. 
Journal of Negro Education, 54(3). 333-343.
Nash, R. (1993) Succeeding Generations: Family Resources and Access to 
Education in New Zealand, Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Pedersen E., Faucher T.A. & Eaton, W.W. (1978) A new perspective on the 
effects of first-grade teachers on children's subsequent adult status. 
Harvard Education Review, 42, 1-31.
Rist, R.C. (1970) Student social class and teacher expectations: The 
self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education.  Harvard Education 
Review, 40, 411-451. 
Searle, C. (1984) Words Unchained: Language and Revolution in Grenada, 
London: Zed Press.
Searle, C. (1993) "Words to a life-land: literacy, the imagination, and 
Palestine", in C. Lankshear and P. McLaren (eds) Critical Literacy: 
Politics, Praxis and the Postmodern, Albany, NY.: State University of 
New York Press, 167-192.
Shor, I. (1980) Critical Teaching and Everyday Life, Boston: South End 
Press. 
Street, B. (1984) Literacy in Theory and in Practice, Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, A. (1991) Social competence and the early school transition for 
Afro-American children. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 15-26.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1989) The Role of the Family in the Success of 
Disadvantaged Gifted Learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 
13(1), 22-36.
Wells, G. (1987) The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and 
Using Language to Learn, London: Hodder and Stoughton. 
Wells, A. & Schwartz, W. (1989)  The Disadvantaged: Paths to Success.  
National Center on Education and Employment, Columbia University, New 
York.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour. Lexington, MA.: D.C. Heath.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations, Oxford, Basil 
Blackwell.