Even to those who have not done well at school, or who have spent little time there, the discourses defining the "correct" ways to be a student or a teacher are well-known. As Heald has written elsewhere, such discourses "do not so much describe as attempt to DEFINE identities, setting the limits of what can be done within the subject position, by whatever incumbent..." (1991:137). In defining "good students", the discourse defines "bad students" by default. Because the discourse appears neutral, one's competence as a student appears to be a function of the presence or absence of personal qualities, rather than of biases concealed within the discourse:

Other elements which appear 'neutral' aspects of education include a separation of knowledge and opinion; a belief that the only proper and useful knowledge is rational knowledge; an understanding that schooling requires tactics aimed at credentials rather than the learning which credentials are supposed to represent; a sense of earning one's way through some combination of hard work and talent; a sense that the only question to be asked about educational knowledge and training is whether the students are adequate to the tasks set, not whether there is a problemwith the tasks (Heald, 1991:137-138).

In spite of their lack of success in occupying the category "student," literacy learners are still positioned within this discourse.

Educational discourses also define what is appropriate to learn, how students should behave, how teachers should behave, and the boundaries marking the kinds of things appropriate to talk about at school. For example, academic subjects are considered to be the "real" work of school. This is true, in spite of years of research in the sociology of education (eg, Bowles and Gintis, 1976) which shows that the social importance of schooling has much more to do with sorting people into categories deemed "appropriate" to their class, race and gender status, as well as teaching some people the importance of assembly-line related skills (showing up on time, following instructions, being deferential to authority, etc.) In our research, we can see how the dominant discourses of education supercede committed workers' and learners' sense of what is important and appropriate for them to pay attention to and spend time on in class. So, for example, one instructor commented that although she thought it important for students to "talk about themselves as students", she felt it was not legitimate to insist on discussions and lessons on these topics. This was in contrast to her math teaching where she felt able to be "quite directive about what will help and what needs to be worked on." (E-mail correspondence, Evelyn Battell, 12.17.99). We all thought that this hesitancy was at least in part a result of the ways "learning math" is seen to be a clear and important educational goal, while "learning how to be a student" is hidden beneath the assumption that the category student is both natural and neutral.