Are you familiar with the expression "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"? Well that has been my problem this week. I have literally nothing nice to say about this week's reading, yet I still have to blog about it. Please know I am trying my best to avoid a rant.
After reading Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I've decided I disagree with almost all of its fundamental elements. I somewhat agree with one main element, which I will later discuss, but I still feel like a mix of his ideas with something else would work better.
“The oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having more as a privilege which dehumanizes others and themselves. They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a possessing class, they suffocate in their own possessions and no longer are; they merely have.” - Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Did you immediately understand the above quote? Because at first, I did not. Like most of this book's ideas, I had to read this one several times before I understood what Freire might have been trying to say. Helpful tip: It helps if you read slowly and mouth the words. You'll look like an imbecile, but slowing down may help you understand this book, which perhaps suffers from one-too-many translations. To me, it seemed that if his book was meant to shake up the oppressed, then the language used should have been more accessible to the largely undereducated masses. Ironically, readers confused by Pedagogy's wording are not alone. Freire reported later in life that his language in Pedagogy may have been off-putting to the very readers he wanted to attract. His works after Pedagogy of the Oppressed are supposedly written with a much more conversational and accessible style.
According to Freire there is no grey area or either/or choice to pick from when it comes to oppression. We are either with the oppressed or against them. Since I believe in letting teachers impart their knowledge onto children who can take that knowledge as a fact, I'm probably an oppressor. I believe that teachers have to teach so that their students can create real acts of knowing.
Freire describes our current education system using a banking model where teachers teach and students are taught. He says students are not allowed to contradict or ask questions about what is being taught, and are forced to merely be empty receptacles to be filled with information. This method would be preferred by oppressors and won't ever allow for radical change. In this model, learning is passive.
Freire says students learn "four times four is sixteen; the capital of Para is Belem. The student records, memorizes, and repeats these phrases without perceiving what four times four really means, or realizing the true significance of 'capital' in the affirmation 'the capital of Para is Belem,' that is, what Belem means for Para and what Para means for Brazil." This promotes the idea that knowledge can only grow through invention and reinvention, and that only through "restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry with the world and with each other" can we ever really learn anything.
According to Freire's thoughts above, memorization can't be true learning. But who the hell could learn their multiplication tables otherwise? And while I agree that discussion should be allowed in the classroom, I also think that the teacher should be able to decide when correct times are for that discussion and resulting questions. Teachers have to teach certain ideas so their students will be prepared for state testing. Tests might be oppressive, but the teachers are not at fault. They don't necessarily have time to answer all questions and follow through children's unrelated tangents. Questions that help understand material are absolutely important, but teachers should be given the power to decide what constitutes as an important discussion and how far to take it. As much as they can, teachers today do try to get to know their students and break down learning so it is appealing and applicable to student life. At least the good teachers anyway.
If students are unsatisfied with their school education, there are other avenues that were not discussed in any part of the book that I noticed. What about learning with friends, parents, or from different communities? Even the kids at IHAD follow this model. Their teachers teach them basic concepts they need for testing, answer any questions pertaining to the information, and other questions if time allows. Then, the students leave school, teach themselves the content and voice their questions to outside help. As far as math, science, and history, I believe this model works pretty well. Student's can learn information from teachers (who DO know more than their students when it comes to the curriculum), ask questions for clarification, and explore their interests further outside of the classroom or for extra assignments like pick-your-own-topic projects. Teachers learning from students and vise versa should be a by-product of a set curriculum that makes sure students are well prepared for life outside of the education system. Additional learning and sharing beyond that can be shared after school hours. With outside learning expected, I don't believe a set curriculum that presents four times four being sixteen as a fact will stifle children's "real learning".
I most agree with Freire's banking model when it comes to creativity in the classroom. Well, what I believe he would've said, since I don't thing it was covered directly. I do think that student's creativity is being stifled in our school systems- from creative arts like theater, choir, band and art all the way up to creative writing and English. Asheville city schools cramming two whole classes into one small art, music, theater, etc. room for only one day a week forces children to learn what they are told, and does indeed stop them from reinventing and personalizing art, and deprives all society or a creativity we could have fostered.
I've made it through the blog without too much of a rant. I believe the book used unnecessarily confusing language and skipped over the facts that teachers are required to teach most information, questioning is usually allowed in school, and not all learning is done in school. Perhaps I missed these points, or this wasn't Freire's intent anyway. It is hard to know, what with of those complicated quotes. I will concede that the book made me realize people have been pushing for more creativity in the classroom decades before our arts budgets were cut, and that this is a serious problem at the forefront of educational reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment