The bell rings. The teacher takes center stage at the helm of the room, states objectives, and begins the prepared lesson. While the teacher talks, the students are expected to either be still and listen or participate in an activity according to the teacher’s plan. The students are expected to absorb information and retain it with mastery. A student poses an alternative to something presented by the teacher and receives a short excuse of an answer in order to stay on “track” with the day’s objective. At the end of the day, the teacher feels exhausted and the students are restless, overwhelmed, and far from enlightened.
The field of education has changed over time regarding best practices for student success. In a time where high-stakes testing is high priority, many educators have traded in their passion for creative teaching for more traditional methods in order to ensure that their students simply “pass the test” and to be in compliance with what many administrators want. Not only is learning being reduced to a “methods fetish” (Bartolome, 1994), but dialogue that recognizes the student voice is left out of the equation. The concern of which I speak does not only revolve around poor teaching in a hegemonic system, but also includes issues about an education system where people are no longer expressing themselves, but trying to “just get along” with everyone. Teachers and students are not engaging in an interactive learning experience based on “human existence and curiosity” (Horton and Freire, 1991, p. 119).
Teachers “know better”. Those who have been properly educated in theory and pedagogy know that direct instruction is not the best way for young students (elementary and middle school) to learn and retain information. Yet, too many teachers, even the ones who know better, are caught between knowing what the students need and doing what they are told to do. Teachers begin the school year feeling “behind” in terms of covering all of the necessary standards for the state test. It is a race against the clock. There is too much content to cover in too little time. The “decision makers” in power see the current system as helpful to students by filling their heads with curriculum standards for standardized test success. Sure, some of the students may be memorizing content and scoring above proficient and moving on to the next grade level to do it all over again; but, they are not becoming enlightened, empowered, educated members of society. They are being trained to be cogs in the wheel of our country’s education factory. There are three issues I would like to address. One critical issue that I wish to discuss is that of Paulo Freire’s “banking system” of education and how, though written decades ago, is still an issue today. I would also like to address our nation’s obsession with “best practices and pre-packaged methods” as well as a type of dialogue that is not taking place within classrooms while educators practice their “bank clerk/teacher role”.
Paulo Freire describes his “banking system” with the image of the teacher being one who “deposits” information/curriculum into the minds of his/her students without real dialogue. How is this “dialogue” defined? It important to explicitly describe what is meant by this term, because there are many teachers who would claim that dialogue does take place in their classrooms simply because the teachers asks questions and the students answer. According to Freire (1998) dialogue begins with allowing students to be curious about what they are learning, and to allow time for their curiosity to be explored. “If my curiosity is domesticated, I may obtain a level of mechanical memorization of certain aspects of things but never a real grasp or an essential knowledge of the object. The construction or the production of knowledge of the object to be known implies the exercise of curiosity in its critical capacity to distance itself from the object, to observe it, to delimit it, to divide it up, to close in on it, to approach it methodically to make comparisons, to ask questions” (p. 80) Students know when teachers feel that they can not be bothered with too many questions. They simply do. People, despite their age, know what it feels like to be ignored or not taken seriously by another.
Teachers who do not respect the students’ curiosity in its “diverse aesthetic, linguistic, and syntactical expressions; who uses irony to put down legitimate questioning; who is not respectfully present in the educational experience of the student, transgresses fundamental ethical principals of the human condition” (p. 59). Has healthy and educational dialogue been replaced with worksheets and “one-size-fits-all” methods that “teach to the test”? Freire refers to dialogue as “an existential necessity and can not be reduced to the act of one person’s depositing ideas in another, nor it become a simple exchange of ideas to be consumed…” (Friere, 1970, p. 70). He states that dialogue must contain love (which to him is synonymous with courage), faith in humankind, and humility (p. 70-71). It is through this type of dialogue that true learning takes place. Far too often educators, whether because they feel pressed for time or because they are afraid of being questioned, do not instigate or welcome healthy dialogue with their students. According to Frerie (1998), “to teach is not to transfer knowledge but to create the possibilities for the production or construction of knowledge” (p. 30).
Far too often, educators see themselves as the “all knowing” in their classroom. Myles Horton, in his spoken book “We Make the Road by Walking” (1991) speaks to his criticism of experts. Horton states, “If people who want to experts want to tell people what to so because they think it’s their duty to tell them what to do, to me that takes away the power of the people trying to make decisions. There’s no empowerment of the people, no learning.” Those who view themselves as experts believe they are not to be questioned and are certainly more knowledgeable than the students. “There is no valid teaching from which there does no emerge something learned and through which the learner does not become capable of recreating and remaking what has been thought ” (Freire, 1998, p. 31). Allowing a student to voice an opinion and engage in a healthy discussion or debate shows that student that he or she is valued. Teachers must show their students that they are valued. A great way to start this process is to genuinely get to know students. Students need to get to know each other. Students need to be able to dialogue with each other, and teachers need to get a deep understanding of what each student is “bringing to the table” of the learning experience. Teachers need to connect with their students on personal levels. If teachers break the personal connection that the students and the teacher have with the learning, the learning can become meaningless. The learning turns back into the students listening to the expert tell them what to do. (Horton & Friere, 1998).
There are many different approaches to help begin to dissolve this banking system type of teaching. All of them, however, need to begin with a mind shift of the teacher’s perspective of his or her true role in the classroom. As mentioned previously, engaging in healthy dialogue with one’s students opens a door within the classroom that is typically locked shut. Students are receiving information like sponges without a voice with which to disagree, debate, and contribute. What is also alarming is what is too often occurring in classrooms even when students are provided space to share their voices. Rather than being truly explicit with one’s viewpoints and beliefs, students are caught up in this over-bearing “accept everyone” policy. I believe it should be acceptable to value of all walks of culture, race, and ethnicity while continuing to have opinions and confronting viewpoints. Disagreement is healthy. Disagreement can create change, and change is good and needed in our country.
In her article on confronting the cult of neutrality, Faith Agostinone-Wilson (2005) stresses her concern with “status quo” values that are the yardstick for acceptability and balance” (p. 1). She refers to neutrality as a “formidable obstacle for the leftist educator” (p. 1). Though she makes the claim, I also see neutrality as an obstacle for teachers, regardless of political stance. Agostinone-Wilson notes that even the mention of issues concerning race, social class, and politics has a tendency to create an instant reaction of defensiveness on those involved. What has happened because of this reaction? Either people no longer bring up issues in classes or, when they are brought up, people spend the discussion “agreeing” with each other’s points of view or being too quick to accept them. It has become more important to “maintain order and stability then attempting to transform the status quo” (p. 2). We seem to be living in a world where “the customer is always right”. This is happening all the way from elementary classrooms to university settings. Freire and Horton discuss neutrality as well (Horton & Freire, 1991). To them, neutrality does not exist. Neutrality exists so that people do not have to face conflict. It is a mask for people to wear. “Neutrality is the best way for one to hide his or her choice. It is this neutrality vis-à-vis this kind of relationship that works in favor of the dominant” (p. 104). Freire goes on to say, “ It is impossible for education to be neutral, educators have to confront some practical problems” (p. 104).
These “practical problems” can be issues and conflicts relate to the understanding of classroom academic content, as well as issues related to the teacher/administer relationship and the dominant discourse surrounding it. Have people become too worried about making waves? This is where the concept of healthy dialogue comes into the situation. If students were taught early on how to engage in dialogue with trust and respect, then addressing issues critically wouldn’t be so scary or daring. If we wish to make positive changes in education, in learning, and in life we need to re-teach ourselves to learn to deal with being uncomfortable for the sake of growth. An example of how what this tragedy can look within a classroom is as follows. A teacher may be attempting to discuss our recent presidential election with students. One student responds to a question or statement made by the teacher and receives a “good job” or “very nice point” from the teacher. Seeing the praise given by the teacher, another student raises his hand to agree with the first students’ statement. Slowly, the entire class comes to a consensus that the viewpoint at hand is “correct”, despite the fact that there are some in the room who clearly see things differently or do not even agree. Kumshiro (2000) describes this “repetition” as a comforting to people because “it tells us that we are smart or good” (p. 7). Many people believe that the teacher should remain a neutral presence in the classroom (Agostinone-Wilson, 2005). I see it as a disservice, as it models an unwillingness to question or analyze critically. Again, it brings forth the need to healthy dialogue where it is fair and decent to question each other and even disagree if followed through with sincerity and respect.
The third issue I wished to discuss is our nation’s “method obsession”. Education has unfortunately become a business. It is all for sale and the masses are blindly buying, whether it is the latest textbook, seminars arming teachers with the newest teaching strategies and methods, pre-packaged curricula, ideas for clever bulletin boards, or prescribed activities with planned outcomes. I do believe that there are a great number of helpful teaching tips available from which teacher can pull for guidance and creative ideas. However, teachers are relying upon these “lessons plans” too much. Lilia Bartolome (1994) stresses present day issues with pre-fabricated lesson plans by saying, “ Although it is important to identify useful and promising instructional programs and strategies, it is erroneous to assume that blind replication of instructional programs or teacher mastery of particular teaching methods, in and of themselves, will guarantee successful student learning…” (p. 174). One of the greatest problems with prescribed teaching methods is that teachers believe that teaching certain teaching approaches that work well with one group of students will automatically work well with another. (Bartolome, p. 175). Administrations “buy-in” to the latest in vogue program or teaching style and insist that all faculty members teaching using this style. They do not take into account that it may not be the best approach for every student in the school. Students are not objects upon which we can place successful learning using the same “magical method”. Education does not and should not work that way. Myles Horton (1998) expresses his feeling about methods in education in his book with Paulo Frerie. “I wasn’t looking for a technique of a method. I was looking for a process of how to relate to people…The thing to do was to just find a place, move in and start, and let it grow” (p. 53). He goes on to suggest that teachers should let a learning experience develop naturally, while using all of the things teachers have learned. Teachers should not try to have all of the student outcomes planned in advance. (Horton & Frerie, 1998).
In closing, I would like to end with reference to Freire’s notion of “love”. With regards to education, Freire continuously makes a case for the need for love. Yet, he was specific in his description of love in education as he coined the term “armed love”. This armed love is “the fighting love of those convinced of the right and the duty to fight, to denounce, and to announce” (Freire, 1998, p. 42). Teachers are blinded by the hegemonic dominant discourse that controls their career, and while moving blindly through each school day, they believe that they are truly acting on the behalf of their students with love in action. Their love is based on a belief system that is rooted in the dominant discourse. Their love is not truly based on dialogue with the students and parents. In her article on “teaching and love”, Antonia Darder (2003) speaks to Freire’s exclamation that education could never be “conceived without a profound commitment to our humanity” (p. 498). It is my concern that teachers either are too blinded by hegemony to know the error of their teaching choices or they do know better but are afraid. Darder mentioned Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970) and describes the “fear of freedom”. Darder paraphrases Freire in saying “it is a fear predicated on prescriptive relationships between those who rule and those who are expected to follow” (Darder, 2003, p. 499). Teachers who become enlightened to the dominant discourse that controls their classroom decisions need to “question carefully their ideological beliefs and pedagogical intentions and make note of their adherence to the status quo” (p. 499).
Where should these issues begin to be addressed? Do pre-service teachers need more education on social justice, dialogue, and the threat of hegemony in their teacher preparation programs? Until change is made, teachers will continue to be “cogs in the wheel of the dominant discourse machine” and students will be blindly given the wrong messages about learning, while subtly robbing them of their agency.
References:
Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2005). Fair and balanced to death:
Confronting the cult of neutrality in the teacher education
classroom. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3
(1).
Bartolome, L. I. (2003). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward humanizing pedagogy. In Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & R. D. Torres (Eds.) The critical pedagogy reader.
(pp. 408-430). New York: Routledge/Falmer. (originally written in 1994)
Darder, A. (2003) Teaching as an act of love: Reflections on Paulo Freire and his contributions. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.) The critical pedagogy reader. (pp. 497-510). New York: Routledge/Falmer. (originally written in 1998)
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (Chapter 3, 68-105). NY: Herder and Herder.
Kumashiro, K. (2000). Teaching and learning through desire, crisis, and difference:
Perverted reflections on anti-oppressive education. Radical Teacher, 58, 6-11.