PRAXIS - Paulo Freire Institute

Recommendations

Info

Praxis Spring/Summer 2010: Volume 3, Issue 1 quo” (Freire in Freire and Macedo, 1987, p. 126). The current educational system is clearly an instrument of social reproduction, as McLaren (1998) illustrates in Life in Schools (see also Willis, 1977). The dominant class is quite satisfied with this arrangement, since “The oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having more as a privilege which dehumanizes others and themselves” (Freire, 2000, p. 59). Without understanding how the inequalities of society, and thus the reproduction of those inequalities through schools, affect students and teachers, the dominant class has no reason to question the success of the educational system. From their perspective, life is good. Thus, it is critically important for educators to recognize the significant role of the school system in reproducing societal inequalities and to possess the dream that societal inequalities can be abolished. “The liberating class does not accept the status quo and its myths of freedom. It challenges the students to unveil the actual manipulation and myths in society” (Freire in Shor and Freire, 1987, p. 172). By unveiling the myths of society, educators become aware of the politics of education. Politicizing In A Pedagogy for Liberation, Freire (1987) states unequivocally, “education is politics” (p. 61; italics in original). To be sure, Freire taught often about the necessity to recognize the politics of education. Within that context, it is necessary for educators to understand the role politics plays in reproducing the status quo. Neutrality in education is one of the most deceptive principles that teachers are socialized to accept. As a reproducer of the status quo, the educational system is political. Standards are political. Educational policies are political. No Child Left Behind legislation is political. To be neutral, to not be political, is to concede to the politics that produce the educational system. Being a political educator does not mean pushing some liberal or conservative agendas on the students. Silence does that. Silence allows the agenda of the education policy makers to go unquestioned. What political education does mean, however, is to illuminate the political forces that have shaped the educational system and society as a whole, to illuminate the inequalities, to illuminate the oppression, to illuminate the status quo. It is only through illumination that we can even begin to consider transforming the status quo. Teachers who truly love their students and want to pursue a path of liberation 6
Praxis Spring/Summer 2010: Volume 3, Issue 1 with them must become political educators. There is no alternative. This is a critical step that goes against the dominant educational ideology, but it is a necessary requirement of the progressive educator. And the only way to create an environment of illumination and political education is through dialogue. Dialoguing Only dialogue, which requires critical thinking, is also capable of generating critical thinking. Without dialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no true education (Freire, 2000, p. 92). In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (2000) clearly illustrates how any form of education that is not dialogical cannot be true education. As Freire states, narration “turns [students] into ‘containers,’ into receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher” (p. 72). What the students receive is a singular perspective of the world, a perspective that is removed from their own experiences, a perspective that is completely mythological. Filling students with such singular perspective mythologies removes any opportunity for critical consciousness within the educational process. Thus, aided by the educational system, the status quo is preserved. Competency-based curricula, which contain numerous remnants of social efficiency as described by Kliebard (1995), now dominate educational discourse. A majority of policy-makers, administrators, and teachers, some well intentioned and some not, have hopped on the bandwagon of this discourse, which ultimately, as Peter Mayo (2000) describes, “domesticates human beings.” People are taught not to doubt, but to accept unquestioningly and absorb any information that a “higher” person deposits onto them. Such policies do not recognize the diverse and meaningful perspectives that the students have to offer, nor do they allow students to see beyond the printed word, which is provided to them by the curricula script. Within the educational context, students are not allowed to recognize problematic issues, to find meaning or relevance in their own experiences and conflicts, or to be subjects of their education, only objects, as are the teachers. The opportunity to read the world is taken from them, both student and teacher. As Freire expressed, “My impression is that the world of American education, the school, 7
Page 1 and 2: Praxis Spring/Summer 2010: Volume 3
Page 5: Praxis Spring/Summer 2010: Volume 3

PRAXIS - Paulo Freire Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?