Pedagogy of the Oppressed and America

Over the last couple of weeks I have engaged a couple of friends in discussion related to race, sexuality, racism, and things of that nature. I was very surprised to end up in a heated discussion with a friend over the use of affirmative action in college admissions (the topic of my previous post). My friend continued to say how oppression was gone from America and that Black people do not experience different treatment simply because of their race. It was shocking to me how blatantly racist my friend seems to be. An interesting part of this is that had I told him he was being racist he would disagree with me. I was pretty excited that I actually attempted to have a discussion (it was more of an argument from his point of view) about racism in America. While it would be a stretch to say that Dr. Tatum would be proud of my actions, I do think it was a step in the right direction.

In my reading of Pedagogy of the Oppressed I continue to notice how well the United States fits into the oppressor position. It’s almost an uncomfortable amount. Actually, scratch that, it is an uncomfortable amount. Why does the U.S. not regard Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a groundbreaking work important to human dignity in the way that many other countries do? Frankly, it’s because America tends to always play the role of the oppressor when interacting with other countries. In addition to this oppressive role, the social structure in America is very oppressive to lower classes. I think it is important for citizens to read works like Freire’s and realize how much of an impact action can make. This use of action is something Freire discusses with great passion in the beginning of this work, “it is always through action in depth that the culture of domination is culturally confronted.” Meaningful action is what creates change in a positive direction for the oppressed.

With regards to the U.S. being seen as an oppressive nation, here’s a fun video (complements of Bill O’Reilly) to get your blood boiling (also, enjoy the video’s description if you watch it on youtube):

If only O’Reilly was so concerned with those innocent people of America.

The notion of banking education is great because it explains something I have always expected all along; our mindset around pedagogy is flawed. While I have always been an excellent student, I always felt it was because I knew how to “play the game” of getting good grades, not actually because of a true understanding of the material we were “learning” in high school classes.  I am glad that by the time I have made it to college there is a shift in teaching that understands how this banking method is not useful (with the exception of Humanities lecture, of course). Shouldn’t this disregard of the banking style of education be a realization in basic education, not just higher, university level education? One of Trevor’s discussion questions was “how can we integrate this problem-posing education into the classroom now?” and I think that is an important one to ask.

This question relates back to Dr. Kaplan’s math tutoring session. Dr. Kaplan used these square tiles for a number of different activities, including visualizing fractions and how to depict functions. While these tiles were great, why is it that I’m only discovering them in a how-to-tutor-better seminar? 

How helpful is something like this for a visual learner? 

There should absolutely be a more hands on approach to learning, an approach that engages the student as well as the teacher. Just as Freire emphasizes, with problem-posing education there is no longer a question of who has authority. In fact, this question of authority is eliminated. Critical thinking skills are emphasized with Freire’s approach, something essential for job placement. It seems a bit odd that our current educational system provides us with many skills that do not actually allow us to achieve in the “real world,” but perhaps this is because of the oppressive nature of our banking education system.

On a semi-related note, here is a very interesting interview with Malcolm Gladwell, author of many books, discussing his most recent work, Outliers. In this book he discusses why certain people have the ability to do incredible things.

About halfway through the interview he mentions the KIPP charter schools that were highlighted in Waiting for Superman. Gladwell says that the idea behind KIPP is that those students who desire to achieve academically will get the opportunity to with KIPP. The homogenization of our school system does not provide a level playing field for students to achieve success. This is essentially the crux of Gladwell’s theory on student performance; the variable for success academically is rooted in the desire to persevere. 

It is interesting to see how this idea of perseverance relates to the meritocracy seen in American culture. While there is certainly a sense of the value of hard work, there is also the notion that talent is a huge aspect of success. Gladwell disagrees with this idea too. While he doesn’t admit that talent plays no role, he does say that the importance of talent is only a fraction of what we perceive it to be.

Education in the U.S. is improving, but it needs to be changed in a way that allows the opportunity for the success of everyone. While some may thrive in the banking model of education, others require a problem-posing setup to learn properly. In its current state we do not make it easy for students needing more time to succeed. The KIPP charter schools are doing something very simple, extending the school day, to allow students with a passion for learning the opportunity to succeed.