Log in
How universal is Critical Pedagogy?
From the readings so far, it is clear that critical pedagogy is challenging and placing itself up against an animal like no other. It seems to me that critical pedagogy may be operating within a system so complex and sophisticated that sometimes by fixing one issue it is concurrently feeding the beast through that solution, hence creating another. For example, in this class we are learning a great deal about how to teach students to be critical in classrooms, but are also operating within a grading system that the monster considers as part of its vital nurturing process as it continues to evaluate us and everyone else based on grades, numbers and other quantitative measures. I am obviously aware that the evaluation process of our class is not purely quantitative (thank you Dr. Kincheloe), but we do get a grade at the end of the semester which goes to our transcript, which affects our GPA, which affects the way we are perceived in the professional world, a world that is highly quantitative and economically driven as I’m sure all of you know.
Another example, a relative who used to work for the Egyptian government once told me that he heard one of the high officials comment on freedom of press and how it allows people to “vent”, that if you do not allow such leverage, the country would implode on itself. Meaning freedom of expression and press is not really to promote democracy and advance politicians’ progress into better leaders (although it conveniently does appear to be doing so), rather to keep the status quo intact and to continue to dominate and not jeopardize the power they hold dearly and create a revolution that might overthrow them.
I do understand critical pedagogy is there to damage control the oppressor’s atrocities and emancipate the oppressed to become more proactive and protective of their basic human rights and dignity. With that in mind, my question is this (and I’m sincerely seeking an answer as it’s been puzzling me throughout the readings): Is it possible that critical pedagogy could not function successfully so long as it is operating within this oppressive, beyond repair system? Is the current method of adopting critical pedagogy in classrooms really causing tangible change in this awfully neo-liberal way of life we live in? Should there be a more aggressive tactic (such as passive resistance for example) which might cause a greater blow to the animal we’re dealing with?
On a related note, and I kick myself for saying this, but isn’t the concept of “fighting illiteracy” through compulsory education itself an oppressive practice (at least for some including those who belong to an oral-based tradition)? The fact that it's the only currency that’s valid within this capitalist, industrialist, and militarily sophisticated world suggests so. I think about oral-based traditions and the oppression they must feel by the so-called enlightened movement which in reality caused a cultural genocide and have erased an ocean of knowledge which was carried from one generation to another relying heavily on memory.
So my other question that I’ve been struggling with is whether it is possible to omit the centrality of reading and learning to read within critical pedagogy in certain cases such as restoring traditional knowledges which can only be done orally? If not, can we say that critical pedagogy is not universal and can only operate within a capitalist and industrialist context?
Really looking forward to your reply.
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
tags for How universal is Critical Pedagogy?
Navigation
JOIN US ON:
Tayeb,
After discussing with you in the library, I have a better understanding of your question. Not that is was not clear, but it is quite an intricate question. From our discussion, we agreed in the sense that encourgaging critical pedagogy, are we not changing someone's world without really asking them before if they want to change it. Without trying to sound liberal in my point of view, by giving someone more information such as helping them read and write, are we not imposing on these people to become something else. Maybe they are content with their (primative - as normality would describe it) discourse being principally oral. Are we rocking their world by thinking that they will become empowered through reading and writing and then to critically question the world that surrounds them. For example, the Mexican farm people that have the bare minimum and live off their crops and animals, who I'm I to say that they are impoverished and not content with their lives. I am assuming many things in saying that they could be empowered by realizing that the system of wealth is not just and fair. Honestly, they might not die from heart attacks because they have fought so hard for equality in every aspect and have not been stressed out by everyday North American standards and life. It is almost awakening someone's senses when you expose to them the fact that they are oppressed, when they did not even realize this in their own daily lives. The oppressed do not really tknow that they are being oppressed until they have the knowledge to recognize and to realize that what is happening to them is unacceptable. This are issues that I contend with through my journey in having a grasp of critical pedagogy.
By giving them knowledge and empowering them, are we not changing them to be someone else. Is that our choice or theirs. If someone is encouraged to do this and is willing to get the knowledge, then they themselves become autonomous in their learning. I don't know if I am answering your question Tayeb and/or if I'm going on a tangent.
In my own opinion, I realize that many people have not been given the same opportunity as others because of the wealth in which they were born in, the colour that was given to them by their parents, the country that they were born and raised in and I count myself so lucky everyday because of my own life situation. However, I do believe that everyone should at least have the opportunity and the choice to have the same knowledge, the abitlity to prove themselves as human beings and the chance to succeed in life - whatever they choose to do. In this way, critical pedagogy is not a force in itself, it is a tool that can be used in order to give all people the same opportunity in life.
Greetings,
I was finally able to log in.I just want to express how content and relieved I felt today in class when Rosanne posed the first question concerning the complexity of the terms and language used within the critical pedagogy framework. I'm not sure if all could hear my sigh of relief because until then I thought I was the only one struggling the the highly sophisticated lingo.
I fear, in a sense, that the langage acts as a barrier for me and anybody else who does not have the abiltty to communicate so artuiculately both orally and written. To be honest, I have been amazed when reading everyone's blogs...the level of writing and expression is intimdating to me. I guess I can say that I am imaginative and creative when it comes to my ideas but technically challenged when it come s to writing and talking in an intellectual manner.
When teaching students who have difficulties and disorders, I definitely insist on talking in a way that is accessible to all, this means speaking with short concsie sentences in conversational English. The problem as I see it is that learning the crit pegagoy lingo may be confusing and maybe unecassary to an educator who does not wish to teach critical pedagogy as a subject but rather as a tool to teach art classes.
I'm not suggesting that there needs to be a " Critical Pedagogy fo Dummies" manual, all I am saying is that the subject would reach a wider audience if the language was simpler. I believe that Rosanne reflected a similar stance. I'm glad that she opened the gateway for me to open up on this matter.
Angela
First Tayeb, thank you for your questions - what a lot to think about! A friend recently talked to me about an article he read; in it the author pointed out how the advent of different technologies influenced the nature of our interaction with knowledge. If I remember correctly there was everything from appalled reactions to the advent of writing to that of computers, for basically the same reasons: that in accelerating the ability to access knowledge, these technologies would give people the illusion that they "knew", when in fact knowledge is only achieved through sustained and respectful engagement with a subject over time. In this sense, the oral tradition can go really deep because one elaborates one's thinking through conversation, story telling, etc. and in the next conversation one usually picks up on the topics that remained unclear or that need further exploration or that are particularly compelling, but not on those that have already been incorporated into our knowledge world, assimilated into our thinking. In this sense I think there is something arrogant in imposing written tradition as a "must". However, if we look at it from the perspective of cultural capital, no matter how deep you can go in oral traditions you could not share your knowledge effectively in today's society with others outside your tradition, and, perhaps more importantly, you would not be able to acces essential knowledge (again, from a cultural capital perspective) to enable you to "read the world" beyond your own front step. That would be the down side of respecting oral traditions to the extreme of leaving them alone: we would be respecting them to death. If I can access the reference to the article i mentioned earlier i'll bring it into class, in case you'd like to see it. As to your questions on wether we can have any effect working within the system, I think critical theorists mostly say that in the end revolution is ultimately necessary. I'm just personally fearful of the scenario in Dicken's "A Tale of Two Cities", and I guess i'll have to do some work on that. In radical love we trust!
I am happy that my question was helpful to you, Angela, I have been thinking over Joe's answers and as I told him, I am still happiest to know that it is something that troubles those who work on the theory aspect of critical pedagogy. As you know I agree with your points, and I think you expressed some of them more clearly than I was able to. The idea that not everyone that approaches critical theory has an interest in becoming an academic of it, in particular, is the most compelling reason in my eyes for speaking in colloquial english. Your feelings of being intimidated, uncomfortable, with the situation of studying critical pedagogy, speaks most eloquently to the kind of "oppression" the lingo is able to create through making you (and me, and many more) feel defficient, so that the theoreticians need to "improve" us (I think Joe calls that deficiency theory? Whatever it is called, it feels paternalistic to me). In my gut, and regardless of the fact that I do understand and accept many of Joe's arguments, I still feel there is an unresolved contradiction in terms between elitist language and knowledge that aims to emancipate the people. I also still have trouble with the idea that speaking in simpler language somehow "dumbs down" the content. I really don't believe that, and my experience as a teacher doesn't match that.
Maybe one more comment, to "aviron" (is that Ana Maria?): Freire responds exactly to your concerns in Pedagogy of Hope - I'll find the specific pages for tomorrow so we can look at them together, because I remember that he responds to that but I seem to have forgotten what precisely he says (old age, I guess)!!
Good night, everyone! Rosana
Hi, the comments raised in the forum are very interesting, I find myself questioning a lot of things too. I agree with you Tayeb that the way we evaluate students it is off dated. We haven’t been able to come up with a better way to know if students have learned. Instead of looking for more creative ways we continue to come up with different tests. But, I can’t think of a better way to evaluate students, I would like to hear your ideas.
As Joe wrote in Critical Pedagogy Primer, “I don’t trust schools” (p. 13), I feel somehow the same way until being in this program I question what kind of education I had, why I learned this instead of that, whose interests are behind me learning certain information. As Kymlicka (2001) wrote the basic task of schooling is to prepare each new generation for their responsibilities as citizens. Certainly, the Mexican government wanted me to learn how to be a good citizen for their interests and they want my loyalty, I guess each nation expects that from their citizens.
One of the points you mentioned Tayeb about how to “fight illiteracy” brought to my mind the paper I did last term on reading practices in Mexico, being my main question the lack of reading in Mexico. My concern was that through reading we constitute a form of knowledge construction and in my opinion is a premise of critical thinking, influencing how we think and what we think about. I used Olson & Torrance’s (2001) definition, literacy is being able to read and write or sometimes more generally as being “educated or cultured”. One of the factors that I didn’t considered when I based my question is the importance of oral tradition in Mexico specially in indigenous communities, they see this practice as a way to relate to the world and they want to preserve characteristics of orality. Writing was confined to those who read and sharing knowledge was not evenly distributed amongst the community. Writing was characterized as superficial because it didn’t come from the soul and was interfering with ones who orally produced the knowledge and received it. But as Aviron and Rosana mentioned if they learn to read and write they will empower themselves. Even though I understood the importance of the oral tradition I wish more Mexicans relate to books to broader their view of the world.
See you tomorrow!
Mary Anne
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Education for citizenship. In W. Kymlicka (Ed.), Politics in the Vernacular (pp. 293-316). Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
Olson, D. R. and Torrance, N. (2001). The Making of Literate Societies. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Hi Tayeb,
I liked the point that you made about giving people the opportunity to vent. I was thinking about this function of democracy and its relationship to freedom of speech. It seems that the success of the US regime has been it's ability to continue business as usual while allowing people the "freedom" to openly mock and disagree with its policies. We see this in television programs like the Simpsons, Family guy, Late night talk shows like the Colbert Report. It feels like everything is a joke and this somehow softens the reality of the very real atrocities caused by a culture of dominance and colonialist foreing policy. Allowing people to vent, to protest and to mock a government seems democratic, but if these actions never provoke change then, I ask myself, what is the point? The person in the Egyptian government that you spoke to, suggests that the function of such permissiveness could be equated to a pressure valve. People are allowed to vent so as to prevent them from exploding or in political terms revolting. It seems like a genius plan. It creates the illusion that people are not oppressed when, in fact, they have very little control or influence over the decisions that are made by their government. A very good example of that in North America is the Fuel Crisis. Every time the gas prices take another leap, we see interviews with citizens on the evening News. Usually they are interviewed as they are filling up at the gas station. They often verbalise their frustration while continuing to fill up the tank. "What can I do," they say, " I have to go to work". This same complacent attitude will see gas prices reach two dollars a litre some experts predict. How could we vent differently? How could we cause a change? In 1999, Jamaicans actually prevented a gas hike by rioting in the streets. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900EED9153AF931A15757C0A96F958260) Would this be possible in Canada? In Quebec it was discovered that gas stations were fixing prices and nobody protested. I guess is has to get to a point where people feel so desperate that venting will turn to violence. This is probable in any society it's just that we are not there yet. I beleive that critical pedagogy could help us find alternative solutions to rioting, but also alternative solutions to "venting". Critical pedagogy could lead us to collectively hit the companies where it hurts, the pocket book. Then maybe they would interview the oil executives on the evening News for once.
Alejandro
Alejandro,
Your post is excellent! I think nothing frustrates me more than complacency (and that's when my Peter McLaren communication style is provoked.) We are having a discussion toward the end of this discussion strand about that very thing. If we let our "radical love" overrule our "revolutionary action," we have only found another way to be complacent. It takes action along with that radical love as you have eloquently pointed out. Critical pedagogy allows us to get smart so that we know what actions will work.
Peace & Love,
Vanessa
Mary Anne,
This one is for you. I will try to address your first question. The Quebec Education Plan as somewhat done a good deed in that LES (learning evaluation situations) are projects on the move where students are continually working on it and making changes and applying knowledge given by the teacher and knowledge they seek on their own (of course, if this is done correctly). Consequently, the students' assessment is based on a work in progress, on the knowledge that they have acquired from the teacher and from themselves. The result is a grade. The grade is not based on a one test/exam result and is not fixed. Le bilan of the report card is also an excellent means to evaluate a student. It is based on the attainment of compentencies at that point in time from work that has been done throughout the year and could have been based on portfolios and LESs. However, here is the ick! There is still an exam period in January and June. Ther are local, Board and ministerial ones. This is the contracdiction with our reform here in Quebec.
We had good intentions when we developed the LES and the bilan. However, the governement took control of the issue and implemented the standards that were expected for everyone.
This year, during the exam period, I asked my teachers to actually do their own local exams which in reality were ES (evaluation situations). In these types of projects, the teacher is an assitant to their learning. Not the best scenario, but a step forward. However, we cannot tamper with the ministerial exams, otherwise our students would not graduate. It is a work in progress and we need to loby to put pressure on the ministry so that they understand that these standardized tests are detrimental to our student's success and one of the reasons why so many of them drop out!
Thanks Aviron for addressing my question, I am interested in ways to evaluate students and change the conception of grades. The other day that we were discussing with Shirley the evaluation format, I was surprise how even we talk about Critical Pedagogy, we continue to be concerned about grades. I guess as Tayeb mentioned grades are so important in the world we live in, that if we don’t have a good GPA we won’t have certain opportunities.
RE:"I also think that critical pedagogy is not in a war with the rest of the world (and maybe Joe, you will not agree with me), because if we declare war, we are loosing…"
I disagree with the gentle touch, Karen (well...it's ok to a degree in certain specific situations).
Yes, we are not in war with the world (people), we are dealing with an imperialist government.
We have to stick together, that is true.
Peter McLaren, among others, has made it quite excruciatingly clear that we need a revolutionary critical pedagogy. Henry Giroux speaks of the "Military-Industrial-Academic Complex," which now has it's claws in cyberspace (Internet2 and EDS). Do you think that what we are up against is going to be gentle and passive? The imperialist goal is to rule the world, own all of the capital (including "human capital"), take over cyberspace and outerspace. It is a war! Can't you see? - we are in wars all over the world! We may be forced to work within the system, but we need to do so in smart and powerful ways - by knowing the system better than it knows itself. Quite honestly, my goal is to constantly be looking for ways to get out of the system, squeeze through the system, and snuff out the system (capitalism). This is not the time in history to be in denial.
Read some more of Joe Kincheloe's work on this website in the Reading Room. Take some time to read Peter McLaren; he has posted a number of articles at the bottom of his home page:
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/pages/mclaren/
Read GIroux's work explaining why we need a critical pedagogy:
http://gcadvocate.org/index.php?action=view&id=124
Read about Internet2 and contemplate what this new military-industrial-academic complex might mean for our futures, given the goals of imperialism to own everything within reach and beyond. http://www.internet2.edu/
Peace & Love,
Vanessa
References
Giroux, H. (2007). The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex
i think that there are multiply ways that critical pedagogy can be embraced. For those who take it as a war and want to lock bull horns with the system and those who want to spread radical love and inspire change from the inside out. I think it is not useful when solidarity is challenged because approaches differ. Peace. darlene
darlene st georges. BA.BFA.BEd.SCA
Yes, Darlene. I agree. If you read my reply carefully - the entire response - that is exactly what I have just said. It's also why we have as our leaders Joe Kincheloe, Peter McLaren, and Henry Giroux. We need all approaches, but we still cannot be in denial. (Sorry if I sounded blunt; I do tend more toward the McLaren style and it gets me in trouble sometimes; it gets him in more trouble but he doesn't let it stop him from doing the work that needs to be done.)
Peace and Love,
Vanessa
McLaren puts it like this:
...any revolutionary struggle must be dedicated to educating the emotions as much as the intellect and why anti-imperialist struggle must be waged on the triple continents of reason, passion, and revolution. It must take place not only on the picket line or protest march, but also in the schools, places of worship, libraries, shop floors, and corporate offices -- in every venue where people come together to learn, to labor, and to love.
In order to shift critical pedagogy into a new register, we need to rethink the very premises of critical pedagogy, not as some grand contemplative act, but as part of a philosophy of everyday life. This challenge has to do with creating a living Marxism, a way of negotiating the reality of a racist and class society on a daily basis so as to transform such a society. (McLaren, 2005, p. 324)
References
McLaren, P. (2005a). Capitalists and Conquerors.Lanham , MD
This is my issue, Darlene.
I have no problem with a gentle touch in the classroom; it is the approach I use myself. I love my students! The issue I have is when people stay in denial about what is happening in the world or go off on some "radical love" tangent that hinders them from taking appropriate actions. We need a balanced approach. And we will not make progress if we do not face the reality that there are already wars, whether we have waged them or not. As I posted to Alejandro,
Alejandro,
Your post is excellent! I think nothing frustrates me more than complacency (and that's when my Peter McLaren communication style is provoked.) We are having a discussion toward the end of this discussion strand about that very thing. If we let our "radical love" overrule our "revolutionary action," we have only found another way to be complacent. It takes action along with that radical love as you have eloquently pointed out. Critical pedagogy allows us to get smart so that we know what actions will work.
Peace & Love,
Vanessa
Tayeb,
Alejandro, I really enjoyed reading your comment and questions concerning using not using violence to make a change: "I beleive that critical pedagogy could help us find alternative solutions to rioting. Critical pedagogy could lead us to collectively hit the companies where it hurts, the pocket book."
This reminds me of what Dr. Steinberg said in class last week, how basically critical theorists are stuck; it is hard to win against the people in power to change the curriculum. So, we must do it quietly an din little steps. So, how do we do that? By creating an awareness within the curriculum by doing two curriculums. Let's teach our students to be thinkers!!
Let's look at the history in Quebec: The Quiet Revolution! It was done without violence, collectively and quietly!
Patricia Parchas
Yes, I agree, we can carry on the "revolution" in a lot of quiet ways. At the same time, there is something to be said for being vocal, but never, never violent. I am working with some very innovative educators and an educational movement is going on - you will be seeing new forms of schools emerging. Some will slide in using charter school funds (this is in the US), others will find unique funding sources. But the education system in the US can be built from beneath - this is already beginning to happen. The trick is to do it quickly enough before doors are slammed shut or the business market succeeds with their goal to privatize education. My specialization is distance education, which incorporates all forms because it also includes online/face-to-face education. We have a huge opening right now and we need to jump on it.. And while changes in education are mandatory, we need to approach the problems from multiple directions; there is something everyone can do (quietly and/or loudly)
Vanessa
Hi Patricia
As we discussed in class with Joe, there is a time to be loud and there is a time to be silent. The issue of consciousness is so deply tied to this idea of revolution through pedagogy.
We could organise a rally and march down the street protesting any injustice. Students do it every year in reaction to the price hikes in University. Perhaps this collective action will influence the consciousness of those parties involved for the duration of the protest. At the end of the day, the organisers will keep buzzing about the subject, the majority will continue about their daily lives and very little will change. Why?
Most people in this society realise that the protest for the price hikes will not put as much money in their pocket as a University degree. Students could be furious, throw eggs, and wave obscenities but at the end of it all the ultimate motivation is individual. Through critical pedagogy, our understanding of how these institutions work could give us a much better idea on how to undermind them.
We could go to our classes but not buy the books, or we could buy the books and teach ourselves. Limiting the flow of our money towards an institution is a much more powerful message than disrupting afternoon traffic with a march. It asserts to the corportations, or in this case the Universities, that we have collective power.
We wouldn't have to say anything to the institution beforehand. We would remain silent. Then we would inform the media. Once we have the attention of the media it would be the time to talk about the collective action taken. Ar this moment the students would have power in their hands. They would be able to say to the institution in a very public way, that they will not pay until the prices are frozen. This would be a lot more effective than threatening yet another protest.
Alejandro
Dear Vanessa,
when i said we have to approach it in a more loving way, i ment only towards the students. I feel that so many students are carrying with them a personal bagage and many teachers are not even aware of it. these students will never get the cahance to talk about it at all.
Dealing with the rest of the world- is another issue, which i will have to agree with you, although (knowin myself), I will still approach it in a more gentle way rather than agressive and attacking. My approach is not an indication of a denial.
i have to go to class now, but we will talk more..
thank you Darleen for your response,
karen
Darleen,
Thank you for your reply. I did realize that part, about working with the children. I wonder if you might elaborate on this:
RE:"I also think that critical pedagogy is not in a war with the rest of the world (and maybe Joe, you will not agree with me), because if we declare war, we are loosing…"
Thanks!
Peace & Love,
Vanessa
I agree with you, Karen, that because of all the personal baggage that so many students are bringing with them, we have to approach them in a loving manner. It has been my experience that some teachers do not want to know about the students' baggage and believe it is not relevant to their delivery of curriculum. This attitude has saddened me as I have watched some students beginning to open up in one classroom because of the atmosphere of learning and caring that is created and then shut down completely in another classroom because none of their needs are met. As a result of this,they learn to 'hate' the subject.
I am new to this notion of critical pedagogy, and since I am not a teacher, nor am I in contact with any children/students, I find it difficult sometimes to relate to in class or blog discussions. As an "outsider" listening to everybody talk about their schools and their experiences as a teacher (both with students and the administration), I would have to say that most of what I’ve heard has been very negative. When hearing about the recent reform, the complaints by teachers about some of the outdated information in student text books, as well as the apathetic attitude of certain teachers/administrators (zero tolerance policies, the quick use of detention, suspension and expulsion tactics, failure in properly addressing issues of bullying/cybebullying etc.) I can't help but feel that the school/education system is not doing its job at giving our children a quality education. I am a few credits short of completing my masters, and I’ve got to say that the further I go in my classes, the more reluctant I am in intrusting my future children to schools and to the Quebec educational system. I hope to be a parent someday, and since I want a first class education for my children, I am sincerely considering home schooling my kids. From the little I’ve read, it seems that if done properly, home schooling might be a good alternative to our suffering educational system.
But what I’m wondering is this, does abandoning the system instead of improving it go against the tenants of critical pedagogy?
Hi Deena
I feel the same way you do as I am not a teacher, nor do i work with students, but I have a 19 y.o son which went thorugh the educational system. I am not answering you as a CP expert as I am such a novice at this. I am answering you because I beleive homeschooling is a good alternative for parents that can do this, and you could actually better teach your kids about critical pedagogy as you are the only surveyor of their education and also would have the power to make up your own curriculum. Personally if I had to do it all over with the knowledge I have now I would homeschool my kid. At the time my son was very young I wanted to send him to a Waldorf school but we had to come over to Canada and also I was feared into how much, once in this school would not be able to face tests and possibility of getiting to university. Needless to say that I am not sure how after going through the education sysytem here in Quebec how much is he prepared to pursue univeristy.I do not persoanlly see any conflict and no way of abdication if you would homeschool your kids. It could be said though that if you were to work from inside the system then you might be able to touch mroe children and hopefully teach more CP but even that is relatively...anyway as I said I am just giving a persoanl opinion , after knowing the sytem just as a parent and a graduate student myself I would homeschool my kid even though I would be scared to do it.
Ruxandra
First about the exchange between Darleen and Karen (Darleen, how did you get access to this forum? I thought it was supposed to be "closed", i.e. only for students of this course!). I think from the perspective of Freire, critical love IS action, or rather "praxis" - what allows us to reflect, act and reflect again in an endless circle to fulfill our "vocation" to become increasingly human. From this perspective, the cocientization of the oppressed and their adoption of a radical love stance would make all talk of violence superfluous: the oppressed would not want to become oppressors, and violence of any sort would be out of the question. Rodney's example of Mahatma Ghandi would be a perfect example. When we talk about the oppressor as victim, though, as you did today in class, Karen, I think that while that is an important way to make radical love possible, we still should not mix apples and oranges: the oppressors are still the oppressors, much as they may also be victims. What i mean is we do not want to end up victimizing the oppressor over the real oppressed, because that could lead to a slippery slope of rationalizations that might distract us from the real goal.
To Deena - I want to say that a lot of what you hear in class has more to do with the U.S. educational system than the Canadian system, and while ours is far from perfect as well, there are some good public schools to be found out there. What is most important, in my opinion, to take from our class, is that we shouldn't give our kids to any education system (maybe not even to the home schooling network) without awareness of the many complex interests that are involved in education, and without being prepared to advocate for our kids (and I consider all the kids in our province OUR kids) through involvement in the school, questioning of policies and decisions when appropriate, public campaigns when necessary, networking with other parents if possible. After all, remember that school does not erase the influence of the family and the other influences your child will be exposed to!
An additional comment on the universality of critical pedagogy and the life of immigrants. Many of our examples of oppression in class are illustrated through immigrant workers. As one who has immigrated twice as a young person and has watched her parents and other family members migrating as not-so-young people, I wonder if we can really expect immigration to be painless. When one decides to leave their home, even if forced by necessity, on would expect that many difficulties would ensue, and take responsibility for making the decision to emigrate regardless of the predictable hardships. I think it is almost impossible to predict and prepare for all the different kinds of immigrants that may come to a country, and while I agree fully that in our globalized planet every country has to do their best to prepare for immigrants and be respecful and welcoming, some level of hardship (even a high level of hardship) is inevitable. Stories abound...
I would welcome any comments on the subject of personal responsibility. It seems to me that sometimes, in our rage against the machine, we can ignore the complexity of this side of the coin as well. Lastly, responding to Joe's comment "how could 9-11 NOT have happened?" when we study the history of American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan... I think there is no better argument for education and concientization as tools for the redemption of the world and the preservation of our humanity.
Buenas noches, amigos.
Dear Deena- first of all, I would like to say that your observations are reflecting a certain reality which needs to be further explained. The idea that you hear many negative comments by teachers about the educational system is because many of our frustrations could be heard only in these evening classrooms, being surrounded by teachers like us, who understand each other, and feel safe to talk. These classes are viewed often as therapeutic as we hear so many of us giving examples of what is happening in their schools. I also think that we are in a era of change- new reform, new curriculum, a new grading system, new report cards.. and these changes are not easy for all of us. The process of adapting to certain changes are often accompanied by negative comments as well.
I am sure, that you hear these comments because of these reasons, (and many more), but I have no doubt that each and every teacher in this classroom could tell you how wonderful the teaching profession is (and i hope that we still do like it), and carries with him/her many amazing “teaching stories”.
So don't get too discouraged..
Dear Rossana- I don't think I was trying to mix any apples and oranges.. my point was to give an example of a 13 year old boy- James Valitchka, who was bullied for few years, and who realized that an act of a bully could also come from being a victim as well. I think it was very mature of him to try to find other reasons for his pain, and not associate the bully with being "a bad guy". My point was to open up our minds and to think in a different way, rather than accumulating hate. Stating (in this case specifically) that the oppressor was a victim as well, does not changes the outcome. Many teenagers are still being bullied, hurt (physically and emotionally), and humiliated by bullies. I would not use even the word “understanding” the bullies actions, but I would go far to see where are these actions came from, in order to know why these actions were made. By knowing why (or as we say in Hebrew – the root of the matter),we could try to come up with possible solutions as to reduce bullying acts. James Valitchka, in my opinion did it in a wonderful way: once he understood the bullies, he wrote books and organized many sessions which inspired many teenagers to attend.
I am in the radical love mood..
kisses, love, and peace
karen
This is in response to Deena's blog. You stated that you feel that the teachers in class are sending off a negative vibe about the state of education in Quebec. Yes, there are many obstacles to overcome but the fact of the matter is that they are willing to take a jab at it. Rodney said it so eloquently when he talked about situated optimism as an adopted attitude towards making changes in the school system. I agree completely with him and I think deep down most of the teachers/educators have the drive to keep going with crit pedagogy.
The only time that I feel disappointed is when I reflect on my past experiences as young student when teachers practised banking of knowledge. Yes, I feel cheated but It only makes me more willing and more passionate to make changes.
Roland, also stated a concern that hit a nerve. He asked HOW this movement will happen and implied that it needs to be done collectively. Like he said, I don't think it is enough for 1 teacher to discuss crit pedagogy to with other staff at school. I understand that it needs to be presented by a larger group. Perhaps this website can be open to all, that can be a starting point.
By the way, what was Joe's response when Roland asked if he would want to give talks at various schools? I seem to have forgotten his response.
As someone who has come across critial pedagogy for the first time, I am excited about the subject. My only criticism is that it seems to be functioning at an elitist point of view. What I mean to say is that the subject needs to become more visible to the masses, As Roseanne and Roland had mentioned . Even if there is a "dumbing down" aspect to it at least it will reach more people. Joe mentioned that writing about it in magazines like People and Reader's Digest would be doing a disserservie to the subject because these magazines dumb down and decontextualize everything. I, on the other hand think there is a middle point between the work of scholars and glossy magazine writers.
It's great that there are scholars doing brilliant work but we have to figure out how the knowledge will effectively trickle down to reach many educators who are searching for new ways of viewing their material and teaching it.
Angela
Thank you everyone for all your input, those were all very good points. As a teacher, i agree that our responsibly are the students of our school, city and province. But as a parent, our primary responsibility is the education on our children. My question is, why put our children in a public school when so much is wrong with the system? Aren't parent with financial and cultural capital looking out for their children by enrolling them into private schools?