pedagogy of the oppressed

This review is based of Pedagogy of The Oppressed by Paolo Freire.

So, the educational system is broken.

We’ve established that in the last packet where we talked about the many stresses and anxieties that students go through today. But what can we do about it? Considering that the modern schooling system is a tool that is used for oppression and conditioning of students not the think for themselves, the only logical answer is the completely destroy and restructure the schooling system in its entirety.

Paulo Freire, the father of critical educational theory and a huge influence on modern educational tactics, believes that school should be more free and accommodating to those who have been oppressed, and lays out guides on how that oppression affects a child.

The “banking model of education” details current educational systems as a form of oppression through the punishment and humiliation of students by the teacher, who knows best in each and every situation regardless of context. The student is an blank slate, and the teacher must “deposit” their information into their heads, regardless of their lived situation.

Freire claims this system is enforced so that students remain docile and incapable of standing up and fighting against the forms of oppression enforced by the government, society, and other everyday life in modern day. The alternative style of education proposed by Freire is Problem Posing Education, with a focus on Dialogue, Discussion, and Shared Learning. The teachers job in this model is to introduce a problem relevant to the lived experience of the students, and the students, rather than sitting quietly and being uninvolved, are active participants in this system, communicating and creating their own solutions and theories within the space.

Students develop a critical consciousness about the world that engages them to be better able to problem solve and approach the many aspects of life. In the design classroom, for example, a advisor could introduce the problem “Are unpaid internships in the design field fair?”, this could create a discussion within the classroom leading to the students reflecting on fairness, the field of design, and the ethics of working without pay.

This leads to engaging dialogues between students that allow them to learn while practicing necessary skills such as communication and collaberation, while simultaneously not enforcing any certain way of thinking.

While allowing these modes of thinking to creep into the classroom, design students may also find themselves enjoying a topic enough to create a project on it. They can learn how to actively engage with modern social design problems, while also keeping their own autonomy on what types of projects they are making. If they have time to discuss and flesh out their projects, they may find more creative and elaborate approaches they could not have thought up on their own.

To continue in this line of thought, I believe an emphasis on collaboration in projects can help increase necessary social skills for when working in the field, but forced collaberation always . ends up with problems. Students should be encouraged to collaberate, however not required if they instead have an idea for a small solo project. Projects in this sense are freely made, and graded flexibly on effort and enthusiasm, rather than a hierarchical value of “quality” which branches towards thoughts on the philosophy of ungrading.

For example, in a corporate identity class, why must we have such a competitive format to the way we learn? The branding class in my undergrad was focused on individual, forced projects where we wouldnt even be allowed to choose our own location for our Olympics assignment, in my case, I drew Toronto, which I was entirely unenthused about. The argument for this is that in this career field, you don’t get to choose you clients.

How true is that? Most studios in the design space can very much deny a client for any reason, or as a freelancer choose to specialize in one type of design. There is a responsibility present for us, as educators, to ensure that the students we teach are prepared to be successful in the field. I agree that we must guide them, but the purpose of education is not only to create a worker. Creating critical thinking and engaged students is also part of our responibility, people ready to tackle the world as it is, which is not always a pretty sight.

Behind the mask of grades and degrees, a human with hobbies, interests, and life goals remains. Aspirations beyond that of work and and money. Some may have a deep passion for the field they study, some may only see the field as a means of making a living, and some both. In my view, being an educator is about helping a person grow.

Guiding them to whatever they feel is the right path for them, not lecturing them on the correct way to use Garamond. Teaching is a complex mixture of preparing them for this reality of capital, but trying to keep them in one one piece mentally on the way there. Even if that means we have to break down the barriers of “student” and “teacher” and be vulnerable again.