Education oppression and social intervention

Education, Oppression & Social Intervention

The purpose of education should ideally be to advance the ability of the student to critically examine, understand and question the world around him or herself. In this sense education has a creative purpose and is intended to enable the student to challenge and confront the world in an open and knowledgeable way. Education should emphasize creativity and should never be merely a passive absorption of amounts of data that can be regurgitated mindlessly. This view of education, known as "banking" education, is actually in my view the opposite of what true education should be.

In other words, education should teach the student to interact with the world and environment around him or herself. It is essentially aimed at liberating the student's mind through knowledge which is intended to empower the individual to inquire and question the total context of reality in which they exist.

The function of the education is therefore to provide the necessary foundations and critical tools that will allow the student to explore and question the society and environment creatively. Another important function of education is to allow the individual to build a true and critical view of themselves and explore their own identity. This means that the student should not have to accept the identity of others that is forced or imposed on them. True education functions to allow the student to find his or her own persona identity. The student should never have to accept the view or perception of things without critiical thought and questioning. The function of the teacher then in this regard is to not to impose views but rather to work with the student to find his own "self."

The education that I received was a mixture of the two main types of education practice; namely a combination of both "banking" and "critical" education. However the tendency in the educational institution that I attended was to favor the banking view of education over the more open critical methods. In some case the type of curriculum that was used was aimed more at a "narrative" type of teaching.

As Paulo Freire states in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a banking type of teaching methodology is one which essentially emphasizes the passivity of the student and the dominance of the teacher. The pupil or student in this type of system becomes a subject and a "receptor" for the information that is chosen and presented by the teacher. In other words, the student has no active or participatory role and is more of victim than a learner in the true sense of the word. I found that many of my lessons were conducted by teachers who viewed education in this way and who taught from a distance and did not allow the expression of any views from the students, except for those that slotted into the view as required by the curriculum.

On the other hand the type of teaching method was largely dependent on the teachers. There were some teachers who were more "critical" in their approach. They were more open to questioning and interaction from the students. This method was much more enjoyable and rewarding and the students were encouraged to respond and to develop their own views, even if they contradicted the views of the teacher. In these classes we felt less like "slaves" or passive subjects and became more active participants in the whole teaching process.

However, the more open and creative classes were more the exception than the rule and mostly we had to endure the conservative" banking" type of education which deprived many of us of any enthusiasm for the subjects that were being taught. This was particularly depressing when the teacher required that we learn by rote and regurgitate facts and data without any critical discussion. I should also state that I often felt that the students were not the only victims or " slaves" and that many of the teachers themselves were obviously felt confined and constrained by the education system and curriculum that they were forced to follow.

On the surface the education system that I attended did promote equal learning opportunities for all with no obvious discrimination in terms of race, class or gender. There was in fact every attempt in the particular institution to stop any sign of prejudice and discrimination. However, while there was no overt or obvious discrimination, there was a more subtle form of prejudice which was most obvious in gender issues. This was not really a result of the education system as such but was an aspect that was more culturally based in the society and which tended to see females as being inferior in many ways to males. Teachers for example would treat the male students differently to the females. An example of this is that, while male students would be allowed to express themselves in class and be tolerated if they were be slightly rowdy, females were expected to remain demure attentive and not to express themselves too freely. I believe that this discrimination is part of larger gender prejudice and role conformity in society. This is an important aspect that should be discussed in classes at schools. However this type of discussion would mean that a more "critical" and open view of education would have to be generally accepted and adopted.