Grant Tyler

Education reform constantly rises to the top in public discussion. Society recognizes the incredibly integral role education plays in the constant reconstruction of society and culture. Romantic and postmodern thought has given us insight to the fluidity of the ‘truths’ that society operates on. Education can function in different capacities in this realm: it can support current established truths, and elaborate on their foundations, it can critique and dismiss truths, replacing them with new assumptions, or finally education can simply be used as a tool to gain perspective and utilize the imagination to inform the possibility of multiple useable truths, allowing us to integrate new perspectives while refining and reassessing ‘truths’ that we currently operate on. Regardless of how one views the function of education, it is obvious that it is very powerful. Anything with power of that magnitude has as much potential to liberate as it does to oppress. So, in a society of individuals that values education highly, the freedom of the individual rests almost entirely on the hope that their education will indeed be one of a liberating nature. Unfortunately it seems that the current traditional education in this country has taken a turn towards oppression.

School has become a training ground for future employment. We now instill students with the skills they need to be competitive in the workforce, rather than the skills they need to actively participate in a democracy. As Neil Postman would say, we now serve the "God of Economic Utility." Universities are ranked every year according to the average salary of graduates upon entering the workforce. A better mark of a good school would be how many of their graduates vote in public elections. Clinton loves to talk about education in terms of skilled American graduates being able to compete in a global economy. It is common knowledge that Microsoft recruits graduates of UW computer science programs. It seems that the current U.S. education system serves Microsoft, Boeing and the rest of Alan Greenspan’s economy, but does it serve you?

I would argue no, our current education system is not serving the individuals, that as a community, form the public of our nation. We have placed educating for participation in the workforce as a priority over an education that liberates the individual. This I would believe to be a great mistake. If we as a society truly want to be free, then we are obligated to educate our individuals to be free themselves, and then those free individuals can exercise their freedom and choose to participate in a democracy, or choose to participate in the economy, or even choose to reject these institutions. Many people will argue that we should educate with the aim of producing good citizens that will participate in democracy, but I feel that even that is a mistake. With this as a primary goal, you have already aimed to take away their freedom to have complete autonomy over their decision to participate in democracy. Thus, as educators, we must make the decision to place individual freedom as a priority, and we can only model our preferred traditions and institutions, not indoctrinate the students with them.

Of course, this stance arises out of many value and truth assumptions. Is intellectual freedom really a priority in our society? Isn’t education really about socialization and preparing to participate in our economy anyway? The assumption that we don’t really want what our current education system is providing is one easily made from the academic perspective, however assigning these same assumptions to the general population is questionable and stands as the most probable fault in this argument. However, I argue that in the context of the postmodern mind, an education designed to liberate is even more important than ever. If it is decided that there is no discernable universal truth, and there is no firm ground for a defined world view, it is even more imperative that students are properly equipped to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, that will serve them in their created reality, rather than support the pre-existing "world view" of the dominant culture.

So, the question arises, how do you go about educating to liberate? With such an idealistic goal, it may seem that this question would be unanswerable, but I will argue otherwise. If we utilize the classroom as a community in which dialogue is present, bringing forth the voices of all the students, we can build an education that will liberate the individual, while at the same time presenting a strong model of both a democracy in which individuals have freedom and active voice, as well a community in which strength is gained through contributions from, and cooperation amongst the individuals of which it is comprised.

Freire: Education as a process of Liberation

He showed us that, rather than seeing ourselves as privileged owners of education, generously willing to bestow it upon others, we have to look at ourselves humbly as learners who can join in solidarity with those who are also learning, and thus bring about a shared process of liberation. By sharing the joy of learning and discovery with our students, we reaffirm the human capacity, inherent in all of us, to generate knowledge and transform the world (Ada 1993, 25).

Paulo Freire developed his educational philosophies amidst the context of teaching literacy to the peasant population in the northeastern part of his native Brazil. He realized that traditional forms of education were not effective. In response to this, he developed his approach to education around the central theme of dialogue. He believed that dialogue was the essential tool needed to involve the teacher and the student equally in the learning process. Freire believed that "when the two ‘poles’ of dialogue are thus linked by love, hope, and mutual trust, they can join in critical search for something. Only dialogue truly communicates (Freire 1973, 45)." Further, he felt that when this dialogue was absent, love and trust would be absent as well, creating a relationship between teacher and student in which mutual understanding cannot be reached and there is no shared process of liberation.

With dialogue not being a part of traditional curricula, Freire would assert that true knowing and knowledge is not accessible. In this educational system knowledge is imposed on students and the students passively receive this knowledge, leaving open the door for traditional education to domesticate and dominate students (Freire 1970). This traditional education was considered by Freire to be a "banking education" where students receive information on many disconnected subjects and are expected to spout back this information at a later time (1973)

In Freire’s vision the students will begin too see the world as an active, continuously changing reality. Through a dialogue based relationship between teacher and student, as well as a shared process of learning, the student learns to become an active questioner of their environment. This enables them to critically examine their own context and thus, fulfilling Freire’s vision, their learning becomes the living practice of freedom (1970).

Using Freire as a foundation, we can see how the classroom can be transformed into a community of learning where the classroom itself can serve as a model for democracy.

The Classroom as a Community:

This idea of creating a community within a classroom cannot be stated without qualification. Many schools, public and private, currently profess to advocate a community atmosphere. However, we must note that these communities are different from the democratic community advocated here, in the sense that they are structured around paternalistic notions of community with duty, loyalty, and service being a priority (Hargreaves & Fullman, 1998). These communities like to think of themselves as families, not realizing the limitations of such a structure. In such a community hierarchy is prevalent, with the administration and teachers having complete authority over the students. In such a community it isn’t possible for the students voice to be heard, or for dialogue to exist in a meaningful fashion.

In a democratic community, participation, equality, inclusiveness and social justice will be valued in addition to loyalty and service (Merz & Fuhrman, 1997). The students will share in the responsibility for their learning and regulating each other’s behavior (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). It is my hope that in such a community students will begin to see their contributions to the classroom as being meaningful, and they will begin to see how they can cooperatively enhance their fellow students learning to the benefit of their own, rather than competing amongst themselves. Participation in such an environment will not need to be mandated with threat of punishment. Students will instead have natural incentive, inherent to the nature of the classroom, to actively participate in this learning process. In this environment I would suggest that the student will be much more involved with their education, and even more importantly they will feel that they own their education. So as this democratic community within the classroom models a working, and living, democracy for the students, it also greatly improves their learning environment. It is only within this environment that Freire’s vision of education as liberation can occur, and only then that education can become the living practice of freedom.

With democratic ideals established as the foundation of our classroom community, what other strategies can be used to facilitate the students learning? There are many different models and approaches that can be considered and implemented when building such a classroom. However, I feel that for the community classroom to be successful it needs to go beyond embracing democratic ideals. The community needs to be a comfortable environment, where relaxed, informal dialogue can take place amongst all members of the community. To do this the traditional setting of the classroom needs to be abandoned. Students sitting in orderly rows, often alphabetically, facing their instructor sets up a hierarchical environment right from the start. I would go as far as to suggest that the ideal classroom would look much more like someone’s living room, without assigned seats, and allowing all involved in discussion to face one another, placing the entire group, including the instructor, on an equal level, which would seem to be a mandatory first step if one is to create a living democracy within a classroom.

Beyond simply making the classroom feel more like home, and thus less alienating to the student, the students home and family life needs to be more closely integrated with there school experience. It seems counterintuitive to harness a child’s education so definitively within the walls of the schoolyard, yet we do this very thing throughout most of a child’s education. This disconnect between home and school crates a rigid wall between the two main influences in a child’s life and because of this division, relationships that would enhance a stronger knowledge of the student’s needs are not fostered. By becoming a very active component in the child’s education at school, the parent would become more accountable as a teacher and role model for the child. A way to begin this process would be to create an environment where continuous discourse between parents and teachers becomes the standard, so that a transfer of information between the two can help both parties to better understand the process of the child. These discussions would help create a learning environment throughout the child’s early life in which he/she would have consistent and quality learning. By making two of the child’s most influential forces answerable to each other, the chances of the child receiving more of what they need becomes more likely.

As to what sort of learning process would best facilitate Freire’s goal is debatable. There certainly exists room for different approaches to the actual educational process. Multiculturalism, echoing strongly of German romanticist Friedrich Schleiermacher is a prime example of educational philosophy that fits well with the ideas behind liberation education. Schleiermacher, in his work, "Toward a Theory of Sociable Conduct" presents a vision that accurately describes our ideas about multicultural education today.

"There must, therefore, be a condition, that supplements these two domains, where the sphere of an individual is present in such a way that it is intersected by the spheres of others as diversely as possible and where one’s own outer limits affords one the view into a different and alien world. In this manner, one can come to know all the appearances of humanity little by little, an even the most alien persons and relations can grow familiar and become, as it were, neighbors" (Schleiermacher, 22).

Making the strange seem familiar opens up more possibilities for the student, making it easier and more natural for them to question all aspects of their education. Sonia Nieto proposes a definition of multicultural education that brings forth voices of the students and reflects a democracy in practice.

Multicultural education is a process of comprehensive school reform and basic education for all students. It challenges and rejects racism and other forms of discrimination in schools and society and accepts and affirms the pluralism (ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender, among others) that students their communities, and teachers represent. Mulitcultural education permeates the curriculum and instructional strategies used in schools, as well as the interactions among teachers, students and parents, and the very way that schools conceptualize the nature of teaching and focuses on knowledge, reflection and action (praxis) as the basis for social change, multicultural education furthers the democratic principles of social justice (Nieto 1992, 208).

This definition of multicultural education encourages the students to bring their context into the learning community, thereby invoking the student’s life to bring meaning and direction to their learning. In turn this allows their learning to become an integral part of their life. I see the final product of this integration as a dialogue between student and instructor that would no longer be limited and contained by the boundaries of the classroom, but rather a dialogue that would be situated in the context of life itself.

We also should take some note of Nietzsche here, and remember not leave out the arts and other forms of expressionism from these dialogues we are wishing to create. "Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom, after all, from which the logician is excluded? Perhaps art must be seen as the necessary complement of rational discourse?"(Nietzsche, 90). A focus on the arts and creative thinking will allow the student to better express themselves, helping them excel in all subjects. An education in music and the arts motivates an individual to share ideas and complement others. This aspect will further strengthen the classroom community, allowing the exchange of ideas to occur through multiple mediums. Art and music will bring a balance to the classroom and bring creativity out in the open, where everyone can participate and benefit from it.

Despite the curriculum, or even exact approach, if the classroom utilizes its potential as a community of learners, and does so in a democratic, egalitarian manner it will transform the students learning experience. Whether it is built around the Nieto’s ideas about multicultural education, Socratic approach, or something entirely different, the democratic environment of the classroom gives students the option to disbelieve what they are being "taught." This allows the student to engage in a completely subjective learning experience, where everything can be challenged. At this point of challenge it becomes up to the student to disprove the idea in question, and thus facilitates their further exploration of the material, and allows them to develop true knowledge on the subjects of their study and interest. In this process the student becomes their own teacher, effectively finding liberation in their education.