From Studyplace

Inclusion in the StudyPlace Core

Neil wrote:

...is an argument presented to support texts like Freire's that see education as fundamentally intermingled with politics and power? Must all educators read such texts? Or should such texts be considered voluntary or part of elective study? In the core aspects of medical and legal education, are doctors or lawyers required to take coursework or read material that takes as fundamental the relationship between power and professional practice? It seems to me that educators far too often rely on unquestioned assumptions about the relationship between power and education. What is needed, instead, is a major, politically neutral argument in support of political texts being included in a core education curriculum. That argument, I think, will be difficult to make, for it is likely to swing to one end of the political spectrum, and in so doing, to move away from the idea of core itself. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility. In moving forward, I suggest we try to focus on texts that have to do with education and not with the resolution of long-standing power struggles, be they constructed or real.

While I don't think that I am currently prepared to meet Neil's call for a "a major, politically neutral argument in support of political texts", I will attempt a much smaller expression of why I think that Pedagogy of the Oppressed belongs in the list of core readings for educators:

It is an influential book in the recent development of educational theory and practice. Educators of all stripes would be remiss if they were unfamiliar with it, and reading a book does not mean endorsing, wholly or in part, its prescriptive elements. Freire's arguments also merit careful attention and discussion. He envisioned a pedagogy where students and teachers worked together to further their critical understanding of the world around them. He argued that education should be grounded in the lived experience of the learners rather than abstractions that do not apply to their lives. He also calls for a specific pedagogy for the 'oppressed', arguing that as outsiders to the dominant culture they experience a dehumanizing powerlessness, split between the competing worlds of the oppressed and the oppressor.

Their is no assumption that Freire is correct. The reader may believe, and articulate, that Freire is paternalistic, that his view is limited by a mechanical Marxism, that the division that he expressed don't really exist, or that in practice his pedagogy would lead to less rather than more equity. These and countless other arguments can be taken up in response to the text and the core should actively seek well thought out works that offer opposing points of view. Freire explores the relationship between education, society, and justice -- categorically not unlike Plato, Rousseau, or Dewey. I think that it is not the fact that Pedagogy is political that is of concern, but rather the specific politics that it represents.

More generally, I think that the difficult argument to write would be the one against political works of education. One would have to claim that politics, policy, race, class, and gender play no or a limited role in education, and further that education does not influence our political understanding and actions. As for the comparison to lawyers and doctors, I believe that both are required to take courses in solely in ethics, where they surely delve into the political implications of their professions.

Matt 16:18, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Hi Matt - I'm putting this here for the time being to make sure that you see it; please feel free to move it as necessary later on.

I'm dissapointed to read that a challenge to the inclusion of Freire's text must be of political nature; in other words, that raising questions about the inclusion of a book and asking for an argument in defense of it must somehow be related to a problem with the specific politics a text is affiliated with. This leaves out the possibility that a person, a writer can make an apolitical challenge, which is precisely the sort of thinking I called for initially. What concerns me most is your last paragraph, where you again make reference to the notion that the educational and political dimensions of life are inextricably linked - and that, as a result, what is needed is an argument against the inclusion of political works in a core education curriculum. I worry about the gravitas of a core that takes such a notion to be self-evident. Who is this notion core to? All educators? Don't you think that if you want to operate with such a conclusion you are eventually going to have to qualify the "coreness" of your core.

nee2102 03:17, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Hi Neil,

You are right on several accounts. We have implicitly qualified the core as a core in a U.S. context of education -- the idea of schools of education, professional traing for teachers, et al. are based on a U.S. model, obviously with some implications for other systems. You are also correct in saying that I feel that education and politics are inextricably linked (in this U.S. context). I think that an apolitical core could be strong -- heavy on cognitive theorgy, practices like 'situated instruction' or 'case based' learning, theories of communications, numeracy, etc. At the risk of repeating my original argument, I think that the core is stronger if educators are exposed to methods of understanding relations of power (and Freire offers one articulation of one method). In my understanding, your argument that it's possible to achieve an excellent education without explicity exposure to politics is a political argument (and a strong one that I'm more willing to entertain, partly from our conversations). It is based on a specific understading of power, politics, and education and should be part of the dialog in our core (hopefully Freire can spark it).

I don't think that we disagree that the study of politics and education is important, but we differ in locating its centrality (i.e. part of a core). While my area of focus is technology and education, I don't think that it needs to be an explicit part of our core; it is a secondary field that the core will help learners to understand. Maybe you feel the same way about politics -- the core will help learners approach it if they choose too, but not everyone needs a background in it. My apolitical (finally) argument for including any political text (Dewey, Hirsch, Freire) is that an understanding of politics is core to achieving an understanding of education. Essentially, studying politics provides learner insight into their relation to other individuals and to society at large. Unlike a secondary field like technology, understanding politics is central to a achieving deep understanding of literacy, cognition, etc.

Matt 12:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)