DB 8.1 Analyzing Educational Paradigms: Submission Preview

The submissions for this assignment are posts in the assignment's discussion. Below are the discussion posts for Augustus Johnson, or you can view the full discussion.

Augustus Johnson

There are several ways in which Paolo Freire’s arguments in his essay “The banking Concept of Education” and Sir Ken Robinson’s narration “Changing Education Paradigms” are alike but different.

They both agree that the current methods for educating our citizens must change, but their reasons for change differ. In Freire’s case, the reason for change is that current system is designed to perpetually oppress its citizen’s while Robinson’s reason is that the current system is outdated and can’t keep up with the demands of globalization. Freire states “This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the student, extends only as far as filing and storing deposits.” (144) He goes on and says, “But in the last analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformations and the knowledge in this (at best) ‘misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart from praxis, individuals cannot be truly human.”. (144) Robinson asserts that the current model of education was conceived during the culture of enlightenment and the industrial age. An age a agrarian Society was on the footsteps of industrialization and the leaders felt there was no need to educate the masses. In fact, public education hadn’t been established.

Both writers agree that the purpose of education was to benefit the economy. Freire states “The oppressors use their “humanitarianism “ to preserve a profitable situation.” He also states, “ knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider know nothing” (144) Robinson asserts that the educational model was driven by the economic imperative of the time, intellectual enlightenment.

They also agree that the “gift” of education was paternalistic. In Freire’s notes, “the oppressors use the banking concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic social action apparatus, within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of “welfare recipient.” (146) Robinson observed that the sentiment of the time was that many street and working class children were incapable of learning to read and write, that it would be a waste of time trying.

Freire and Robinson proposed different solutions for improving educational methods. Freire’s method was called problem- posing and Robinson’s was based on divergent thinking. Both felt that students were being doped, In Freire’s case it was through the teaching and Robinson’s case, it was Ritalin. Freire states, “The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students’ creative power to stimulate their credibility serves the interest of the oppressor, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed.” (145) Both have different ways of handling myths surrounding education. In Freire’s case it’s the myth created to “conceal certain facts which explain the way human beings exist in the world” (153) In Robinson’s case he wants the concepts of academic, no-academic, abstract, theoretical and vocation to be relegated to the status of myths. Finally both agree the process of education should be a group affair. Robinson states, “Most great learning happens in groups. Collaboration is the stuff of growth”. Freire concludes “The pursuit of full humanity, however, cannot be carried out in isolation or individualism, but only in fellowship and solidarity.” (154) He also says “the problem solving educator constantly re-forms his reflections in the reflection of the students. The students –no longerdocile listeners—are now critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher.

There are several ways in which Paolo Freire’s arguments in his essay “The banking Concept of Education” and Sir Ken Robinson’s narration “Changing Education Paradigms” are alike but different.
They both agree that the current methods for educating our citizens must change, but their reasons for change differ. In Freire’s case, the reason for change is that current system is designed to perpetually oppress its citizen’s while Robinson’s reason is that the current system is outdated and can’t keep up with the demands of globalization. Freire states “This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the student, extends only as far as filing and storing deposits.” (144) He goes on and says, “But in the last analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformations and the knowledge in this (at best) ‘misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart from praxis, individuals cannot be truly human.”. (144) Robinson asserts that the current model of education was conceived during the culture of enlightenment and the industrial age. An age a agrarian Society was on the footsteps of industrialization and the leaders felt there was no need to educate the masses. In fact, public education hadn’t been established.
     Both writers agree that the purpose of education was to benefit the economy. Freire states “The oppressors use their “humanitarianism “ to preserve a profitable situation.” He also states, “ knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider know nothing” (144) Robinson asserts that the educational model was driven by the economic imperative of the time, intellectual enlightenment.
    They also agree that the “gift” of education was paternalistic. In Freire’s notes, “the oppressors use the banking concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic social action apparatus, within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of “welfare recipient.” (146) Robinson observed that the sentiment of the time was that many street and working class children were incapable of learning to read and write, that it would be a waste of time trying.
    Freire and Robinson proposed different solutions for improving educational methods. Freire’s method was called problem- posing and Robinson’s was based on divergent thinking. Both felt that students were being doped, In Freire’s case it was through the teaching and Robinson’s case, it was Ritalin. Freire states, “The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students’ creative power to stimulate their credibility serves the interest of the oppressor, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed.” (145)  Both have different ways of handling myths surrounding education. In Freire’s case it’s the myth created to “conceal certain facts which explain the way human beings exist in the world” (153) In Robinson’s case he wants the concepts of academic, no-academic, abstract, theoretical and vocation to be relegated to the status of myths. Finally both agree the process of education should be a group affair. Robinson states, “Most great learning happens in groups. Collaboration is the stuff of growth”. Freire concludes “The pursuit of full humanity, however, cannot be carried out in isolation or individualism, but only in fellowship and solidarity.” (154) He also says “the problem solving educator constantly re-forms his reflections in the reflection of the students. The students –no longerdocile listeners—are now critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher.

Augustus Johnson

I think the key word is object. He refers to object twice in his essay. The first time is in his opening paragraph when he states “This relationship involves a narrating Subject (the teacher) and the listening object (the students). (143) He then uses the word again when he writes, “Because banking education begins with a false understanding of men and women as objects. it cannot promote the development of what Fromm calls “biophily”, but instead produces its opposite “necrophilia”” (148) When I think of an object, I think of something that is lifeless like a ball, a container or a computer. Freire in facts state that narration turns the student “into “containers” into “receptacles” to be “filled” by the teacher”. (144) He further states that “The “humanism” of the banking approach mask the effort to turn women and men into automatons” (146) which negates man’s desire to “be more fully human” (146) A automaton or an android like a vessel is lifeless. So my assumption is the banking concept loves all that is dead, “necrophily” (148) and does not want a connection with things that grow and are alive, “biophily” (148). After all it is easier to control dead inanimate objects than something that is alive.

By the way, Josh, what are bell hooks?

I think the key word is object. He refers to object twice in his essay. The first time is in his opening paragraph when he states “This relationship involves a narrating Subject (the teacher) and the listening object (the students). (143) He then uses the word again when he writes, “Because banking education begins with a false understanding of men and women as objects. it cannot promote the development of what Fromm calls “biophily”, but instead produces its opposite “necrophilia”” (148) When I think of an object, I think of something that is lifeless like a ball, a container or a computer. Freire in facts state that narration turns the student “into “containers” into “receptacles” to be “filled” by the teacher”. (144) He further states that “The “humanism” of the banking approach mask the effort to turn women and men into automatons” (146) which negates man’s desire to “be more fully human” (146) A automaton or an android like a vessel is lifeless. So my assumption is the banking concept loves all that is dead, “necrophily” (148) and does not want a connection with things that grow and are alive, “biophily” (148). After all it is easier to control dead inanimate objects than something that is alive.
By the way, Josh, what are bell hooks?