Prospective Theories of Education Reform

In Defense of Elitism by William A. Henry III, and The Banking Concept of Education by Paulo Freire, present two different and quite radical propositions for altering the course of educations as we know it. Freire, a Brazilian professor whose writing have stirred up debates in the academic community, brings to the table the idea that the method used to teach today is intrinsically flawed and passes on a distorted view of reality to pupils. His proposed solution starts with the resolution of the "teacher-student contradiction" (343), a problem with the very nature of all of current tutelage. In his ideal model, which would minimize the authority of teachers and set curricula, there would exist a "teacher-student" and a"student-teacher" (348) both involved in a mutual give-receive process of learning. Anything short of this would lead to "banking", students storing but not experiencing and digesting the facts learned. Henry, however, entertains no such weakening of the current student teacher relationship. If anything he is a strong proponent for strengthening it. The education system, according to Henry, is suffering from its recent trend toward catering to students learning wants, adapting new "hip" curricula, and generally lowering the bar for higher education admittance. Henry's solution, although not as ground-breaking as Freire's, would be almost as hard to implement without popular outcry. Henry suggests, in addition to raising the standard for college admittance, that we should restrict the number of people going to college by a fairly drastic amount. I believe Henrys argument for change to be superior because of the type of change he is promoting. Unlike Freire's self proclaimed "revolutionary futurity"(351) movement which will leave standards and authority chains in shambles,Henry's proposed solution will strengthen our weakening system and usher in a return to true higher education.

Freire has a problem with what he calls education's "fundamentally narrative character" (342). He argues reality is ever-changing, and that any attempt to quantify and present it as teachable material will sterilizeand detach it from things that would make it otherwise significant. The task of learning, in this case, becomes simply an action of storing and filing the information that is "deposited" by the instructor. Another fundamental part of his argument is his difficulty in having teachers take such an authoritarian function in the classroom. "The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students" (344). This misused authority, he then argues, is used to further expedite the student population's incorporation into a programmed, permissive society.

Henrys problem with the current education system is its fall from former greatness. By "truckling trendily" (210) in response to shifting student requests, colleges are phasing out classic requirements in favor ofchoices that would "reflect and affirm their own [student] identities"(210). Swayed by the sheer number of unprepared and incapable students,even prestigious universities are giving way to "pusillanimity" (210) and dropping work quality and quantity requirements. The underlying, uniquely American ideal of equal opportunity for all, he says, is mostly to blame."Ultimately, it is the yearning to believe that anyone can be brought up to college level that has brought colleges down to everyone's level" (211).

Freire's solution involves sweeping changes to current policy as well as established mentalities. Unlike the banking system, which treats students as "objects of assistance" (351), in Freire's system "no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught" (348). This would cause considerable friction, for to "exchange the role of depositor, prescriber, domesticator, for the role of student among students would be to undermine the power of oppression and serve the cause of liberation" (345). This "liberation education" (348) does not consist of transmitting information, but rather an "osmosis" of information from the world to student and teacher alike. Should any conflict occur over the content of absorption, the "solution is not to 'integrate' them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so they can become 'beings for themselves'"(345). Obviously as the summarizer I'm taking certain liberties in interpreting his proposal. But if you think I'm biasing it too much, read the Commies book for yourself dick.

Henry recognizes the way to keep institutes of higher learning from being bullied by this rising solipsistic mindset is to decrease the level of dependence on student patronage. Not surprisingly, his plan calls for the reduction of people allowed to attend college out of high school from the current sixty percent to a more meager thirty-three. Schools that have lower academic achievement and already serve the "academically marginal"(211) would be made into vocational or community colleges. This would allow for the reinstatement of a more Platonic academic system into the remaining colleges, which would serve the more fit few, as well as "diverting academic also-rans out of the academic track and on to the vocational one"(209).

Although there are many intricacies in this issue, the views and propositions of these two men boil down to one thing- there view of human nature. While this at first may seem an inappropriate oversimplification, it is not, asshole. Freire believes, incorrectly, that if people were freed from the"submersion of consciousness" brought on by the banking system (349), people would, with contact of the "real world", "feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge" (349). The docility and lack of motivation in students is not inherent, but the result of an oppressive system that suffocated the natural ambition and curiosity of mankind.

Henry's position is less accommodating to the human ego. He recognizes accurately that the masses of academia don't exist because of a"love of learning and a prevalent yen for self-improvement" (210), as some would like to believe. As a home-schooled student, I was a close as you could get to being "out of the system", and had there not been someone there to dictate, order, cajole, punish and threaten, I would have accomplished nothing. The student-teacher conflict exists for the same reason the parent-child conflict does. Growth. If a twelve year old child is walking around in diapers and breast-feeding, is it not the fault of the parent? Perhaps a little prodding from someone more developed would have staved off this lack of growth. In the same manner teachers hold the responsibility for developing the minds of their students. Taking away there right to authority and giving the students major say in program content would be akin to informing parents that they have to abide by the same rules. Cake for breakfast anyone?In speaking about classroom learning, Freire writes, "In this process, arguments based 'authority' are no longer valid; in order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it" (348). Henry's proposal is superior to Freire's because Freire is fundamentally wrong. Freedom does not equate to lawlessness. For freedom to exist you must have order, and order necessitates authority. Without it, you could no more run a classroom than a household or a country.