Any system of education, if it is to fulfill its purpose, clearly has two functions: to preserve and to provide for change. It must preserve those values, beliefs, customs, rites, rituals, and the knowledge that make the long-term survival of society possible (Bass, 1997). In this similar line of thought, Friere views education as a way for people to develop their critical thinking and innovative skills to be able to transform the world, as well as to create and preserve change. In this article, the author agrees with Friere’s view on education as the practice of freedom, where critical thinking and creativity are involved in the transformation of the world. However, I also argue that the view of Friere in education is not justified in modern society because our current online education and its practice do not regard dialogue nor does it resist it, the online system has no fixed and definite groundwork, and the access to education becomes a privilege.
In Freire’s article “The Banking Concept of Education”, the educator points out that online education is where students are only limited to receive information, memorize and then repeat the process. In this concept, a dialogue is resisted, and the teacher is the only one allowed to present information. He also used the concept of “Problem-posing Concept” to go against the Banking concept, wherein this concept, the teachers, and students engage in dialogue where they learn from each other. But in modern society, a dialogue is not regarded nor is it resisted, it is in the middle of both sides, and the reason for this is because of the method we use where students are required to be silent or muted to ensure that the communication of teachers is to not be disrupted, which somehow limits the students to have that freedom of sharing information. The sharing of a student´s thoughts and information is what the Problem-posing concept is promoting, yet with our modern situations, different teachers require different protocols in class and so sometimes it limits the students' capability to provide analysis and points on specific topics. In contemporary education, the teachers are not too be fully blamed for this system but it is in the situation where freedom has to be limited to ensure that the class will flow and information is given, and yet this particular point is already contradicting to the purpose of Friere’s views on education.
* * * * *
Education is a system: teaching is the action and learning is the process (Heick, 2020). Freire’s views on education are not justified in modern society because there is no fixed and definite groundwork in the educational system. Unlike the traditional set where students and teachers are inside a class and communication is easily placed, a test is done, a lesson is given, and there is a particular flow for discussion, online education gives a different approach to teaching, all depending on the school and even the teacher as to how they can conduct class, which then limits the methods on how to conduct a class to them as well.
That system provides a structure as to how a student and a teacher is to conduct that lesson, to ensure productivity on both sides. Yet in modern education, this is quite difficult to uphold since as mentioned above, different protocols and methods are used by different teachers and schools. Consequently, inconsistencies occur. There is change but there is no sense of regularity or reliability of its effectiveness. At this point, teachers are experimenting: they are creating a change in the system, but how can it be guaranteed that this change is indeed aligned with Freire’s view on education?
At the end of it all, it becomes heavily dependent on the teacher and his way of thinking. The learning process of the students is likewise not consistent or guaranteed to be effective, since again it depends on the system and the teaching process. Students have different methods and approaches in learning, while Friere’s promotes inquiring and curiosity as well as collaboration with teachers. This cannot be justified in modern society because some are even being limited to only work by themselves, without any form of communication.
So, no fixed system, no student mobility, no collaborative interaction between teachers and students, and even between students. This is the reality that demands to be contemplated: education is indeed changing, but the question of whether it promotes critical thinking and creativity to all remains.
* * * * *
With students having their classes online, people now rely on online connections and digital devices to have that experience, and especially one with quality. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (2020), about one in four eighth-graders who are poor do not have a desktop computer or laptop (23.7%), and almost one in three (29.4%) do not have a tablet—which is essential if students are to be able to follow instruction online. Indeed, 7.0% of eighth graders who are poor do not have home internet, the other essential instrument for remote study. In contrast, only 7.7% of non-poor students lack a desktop or laptop computer, and only a tiny fraction of non-poor students (1.6%) is without internet access. Those without access to these are being held back, they do not get to have that same quality education nor do they get to even have education at all. And so, the access to education becomes a privilege.
This is what Friere was talking about in his banking concept of education. Knowledge becomes a privilege for those who consider themselves as knowledgeable, and yet, it seems to be the fact that knowledge is becoming a privilege for those who have money. Thus, Friere’s worldview on education cannot be applied to modern society if the people themselves cannot even have education at all. Although school is not the only place to gain knowledge, however, it is where the child´s foundation is formed and nourished.
There is indeed a transformation in the education system and how people are approaching the educational system to fit in the situation of present society. But this transformation does not promote collaboration and communication during an online setting, it does not have a fixed framework or system yet, and not all students have access to it. However, despite all of these, we can still say that modern society is trying its best to be more like critical thinkers and innovating as compared to society before.
The question of whether it is justified, the author believes that is not yet present, but it is possible, keeping in mind that results happen over time, not overnight, work hard, stay consistent and be patient. And who knows, maybe with this new system and this new era for education could be the start of a revamped system where finally, Friere’s view on education is to be implemented and considered by schools and authorities. Perhaps this new era of the academe will promote students who engage in online learning and self-teaching, and eventually, will produce a generation of autodidacts – educated by the internet and leveraged by technology – who will eventually starve an oppressive industrialized education system.
References:
Bass, R. (1997). The Purpose of Education. Retrieved on October 5, 2020, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131729709335242?journalCode=utef20
Garcia, E. (April, 2020). Access to online learning amid coronavirus is far from universal, and children who are poor suffer from a digital divide. Retrieved on October 5, 2020, from https://www.epi.org/blog/access-to-online-learning-amid-coronavirus-and-digital-divide/
Heick, T. (June, 2020). Life isn´t fair but education should be. Retrieved on October 5, 2020, from https://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/education-system-teaching-action-learning-