The Politics of Education

We are to regard the mind, not as a piece of iron to be laid upon the anvil and hammered into any shape, nor as a block of marble in which we are to find the statue by removing the rubbish, nor as a receptacle into which knowledge may be poured; but as a flame that is to be fed, as an active being that must be strengthened to think and to feel -- and to dare, to do, and to suffer Mark Hopkins, 1836

I came across this quotation a year ago and I was basically struck by its message. This quotation I think has a profound meaning on what the process of learning should be. It entails that learning should involve an active participation of people that are part of this process. Students should not be passive in a sense that they would just take the information their teachers or educators are giving them. Learning should not be a process wherein it only shapes people to have similar and technical view on things but it should be a cognitive process wherein people or students are developed to have critical mind to question and challenge ideas in the natural world. Knowledge, for Hopkins, is achieved not by shaping it to us but by being involved with the process itself. This encounter led me to assess the education system our country has and found out that it constitute a view opposed to what Hopkins said. Does this mean that we have an appalling education system? Does this necessarily mean that this view about how learning should be is correct? A detailed answer to these questions can be found on the philosophical ideas Paulo Freire pointed out in his book The Politics of Education. Sharing the same view with Mark Hopkins, Paulo Freire emphasizes that studying requires a critical awareness of the ideas and information being infused to us. To be critical is to develop a sense of curiosity and creativity toward humankind. Freire pointed out that society is surrounded by various social relations that can create several contradictions among them. He asserts that there is a need to have a dialectic discussion among them that promotes liberation

among man. There is a need to critique the dehumanizing reality within the society to uphold social change as well as the need for action. He stresses that there is a need to link education and politics together for the education system of a society is very political in nature and it represents the struggle for meaning and a struggle over power relations. Traditionalist view on education sees it as a factory that continues to produce learners with a perspective which is patterned in the dominant culture in the society. It is seen as a reproduction of people with specific ideas, language and social relations. Moreover, it continuous to exclude subordinate groups and emphasizes the role of dominant classes. It also asserts how the states, through its legal power and abilities, developed school practices into the interest of the capitalists. This then promotes social inequality for the reason that the oppressed and subordinate groups are being more oppressed. This idea is also showcased by the article written by Maria Doronilla entitled Educating Filipinos for the World Market. The article basically explains how the education output in the Philippines is perfectly aligned with the export labor policy of the country. This shows that the goal of the curriculum of the education in the Philippines is to produce labor workers which are demanded by the state. The trend in our education right now is teaching Filipinos courses that are in demand abroad. Therefore, we became work force for 1st world countries. This can be the reason behind the nursing

phenomenon years ago. As I remembered it, many high school seniors were all dreaming of becoming a nurse because they are demanded abroad and thinking that they would create a fortune there. This issue is actually funny and at the same time bothering funny in a sense that we actually let the state and the formal system control and manipulate us making us some kind of a puppet or a tool for them and bothering because almost all individuals are influenced by this until now and it would be, I think a long and difficult process to alter this system because we are

all blinded by this. This is where Freire contexts his view on how education should be and that is to liberate people, most especially the oppressed ones. The main and basic idea Paulo Freire showed in his book is that man, as learners, should not be an object but a subject in the creation of knowledge. That is they are supposed to be an active participant of the learning process and not just a passive learner where they would just consume the knowledge in the form of mechanical memorization and alike. Man, for Freire, should recreate ideas and not just bank them. They should develop the attitude of being critical and creative to better understand the knowledge presented to them. Banking education, on the other hand, kills the creative and critical side of men for it only teaches them to see knowledge as something poured to them. This is what Freire suggest to this problem, we should start

questioning what the formal system would offer us. This idea of Freire was further explained through discussing various factors such as the dominant view on the notion of illiteracy, teacherlearner relationship and how individuals should view the world. According to Freire, illiteracy is considered by most society to be a disease that needs to be cured. Because of this educators tend to adopt a technical approach to teach them to be literates. They are bombarded with texts and ideas that would just allow them for a simple comprehension of ideas but not a deeper and critical understanding of it. It basically hinders the ability of the illiterates to use their knowledge and skills to improve their status and world. Moreover, illiterates are taught about things that are unrelated or irrelevant to their life and reality. Because of this, subordinate groups are still unaware of their rights and are fused with the idea that the dominant class should be the one to reign and their role is to serve them. This notion is basically evident in the Philippine formal system. When we start going to school we are taught to memorize the alphabets, multiplication table, and other simple things that we need to

know so that we can be called literates however they dont actually taught and told us to question the ideas they would present to us. They didnt teach us to look at things in a deeper sense. The very foundation of our education instilled to us is this kind of view which is why we grew up with a mindset like this. Being literate in our sense entails being able to read and write but it does not actually include being able to analyze things profoundly. It is ironic that we read books and the teachers give us examples not in the context of our society but mostly in other countries. This is why the ability of people to criticize what is happening in our society is removed in their consciousness. With this, Freire asserts that illiteracy should not be viewed as a disease and an obstruction to people but it should be seen as a result of social and political problems of the society. The issue must be first considered to be a political matter before literacy can be taught to them as a way of liberating them and developing their critical analysis to enable them to change their social and political realities. With this, Freire promotes the use of generative themes and contents which basically comes from the lives and experiences of the students or participants. It should teach the participants to challenge and question their status quo or their reality and not just to memorize facts and information. It encourages participants to be aware of their situation and not just to take everything at ease. This kind of method would allow peasants and other subordinate groups to actually know their rights and status in their society as well as liberating them on how they can transform it. Literacy, in Freires view, should be perceived as a way of giving voice to the masses and help them escape within their culture of silence. However, this is not evident in our society. Most of the books we read in schools would actually tell us good things about Americans and the leaders of our country. We are basically blinded with this information that we tend to look at the Americans as our protector and savior when we should see them as our

colonizers who killed our forefathers and millions of Filipinos. Same as Marcos, many books wrote about how good his administration was, well lets say it was in some way good but the fact that the book didnt include how he killed many Filipinos and how he tends to manipulate the Philippines system is already a big factor. This is why we dont actually develop a sense of nationalism and we dont actually question higher authorities. We as a citizens and learners can actually make a difference and we have the ability to change the reality if we only believe and question it. Filipinos should be critical on everything. We should realize that while we are helping multinational companies to flourish we are in return degrading Filipino products. We should remember that even we are the subordinate it doesnt mean we dont have the right and ability to change the system. This situation happens in the Philippines because oppressed groups have already this notion that they cant change how reality goes. Well, we cant really change anything if we would have this mindset. This notion then is affirmed by Freire in his idea of conscientization wherein it stresses that man is seen to be an object and subject within the world. As an object, man is perceived as a being living within the world without any idea of the reality that surrounds her/him. As a subject, man living in her/his reality is fully aware that he/she exists in that kind of environment and he/she is also conscious that he/she has the ability to transform it. Conscientization is possible when a man became conscious about this situation and they know that they can alter the environment they are situated to live. With this, man does not simply accept this kind of reality that was conditioned to him but he will try to modify it. He also mentioned that this process is not an static matter that can be easily achieved but it actually contains a revolving process in a dialectic way wherein as we influence and alter the reality, our consciousness are also affected and this new consciousness would again affect the new reality we created. Similar to the view of learning, learning should

be seen as a continuous process wherein there is no end point for creating new knowledge. Education is not limited inside the formal school but it can be best obtain in the outside world. Another point raised in this book is the relationship of an educator and the learner. We can notice that in the Philippines we have this teacher-student relationship wherein the power mainly lies on the teacher because they are the all-knowing individuals who have already experienced a lot and we, as students, do not know anything. Well they are basically the ones giving the students grade which is why they are the authority. I remember a classmate of mine back in high school saying this to me Have you experienced the feeling of wanting to question your teacher or say to them that what they are saying is wrong, but you cant because you know that theyll be angry and might avenge through your grades? This situation is just one of the examples on how knowledge can be restricted if the only one giving the ideas are the educators. Learning should not be a one way process but a two-way process which includes the development of both the learner and the educator. This kind of relationship would only produce a banking method of teaching, where the learner is just a passive empty object that is filled with knowledge by his/her teacher. Freire then suggests that knowledge is created not only through the educator giving the information but it involves the educator and the learner sharing their ideas with each other to create new ideas and understandings. There are still things that the educator needs to learn from their students and vice versa. Freire suggests that students and teachers should enter a dialogue to have a thorough discussion of ideas to contradict views and to create and recreate new knowledge. That is Freire advocates the use of a dialogical learning process to enable students and teachers to see themselves as a being living in their reality and history but they are aware that they can change and affect it. This is the kind of education Freire promotes that liberates both the learners and educators. I believe that this is a necessary factor

for a learning to occur because there are many ideas being presented and from there we can recreate a new one. This kind of relationship does not only limited to teacher- student relationship but also to those people who promote social reforms for the oppressed and subordinate groups for education is not all about the formal system but it entails social and political aspect of our country, as Freire discusses throughout the book. One part of the book talks about the role of social workers. It asserts that social workers should adopt a dialectic process and not an assertive thinking. Social workers should assess their developments in a way that they would be critical on the change they would promote as well as encourage the liberation of the oppressed people they are working at. The Catholic Church has been a part of our state since then. They are perceived as an educator to the people and in principle they should empowered and protect the oppressed ones. Because of this they are considered to be a significant factor not just in terms of religious matter but also in terms of political and social issues of our country. With this, we can say that the church plays a critical role in the development of the society. I remember a Juana Change youtube clip entitled Mga Anak ng Diyos it actually showed the stand of the Catholic Church in the issue of RH Bill. It illustrated how the churches seem to have a conservative stand towards this issue which basically does not help in improving the life of the people. Nakangiti ngayon sa inyo si Papa Jesus kasama si Mama Mary at tuwang tuwa sa ginagwa niyo This statement from the clip, which is from a monsignor, reminded me of another statement which traditional church would always say Ipasang awa nalang natin yan sa Diyos. I would constantly hear this statement from a priest or Christian devotees and this demonstrates how church dont put their preaching to practice for they believe that prayers are enough to make a change. This is also the

reason why individuals should always be critical and question the knowledge given to them because as the clip showed, churches are also giving false notion that the RH Bill is pro-abortion which in fact it is not. The clip also presented the statement No more Padre Damaso! which I think a good message for the people who are blinded by false ideas and beliefs. Parallel with this view, Freire also asserts the idea no more traditional churches. He stated that they should put into practice what they are preaching to the people. He adds that church should not be a passive participant in promoting social change. That social change can only be achieved not through this mechanistic process but through a conscious awareness of the world and through genuine actions. He promotes the Prophetic Church, for this type of church practices a radical social change for the oppressed people. This church is towards the liberation of the oppressed in contrast to the traditional and modernistic church where the former believes that their prayers are enough to develop change and the latter believes that there is nothing we can do to change the condition state that we live in. No wonder many poor people who are mostly religious ones have this mindset that they cant do anything to change the reality and they would just leave everything to God since they basically follow the teachings of the church. And this situation is evidently happening in the Philippines wherein millions of people are solid Christian. This is the reason why, as Freire states, church should realize that preaching wont do any good, they should start liberating people to act and to be aware of their reality. And I think, Pope Benedict XVI is one example of these liberal theologians who believes that liberation is needed for a genuine change to take place. In general, Freire shows his philosophical notion of how education should be taught to people. Education should promote radical change and develop the creative and critical side of the

learners. The traditional view on education should be eradicated and be replaced by this for learning is a continuous process with no end point which is why individuals are encourage to always question the knowledge being infused to them. Ideas and information evolves from time to time which is why knowledge would also evolve and it is our duty and responsibility to always oversee things and ideas that surrounds us. This can be a way to change the reality which is shaped by the dominant group. The book presents a good perspective on how can learning be improve and I think that this is an excellent point raised by Freire. It can be realized that there really is a need for radical change in our society, especially in the Philippines. Having experienced the formal system of education in the Philippines I can affirm that the system has taught us to have a technical view on knowledge. Elementary, high school and in some part of my college experience basically taught me to be objective that is to be technical on things. Looking back, I can say that Ive been opened to see things in an objective manner and not in subjective one. During elementary and high school I was taught to memorize dates and events. This basically resulted to not remembering it after the test or the term for the reason that we didnt have a profound understanding on it. This must be the reason why many Filipino youths do not even know their history, such as the basic details of the People Power Revolution. If this simple detail of our past is already ignored then how would they be able to know and understand deeper ideas? Based on what I experienced, having a mechanical thinking would give individuals the difficulty to scrutinize things around them. Which is why, I agree to what Freire suggests that individuals should develop a mind that is always critical to ideas and a mind that can be creative. We should be able to step out of the box wherein the formal system puts us to enable us to see things in a different and profound way. A better way to start is to alter the education process in our

country which is apparently modeled and patterned in the Western perspectives. This book is an eye-opener to all people, giving us hope that all of us have the ability to change the state. We should be free from the clutches of the formal system of our country. We should stop the state from producing the same individuals that would only benefit those in the dominant class. As Hopkins said, learning should be viewed as a flame an active agent where if infused with another flame can create more energy and light. Lets start the change by developing an active attitude towards learning. Lets be the subject of knowledge and not the object.