This is a perfect example of how Freire addresses a problem in a very limited context. A takes two pictures of the world. One as it is and one as he believes it ought to be. Then he comes up with this grandoise, seemingly comprehensive solution to Life, The Universe, And Everything and applies it in a hyper-intellectualized, completely hypothetical fashion. "Wow," we think, "That's a good point. That really is how things are, and this would really help them change to the way they ought to be." So we (and by "we" I mean Dr. Rogers) decide to have a Freire-ian experiment, just to test the waters, and it fails miserably. Or, rather, I fail at it miserably. And here's why. My freedom is limited and conditional. I don't have true educational freedom just because I'm allowed to blog about whatever I want so long as it is pertinent to the class. In fact, even if I were allowed to blog about whatever I want, period, I still wouldn't have any degree of valuable freedom because I'm still being coerced into blogging. And I hate blogging. In my personal opinion, the only activity more inane than writing a blog is reading a blog. But anyway, like all good bloggers, I digress. What I'm getting at is that if I had the kind of freedom Freire writes about, I wouldn't post anything, unless I really felt like it. And my grade shouldn't suffer for my electing not to participate in this aspect of the class. That's freedom. In fact, my grade shouldn't suffer no matter what I do. In fact, I shouldn't even be graded, or given a degree. I shouldn't need a degree. Degrees are for the oppressed. The let the oppressors know that the bearer will never think outside the box and is therefore desireable. In fact, I shouldn't even have to take this class, unless I really want to. It shouldn't be required for me to take this class in order to tutor in the writing center. THAT'S OPPRESSION! And not just that. If I'm not especially interested in Renaissance Lit, but I don't have the attention span for Medeival Lit either, the department shouldn't hold that against me. That's oppression. Who are they to tell me I'm not qualified to hold a BA in English without having fulfilled requirements the oppressors imposed upon me? For that matter, who is Weber State to say I have to pass math in order to obtain a BA? I'm never going to graph a parabola anyway. Why do I need to know how? We got oppression coming out of our ears here. The point I'm making is that fighting the oppressive system of education is a much bigger job that must be carried out on a much bigger scale than just education, let alone just one class. I think Freire would agree with me on this point. Education is the mechanism by which the oppressed are conditioned to accept their oppression without think of it as such. The true problem is so interwoven into the very nature of society as we have constructed it that it would take a revolution on a massive scale just to begin rectify the situation. By offering some small degree of illusory fau-freedom, we are aiding the oppression, if anything.

Not that it isn't fun to try.

Reflections On My Two Retractions

Sometimes I get a little too much pleasure out of teasing grammar gurus. Though I really do view language and grammar as more flexible and creative than Michael would like, I respect everything he says and wish I had his comprehensive knowledge on the subject. I am joking when I say "stupid" grammar rules, for I feel that while flexible, grammar provides a necessary framework that, when utilized proprely, enriches a paper and perpetuates a necessary and purposeful standard of academia.

I'll post something on Freire and Murray later. I want to write about them, but I'm a little blogged out from all this retracting I've had to do :)

Retraction: Take II

Apparently, I need another retraction. Apparently, Michael and I never even argued about commas.

Retraction Regarding the Post of September 12, 2009

There has been some controversy over my last post. I named a tutor with whom I had a friendly argument over comma placement in a paper I wrote. In my post I made the Michael seem very...what's the word...dogmatically assertive than perhaps he truly was. He was very deliberate in explaining the rule to me, and further, why it applied in this specific instance. Though when I tried to debate with him on this rule he did claim it was not debatable, he was very effective in his persuasion and not at all blindly obstinate.

Ergo, I apologize for misrepresenting Michael as a tutor, and offer my utmost respect to him as an explainer of stupid grammar rules.

You Teach, I Listen. Me Teach, You Listen.

They say that you learn more about a subject by teaching it than by simply being a student in a class where that subject is taught. I have found that to be the truth for me. When I have to teach something, I do research and I make sure I learn it well enough to be able to at least answer some simple questions about it. In some of the more effective classes I have been in the teacher has asked students to teach small portions of the lessons in class. By keeping the portions small the teacher still is able to make corrections if necessary and while the student learns more from teaching the small portion of the lesson does not overwhelm the student.


In some classes that I have had, the teacher will invite the students to tell about what we learned from the chapter we read. This technique gives the student an opportunity to teach the class what they learned, and gives them the chance to really cement that knowledge into their heads. The best way to learn something is to review it over and over. Teaching is basically reviewing out loud.


Allowing a class to teach themselves entirely is not always a good thing. If teachers were to give complete control to their students, learning would slow dramatically. If teachers left the teaching completely in the students' hands then instead of learning about The Death of a Salesman we would learn about who in the class was suicidal and why, instead of learning about how we can prevent another holocaust, we would learn about how that fat kid in class got all the free doughnuts. We would learn interesting information, but not the most important information.


When a student pays for an education the assumption is that the Teacher is a lot more expert in the subject than the student is. In order for the students to learn more about a subject they have to be fed new information about that subject. If you have a group of people who want to learn more about algebra it makes sense for the one in the group that knows the most about algebra, to teach the others what that he knows. You wouldn't want the kid who knows hardly anything at all trying to teach algebra to a bunch of people that know way more than him. For that reason, a complete freirian approach would not work.

The ideal then would be a combination of the two. A great teaching style would have some depositing of knowledge and some inviting the class to teach what they know and what they have learned. When allowing the students to teach the teacher still needs to be in control of what is happening in the class, that way you don't end up learning about the fat kid's doughnut run. At the same time, the teacher is able to use part of class to deposit new and interesting information to the students to increase their knowledge on the subject.

I Hate to Admit that Freire May Be Right

I know, call me crazy, but Friere may be onto something with his idea of oppression. In Miller's essay "The Arts of Complicity," he points out the good and bad of both the banking-concept and problem-posing. I feel similarly, that both have their merits and may be worthwhile if used correctly. However, one of the points Miller made got me thinking that Freire might be right and that I am a blind subordinate just happy to be complicit in my own oppression.

Miller's idea follows. Many people go through the educational system and sit in classes we despise just be because they are required. We never say a word in the "public discourse" about our hatred of a certain subject or professor. To do so would be anti-social. However, this is a form of oppression. Shoudn't we be allowed to voice our opinion outwardly, instead of passively falling asleep or checking Facebook on a laptop during such a class?

So, we finish the educational system, which, as part of the American dream, has promised us that if we did so we would be successful and find great jobs. However, we enter the corporate world and discover that oppression exists there too. Didn't we just get a degree in order to get out of being oppressed? So, we take the first menial job somebody will hand to us and work under a club of good old boys. Oppression continues. Is it time that we stopped being complicit?

As a personal example, Miller's scenario happened to me. I graduated from BYU with a degree in English. My emphasis was in editing and technical writing. I walked into the great and spacious building downtown and told the human resource people I would like to apply for an editing position. The woman in charge could barely hide her dismay as she explained that I was not qualified for any such positions, but that I could apply to be a telephone answerer in the call center.

WHAT? I have a degree! I'm too educated to work in a call center!

So, I tried again. I asked to apply for some secretarial positions, as I had some experience working at BYU's law school as a secretary. Again, I was told that I was not qualified. After some begging, the woman agreed to allow me to take the secretarial tests.

As I took my tests, my husband happened to run into a friend of his father's in the lobby while waiting for me. This man happened to have more clout in human resources than the woman who had given me no hope. My husband explained that I was there applying for jobs. The man left.

I emerged from my test taking, feeling more and more desperate as my options seemed to diminish. However, I was pleasantly surprised when the lady immediately asked if I wanted to interview for some secretary positions that very day. Huh? Hadn't she just told me I was not qualified.

We found out that my husband's friend had talked to her. I guess nepotism is not dead. I got a secretarial position and eventually worked my way up to being an editor, but it was a hard-fought and unpleasant experience. I was one of 6 women in a department of 250 men.

My point is that we are still oppressed. We may blind ourselves to it or soothe ourselves by pretending that it is not so, but it is. We can certainly try to achieve all we would like, but it may not be possible because of the way our society is run. There are the elite and the subordinate. For now, I'm subordinate and that may be my own darn fault. It's time to speak up!

What Have We Learned So Far?

In light of the discussion that we had in class earlier today I would like to pose a question. Of all the class tools that are used in education the blog seems to the tool that most closely resembles Freire's ideal of education. In this blog we write about what we have learned from class, from experience, and from what we have read. Each of us can read this blog and learn from the other writers that have posted. While Dr. Rogers does act as a facilitator somewhat by posting a prompt he does not take the active role of discussion leader, or lecturer. In this space we are about as equal as we will ever be in today's educational world. Oftentimes we will read a whole blog post before we even realize who wrote it, therefore removing questions of what type of authority that person might have. We may not consider if he/she has tutored before, is a graduate student, or almost has his/her degree. Through this medium our education has become democratized in a way.

With that being said, I will finally pose my question. Do you, as students and teachers, learn from this blog? Do you come here and take the time to read what has been posted and learn from the discussion? If you do, how does that learning experience compare with Freire's educational utopia? If you don't do you think you might learn something if you came here and took the time to read what others have posted? Do you think that it might be a technological compromise with the educational world as is, and Freire's theory?

I have already shared a few of my thoughts with you about how I think the blog functions as educational tool in light of Freire's argument. But I want to address some of the other questions I posed. Honestly, I don't spend a lot of time reading everyone's post. Sometimes, unless something is required (don't get any ideas Dr. Rogers) I tend to put it down on the priority scale. But I have had an opportunity to just skim over some of your entries. I was someone who had never tutored an ESL student (and I still haven't). Your entries have a treasure trove of experiences and knowledge that I would never have gained from a lecture. In fact, I didn't gain from a lecture because we had a lecture on ESL. In this particular case I feel educated by my fellow students, and their experiences. There was more to be learned than just the lecture we had in class. But the lecture was informative and I learned quite a bit there as well. The two pieces of education together seem to have given me the best tools to approach a tutoring session with a non-native speaker.

So that brings me back to the beginning. I find this blog useful, but I am not sure it quite reaches Freire's ideal world of education, even if it is a place where students can come to teach each other. Sometimes we still need supplemental lectures from those with more knowledge. What do you think?

Yeah... I'm Oppressed

Hmmm…a week where I am completely free to write about anything I want. Although, of course, not completely free since it still has to relate back to tutoring in some way. Simply because I live in the oppressed world that I do, the only thing that I really want to write about is… Freire. Personally, I love reading extremely radical material, although it is completely unrealistic for the world that we live in, simply because of the liberating feeling that it gives me. I always wonder at the possibilities if it could be true. Then, the second I put the paper down, reality hits me and I’m back to living in the murderous, anti-individualistic world of today (speaking in plainly Freireian terms, of course). However, although Freire’s philosophy simple cannot practically work in the world we live in today, I do agree with the general line of this thinking. I have never liked the public schools’ grading system simply because I think it excludes those individuals who cannot or are unwilling to conform to it. To be successful in the world we live in today, getting good grades in high school and doing well at the university level is essential. Because of this, children have to, at a very young age, learn the skills necessary to be a “good student”. If this education process in and of itself does not occur, then the individual in question will be constantly harassed and pushed by teachers to change their thinking to be more in line with the curriculum. In my opinion, our education system of today isn’t about how much a person actually knows, but how much effort they are willing to put forth to learn how to write a good essay, do well on tests, or complete assignments the way that teachers want them to. Even if a classroom is discussion-oriented, the students will still have to be graded in some way so that they can prove to their instructor that they got something out of the course. Their “grade” is determined on how well they mastered the material that is deemed important by the teacher.
This system, to me at least, seems to discourage creativity and the individual thirst for knowledge that certain people have. On the flip side, though, I understand that many students, probably the vast majority of students in the world we live in today, might never exert the effort needed to seek out knowledge for themselves. Especially with the plethora of video games and television shows that comprise our media base, there is simply too much entertainment for students to willingly put aside to learn about the world around them. The question is, then, where should the line be drawn between what material students should be forced to learn in schools (oftentimes against their own desires) and how much time should be given for students’ individual interests and pursuits? Perhaps the ideal solution to this balancing act can only be found in hypothetical situations like Freire’s education system and don’t belong in the real world at all. It would be nice if everyone could be trusted to sit down and pursue their personal talents with a passion and devotion that only some of us are blessed with, but in our modern twenty-first century world of today, that is just not going to happen. Perhaps, then, the human race does need to be oppressed to a certain extent to make sure that our society gets somewhere and doesn’t stagnate into a world with a surplus of free time. But conversely, students should be stimulated enough so that they can cultivate their own talents and interests, instead of being forced into a system that tells them exactly what to learn and how to learn it.

A Freireian Prompt

What would you post about if I didn't give you a prompt this week.*

* Knowing, of course, that you needed to write about something related to the class.