Camden’s Blog

The qualities that Freire discusses are true for all teachers, not just the professional ones of which we count ourselves members.  I am referring to parents, mentors, members of communities that seek to socially engage one another with the purpose of educating each other about ourselves for the good of making our lives together better. Taking his discussion of humility first, “No one knows it all; no one is ignorant of everything thing.  We all know something; we are all ignorant of something”.  It is the basic principal of democracy.  If we as teachers take an authoritarian position in our teaching, students will be unable to practice and develop a sense of confidence required to challenge and resolve the problems in their future.  Freire states that authoritarianism can cause students to adopt rebellious positions, defiant of limits or the converse, apathy, excessive obedience and worse yet, a free of freedom. It is incumbent on us as teachers to help our students develop a sense of security by demonstrating humility and acknowledging that every voice has validity, some bearing and worthy of consideration. Freire moves on to lovingness and notes that a teacher without this quality risks the loss of meaning in their work.  He qualifies his description of lovingness and says it must be an “armed love” and insists that our our love of teaching and students must be demonstrated by the willingness to stand up for what is right in our schools.  And further is our “duty to fight” – stand up and be counted, voice our discontent, and work to change what is socially unjust.  Moving on to courageand as it relates to the duty to fight, Freire talks about fear in the face of these fights, it needs to be acknowledged but never allowed to overwhelm and paralyze teachers in to just standing by. This is so often the norm and exists in my school.  But can we expect true change and democracy if we are afraid to fight for what we believe in?  And can we expect that our students will somehow magically feel empowered to act differently from us? “There can never be courage without fear”.  Friere moves on to tolerance and he says that “Tolerance is the virtue that teaches us to live with the different”.  This is so true with our society and if we continue to allow ignorance of this to flourish in our country we will continue to lag behind the rest of the world or at least those countries which embrace it.  Tolerance is the foundation of a civil society, especially one that seeks democracy as its highest attribute. Friere adds a group of virtues: Decisiveness, security, patience and joy of livingwhich he briefly discusses.  Decisiveness is necessary for an education but further it is a responsibility to one’s students.  Without it, we are seen as week by our students and ultimately by their parents and our colleagues.  We fail to set an example with indecision and only inspire the same inability to make decisions in our students.  Teachers run the risk of becoming to permissive if they are unable to make decisions and stand by them, a fate that Friere says more somber than abusing authority.  It is not to say that we should not seek council or allow discussion of choices to be made but it is our duty to make them.  Security is inspired by being able to support one’s actions or decisions.  Confidence arises out of being secure about one’s actions, that they are justifiable.  A teacher can develop a sense of security about their actions only if they understand that they are fair and socially just.  Regarding patience, Friere says there is a tension between patience and impatience that all educators must balance in their work.  Too much patience may leave the educator in a “position of resignation” and too little may lead to “blind activism”.  Either one of these positions leaves the educator ineffectual.  Freire says that virtue does not lie in experiencing one without the other and I believe that this is true of all the qualities that he has discussed.  Authoritarianism breeds insecurity and in order to inspire confidence and democracy we have to embrace, investigate and model its most essential qualities.  Last lets look at the quality, joy of living.  Freire acknowledges that to have an honest joy of living, one cannot hide the sadness-es of life.  Human life does not come without struggle or conflict, it is only our direct engagement of it which allows us to love and know how to love.  Friere suggests that denying or escape conflict, we actually preserve the status quo.  As educators, we must not be afraid to take risk and engage conflict and by taking the risk we demonstrate our joy of life and its worthiness of our attempts. 

Oakes and Lipton provide us with a historical look at educational philosophies and how they have been shaped by social and political forces over the years.  Their definition and summary of basic philosophies in education reminded me of when I obtained my master’s degree and we had to write our own philosophy of education.  I think we even used the same table that they have on pages 78 and 79.  I remember that mine was very ecclectic, using some aspect of several philosophies with a heavy emphasis on the socio-cultural and multicultural philosophy.  There is no doubt that schools are an institutional system that reinforces the culture of the dominant society  but there is also no doubt that as our society grow more diverse and multicultural society, our schools will have to recognize that the historical dominance is deminishing.  The postmodern curriculums in all educational instituitions are starting to reflect the hard work of researchers and theorists who espouse the philosophies and teaching qualities that Freire details in his fourth letter.  Oakes and Lipton highlight teachers that acknowledge their “duty to fight” and take on the difficult issues surrounding the Codes of Power and cultural capital.  I began teaching in Oakland, California around the time of debate over Ebonics.  I knew teachers of color who were split over the issue and I listened to both sides, finding that I could understand both sides.  I came to the same conclusion that Kay Goodloe did (Oakes & Lipton, pg. 98), African American students who spoke a cultural dialect needed to have their voices heard but also needed to be empowered with the cultural captital of the mainstream language in order to compete in the world.  She described herself as bi-dialectical.  I know that when I left Oakland, like my limited Spanish now, that I was an LEP student of Ebonics. I needed to be in order to relate to my students, connect with my students, and show respect for their voices. 

Trackback URI | Comments RSS