Cultural Responsiveness (Power Pedagogy)

Introductory Biography: Ashley York is a graduate student at Michigan State University. She has been teaching for five years and is currently teaching kindergarten. Starting out she was the Director and Leader Teacher for the Michigan School Readiness Preschool program in Hillsdale Michigan.

Blog Entry:
The chapter on cultural responsiveness struck me as the easiest to relate to as a teacher seeking to develop the whole child. I agree that as a responsive educator, one cannot simply sprinkle ethnic content around the curriculum without contextualizing it. As expressed, “Decontextualizing teaching and learning from the ethnicities and cultures of students minimizes the chances that their achievement will ever be fully realized” (p. 23). To continue, in doing so, one is supporting students in their failure as they gain negative self-efficacy. Because I teach in a rural area made up of mostly white families, I have not had the opportunity to be concerned with cultural responsiveness. I have taught one African American girl and one Asian girl, both who were adopted into white middle-class families. However, after reading the other articles, I felt that if I had to pick an educator from one of the pedagogues for my own child, I would pick one of cultural responsiveness pedagogy.
To provide an example of cultural responsiveness in my own classroom with little opportunity to actually do so, I could only relate it to our different levels of economic status at first. The students that come from low economic status (more than 60%) were often seen as what I would equate to the negative views often attributed to African American boys. These children were easily labeled with the stigma that it was “their fault.” I equated this to the “deficit syndrome” as I read in the section From Can’t To Can (p. 23). Regardless of the parts that create the whole of this pedagogy, empowering each student is the goal.
As a kindergarten teacher having two minority children in my classroom I thought I was doing a service for my two culturally diverse students I had last year to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. and Chinese New Year. After reading this week, I realized that providing my students with a mere chunk of knowledge outside of context is not going to provide them with a global view of cultural groups within the United States. I agree with Aragon (1973) that professionals are “culturally deprived” (Gay, 28). As teachers move toward becoming accomplished educators in identifying ideology they must incorporate that into formation of responsive multicultural curriculum. Not only are educators struggling to understand the individuality with one classroom, I find that many do not understand themselves. This is the situation I find myself in. Many educators expect to educate with various cultures in mind, however, without knowing your own culture and it’s depth and value it is difficult to think in those terms. A teacher who is concerned with cultural responsiveness will enhance each child’s view and knowledge of the world’s cultures without creating stereotypes, the realization of its importance has become a harsh reality. Because mandated standards are significant in number and our own education was less than sufficient, one might find it difficult to recognize how cultural representation can be transformed into a curriculum dominated by Western/Anglo Saxon Heritage.
Student achievement is the ultimate goal. To understand the student and the culture within will allow for new teaching strategies that will engage, motivate, and value students. Capitalizing on student diversity has proven to increase test scores, and overall student achievement. However, we cannot only look at student achievement as measured by a system of grades or ranking. Student achievement is likened to society. Society at large will only be as successful as the players creating and maintaining it. Student achievement begins with the student. To be culturally responsive, it is the educator’s job to entertain every child’s identity as similar or different as it may be from “mainstream” society. Unfortunately, many of the players creating our society are slanting the rules of how society works without realizing it. We suffer from “cultural blindness” (p. 21).So, take the pressure of the student. The student should be the primary means to understanding how we are changing to a more globalized world. The pressure belongs on us, the educators. Continuing to follow the same pattern by sticking to a rigid set of rules of what society is, does not allow for student achievement, nor does it allow for students to contribute positively or intellectually to a world that requires one to be open-minded and prepared for discourse concerning “truths.”When educators see themselves as unique in this vast society and understand the vast differences they bring to the game too, we will be on the right track to a culturally responsive classroom. Until then, students will continue to come into the game, be groomed for the way we play, and be expected to leave knowing what is the so-called truth without understanding why or how and lacking the tools to question the rules. Contextualizing student culture into and within the curriculum will show students how to be open-minded, question, analyze, and dig deep for the truth. Capitalizing on student culture is the catalyst to a positive shift in or world today.

Introductory Biography: Amber Miller is a graduate student currently completing a Masters of Art in Education. She is currently teaching 2nd grade in the district of Battle Creek Public Schools, where she also completed her entire K-12 educational experience.

Blog Entry:
When reading the article on cultural pedagogy by Gay I couldn’t help but ask myself the question: what is culture? The article went through lengths to develop the idea that more cultural responsiveness is needed in teaching, and essentially many classroom teachers and building staff our blinded by their own cultures that they cannot see through into the culture of their students. But though I’ve heard the theory time and time again, after reading the article I found myself really exploring the idea of what is culture? According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, culture is defined as, "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.” In essence it is the music we listen to, the food we partake in, the arts that we delve into, and the literature that we give life to. In essence culture is our customs. It is what we deem to be important and because culture is manufactured in our own minds culture is learned. It has nothing to do with the genetic DNA which is manufactured in us when we are created. But all the more what we learn to partake in, what is passed down to us.
Often I go back to the era of segregation in the United States. I find myself going back to separate but equal elementary schools, Brown VS. Board, Jim Crow laws, etc, and I find that the culture which existed at that time period manufactured the superiority of white over black. Not only did they manufacture that vision of power, but they also passed it down to their children, and their children passed it down to their children. It wasn’t something that occurred from the day civilization was implanted on the earth. After all Africans were thriving in production before the slave trade. However, it occurred from a thought that one group was inferior to another group, that slavery could make money, and that segregation could continue to instill the notion that black was lower than white. It was something that was a custom, something that was learned. So because we have a hard time recognizing the influence that one group of individuals have on us we are deemed to repeat that same transference of knowledge to our children and students.
That thought leads me to the idea that if culture is learned then there is no one culture that defines us, no one set of ideals which can be proven "more right" or "more wrong. It also lends knowledge to the educational realm, in that if culture is learned, then the culture that classroom teachers bring into the classroom does not have superiority over the culture that the students bring into the classroom. Gay says teaching, "Is most effective when ecological factors, such as prior experiences, community settings, cultural backgrounds, and ethnic identities of teachers and students are included in its implementation" (Gay, 21). So the question that lingers in my mind is why do we let culture define who we are, what we teach, what we believe, as if that’s the only way it has to be? In order for schools to encourage more critical learning all opinions, views, ideals have to be more readily available to ALL students and we have to raise these questions in our classrooms. We must critically question, modeling that to our students, so that we can transform our thinking as well as theirs (Gay, 37).
After reading Ashley York's blog I found that culture was not just defined by food, language, or community, but it was also defined by family structure, and prior experiences. In celebrating two wonderful holidays she gave her students a tiny piece of the puzzle that they were missing. As February is approaching I find that many schools try and condense African American History month or Chicano history month in a few days. I myself have done it. Though it’s nice and it invites children into those areas in which they have not frequently explored, in a way it’s like giving them half a peanut butter and jelly sand which. Without the jelly the peanut butter just doesn’t taste half as good, nor does it give them the whole experience that they should be able to enjoy. Last year I taught in a highly suburban well off school district and as a student teacher I was given the opportunity to present lessons to my students. Most of the teachers tried to give a few lessons on MLK, Jackie Robinson, Madame C.J. Walker and call it a day, but yet they missed the mark. We must do more to integrate diverse cultures into our classrooms. In addition, often we assume that just because a community is homogeneously white that they have the same culture, but I don’t think that is the case all of the time. Of course there will be a a lot of similar values, beliefs, and interest, but culture also encompasses language, food, arts, etc. As a group we have discussed the idea that if we are going to be culturally sensitive we can’t just choose specific months to isolate our teaching of minority groups. We have to go beyond that, and one way we can do that is to introduce them to diversely rich literature so that they can gain those experiences, even when we ourselves, as teachers, do not have them. I have found that picture books work wonders in showcasing minority accomplishments and ways of life, as well as sharing with the world their life stories.

Introductory Biography: Linsha Li is a graduate student at Michigan State University. She has been teaching for 2 years and is currently teaching Chinese in a K-5 elementary building as well as an 7th and 8th middle school building

Blog Entry:
I totally agree with you about how important different culture could be, and I think I am a little special, since I am not American and I am living in a different culture and what I am doing is teaching Chinese which is teaching a another different culture. In my classes, I have students from different backgrounds. I have students who are African Americans, Americans, Asians and other ethnical groups. It is like teaching in the United Nations and sometimes it is so amazing when you see different people are learning another brand-new culture and they input their own ideas and listen to each other, learn from each other. In my teaching, I often take myself as an example to explain a different culture. I share with them what I think about American culture when I really lived here and hear what they think about Chinese culture that I really enjoy doing. I really enjoyed reading your posts here and I asked the same question to myself what Amber brought up which is “what culture really is?” I do agree with what she said about culture is actually your customs and the food we eat, the music we listen to, the language we speak, even the way we think and the way we do things. and most importantly I think culture is our identity. It is something we inherited from our ancestors and the way how people outside look at us sometimes.I remember every year I have a new class, students would ask me “can you teach us how to do Chinese Kungfu?” and I always say”I don’t know how to do it” and they would be very disappointed and surprised, saying “how come you don’t know? you are Chinese.” and I say "I am Chinese, but not every Chinese knows how to do it.” One time when I went to a restaurant, there was an American girl who came to me and said, "oh, you are not MULAN”. (MULAN is a Chinese girl cartoon role in a Disney cartoon.) What my point here is this is our culture, our identity and the way how people see us as Chinese.
And also I would like to talk about as a Chinese teacher in America, how can I engage students, teach a second language by using cultural responsive pedagogy. First, I naturally implant some Chinese classroom routines in my class. By doing this, students can vividly feel the culture. For example, in China, at the beginning of every class, students would stand up, greet with the teacher and bow to the teacher that is definitely not an American style but my students now they do it and take it as a very interesting culture. Second, since I have students from different culture, when one student ask me some controversial question, like “how come in your country some people eat cat and dog?” No need me to answer it, some students from other nations would explain in every culture there is something you don’t accept, just like in your country, people eat hamburger, pizza, sandwiches every day but we don’t.” I think with these conversations going on, students gradually understand cultures are different and they are not always different in a positive way, like Kungfu, like Jackie Chen. Sometimes they may be different in a unpleasant way.No culture is exceptional. That is what we need to accept and learn. Third, I think as a language teacher, I paid more attention to different cultures. Sometimes I initiate the conversation and encourage them to have the argument of the difference. But sometimes I just avoid some sensitive topics in case they get hurt. Sometimes it is really hard to be balance but we all learn it with time and experience.

Goran's blog

Introductory Bio

Kathleen Goran is a grad student in The Literacy and Language Instruction program at Michigan State University. She has two years teaching experience in a second grade classroom in Southside Chicago. Currently, she is working as a clerk at the Administration Building for Warren Consolidated Schools while she finishes her degree.

Blog Entry

As a movie buff, I am making this assignment work for me as Paulo Freire would have liked.

Think Pleasantville. In this 2008 drama, high school students David and Jennifer find themselves trapped in a 1950s black and white society. Moms wear floral dresses and pearl necklaces. Dads return from work at five o’clock to a warm cooked meal. Children are content accepting reality for what it is, a dehumanizing lie that alienates them from their own decision-making.

School is a well-oiled banking system churning out hundreds of disciples each year. Here, students memorize and repeat geographical features of Pleasantville and take down copious notes from their teacher detailing that Pleasantville exists separate from the world, bordering nothing, leading to nothing. In fact, Pleasantville is the world. When David (who was originally elated at the idea of integrating into the mindless culture seemingly free from conflict) inquires to what is outside Pleasantville, the class gasps. “Why, nothing is outside Pleasantville,” the teacher responds. Whereas David gradually starts to turn against his domestication and his oppressors, the others resist. Absolute ignorance is all they know. It’s pleasant.

Who wants just pleasant? Paulo Freire, author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, would be proud of David’s ensuing actions. He leads a mind-awakening revolution and transforms society to one that liberates instead of pacifies. The people of Pleasantville, adults and children, students and teachers, start to become engaged in a revolution of critical dialogue. Freire argues that the banking system of education needs to be replaced by problem-posing education which is grounded in communication and authentic thinking. The outdated “banking” concept of education treats students as buckets that are filled by teachers. The more full the bucket, the more passive and “successful” the student. However, Freire states that these buckets are the ones most separated by society. They aren’t encouraged to think critically for themselves nor do have knowledge that is meaningful enough to do so. They are worker bees and they are treated by their oppressors (the teachers) like they are suited for nothing more.

“But one does not liberate men by alienating them.” (Power of the Oppressed, 62). As I read Freire’s powerful words, I started to feel hopeful about the next generation of kids. The school I taught at was run like a military school by administration and several of the veteran teachers. And yes, the kids did listen . . . to an extent. We were told, as novice teachers, that the children couldn’t handle anything more than silence. Hallways were silent. Lunchrooms were silent. Classrooms were silent. In this system, Freire would also say that their minds were silent. And, just like he explains, certain students would occasionally rebel against those seeking to domesticate them, sometimes in extremely violent ways.

But back to me being hopeful . . . I was hired in along with ten other freshly graduated, eager minded teachers on the primary team. Our teaching philosophies were based on communication, choice, and reflection. All classrooms used morning meetings, readers and writers workshops, authentic assessment, and inquiry-based learning centers. Students were encouraged to question their learning and gave their input to what content would be taught in the upcoming weeks. I learned quickly that my students didn’t put forth much effort when they were only working to appease me or their parents. They only did what was required and nothing more. The real learning occurred when that fire inside them was lit, the one that realized the importance of learning and how they fit into it. None of us wanted our kids simply to function at minimum wage in their dangerous world of Englewood. Even as young as second grade, as the year progressed and we built trust, these seven-year-olds voiced their hopes to become something much more in life. They didn’t just learn from me. They learned from each other and I learned from them.

The process of becoming stands apart from the traditional banking system of education. It works with the nature of man, man as a revolutionary force. It works to liberate and enlighten. And isn’t that what we as teachers want to do most? Pleasantville, despite the name, leads to nothing. It’s prospect of change that gives us hope. In my mind, hope beats pleasant any day of the week.

From Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Introductory Bio

Fan Wu is a graduate student in teaching and curriculum program at Michigan State University. She has been teaching Chinese at Ann Hua Chinese School for six years, and at Forsythe Middle School for two years.

Blog Entry

I have learned in China for more than 20 years, and now pursuit a MA degree in U.S.A, with those two learning experiences, I have to say that there are cultural differences between Chinese and American Education. Chinese education is closer to the Oppressed Pedagogy, and American Education is closer to the Libertarian Education.

Paulo Freire’s article From Pedagogy of the Oppressed discussed many negative parts of the Oppressed Pedagogy. For example, learning is passive, and the processes of recording, memorizing, and repeating do not help a student to develop critical consciousness and creative power. It seems like the Oppressed Education is not a good pedagogy.

If the oppressed pedagogy is a bad teaching, why does it work quite well in China? The data of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2010) shows the test scores of American students are only at average. Reading is at No.17, Science at No.23, and Math at No.31. But Chinese students, by Oppressed Pedagogy, got No.1 in ALL subjects. President Obama said: “As it stands right now, America Education is in danger of falling behind.”

Most Chinese-American families adapt the Oppressed Pedagogy to parenting their children, why do Chinese American families raise more stereotypically academically-successful kids? Why do those children have fewer problems when they are teenager?

Yesterday, I read Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother; the author is Amy Chua, Yale law professor. In the book, she talked about her "Eastern" style of parenting. Chua’s two daughters are not allow to go on play days or sleepover; they had to practice their musical instruments for hours everyday, they will be called “garbage” when the report cards are not all A’s. With her oppressed pedagogy, her daughters, now in their teens, have turned out very well. They all appreciate their mother’s oppressed education, so they could study at the top universities and have bright futures.

I start to think twice about the Oppressed Pedagogy. Libertarian Education emphasis students’ creative and critical thinking, but it gives students too much freedom and too many choices. It doesn’t teach students another important thing--“OBEY”. The reason Chinese adapt the Oppressed pedagogy is because Chinese believe when children are not maturity, and their cognitions are not well developed to make a good decision, it’s not a good idea to give them too much freedom and choices, the children will spend too much time on video games, watching TV, or cause the society issues, such as pregnant high school mothers. At those ages, Chinese believe Obey is more important than be creative. Chinese students believe that parents and teachers have more life experiences, so they trust parents and teachers’ guides, and they obey and listen to the directions.

Another reason Chinese adapt the Oppressed Pedagogy is because Chinese have very high expectation to education. Chinese parents will say “study hard” instead of “have fun” when their children go to school, because Chinese believe learning is not only for fun; learning is a very serious thing, which has a big responsibility. Students should do a lot practices to make the learning prefect, and students should have self-control to obey the classroom rules.

Look at my three children, I think what kind of Mother I should be; look at my students, I wonder what kind teacher I should be? I remember I read a psychology research paper about strict, permissive and Authoritative parents, it states:
* Strict, authoritarian parents have kids who excel in school, don't get in trouble, and are depressed
* Permissive parents have kids who feel good about their bad grades, will smoke a joint but probably won't use heroin. In other words, they have moderate self-esteem, lots of friends, poor performance; get in trouble, but not too much.
* Authoritative parents who are strict, but communicate love, have kids who tend to do well, have good friends, stay out of trouble, and feel good about themselves

From this research, it answered my question, and I should to be a teacher and parent of Authoritative with communicate love and respect. Instead of only practicing libertarian education, I will adapt more Oppressed Pedagogy, meanwhile, show my students and children my love.

All in all, as Paulo Freire pointed out the limited of Oppressed Pedagogy, but its positive part is obviously too. By oppressed Pedagogy, students have trust relationships with teachers and parents, so they obey teachers and parents’ guides, no matter willing to or not willing to, because it is no negotiable. PISA data proofed, Chinese students, by Oppressed Pedagogy, their basic learning foundation were much more solid. Tiger mother Amy Chua’s article shows that Chua practiced Oppressed Pedagogy to her own children. Now her children are studying at top universities and they appreciate what their mother did to them. Research shows the best parenting style is Authoritative with communicate love. When educators emphasis the important of the libertarian education, they should further consider to the positive part of Oppressed Pedagogy too.

Introductory Bio

Xinyi XU is a graduate student in teaching and curriculum program at Michigan State University. She also teaches a language immersion program at an elementary school as the kindergarten Chinese teacher.

Blog Entry

The Oppressed Pedagogy reminds me the traditional education I have experienced. As a student who was born and raised in China, I totally understand the pressure of study. Chinese teachers believe in thousands upon thousands of diligent and assiduous practices make students outstanding. For instance, one of our assignments was to recite and copy more than 500 ancient poems and hundreds of ancient articles to prepare for 30% part of the Chinese language subject in college entrance examinations. What’s more, in order to have a better grade, we had “modules” of writing to follow, and teachers explained the answer according the “standard answer” which sometimes did make any sense. Nobody likes this type of mechanical memory and drill, but we have no choice but to be pushed. From then on, I kept thinking if this is the right pedagogy of teaching. How to make the education make more sense and be meaningful. Education is supposed to “educate” people but not to oppress our students.

Paulo Freire pointed out that the oppressed education actually is banking education. Teachers are the depositors and students are the depositories. The whole process of education is “depositing”. So, the teachers are dominating the learning and students are passively accepting whatever they have been told. Students do not THINK and teachers are the subjects of learning. Freire called it is as “teacher of the students”.

Therefore, Freire argued that how problem-posing education could take place of oppressed pedagogy. Problem-posing education emphasis the importance of the independent and critical thinking from students. It is more democratic. Teachers are the one who post the questions but not throw out the whole answer. So, students can being conscious of learning. In the meanwhile, teacher is not the one who teaches, but also the one being taught. Freire indicated as “students of teacher”. The learning happens in dialogue which is the true communication. Teacher and students are co-investigators.

I totally agree that teacher should not be the one deprives students freedom and abilities of thinking. I don’t want to be those teachers strangle students’ creativity and criticality. However, as we all known, it is always not easy to apply the theories into practices in a daily base. Students, especially the young learners, are curious about new things. However, they could be also easily frustrated by learning even it is something they want to know. People are easy to give up unless there is strong motivation and initiative. I think teacher’s job is to support students learning. When students are lost, teacher is the one inspires them to find their potential and interest. On the way students are pursue their dreams, teacher is the one supports them essentially and spiritually. When the students encounter the barriers, teacher is the one encourage and motivate them. In the whole process, teacher is also learning. We cannot summarize all the strategies teachers are using, because it could be really different for different student’s needs. Teaching is not a easy job. What also makes teaching enjoyable is the learning from our teaching.

Introductory Bio

Kathleen Goran is a grad student in The Literacy and Language Instruction program at Michigan State University. She has two years teaching experience in a second grade classroom in Southside Chicago. Currently, she is working as a clerk at the Administration Building for Warren Consolidated Schools while she finishes her degree.

Blog Entry

As a movie buff, I am making this assignment work for me as Paulo Freire would have liked.

Think Pleasantville. In this 2008 drama, high school students David and Jennifer find themselves trapped in a 1950s black and white society. Moms wear floral dresses and pearl necklaces. Dads return from work at five o’clock to a warm cooked meal. Children are content accepting reality for what it is, a dehumanizing lie that alienates them from their own decision-making.

School is a well-oiled banking system churning out hundreds of disciples each year. Here, students memorize and repeat geographical features of Pleasantville and take down copious notes from their teacher detailing that Pleasantville exists separate from the world, bordering nothing, leading to nothing. In fact, Pleasantville is the world. When David (who was originally elated at the idea of integrating into the mindless culture seemingly free from conflict) inquires to what is outside Pleasantville, the class gasps. “Why, nothing is outside Pleasantville,” the teacher responds. Whereas David gradually starts to turn against his domestication and his oppressors, the others resist. Absolute ignorance is all they know. It’s pleasant.

Who wants just pleasant? Paulo Freire, author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, would be proud of David’s ensuing actions. He leads a mind-awakening revolution and transforms society to one that liberates instead of pacifies. The people of Pleasantville, adults and children, students and teachers, start to become engaged in a revolution of critical dialogue. Freire argues that the banking system of education needs to be replaced by problem-posing education which is grounded in communication and authentic thinking. The outdated “banking” concept of education treats students as buckets that are filled by teachers. The more full the bucket, the more passive and “successful” the student. However, Freire states that these buckets are the ones most separated by society. They aren’t encouraged to think critically for themselves nor do have knowledge that is meaningful enough to do so. They are worker bees and they are treated by their oppressors (the teachers) like they are suited for nothing more.

“But one does not liberate men by alienating them.” (Power of the Oppressed, 62). As I read Freire’s powerful words, I started to feel hopeful about the next generation of kids. The school I taught at was run like a military school by administration and several of the veteran teachers. And yes, the kids did listen . . . to an extent. We were told, as novice teachers, that the children couldn’t handle anything more than silence. Hallways were silent. Lunchrooms were silent. Classrooms were silent. In this system, Freire would also say that their minds were silent. And, just like he explains, certain students would occasionally rebel against those seeking to domesticate them, sometimes in extremely violent ways.

But back to me being hopeful . . . I was hired in along with ten other freshly graduated, eager minded teachers on the primary team. Our teaching philosophies were based on communication, choice, and reflection. All classrooms used morning meetings, readers and writers workshops, authentic assessment, and inquiry-based learning centers. Students were encouraged to question their learning and gave their input to what content would be taught in the upcoming weeks. I learned quickly that my students didn’t put forth much effort when they were only working to appease me or their parents. They only did what was required and nothing more. The real learning occurred when that fire inside them was lit, the one that realized the importance of learning and how they fit into it. None of us wanted our kids simply to function at minimum wage in their dangerous world of Englewood. Even as young as second grade, as the year progressed and we built trust, these seven-year-olds voiced their hopes to become something much more in life. They didn’t just learn from me. They learned from each other and I learned from them.

The process of becoming stands apart from the traditional banking system of education. It works with the nature of man, man as a revolutionary force. It works to liberate and enlighten. And isn’t that what we as teachers want to do most? Pleasantville, despite the name, leads to nothing. It’s prospect of change that gives us hope. In my mind, hope beats pleasant any day of the week.

Introductory Bio

Alysha Looney is a graduate student in the Literacy and Language Instruction program at Michigan State University. She has four years teaching experience at the kindergarten level, and lives and teaches in Michigan.

Blog Entry

Paulo Freire describes the Oppressed Pedagogy as an education banking system, where teachers attempt to control thinking and actions by filling students buckets, while the students passively accept this deposited information. Students do not engage in discussion, ask questions, participate with groups, show creativity…. students know nothing and the teacher fills their buckets with information that they deem important. Freire describes that teachers who use this banking approach knowingly or not, fail to perceive that the deposits themselves contain contradictions about reality. Eventually, these contradictions may lead formerly passive students to turn against their domestication and attempt to domesticate reality (Power of the Oppressed, pg. 60).

This "old school" style of teaching reminds me of military style schools, where teachers used rulers to swat students' desks, students worked silently in classrooms, information was drilled into their minds by rote learning, and so on. Students work silently in this routine fashion day after day, until finally an opportunity arises where they experience the "outside" world and see society in a new light. This sparks an interest and an opportunity for meaningful experiences now seem much more appealing. You see this often, where children are conformed to certain standards and please everyone but themselves, and finally they rebel against their parents/teachers.

Personally, I do not have experience teaching in a setting that Freire describes in his article, nor do I ever want to! Even as I reflect back on my own education growing up, I cannot relate to the banking concept of education. Instead, I was fortunate to experience the "trading concept" of teaching. Where the teachers and students would offer new information and concepts, learn from each others experiences, engage in open communication, and where reflection is valued.

One of the greatest opportunities I have as kindergarten teacher, is to allow for creative and meaningful experiences to happen naturally. I am able to guide discussions and create activities that excite and motivate these young learners. We build these awesome connections within our classroom community and contribute so much to our learning! I cannot imagine the banking concept in my kindergarten classroom, but instead envision hands-on play, students learning from each other during group projects, and it wouldn't be a typical day in kindergarten without hearing the words "Why?" or "How do you know?" Educators have a challenge to change the views of oppression in classrooms, and instead create multiple paths for students to learn- simply guide their questions, create authentic experiences and provide safe learning environments. It all sounds so easy, however as educators we know it's a difficult task, but I'd rather take that challenge than simply filling bank deposits.