The implications of critical social theory in regards to the definition of quality education are essential to the definition of quality education in and of itself. Quality is a difficult word to define and I look toward American philosopher Robert Pirsig to help me address it before entering into the discussion of what quality education would look like. In Pirsig’s own struggle to define the word quality, he suffered a mental breakdown, was institutionalized and received shock therapy. In the post-treatment life, his philosophy grappled with the dialectical struggle between the classical and romantic views of the world - the classical, or rational view, that had him seek an objective truth to define quality, and the romantic view that focused on whether or not said quality was experienced by the subject, Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective idealists would say. ... The Quality which creates the world emerges as a relationship between man and his experience. He is a participant in the creation of all things. For Pirsig, ultimately, he sees this tension as being the everything behind quality of x. Similarly, quality education would have to find that synthesis between the practical and transformative aspects of public education in the US today in light of the structural realities of said institution.
Quality education, through the lens of critical theory, would have to address the agency of the learner within the institution, as well as the institution itself. Philosophers such as Paolo Freire and John Dewey directly address the role of the individual learner within the classroom as being an active participant in their own development. A democratic classroom would engage students as agents of their own and not as vessels to be filled with knowledge. Theorists such as Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault and Freire again all also address the structure of the institutions that for so long have perpetuated the continuation of an entrenched hegemony. A critical theorist viewing education would also need to consider the role of the teacher as well. The authority figure in the classroom, the teacher is an important figure for their ability to either continue to prop up a system or to work as an agent of change herself. Zeus Leonardo touches on the transformative role of the teacher when discussing Freire; he posits the teacher as an intellectual and a cultural worker. If the teacher is a believer in the perpetuance of a particular orthodoxy, such as American exceptionalism, their role may be limited to a transmitter of education, expecting students to be passive observers within their own educational experiences. However, if a teacher is well-versed in critical theory, their ultimate goal would be to allow students to engage directly in their own experience, which would also include examining information presented through a more critical lens. This may lead students to reject what is presented to them. The goal of the educator in this instance would be to provide students with the tools to ensure that they can unpack any information presented to them in a constructive way; to transform and utilize their education to suit their own ends, and with hope, to make the world better for others beyond themselves.
Teaching in a modern setting has made it evident that students have a lot of experience with knowledge transmission. They’re used to being seen as “empty vessels” ready to be filled up and in some respects, do not like the internal tension of not knowing something. Teachers may derisively call this having to spoon feed students what they need to know. If we could stop as educators and unpack that statement, we can see that perhaps we’re the misguided ones. How do we say what they need to know? To students, the quality education may be vastly different from what the institution or even society has laid out as essential. As a classroom teacher, I have to find ways to engage students with materials that may ultimately come to broaden their understanding of the world either now or in the future. As a Dewey disciple for many years, a practical approach to teaching has yielded results and shaped my practice. The Global Citizenship course I teach (and also designed) is labeled a practical arts class in the school coursebook. One of the units we venture into is budgeting, and along with it college and/or job exploration. While the students are only freshmen, their initial forays into the world beyond high school is eye-opening for them. We begin budgeting with little to no guidance from me (on purpose). As the students build their dream life on Zillow and write out their monthly expenses, I can see their anxiety levels rise and their questions end up flooding me until we have to stop so I can address their concerns. While completing this assignment, we have also held many discussions about what they value in life. I find that many students want to go to college because their parents want them to or because it’s expected by society (and our school, which puts great emphasis on a 4 year college experience). When I ask them to explain what their own interests are, they sometimes have either a completely different conception of what success looks like and/or are at a loss to tell me. It has made me wonder what we, as a society, are instilling in our students and for what purpose? To have them be successful or to have them join us all in an unsustainable experiment that ends with the destruction of the planet. The knowledge that they gain from even researching for a few class periods on their own is transformative for them. When we move into building resumes and holding mock interviews, I say very little about their job choices. There is no judgment by me that their desire to be a barber is any less valuable to society than someone else’s desire to be a neurosurgeon. Theoretically speaking, this is reflective of a critical theory approach because the idea that success looks a certain way is not only a fallacy, but continues to set students up for failure. It perpetuates a system that forces many Americans to live on the edge financially while yearning for something more fulfilling spiritually.
Quality education, through the lens of critical theory, would have to address the agency of the learner within the institution, as well as the institution itself. Philosophers such as Paolo Freire and John Dewey directly address the role of the individual learner within the classroom as being an active participant in their own development. A democratic classroom would engage students as agents of their own and not as vessels to be filled with knowledge. Theorists such as Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault and Freire again all also address the structure of the institutions that for so long have perpetuated the continuation of an entrenched hegemony. A critical theorist viewing education would also need to consider the role of the teacher as well. The authority figure in the classroom, the teacher is an important figure for their ability to either continue to prop up a system or to work as an agent of change herself. Zeus Leonardo touches on the transformative role of the teacher when discussing Freire; he posits the teacher as an intellectual and a cultural worker. If the teacher is a believer in the perpetuance of a particular orthodoxy, such as American exceptionalism, their role may be limited to a transmitter of education, expecting students to be passive observers within their own educational experiences. However, if a teacher is well-versed in critical theory, their ultimate goal would be to allow students to engage directly in their own experience, which would also include examining information presented through a more critical lens. This may lead students to reject what is presented to them. The goal of the educator in this instance would be to provide students with the tools to ensure that they can unpack any information presented to them in a constructive way; to transform and utilize their education to suit their own ends, and with hope, to make the world better for others beyond themselves.
Teaching in a modern setting has made it evident that students have a lot of experience with knowledge transmission. They’re used to being seen as “empty vessels” ready to be filled up and in some respects, do not like the internal tension of not knowing something. Teachers may derisively call this having to spoon feed students what they need to know. If we could stop as educators and unpack that statement, we can see that perhaps we’re the misguided ones. How do we say what they need to know? To students, the quality education may be vastly different from what the institution or even society has laid out as essential. As a classroom teacher, I have to find ways to engage students with materials that may ultimately come to broaden their understanding of the world either now or in the future. As a Dewey disciple for many years, a practical approach to teaching has yielded results and shaped my practice. The Global Citizenship course I teach (and also designed) is labeled a practical arts class in the school coursebook. One of the units we venture into is budgeting, and along with it college and/or job exploration. While the students are only freshmen, their initial forays into the world beyond high school is eye-opening for them. We begin budgeting with little to no guidance from me (on purpose). As the students build their dream life on Zillow and write out their monthly expenses, I can see their anxiety levels rise and their questions end up flooding me until we have to stop so I can address their concerns. While completing this assignment, we have also held many discussions about what they value in life. I find that many students want to go to college because their parents want them to or because it’s expected by society (and our school, which puts great emphasis on a 4 year college experience). When I ask them to explain what their own interests are, they sometimes have either a completely different conception of what success looks like and/or are at a loss to tell me. It has made me wonder what we, as a society, are instilling in our students and for what purpose? To have them be successful or to have them join us all in an unsustainable experiment that ends with the destruction of the planet. The knowledge that they gain from even researching for a few class periods on their own is transformative for them. When we move into building resumes and holding mock interviews, I say very little about their job choices. There is no judgment by me that their desire to be a barber is any less valuable to society than someone else’s desire to be a neurosurgeon. Theoretically speaking, this is reflective of a critical theory approach because the idea that success looks a certain way is not only a fallacy, but continues to set students up for failure. It perpetuates a system that forces many Americans to live on the edge financially while yearning for something more fulfilling spiritually.
