Is school enough?

Clearly it’s not based on the readings and the film. Every student is individual, whereas school is standardized. Needs aren’t being met. Simon and Giroux point out how school is just an apparatus for the dominating ideological system. It exists to reinforce existing corporate values. “They view schools as a particular way of life organized to produce and legitimate either the economic and political interests of business elites or the privileged cultural capital of ruling class groups.” (p. 10)  Right now “pedagogy is simply the measurable, accountable methodology used to transmit course content.” (p. 11) Simon and Giroux ask about how this can be remedied and allude to its complicated nature with no quick fixes. Their ideal is a “critical pedagogy” where popular culture is incorporated into curriculum instead of being seen as an imposing monster of subversive moral ideas [when in fact it is the dominant discourse to use transmission and imposition (p. 15)]. Critical pedagogy directs education at “enhancing human possibility and establishing a just and caring community.” (p. 23) Much like Dewey’s theory, it calls for communication, and like Freire’s theory, it calls for a recognition and validation of the students’ experiences as important to the discussions being had at school.

While Simon and Giroux present a lot of the problems affecting our current pedagogical system, Leistyna offers solutions. Awareness if the first step, knowing the powers that control the flow of information. Simon and Giroux bring up the fact that having this awareness might perpetuate problems by making the ideologies stick out, but it also incites discuss and critical thought on how things are and how they should be. Other solutions Leitstyna presents include alternative forms of media, or getting information from a different, and  using new media to  bring “about revolutionary changes in the art of consciousness raising and organizing.” (p. 4)

The documentary “Is school enough?”  provides examples of practical application of these ideas. The first group of students we see use technology (new multimedia)  to help in a real world situation of preparing an environment for the arrival of an elephant. Instead of popular culture “occasionally explored for the incidental motivational ploy that might enhance student interest in a particular lesson or subject” it is part of the curriculum. The curriculum embraces the use of an iTouch and internet sharing. Then there’s the other school group in Boston that is afforded an opportunity to participate in political discourse in their community after creating a movement  online, much like Leitstyna’s hope that cyber-tools are “effective in educating the public on critical social issues, forging and mobilizing communities, coordinating events… and influencing policy.” (p.4) As a result of their online experience, they are invited to speak with their school board.  “We want to bring our discussion to bear more directly on classroom reality by presenting a list of problems that have been raised by students and a diverse group of educators.” (Simon and Giroux, p. 22)

Simon and Giroux recognize this is difficult and requires a lot more of the educators, not just of the students. We can see this in the example of the girl who wanted to become a natural doctor. Her teachers had to adapt curriculum to meet her needs, and sometimes they had to dig a little deeper to help get answers. “Given the fact that the practice of critical pedagogy requires a substantial personal investment of time and energy, does it require the near-abandonment of a teacher’s ‘private’ life?” It is a balancing act to reform education to make it meaningful with experiences outside the classroom incorporated into the classroom, and to still include previous worthwhile practices and curriculum as well.