The banking system of education can be explained very simply. We can say our education is money, our educators are the ones responsible for depositing the money and we are the bank. The depositor is responsible for giving the money to the bank and holding onto it. At any time, they can fed us information at any quantity or quality they choose. Without any money, a bank is not of use. With the ability to deposit money (or education) whenever they feel necessary as well as the quantity, educators have control of what we learn.
That is true, the banking system is like educators depositing money, and without teachers reciting the information we will never know it, however are we truly learning or our we just memorizing what we are taught. The banking system does work but, its just feeding us information, how can teachers recite this information if they don't know if we can or will outside of the classroom?. Reciting information to us, as they banking system describe is students sitting and starring blankly. Teaching in this method can be oppressive and boring. How can the teacher be sure we are comprehending well?
"Those use the banking approach knowingly (or unknowingly), fail to perceive that the deposits themselves contain contradictions about reality. But sooner or later those contradictions may lead formerly passive students to turn against their domestication and attempt to domesticate reality. ( Freire 2.6). You mentioned forcing information to students as being negative. You helped me prove my point a little more. When you force information into someone, they form the ideas you want, but after a while they begin to realize the oppression. They will turn against you when they realize what you are doing to them.
Friere and Hirsch say that the teachers may know everything while the students are awaiting to be taught. Since students are being taught in class and the students aren't interested , then they will never know the background information and may not grasp the concept of whats being taught to them, Although they are being fed the information and listen, it doesn't quite mean they are retaining the knowledge.They may just be listening ands not fully engaged in the lesson.
From what I read, it seems like you are arguing the the banking system is indeed oppressive. I did not see anything boosting the value of the banking system. One more quote to support to oppression of the banking system from Hirsch. He talked about having background knowledge on the things we actually learn. His example was knowing the difference between two different words. You know how to identify the words based on things you know, but you have no other knowledge outside of that. You may know the big word but what is the power behind the word? We only know what we were taught. Anything learned outside of that seems very oppressive to me.
a student that is learning something is what the teacher is suppose to do, if the teacher were to give more background information the students could be more interested and actually use information that benefits then inside and the classroom rather than being a memorizing tool. Giving students a "that's all you need to know" discourages questioning lile "what if" and "how come" the students could be told anything and believed it. The teacher is required to open the student mind and allow them to explore new information and new ways of thinking and looking at things. The students are possibly willing to go the extra mile when it comes to their education and its depth