The banking concept of education is oppressive. There are many reasons that lead us to believe that the banking concept is indeed oppressive to the students who are being taught in such a way. As stated by Freire in his article, "The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students' creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed." This form of education can be seen as oppressive because the student is forced to take whatever the teacher wants them to learn instead of what is beneficial to them. This notion is highly supported from the beginning of Freire's article, when he says, "A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or outside the school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character." This narrative character that he speaks about is a spot-on description of this concept because how it works is that the student merely listens to whatever the teacher wants them to know and they absorb it for what it is. Nowhere is there any growth or expansion behind the words and phrases that the "teacher" is spitting out to their students.
You previsouly said "This form of education...is beneficial to them", learning in this way of the teacher teaching while the students sit and listen makes the kids more literate. Hirsch states "It does not document at length what has already what has already been established, that Americans do not read as well as they should." America is falling to japan in literacy. Much of their efficiency has been credited to its high level of literacy. "But in the United States, only two thirds of our citizens are literate."
You previously said, "America is falling...level of literacy," although the United States has fallen to Japan in world literacy, this can be credited to the fact that the banking concept is being used. Hirsch argues that this form of teaching where the student is basically acting like a recepticle and the teacher fills them with 'culturally literate' information is the best route to go. But what this system really does is it transforms the students reality to whatever the teacher (aka oppressor) wants it to be. "Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in "changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them"; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated." This clearly states that the teacher is taking control of the students thoughts, the way they recieve the information, and the how they understand it in its entirety.
You previously said "But what the system...whatever the teacher wants," it's not oppressive because its not cruel how the teacher is teaching the students to be literate. Hircsh states " Professor Chall is one of several reading specialists who have observed that 'world knowledge' is essential to the development of reading and writing skills. What she calls world knowledge I call cultural literacy, namely, the network of information that all competent readers possess. It is the backround information, stored in their minds, that enable them to take up a newspaper and read," he is stating that the banking concept of learning because you can communicate with the information that you have stored from learning and you can comprehend and grasp the point.
When you said, "He is stating... grasp the point," you are assuming that the students are really have an option in what they are learning and that they actually understand. But the banking concept is basically a system where the student downloads information that the instructor lays out for them, without knowing exactly what is meant by them. For example, "Four times four is sixteen; the capital of Para is Belem," do the students truly know what is meant by these statements or "teachings?" The answer to this question is no they probably do not know what these statements or "teachings" as you call them truly mean. The teacher ultimately dictates what the student does and does not learn. Freire states, "It follows logically from the banking notion of consciousness that the educator's role is to regulate the way the world "enters into" the students. His task is to organize a process which already occurs spontaneously, to "fill" the students by making deposits of information which he considers to constitute true knowledge." Your argument that the best way for the United States of America to become more culturally literate is to make students become 'containers' of knowledge is clearly not in the best interest of the students. This clearly proves that the banking concept of education is oppressive.
You previously stated, "But the banking concept...What is meant by them," you are saying that the students dont know what is meant for them by following what the teacher is stating. Hirsch states, "We know instinctively that to understand what somebody is saying, we must understand more than the surface meanings of words; we have to understand the context as well. The need for background information applies," this is stating that when the teacher is telling them what they should learn they must understand it by not just looking at it but also by reading between the lines to get the full understanding. You also stated"the teacher ultimately dictates", the teacher does command the classroom but he can also learn from his students not just dictating the students learn from him. I conclude that the Banking concept is not oppressive.