The banking concept of education is not oppressive because,the students ought to think for themselves. When the student communicates in the real world the student develops his/her thoughts. This way they can relate real world experience to their learning experience.The banking concept of education gives student the basic knowledge, students need to go out in the real world and make a living and name for themselves. The way they interpret what is being taught to them through the "Banking Concept" is up to themselves given them the freedom to learn more about it or not.
"The teacher cannot think for his students, nor can he impose his thought on them." Freire stated this in his work. Meaning that the student is free and not oppressed, to only learn what the teacher is teaching. Just like the teacher the student develops his own thoughts.
The students are not being offered the opportunity to "communicate in the real world", stated in the second sentence of your argument. According to Freire, "instead of communicating the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits". The teacher never offers conversation, yet talks at them in an attempt to fill their brain with knowledge. In this case an educator can absolutely be viewed as an oppressor. There is no opportunity for a student to embrace their unique style of learning, and is academically stifled in the process.
You say there is no opportunity for the student to embrace their unique style of learning because the teacher "oppressor" attempts to fill the students brain with knowledge. We students are humans, which means we are a conscious being. Students must forget about the deposit teaching and practice learning from their relationship to the world. Like freire stated "Those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept of men as conscious beings" The fact that we have the power to reject the way we are being taught makes the banking concept non oppressive.
Yes, humans are conscious beings. A conscious being who is a free thinker, and comes to school with previous knowledge. A child is a fragile being, and as Hirsch states "our children can learn this information only by being taught it". Yes, people have the power to reject the way they are being taught, but children are an impressionable being. It is unfair to assume they can reject what an adult is imposing when it is not in their nature. The oppressor, in this case the educator, is taking advantage of a child"s submissive predisposition.
Yes a child is a fragile being but it is once we become an adult that we start to realize the things we do not like. Once we are adults we agree and disagree with things in the world and it is once we are adults that we can liberate ourselves from the things we disagree with. When we do this we build relationships with people that think like ourselves leading to the building of cultural relationships. The world is full of conscious beings that are all unique in their own way the base knowledge the banking concept feeds to our brain will be used once we start to build cultural literacy.
Adults can disagree and agree, children cannot. "The capability of banking education to minimize or annul students" creative power to stimulate their credulity serves the interest of the oppressor." By minimizing the students ability to "think outside the box" if you may, their creative power is being squashed and discouraged, thus coercing them to more easily accept the views and opinions of the teacher, preying on their credulity. The only relationship being utilized is student to teacher. The oppressor is seeking to hush the ever working mind of the student. By purely teaching with no opportunity for feedback or conversation, it puts a damper on their creativity. Creating a slippery slope, the student stops questioning and starts blindly accepting whatever the teacher deems right. [stimulating credulity][further oppressing the student]
Reasons for voting decision: Con initiated the debate and behaved as Pro while declaring as Con. He gave no information as to what the "banking theory" is or why anyone advocated it. He should have done more citing of proponents to substantiate his claims of defects as being actually in the theory. Pro did nothing of substance either, but Con failed to meet the burden of proof he assumed.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.