Before the formal schooling system emerged in India, the Gurukuls existed in which students had to stay for a certain period of time under the teacher’s supervision. It was the responsibility of the teacher to decide the proper curricula for students and teach them in his/her own-devised methods. It was believed that teacher is the ultimate source of power and knowledge and so the words said by the teacher were to be followed without questioning. Such was the faith on teachers that most of the crucial decisions-be it about a child in the family or some issue in the community, people would consult the teacher in the village as they held that a knowledgeable person like him/her can guide them in taking correct decisions. This authoritarian position of the teacher was brought down with the emergence of the colonial rule.
The colonial masters believed that the unquestioned authority of the teacher did not allow any room for critical thinking on the student’s part and thus the system needed to be changed. Along with demeaning the role of teacher, even the indigenous knowledge was disregarded. Accusing the Indian belief system to be based on superstition and irrationality, teaching on the basis of scripts and folklore was rejected. That the Indian society was in need of moral and character makeover was reinforced again and again by the rulers and thus the textbook culture was born. Subjects like science, mathematics, history, geography and literature were introduced through textbooks prepared by Western experts.
Not only was the curriculum decided by foreign subject specialists and administrators, but also the methods of teaching and routine to be followed were pre-decided for the teacher. The teacher had no autonomy either on the content to be taught or the practices to teach the students. The only job left for the teacher was to execute the ‘plan’ step by step as given to him/her. They were assigned clerical jobs and were also subject to fear of the regular school inspection. All these led to the loss of authority and identity of the teacher as a trustworthy intellectual person. The status of teachers which I described above has not changed since then and continues to be so.
Giroux talks about the significant role teachers can play in bringing about a positive change in the society by recognizing their potential as intellectuals and helping the students to develop critical thinking. He says that the educational reforms are important not only for the students but teachers too as they affect the complete classroom transaction. But ironically, teachers are never considered important enough to be consulted for their suggestions and opinions before deciding the reforms to be made. Teachers are merely expected to impart instructions as and when needed by the curriculum design which is based profoundly on the political and ideological beliefs of the society. Thus, teachers are forced to work in conditions which are determined by factors working outside the classroom. Giroux states that there is a need for teachers to understand their significance in the educational scenario and strive for the recognition and decision-making power they deserve to get as an intellectual work force. They are in a better position to critique as well as suggest the modifications for in-service and pre-service teacher training programs by doing which they can help the prospective teachers too.
When we expect teachers to be able to develop critical thinking in students, it is first essential that they themselves do so. They should raise questions about practices and concepts they find confusing or doubtful. Sadly, even the teacher-training courses follow the Banking model which restricts the scope of independent thinking on the part of the student as they are supposed to learn and perform the tasks which is taught to them without questioning the rationale behind it. Learners are regarded as someone without knowledge, belief or interests; rather they are only passive recipients of the information given by the ‘more knowledgeable’ teacher. Students who are trained in this manner follow the same tradition when they become teachers and this goes on from generation to generation. Giroux encourages teachers to engage in research and develop theories based on their experiences in classroom and awareness about social and political ideologies. Thus, teachers can not only challenge but also change the way curriculum is designed. Once this is done, the teachers can provide an environment to the students in which they will have the right to resist the pedagogy if it contradicts their beliefs and consequently develop a democratic sphere right from the school life.
Giroux discusses mainly two issues which affect the overall work of teachers. First is proletarianization of teachers which refers to the tendency to reduce teachers to the status of specialized technicians whose duty is to pass on “predetermined set of discrete information and instructional procedures through a teacher-proof method, and highly standardized tests” (Sedeghi & Ketab, 2009, p.53). He calls such type of pedagogy as management pedagogy because the emphasis is on structuring the curricula in such a way that it is easier for maximum number of students to clear the exams. For this, the teachers are given a routine to be followed so as to complete the syllabus on time and allow the students to attempt and pass the examinations.
There are two drawbacks of this approach. First, teachers are completely excluded from the curriculum making process. Second, the curriculum is designed in such a way that it represents a normative picture of society consisting of culture and way of life followed by the upper caste, middle class people. Thus, many children who come from different religion, ethnicity, culture, and economic background feel out of place in the classroom as teachers also ignore the difficulties faced by these students and proceed at their own convenience.
The second issue raised by Giroux is the need to develop a new perspective about teachers- to see them as transformative intellectuals. This perspective accepts that every activity involves thinking no matter how routinized it is. Thus the work of teachers cannot be devalued by saying that there only job is to implement the instructions given to them. This means that they have the right to integrate conceptualization and actualization instead of blindly practicing methods irrespective of its relevance to the classroom context. By doing this, they become active and reflective agent of knowledge and not a source of static knowledge. Giroux says that teachers are not technical experts equipped with skills to achieve pre-determined goals, rather they are “free men and women with a special dedication to the values of the intellect and the enhancement of the critical powers of the young” (Giroux, 1988, cited in Canestrari & Marlowe, 2004, p.209). Teachers are therefore active agent of social change because they are in a position to motivate children to question the existing customs and practices in the classroom thus preparing them to challenge the greater problems and injustices in the society. The Problem-posing approach can help the teachers in engaging the students in critical dialogue with them as well as each other. For this, group activities can be used so that discussions on controversial issues can be held.
Teachers have a greater responsibility in bringing about social change because schools are economic, cultural and social sites which perpetuate power and control in the society. They encounter various conflicts in the form of political discourses which influence the overall pedagogy. Different political groups like RSS have tried to saffronize the curriculum by forcing Hinduism in various topics through various subjects. Teachers have to deal with such political issues and this is the reason why many teachers do not want to enter such situations which may jeopardize their job and personal life. Thus to enable the teachers to use their freedom of not only critically engaging in educating the future responsible citizens of the society but also preparing them to become active participant in the democracy, educational institutions play an important part. They should provide an environment that is liberal, open to change and tolerant to diverse views. If traditional ways of teaching-learning are to be transformed, teachers should be given the authority to devise their own methods of teaching.
Giroux’s argument about viewing teachers as transformative intellectual is very helpful for changing the status of teachers as considered by students, parents, policy makers and by teachers themselves. As described earlier, initiative taken by teachers in improving their work conditions is the most effective way of doing so which will further benefit the prospective teachers and their learners.
References
Giroux, H. (2004). 21 Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals. In A. Canestrari & B. A. Marlowe (Eds.), Educational Foundations: An Anthology of Critical Readings (pp. 205-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sedeghi, S. & Ketab, S. (2009). From Liberal Ostrichism to Transformative Intellectuals: An Alternative Role for Iranian Critical Pedagogues. ELTED, 12, 52-60. Retrieved from http://www.elted.net/6%20%20Sima%20Sedeghi%20&%20Saeed%20Ketabi.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.