Caitlin Araldi

EDLPS 520
Dr. Williamson-Lott
Response Paper 2
December 1, 2014
As I began reading and found it difficult to separate out the legal jargon from the context
of the questions at hand in the readings this week, the challenge became the question as I was led
to consider, as you suggested, that educational issues are always more profound than the way
they are presented. Indeed, the fundamental questions of American education become obvious
in the difficulty we find in these cases, and once again my reading of previous educational
philosophy guided my thinking to focus on the following questions more closely.
First of all, how do the compelling interests of the government (at any level) reflect the
interplay of civil rights as participation in that ruling body, particularly in a democracy (in theory
comprised of the very entity it rules)? Put another way, when we compare the rights of the
people v. those of the government, ultimately, who decides, and for what purpose? Obviously
this is overwhelming to consider, particularly on the basis of former legal cases setting the
precedent for our actions, and because the philosophical question of naming becomes central. In
our consideration of state v. federal, white v. nonwhite, etc.; classification denotes
meaning beyond practice, and the institutionalization of these decisions seems to therefore have
implications that are being measured by virtually invisible boundaries. What we know about
power would dictate that we are all the entity, but that it is not all of us; so who is ultimately
responsible for renegotiating these bounds? Where does being race-conscious come into play
in these decisions?
I almost find this dangerously akin to being colorblind or even color-neutral, because the
complicity we take by defaulting (or not) to such classifications in these issues is forcing
transformation through institutionalized channels that cannot lead to greater purity/truth/good,

Caitlin Araldi
EDLPS 520
Dr. Williamson-Lott
Response Paper 2
December 1, 2014
and yetthere is no clean slate. For example, what is the place of affirmative action? Is
compensation for wrong simply a veiled repurposing of the very same transgression? I assume
most of us would be inclined to say not necessarily, if there isnt another practical channel to
transformation available. This at least seems to be a pattern in education, where our crisis
mentality cannot be addressed immediately and in comprehensive ways because a system is in
place, where obvious and compelling limitations exist before our attempts to reconcile the
opinions of a deeply divided whole.
For me, this is also true of the question of what is constitutional, and in reconciling how we
define the argument of what equity is v. what equality might be. If segregation deprived black
children of equal educational opportunities regardless of whether school facilities and other
tangible factors were equal, because the classification and separation themselves denoted
inferiority (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et. al., p. 5),
then this leads me to question the binary relationship between the individual and the collective
(among other dualisms), and what it means for education.
As in my previous response paper, the question of how transformation is achieved is
dependent on how we would (or would not) collectively (at any level) agree that a democracy is
a transformative community by nature, at least here in the case of education in the United States.
Going back to the foundations of democratic educational philosophy, Socrates asserted that
education is primarily philosophical self-examination: confronting logical inconsistencies in
ones own thinking and also inconsistencies between what one believes and values and what one
actually does (Kerdeman, 2014). Yet Plato believed that, while philosophical self-examination

Caitlin Araldi
EDLPS 520
Dr. Williamson-Lott
Response Paper 2
December 1, 2014
is good, it is not the only way to educate persons and is not appropriate for everyone (Woodruff
p. 16; Loshan pp. 33-34). While Socrates was not concerned with large-scale social reform, he
does think about transformation primarily in terms of individual self-transformation through
education. In contrast, Plato believes that transformation cannot occur only at the individual
level, and instead focuses on transforming society through philosophy and politics, the vehicles
through which Socrates was not concerned. Will a society that has been transformed for the good
be a society that is just? What is the good/justice? How can a just society be practiced?
(Kerdeman, 2014)
If, as we see in sociocultural theory, individuals are profoundly shaped by the society in
which they live, we might assume that it is impossible to transform individuals in a society that is
tainted with institutionalized corruption or injustice. Given general human nature, this would be
every society. The resulting challenge is questioning the means by which we would then educate
persons to participate in transformation of a society that is composed of individuals who cant
say what good/justice is (Republic pp. 224, 245). Does wholesale social reform precede
individual transformation? (Kerdeman, 2014) How do we avoid falling victim to the same
cycles, same responses and the same entrenchments? This is a vantage point from which we
cannot see issues objectively, because it seems through education we are shaped to see them as
the reality.
As Plato suggests, So there will be no difference between a just man and a just city, so
far as the element of justice goes the elements and traits that belong to a state must also exist
in the individuals that compose it. There is nowhere else for them to come from. (Republic,

Caitlin Araldi
EDLPS 520
Dr. Williamson-Lott
Response Paper 2
December 1, 2014
142). And yet, if most individuals dont/cant challenge conventional/established systems of
morality, or confront their own fears/weaknesses/complicity, then institutions are instead the
vehicle for promoting these things.
In other words, if Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions,
which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of
forming such opinions (Einstein), then is it the purpose of education to somehow ensure that
they become capable? But as hooks points out, it is difficult to find a language that offers a
way to frame critique and yet maintain the recognition of all that is valued and respected in the
work. It seems to me that the binary opposition that is so much embedded in Western thought
and language makes it nearly impossible to project a complex response Freires own model of
critical pedagogy invites a critical interrogation of this flaw in the work. But critical
interrogation is not the same as dismissal (hooks, p. 49).
Unfortunately, I once again came up with a lot more questions than answers here, but in
making the connections I did, the practice of my own critical interrogation has pushed my
thinking to encompass more deeply the issues discussed: the naming of community, justice,
power and democracy and what they really mean for educationpast, present and future.

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDLPS 520: Education as A Moral Endeavor
Dr. Joy Williamson-Lott
Critical Analysis Paper
08 December, 2014
Progressive, holistic education, engaged pedagogy is more demanding than
conventional critical or feminist pedagogy. For unlike these two teaching practices, it
emphasizes well-being. That means that teachers must be actively committed to a process
of self-actualization that promotes their own well-being if they are to teach in a manner
that empowers students. (hooks, 1994, p. 15)
The overlap of Freires concept of problem-posing education and bells hooks theory of
education as the practice of freedom make for a convincing argument that it is foundational for
teachers to both understand and engage actively in self-actualization in the educative process in
order to meaningfully engage others in learning. While it is also arguably difficult to consistently
and holistically consider ones role in the construction of an ever-changing and complex
educational reality, the position of teaching calls for learning to happen as hooks describes it in
the passage quoted above, where the bottom line becomes: reflection on the individual and
collective level seems utterly essential to any meaningful action. If education is a vehicle for
social change and empowerment, as it is widely viewed in democratic societies such as the
United States, it takes thoughtful, authentic exploration of the self, in concert with others, in a
learning journey that is often challenging, even painful, to face fearlessly and directly. This is
especially critical to examine in early childhood settings, as children experience and absorb
socially constructed realities to become definitive of their agency, which Bandura (2001) would
describe as the essence of humanness (p. 1).
As Freire would describe it, Authentic reflection considers neither abstract man nor the
world without people, but people in their relations with the world (Freire, 1970, p. 81). To
counter the banking system of education, in which knowledge is simply deposited and passively
consumed by the learner, he offers problem-posing education, through which a reality is
constructed where people come to see their own process as transformative through reflective

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDLPS 520: Education as A Moral Endeavor
Dr. Joy Williamson-Lott
Critical Analysis Paper
08 December, 2014
self-actualization. The reflective nature of teacher-student narratives in this model empowers the
establishment of an authentic form of thought and action (Freire, 1970, p. 83). Education is
thus constantly remade in the praxis. In order to be, it must become (Freire, 1970, p. 84). If
education is an exclusively human manifestation (Freire, 1970, p. 84), Freire asserts that it is
rooted in an awareness of our process (self-actualization).
Implicit in the banking concept of education is the assumption of a dichotomy between
human beings and the worldthe individual is spectator, not re-creator (Freire, 1970, p. 75). In
this way, both Freire and hooks would agree that a dualistic, separatist view of the self and life
experience robs the individual and the collective being of consciousness; World and human
beings do not exist apart from each other, they exist in constant interaction (Freire, 1970, p. 50).
On a cognitive level, this is echoed by Bandura (2001), in which the recognition and practice of
consciousness is the very substance of mental life that not only makes life personally
manageable but worth living (p. 3).
Furthermore, A functional consciousness involves purposive accessing and deliberative
processing of information for selecting, constructing, regulating, and evaluating courses of
action (Bandura, 2001, p. 3). As the sociocultural spheres in which we learn and participate are
in a constant state of change, purposeful action is necessary to achieve meaningful
transformation. Yet constant change is challenging to navigate, particularly in a system in which
expectations for learning are set by rigid standardizations, and diversity of thought is effectively
extinguished by institutionalized Western privilege. This is where hooks has furthered these
ideas of Freire in her own work more specifically in stating that such transformation requires

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDLPS 520: Education as A Moral Endeavor
Dr. Joy Williamson-Lott
Critical Analysis Paper
08 December, 2014
disruption of institutional domination through the engagement in authentic dialogue of all
participants in the classroom (hooks, 1994, p. 158).
As mentioned previously, examining this in ourselves as educators can be painful, and
Freire and hooks might also agree that resolving the dualism existing between mind (theory) and
body (practice) is what makes education a challenging but liberatory venture, through which
personal and societal transformation is born: I think that one of the unspoken discomforts
surrounding the way a discourse of race and gender, class and sexual practice has disrupted the
academy is precisely the challenge to the mind/body split (hooks, 1994, p. 136). Yet the
implications for divisions such as this are where hooks and Freires theory seem to diverge in
practice.
As Perlstein (1990) suggests in his work about the Mississippi Freedom Schools
movement, the effort to refashion programmed learning reflected SNCCs conviction that
oppressed people learn by being brought together and addressing their own problems (p. 306).
Models of participatory education of the time were based on the conviction that responses to
oppression had to grow out of the experiences of the oppressed (Perlstein, 1990, p. 306). This is
akin to the thinking of Freire, in which the oppressed are the only ones who are capable of
breaking the cycle of their oppression, yet the overall lessons learned from the Freedom Schools
movement might be closer aligned to the philosophy of hooks, in which actively engaged
personal experiences and narratives function at all levels to define collective reality in profound
ways. Being able to acknowledge that ones participation matters is one thing, but if there isnt
clear delineation as to the entirety of the how, perhaps figuring that out in the space of the
classroom is actually where power is most present, and it begins at very young ages.

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDLPS 520: Education as A Moral Endeavor
Dr. Joy Williamson-Lott
Critical Analysis Paper
08 December, 2014
As Bandura underscores, Personal agency operates within a broad network of
sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products
of social systems (2001, p. 10). Though the work of hooks and Freire address adults learners,
the complex educational reality experienced later in life starts with self-perception of agency as a
young child, in which learning to become both a product and a producer is difficult when the role
of the teacher is often to establish what is considered socially-appropriate behavior. Canella
(2002) writes on the responsibility of early childhood educators to answer to the philosophical
tenets of agency described in both the works of hooks and Freire:
Our professional discourse regulates children, constructing the expectation and perhaps
desire to be defined by others. They learn to expect to be both excluded and silenced. We
have not heard their voices; and we will not as long as they must live within our
professional constructions that exert power over them. (p.152)
Batycky (2008) expands upon this based on her own experience, in which Teachers need to
begin to question the dominant views of who we are as teachers of young children (p. 175). She
suggests, the opportunity for voice of both teacher and student exists, when teachers choose to
take up that role (Batycky, 2008, p. 175). As Abram (1996) writes, the real world that we are
striving to prepare young children for is not is not a sheer objectbut is rather an intertwined
matrix of sensations and perceptions, collective field of experience lived through many different
angles (p. 39).
Going back to the foundations of democratic educational philosophy, Socrates asserted
that education is primarily philosophical self-examination: confronting logical inconsistencies
in ones own thinking and also inconsistencies between what one believes and values and what
one actually does (Kerdeman, 2014). Yet popular ideals for teaching in early childhood, such as

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDLPS 520: Education as A Moral Endeavor
Dr. Joy Williamson-Lott
Critical Analysis Paper
08 December, 2014
the degree to which school-readiness is emphasized, or how the promotion of colorblindness might be implemented, do not prepare children for such a learning experience, nor
does it equip them to deal with the discomfort of later issues of self taken up in their learning
(race, gender, sexuality, etc.).
If, as we see in sociocultural theory, individuals are profoundly shaped by the society in
which they live, we might assume that it is impossible to transform individuals in a society that is
tainted with institutionalized corruption or injustice. The resulting challenge is questioning the
means by which we would then educate persons to participate in transformation of a society that
is composed of individuals who cant say what good/justice is (Republic pp. 224, 245). This is a
vantage point from which we cannot see issues objectively, because it seems through education
we are shaped to see them as the reality, from as early as the first years of life and through our
very first interactions with formal learning environments. We must ask of ourselves, and perhaps
especially of teachers: what values are being transmitted from the start?
Ultimately, re-evaluating the role of the teacher is not a simple task, and it implies that
education has a grave responsibility to fix the issues society has crafted for itself, which is not
a realistic demand to make of the public school system in the United States. This paper would
argue instead that the promotion of self-efficacy within a holistic collective environment such as
the classroom should be done as early as possible in learning, and should be a constant process of
reflection on the part of the learner and the teacher (often one in the same) in order to transform
for the greater good in action, one relationship, one dialogue at a time. This can have profound
and reverberating affects on the way we view ourselves and the purpose of education, yet

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDLPS 520: Education as A Moral Endeavor
Dr. Joy Williamson-Lott
Critical Analysis Paper
08 December, 2014
requires careful awareness of ourselves and of others. This might be best summarized in
Banduras (2001) beliefs about efficacy:
Efficacy beliefs also play a key role in shaping the courses lives take by influencing the
types of activities and environments people choose to get intothis is because the social
influences operating in selected environments continue to promote certain competencies,
values, and interests long after the decisional determinant has rendered its inaugurating
effect. Thus, by choosing and shaping their environments, people can have a hand in
what they become. (Bandura, 2001, p. 10)

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDLPS 520: Education as A Moral Endeavor
Dr. Joy Williamson-Lott
Critical Analysis Paper
08 December, 2014
References
Abram, D. (1996). The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Vintage Books.
Bandura, A. (February 01, 2001). SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY: An agentic perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Batycky, J. (January 01, 2008). Early childhood voices: Who is really talking?. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 9(2), 173-177.
Canella, G. (2002) Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: social justice and revolution.
New York: Peter Lang.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York:
Routledge.
Freire, P. (2002). Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. Translated by Myra
Bergman Ramos. Introduction by Donald Macedo. New York: Continuum.
Kerdeman, D. (2014). Lecture notes. EDLPS 521: Introduction to the Western Philosophy of
Education.
Perlstein, D. (December 07, 1990). Teaching Freedom: SNCC and the Creation of the
Mississippi Freedom Schools. History of Education Quarterly, 30(3), 297-324.
Plato. (Fourth Century B.C./1987). The Republic, Second Revised Edition. Translated by
Desmond Lee; Introduction by Melissa Lane. New York: Penguin.