Meredith Lampe

Freedom Within Limits

Many citizens have something negative to say about the educational system in the United

States. Some parents are frustrated by material that theyve deemed too hard for their children,

while others feel that their children arent being challenged enough. And what about the students

themselves? Here also we see a split; some coast through elementary and high school, while

others fall further behind their peers with each passing year. Achieving a balance that suits the

needs of each student is a task that consumes American educational leaders. But what if the

problem is bigger than we think it is? What if the problem isnt bias or unbalanced curriculum,

but instead, the system itself?

O O O

Paulo Freire, a Brazilian-born educator and philosopher, had significant experience with

stimulating change on a large scale. His specialty, drawing oppressed people groups out of

despotic situations, led him to produce works detailing his methodology and the techniques he

used that were most effective. Having been born into a poverty-stricken society, he was able to

relate to the oppressed in a unique way and understand their plight on a personal level. His most

famous work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed(1968), illustrates his passion for dialogical

education. He utilizes discussion circles to help the oppressed population come to self-

realization, allowing them to see the reality of mistreatment that theyre living in. In his literary

work, Freire walks the reader through the processes of getting his subjects to open up and look at
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !2

their own circumstances in a new light--only through this revelation, according to Freire, can

they pull themselves out of oppression.

In Freires experience with peasant populations, his participants have a tendency to

discount themselves before they ever have a chance to succeed or fail. He notes that they call

themselves ignorant and say that the professor is the one who has knowledge and to whom they

should listen(Freire, p. 63). Here, Freires participants are expressing their complacency to

continue using the banking model of education. The instructors outpouring of information into

the students is the deposit, and the students then withdraw this information when theyre

tested on the material. There is no critical thinking or discussion involved. With the banking

model, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon

those whom they consider to know nothing(Freire, p. 72). The peasants then personify the role

that the instructor has given them--an empty vessel, waiting to be filled. Sound familiar? The

banking model is still in widespread use today--in our elementary schools, high schools and

universities. So, how has this affected our students?

Contemporary educational journalists have found striking information about the state of

our school system in the United States. In his book How Children Succeed (2013), Paul Tough

outlines major factors that can push students toward success or failure, and examines case studies

to see how various individuals have beaten the odds. Students dealing with broken families,

abusive or neglectful parents, substance abuse or other Adverse Childhood

Experiences (ACEs) tend to have negative outcomes in adulthood (examples of which include

depression, obesity, and early sexual activity) (Tough, p. 10). The stress caused by these
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !3

experiences also leaks into their lives at school, causing them to project negative behavior in the

classroom; this shows itself in aggression and disrespectful outbursts in elementary school,

transforming to a lack of drive or rebellion in high school. To further complicate things, not all

adolescents displaying these traits had high ACE scores--some came from peaceful, affluent

backgrounds with a complete set of parents and limited trauma. Their ACE scores were low, but

so were their grades. Clearly another factor was at play.

In Toughs examination of the United States school system, he concludes that the most

defining factor in a childs future is their character. The question lies not in what their

background is, how much trauma they have endured, or what tax bracket their family is placed

into (although there are some correlations here); rather, we can look at what character traits they

have cultivated as they grew up to make accurate predictions about later outcomes. Have they

shown resilience and grit? Do they give up easily? Are they driven? The answers to these

questions, more than economic information or even SAT scores, reveal a students likelihood to

succeed.

Tough brings us some perspective on the dire straits that the U.S. education finds itself in,

and also leads us toward a fundamental flaw in the way our children are being raised and taught.

He highlights various teachers that seem to be succeeding in changing their students

trajectories--after interacting with these teachers, many adolescents coming from seemingly

hopeless backgrounds experience a shift in trajectory big enough to significantly change their

futures. These teachers dont seem to be afraid of challenging their students; they trust that their
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !4

students can handle problems thrown at them, whether or not the students ever come to the

correct solution.

Elizabeth Spiegel, a chess instructor at Intermediate School 318 in Brooklyn, New York,

takes this duty very seriously. In losing a chess match, she says, you can place blame only on

yourself (Tough, p. 119). When this happens repeatedly, her students develop an important skill:

the ability to fail, and fail well. Spiegel notes to Tough that she teaches her students, losing is

something you do, not something you are(Tough, p. 116). Spiegel rejects the tendency to baby

her students with artificial encouragement and superficial rewards: if they lose, they lose--as a

result of this, winning is that much sweeter.

So how does this build character? Sure, students have the ability to lose with grace, but

what does this mean for their lives outside of chess? Spiegel grants her students autonomy; the

ability to achieve greatness, should they work hard to get there, or failure, should they choose not

to commit themselves. Their outcomes are determined by their actions, and they are reliant only

upon themselves. Spiegel sets up boundaries, explains the rules of the game and allows them

total independence within these constraints. Here, she is illustrating a vital component to

successful education: absolute freedom within absolute limits.

Where does Freirian dialogical education fit into this model? His discussion circles set

clear boundaries as to the intended activities; Freire gives his students a task and outlines their

responsibilities--absolute limits. Within these limits, Freire encourages participants to let the

discussion wander and evolve. He unassumingly poses questions, not to wait for a right answer,

but to explore the significance of ideas put forth by the group. Freire claims that knowledge only
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !5

emerges through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful

inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other(Freire, p.72). In

other words, he gives the participants absolute freedom to interact and discover truths, all within

the constraints of the activity.

So what does this model, absolute freedom within absolute limits, actually look like in

practice? Dr. Michael Popkin, author of a collection of instructional parenting resources,

advocates the freedom within limits method in his book, Active Parenting Now. This technique

is popular in parental education because kids need consistency; parents set up concrete limits,

and children function well amidst this stability. When kids know where the boundaries lie and

experience consequences when these boundaries are violated, they have a secure environment.

Within this structure, kids can then have the freedom to express creativity and pursue their

interests. So, why dont we see this put into practice more? According to Dr. Ellen Lampe, a

pediatrician in Seattle, WA, parents see the value in this technique, but have trouble putting it

into practice.

The role of a pediatrician goes beyond dealing with physical problems and writing

prescriptions; a pediatrician is often on the receiving end of an avalanche of information from

parents. While the doctor is physically checking the child, parents use this opportunity to pick

the brain of their physician, asking them about other struggles--many of which are related to

family dynamic. In an interview with Dr. Lampe, she highlights inconsistency in following

through with consequences as one of the main discipline problems encountered in her clinic.

When parents arent clear with what their expectations are, Dr. Lampe says, or theyre wish-y

wash-y, or they arent concrete with their consequences, kids pick up on this; they dont feel safe,
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !6

and they act up.(E. Lampe, personal communication, February 3, 2015). Setting concrete

boundaries is a cornerstone of good parenting.

What qualities about American parenting are preventing these boundaries from being set

and enforced? In other words, what is it thats making parents become wish-y wash-y with their

rules? Parents who struggle with this generally fall into one of two camps:

1. The emotional parent. This parent is unable to keep her feelings from getting the best of

her. She allows herself to be overcome by anger and frustration when her child doesnt

follow her rules, and lashes out at the child. Whether or not abuse actually takes place,

the child is confused by the variation in punishment--sometimes for a certain behavior the

child is hardly punished, while other times the child is experiences severe consequences

for the same behavior.

2. The best friend parent. This role is an easier trap for the parent to fall into. This parent

places his childs feelings as his top priority. Sounds like loving, careful parenting, right?

Problems arise when the parent makes concessions to please the child. First, the child is

able to talk herself out of enduring consequences for not following the rules. Emboldened

by this power, the child expects to receive special treatment from authority figures other

than the parent (at school, work, etc.). When this inevitably fails to happen, the child

complains to the parent, and the parent fights for his child, citing unfair treatment or

circumstances.

Both of these parents fail to enforce consistent limits for their child, but the second role,

the best friend parent, is particularly insidious. How does this type of parent affect the child in
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !7

academics? Lets think back to our example with Speigel, the expert chess instructor. One of her

most outstanding qualities was her ability to challenge her students, and teach them how to fail.

What happens when the best friend parent cares so much about the childs feelings and self-

esteem that he keeps his child from ever experiencing the possibility of failure? As soon as the

child is disappointed by the results of something challenging that didnt go well, the best friend

parent swoops in to rescue the child from this trauma-inducing activity. If this parent thinks his

child has to work too hard in math, or that the problem sets are above the childs comfort level,

the parent angrily emails the teacher, demanding a lighter load. The core of the problem here is

that the child isnt being given the autonomy to fail--the parent steps in as a buffer, and the child

never reaches the brink of failure. In this situation, neither Freires self-actualization nor Toughs

character building ever have a chance to happen. Not only is this parent babying his child, but he

also lacks trust that his child has what it takes to withstand the possibility for failure. So, how do

we encourage parents to place trust in their children? We cant exactly go into homes and force-

feed parental education. However, we do have an educational system for students already in

place. What if we set our schools up in such a way as to foster this trust, and used educational

theories that have proven to be successful as models for our approach? Lets examine some

hypothetical schools exemplifying these theories.

The Center for Dialogical Self-Actualization: A Freirian Charter School

Paulo Freires school breaks all the rules of traditional education. The desks have been

eradicated entirely from the classroom, its impossible to tell the difference between teachers and

students, and progress reports include only self-evaluations of personal feelings of progression
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !8

toward independent goals. Students attend discussion circles structured around different subjects,

the only changes between classes being the triggering questions that stimulate these

discussions. A banner encircles the main plaza, declaring, To Speak a True Word is To

Transform the World(Freire, p. 87). Paulo himself was heavily involved in the construction

process, and refused to be featured in any pictures on the wall or statues around campus. He

instead chose to photograph the lifeblood of the school: the students, having discussion through

which they learn about the world. Massive murals scattered around campus depict this scene and

serve to inspire students to continue to struggle through dialogical process.

Academy of Character: the Tough Institute

To enroll in the Tough Institute, no entrance exam is required, but the process is highly

selective. Candidates are brought in for on-campus interviews to assess their levels of

persistence, motivation, grit, and a number of other factors. The interviewees are asked to

describe situations in which theyve overcome obstacles, failures that theyve experienced, and

general weaknesses that they posses. Then, as the interview process finally culminates in a

decision, each candidateevery last onereceives a rejection email. A 0% acceptance rate. This

email is carefully worded, describing how the school sees potential in him/her but is unable to

accommodate the student due to space restrictions. In the last sentence of the email, the Tough

Institute leaves the rejected student with one final challenge: If, for some reason, you still

believe that you should be admitted to the Academy of Character, please mail a letter with your

reasoning to P.O. Box 3542, Brooklyn, New York. It is at this point that candidates are selected.
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !9

Every candidate who sends a letter detailing any reasons that they should, in fact, be admitted to

the Academy of Character is granted admission.

The Tough Institute is structured around giving students the perfect amount of challenge:

just enough to keep them engaged, working on hard problems and failing a good portion of the

time, but not so much that they give up altogether (although, it would be a feat in itself to get a

Tough student to quit at anything). Tough students live in Brooklyn, near where the Academy of

Character is located, but not on campus. Students not only learn what they are taught at the

Academy, but life skills that they pick up from being a citizen in a big city.

O O O

While exemplifying certain pillars of education, these models dont seem very realistic.

How are the Freirian students introduced to new material? Are they discovering complex

mathematical concepts inside themselves? And, in what world are parents allowing their

children to live alone in Brooklyn? Clearly these scenarios arent feasible; however, some

educational institutes internationally have come close to creating idyllic academic environments.

In her most recent book, The Smartest Kids in the World And How They Got That Way,

Amanda Ripley examines countries that have implemented the most successful educational

institutions worldwide and the effects that these institutions have on students. Her list of

successful countries includes Poland, Korea and Finland. The prior two display excellent test

scores, but at certain costs to the lifestyle of the student. Finland, however, seems to have

cultured an environment rich with respect for education itself and an innate drive thats visible in

both students and teachers. How did they do this? Not without difficulty.
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !10

Finlands educational system used to look similar to what we see today in the United

States: many teachers, an increasing number of evaluative techniques implemented to measure

the quality of these teachers, and a general dissatisfaction with the academic system as a whole.

Then, an extreme educational reform took place, limiting the number of training institutions for

teachersthereby increasing the prestige required for admittanceand producing a general

higher level of public respect for those pursuing careers in education. The number of teachers

decreased, but the quality of instruction soared.

These teachers were good, and everybody knew it--they were trusted more by parents and

faculty alike. The result? Faculty granted the teachers more autonomy, while parents loosened

the reigns on their students education, believing that these qualified teachers knew what they

were doing. In other words, they were granted absolute freedom within the educational system,

within the absolute limits imposed by the basic structure of schools themselves.

This shift in opinion toward Finnish teachers also affected Finnish students. Because the

teachers who were admitted to teaching programs were more qualified, these programs spent less

time on catch-up instruction, more time gaining hands-on experience, which then led to better

classroom experiences for their students. Students, likewise, seemed to respect the prestige of the

teaching career and, furthermore, the necessity of education itself. Having seen this, both

teachers and parents were justified in granting trust to their students: trust to complete

assignments, to challenge themselves, and to keep trying even if they failed. The students had all

of this packaged neatly into the structure of educational culture in Finland. Therefore, what
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS 1! 1

environment did the students then find themselves in? An environment of absolute freedom

within absolute limits. This is truly the model of an exemplary educational society.

So, how can we implement this system here in the United States? By following not only

Finlands example, but Freires and Toughs as well; all of these educational models display what

weve found to be our unique mantra for academic success: absolute freedom within absolute

limits. Keeping this goal in mind, we hope to soon see our students thrive.
FREEDOM WITHIN LIMITS !12

Works Cited

Adams, L. Parenting Program Comparison: How to Choose the Right Parenting Program for

You. Gordon Training International. Retrieved from http://www.gordontraining.com/

parent-programs/parenting-program-comparison/

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International.

Ripley, A. (2013). The Smartest Kids in the World And How They Got That Way. New York:

Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Tough, P. (2012). How Children Succeed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.