High school curricula should be focused more than they are at present using Marxist pedagogy.

1*. My opponent's assertion may come from his misunderstanding of my resolution, or my lack of depth in my description of it. The point of the praxis of Freire's pedagogy, is to change the way in which we learn. It is a change from the current education process. My point of "arguing and conversing with the teacher", is not so that "hours of class time will be wasted on students arguing what science is with the science teacher and what algebra is with the math teacher"; it is so that any information from the teacher can be questioned. If students, in classes like English and History, where interpretation of ideas is important (not as severe with subjects like Math, but still applicable), only took in what the teacher has lectured, they would miss out on the most fundamental goal of education: to teach how to teach*. Most students, at least from my observation and experiences, approach education and school as a mandatory exercise, in which they are told information and expected to be 'tested' on it, to ensure they have understood the material. With this, being the current system, students cannot comprehend, totally, the material in which they are taught. Students learn to come to school, accept information, and once they have been tested on the information, flush it down in the depths of their psyche. Freire's method puts more control in the student. This keeps students interested, as they can explore the depths of their material because they can challenge it, discuss it, then conform their understanding around what they, from discussing it, have decided to be the best interpretation of the material. It does not "diffuse the curriculum rather than focus it"; what it does is, prevent the cycle of information without change. With this pedagogy, students better comprehend the subject in discussion, than if they were to be taught under the aforementioned pedagogy . *(being able to teach something, shows true mastery on the subject. Consequently, if a student understands how to teach, they can help teach the teacher how to teach. In this pedagogy, student and teacher are equal in all aspects. ) 2. My opponent has taken out of context what I meant by "Mere memorization and regurgitation of information is thrown out". What I meant, was that the entire system in which education is taught, will not be based on this form of teaching. And yes, this is the way that most schools operate (Again, I am currently in high school), aside from Montessori school systems. Education will be more based on what I have proposed earlier*. "There are few subjects wherein a high school student is equipped to "takes this information and analyzes it and compares it with their knowledge of the subject at the time and logically and assertively creates a new 'understanding' of the subject. " The high school curriculum is mainly restricted to facts upon which there is longstanding agreement among professionals in the field. Sometimes it is not, but students are not going to be the source of revisions. That's going to be a problem for educators and policymakers to resolve. If a student does have an insight contrary to established teaching, then the main avenue for expressing it should be to publish a paper in a journal where it can be subject to peer review, and if sound it will add to the body of knowledge. " - -There are a few problems with this assertion. I do understand that presenting information, and using my proposed system, will cause some concern as to how it will be pulled off. Well, this is not about what will be tough or challenging, it is about what will, ultimately, allow generations to better understand the world in which they live in. As to the advice to a student, if they wish to express a contrary perspective of some information; it is true, though it may be prevented because of student apathy or laziness. A lot of students may have a better detailed, and more encompassing interpretation on an idea(s), but I doubt that a majority of those students will appreciate that they must go out of their way and write a petition or paper to add to the body of knowledge on the subject. Why is it that they should not discuss it while in class? Classes, contrary to popular belief, are not always going to be about the exact curricula that has been carefully chosen and planned (the current situation of regimented education); they can be about the exploration of the subjects not entailed in the curriculum, such as the very way we speak, write, and communicate in general. It can be the random, but fascinating discussion of something that a student or teacher notices. I have experienced this first hand. My English teacher will, aside from her planned curricula (which she tries to avoid having, since she teaches close to the way I propose), she will notice something completely random, such as the representation of a character in a story we are reading, and how it conveys our societies view of certain persons, etc. This is, but a small example, of something so random and seemingly insignificant , that can open a student's eyes, in terms of perspective and understanding on subjects other than the subject in discussion (hence, de-compartmentalization). I understand the positive outcomes, in terms of discipline, involved with rote memorization of facts and vocabulary, though, this eventually becomes the basis of the grading system in schools. Large amounts of points for a student's grade are from worksheets/homework assignments that require large amounts of memorization. It has such a large impact on a student's grade, which in our society has been deemed a very important factor in determining a student's intelligence and readiness for college, that it demands the student to focus more on this than other more important things, if he/she is to be recognized as a 'good student'. This is the antithesis of what education should be. My comment that Capitalism is the foundation of our education system, was to point out the facts espoused in Jean Anyon's article. Much of the education that I propose, is taught in certain areas in the US. Although, not exactly my proposed theory, the education in certain areas is largely about the student's independence and dominion over his/her own education. The problem is, these schools that focus on true education, are centralized in communities in which wealth prospers. This comes back to the root of Capitalism. Though this may be a digression and tangent, the understanding of the centralization and hidden agenda of education and work, as to whom will succeed academically, lends help in breaking down and changing the current pedagogy.