In our contemporary schooling system, there exist inherent hierarchies. When students walk into classrooms, they generally expect that there will be one authority figure: the teacher. Likewise, the teacher usually expects that students will take notes on the concepts they present, and will memorize the necessary information in time for the inevitable examination. This method works well enough, and schools pump out competent young adults, ready to join the workforce and hopefully utilize some of the skills they have learned. However, within the classroom, there are power structures that render education not liberating at all, and rather a system that enforces hierarchies. If students are to become freer through education, we must fundamentally change the way we think about the relationship between the teacher and the student. The relationship must be transformed beyond the binary teacher/student dichotomy to a freer alternative, where both parties can learn from and teach the other.
Although IHS is unique in many respects, it does contain these often harmful power structures. Teachers do often make an effort to engage students more in their classes, but a radical reimagining of the classroom is rarely seen outside English classes. In history classes, students are generally lectured and expected to memorize information, rather than critically interacting with the subject matter. This practice is repeated in many science classes as well, although here it is understandably harder to avoid. Still, memorizing scientific terms only to repeat them on some tedious final does little to foster students who are equipped to examine their surroundings.
Within English classes, a more equal student-teacher relationship can be facilitated through group discussions, although in many cases, the teacher remains an authority figure who insists on a single interpretation of a text. This can be the root of low participation in class—students sometimes feel as though their interpretations of material are worthless. Students who voice opinions that differ from those of the teacher should not be subjected to wanton criticism or embarrassment.
This is not to say that IHS teachers are oppressive, or that a complete restructuring of the school system is needed. In recent years, there has been an effort to reform classroom practices, but there is still more work to do. These changes should be built on the well of teacher talent that exists at IHS. Possible alternatives to the current method include more seminar-style courses to facilitate a mutually respectful and increasingly discursive classroom. In addition, testing, when possible, should move more towards individual interpretation of material, rather than repeating what the teacher has said in a standardized thesis. Reduction of class size, when possible, also makes it easier for more students to talk, and to express themselves.
There is not a clear-cut solution to this problem, since teachers are required to teach a certain amount of material in a certain amount of time, and students invariably must sit for their end-of-year exams. However, this does not mean that the process of gaining that information should not be a liberating one for all parties involved. Increasing respect, diversifying teaching methods, changing tests to be reflective of skill application, and allowing students to present a broader range of ideas will help make the classroom a more productive and freeing environment for students and teachers alike.