My first question for the panel (and anyone else who cares to answer) is what is a Freedom School? Has the definition of Freedom School changed over time?

What is a Freedom School?

In Teach Freedom:Education for Liberation in African-American Tradition, several authors describe Freedom Schools – their purpose, curriculum, and pedagogy – in both their original and their evolutionary forms. Several themes emerge as consistent over time, even as the larger social fabric has changed.

According to Charlie Cobb, generally acknowledged as one of the major architects of the Freedom Schools that ran during the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964, the primary challenge to be overcome was “Getting Black people to challenge themselves.” Fighting against the suppression of ideas that was the norm in Mississippi at the time, the purpose of Freedom Schools was to provide opportunities for Black people to “begin to rethink in their own terms the ways and means of shaping and controlling their own destiny” (p.73).

During that summer of 1964, “about 2000 students attended classes in some 40 schools. . .twice what we had estimated attendance would be” (p. 73). The 10th- and 11th–graders who attended received a curriculum that the organizers hoped would prepare them to be a “force for social change” in their state. While the curriculum included cultural programs, supplementary education, and the arts, a prominent part of the curriculum included political and social studies, since the goal was to build a new educational institution to replace the “old, unjust, decadent” ones of the existing power structure.

Bill Ayers describes the Citizenship Curriculum as a “question-asking, problem-posing affair,” (p.134) and notes that the curriculum was based on dialogue: “teachers listened, asked questions, assumed that their students were the real experts on their own lives. . . . It was a pedagogy of lived experience with the goal of allowing people to collectively question and then challenge their circumstances and situations” (p.135).

Fannie Theresa Rushing describes the Freedom School model as having these objectives: “to give students the understanding of their ability to identify the roots of oppression locally, relate it to the wider world, and in conjunction with others, transform oppressive relationships into liberating ones” (p. 99). She advocates “a pedagogy of group relationships, goals, and solidarity” so that students can “be real social change agents instead of purveyors of individual achievement, reaffirming a hollow and fallacious meritocracy” (p. 99).

The following excerpts refer to Freedom Schools in the post-civil rights era.

Matt Ritter, one of the founders of the Bushwick School for Social Justice on the school’s mission: “to make sure the kids learn the skills and become aware of the issues that directly affect them. And not only that, but learn how to address those issues, become agents of change themselves, and understand that as part of their own identity.” (p. 170)

Chris Myers Asch on Sunflower County Freedom Project in Mississippi: “We use [education] to promote a particular vision of the world. . . where citizens have the educational foundation necessary to think freely, participate politically, advocate for themselves, and make informed decisions about the course of their lives (pp.136-137).

Gale Seiler on The Children’s Defense Fund Freedom Schools: “Like the original Freedom Schools, the current initiative aims to provide youth with both roots and wings, arming them with social, cultural, and historical awareness” (p. 191). The Baltimore program she writes about serves high-school-age youth only and is “rooted in a ‘deep-seated understanding of African American experience, culture, and heritage’” (p. 200).

Has the definition of Freedom School changed over time?

The post-civil rights era Freedom Schools illustrate both the evolution (expansion of the concept to a “social justice” school, for example) and the traditional aspects that remain (learning to think freely, becoming agents of change, cultural linkages, etc.). Perhaps in the present day, it serves us better to talk about the freedom school concept rather than defining a “Freedom School.”

Any comments?

The way I understand it, a freedom school’s primary purpose is (and always has been) for its students to liberate themselves, and then for these students to teach and work for the liberation of a larger group of oppressed people. As Dr. Payne writes in the introduction to Teach Freedom, this means that a freedom school must teach students to develop a structural analysis and to understand how these structures directly shape their reality (by studying their own reality). A freedom school also must help students acquire tools that allow them to transform this reality as they study it.
Certainly other people on the panel know a lot more about the history of Freedom Schools than I do, so I'll focus on the school where I teach. It is extremely important for me to first emphasize that the reason a school like ours exists in the first place is because of a community struggle. A 19-day hunger strike waged by community members (young and old) led to the construction of our school. Our small school (which is one of 4 on the campus) is charged with carrying on the traditions and values of that struggle. So a large part of the way teachers and students understand our school as a freedom school is grounded in the story of its creation.
One of the most interesting – sometimes problematic, sometimes advantageous – things about our school is that it’s a part of the Chicago Public Schools. It’s not independent. It’s not a charter school. It’s a neighborhood high school and fully part of CPS. My sense is that this is different from most other incarnations of freedom schools, although certainly there have been and currently are a few other schools similar to ours.
Being part of CPS is frequently problematic because we do not always have the autonomy of independent or charter schools and some decisions, policies, etc of the school do not fit with the freedom school identity. But at the same time, being a “normal” or “regular” school is exactly what we want because our students are not selected and have not necessarily chosen to come here – this is just their neighborhood school (albeit one of 4). Also, this hopefully allows us to be a model for the idea that formal, state-sponsored education can be liberating. This type of teaching and learning does not have to happen entirely outside of institutions of formal education. Formal education in 2008 does not have to work against the cause of liberation. But that does lead us to question how long a school like ours will be allowed to exist before it is co-opted or before the powers that be decide that they will not provide the space and funding for this type of transformative education.

I'm wondering about how the idea of Freedom Schools has changed over time. In the sixties and before there was some agreement about who was doing the oppressing, and so some agreement of what lack of freedom needed to be addressed in Freedom Schools.

Now there is much less agreement of who is doing the oppressing, or at least the sides of struggle are often unclear. Our students in Baltimore, for instance, are currently trying hard just to get a meeting with the city's first woman mayor, an African American from a progressive background. She won't meet with a student coalition of some of the most active and interesting young people in the city!? They are pushing for 700 - 1,000 knowledge-based jobs (peer-tutoring, peer-led after school activities, camps, etc.), small student-run, freedom-school-like enterprises, and can't get a meeting!

So Freedom Schools today are challenged by the same challenges as in much of today's movement: The old questions made perfect sense: "What do they have that we want? What do they have that we don't want? What do we have that we want to develop in ourselves?" But now--"Who are 'we' and who is 'they'? Why does someone who is on 'our side' not want to talk with us?"

I am a sophomore in high school and have not yet studied in U.S. the history of Freedom Summer and/or Freedom Schools. I did do a bit of research to prepare myself for this discussion and have gathered a number of things:

1)The Freedom Schools began in Mississippi in 1964.
2)The aim of the Freedom Schools was to encourage students and participants to question the society that surrounded them.
3)Teachers were mostly volunteers and school sessions were, for the most part, open to the community although there was a set curriculum and schedule that was followed.
4)The Freedom Schools were not focused on excluding Whites from discussion and education, but more centered around making African Americans experts on their own history, culture, and community so that they better had the tools to combat whatever it was in their history, culture, and community that they did not agree with.

With this said, I believe I know more about Freedom Schools than I originally thought I did. I would classify the activism program I am a member of as a modern day freedom school. I am involved with the Liberation Program at the Brotherhood Sistersol which, separated from the campaigns for African American voters' registration, seems to be a replica of the Freedom Schools of Mississippi. The Liberation Program at the Brotherhood is not the only program of its kind. Modern day freedom schools exist across the country. Educators have, however, at this point recognized the importance in sharing this liberty with students, whether they be African American, Latino/a, or of any other background. The leaders of these modern day schools are qualified in creating a community that deals with any external issues participants may face, whether it be academic, or family related. These programs, like Brotherhood Sistersol, offer tutoring, and an opportunity for peer or facilitator counseling, if needed.

The stress on political activism and involvement is also very big in these modern day freedom schools. The students are trained in how to develop a campaign and how to involve the community as well as educated about their history. They organize around issues affecting their immediate community, and also long standing issues they define in their societies, much in the same way that the students of Freedom Schools in Mississippi did.

I believe the definition of freedom schools has altered naturally, based on the way society has. The essence of freedom schools, however, is still very close to what it was in 1964.

-Zora Howard

Hello this is Staughton Lynd,

Hello this is Staughton Lynd,

This is Staughton again,
May I say that this process of internet dialogue, with which my wife and I have struggled to access for a couple of hours, is antithetical to the spirit of Freedom Schools?

Interesting idea, Staughton. Can you tell us more about why you think internet dialogue is antithetical to the spirit of Freedom Schools? Would others agree or disagree?

I believe that a Freedom School is a space where people can ask questions about their lives and have time to think about what they need in order to be fully actualized human beings. A Freedom School can be a nonprofit organization or even a traditional school, but it might work better in someone's living room or kitchen. Gatherings are small, questions are hard, and everyone/no one is an expert. For me, the definition of a Freedom School should not change theoretically, but the questions change, the needs change, and the people change. So unfortunately, as has been noted, the term can get co-opted by those not committed to the to sanctity of the space.

Hello all,

My name is Sedrick Miles and I serve in a community education effort in Philadelphia, that we call Philadelphia Freedom Schools. I agree with the comments by Mia regarding the idea the the definition of Freedom Schools is always specific to the issues and actions that bring a particular group of people together with the intent to learn/teach "freely". I was literally raised in the CDF freedom Schools mentioned in the thread and I have had the opportunity to not only see that effort change over time, but to also compare my experience to the freedom schools all over the world.
The success of our effort here in Philadelphia is a direct reaction to the co-opting and appropriation of the name and "concept" of Freedom Schools. We were forced to part ways with this particular national effort in order to insure that the spirit of the freedom schools did not leave our programming. Since then we have had so many successes inthe development of the youth involved in our program as well as the parents and communities we serve. In many ways the issues we face with honoring the idea of being free to learn and teach our community, we feel have been parallel to the lesson learned by SNCC in the 60s.

I was not a contributor to the 1964 Freedom Schools curriculum. I was the director of the Freedom Schools. (I invited an African American friend to co-direct with me. He took a bus to Mississippi, returned, and declined, commenting: "You folks are out of your mind. People are going to be killed." He was right about the murders.) My wife and I assemblied the curriculum, either from reprints that folks submitted in multiple copies, or by typing on old purple ditto masters when the copy came to us in manuscript form. Then, together with several Spelman College students who were also going to Mississippi, I drove from Atlanta to the Oxford, Ohio orientation with a trunk full of curricula.
At Oxford, a young man named Tom Wahman told me that his wife would need to be in Jackson for rehearsals of Martin Duberman's play "In White America," and could he (Tom) be assigned to Jackson? I asked him if he would be willing to answer the phone at the headquarters of the Council of Federated Organizations then I could spend the summer driving around the state visiting individual Freedom Schools. That's what happened.
Each Freedom School was sponsored by the freedom organization (usually SNCC, sometimes CORE or NAACP) in that community. The students were African American teenagers. Most of the teachers were white. An important exception was in Hattiesburg, where Arthur and Carolyn Reese from Detroit were the co-principals, and perhaps because they were African American, Hattiesburg seemed to have as many Freedom School students as the rest of the state combined.
Important things happened when courageous African American residents opened their homes to the white volunteers. How should an elderly African American father address a 20-year-old white teacher, and vice versa? Would every one sit together at meals? I have always felt that these interactions may have been as important as what happened in the schools.
School was typically located in a church basement. (The three young men who were murdered drove to Philadelphia to find a new location for a Freedom School. After long discussion, the deacons at the Mt. Zion church had voted to let their building be used for a Freedom School. It was then burned to the ground.)
In my perception, as I journeyed from School to School and talked with teachers, the curricula I had painstakingly made available in Oxford functioned as a security blanket. Individual principals, teachers, and Schools improvised what they did. French, typing, drama, poetry, and the creation of a School newspaper -- none of them in the curriculum -- were popular activities. At one Delta school where the principal had difficulty, the key turned out to be using the afternoon for voter registration so that the activity of Mississippi African Americans during Reconstruction, one of the curriculum units, took on new significance. In McComb, the Freedom House where volunteers slept was bombed. I recall meeting on the lawn, in the evening, and Bob Moses leading the verse from "I'm on my way" that says, "If you can't go, let your children go."
In early August there was a so-called Freedom School convention in an old theological seminary building on the outskirts of Meridian. Each Freedom School chose one or two delegates. The delegates met in workshops on different topics, and then brought draft resolutions to a plenary. The program adopted is in my papers at Kent State University.
A major subject of discussion at the convention was whether an attempt should be made to create an ongoing parallel school system, or whether, when summer ended, students would return to their dreadfully inadequate, segregated public schools. The delegates chose the latter, wisely in my opinion because we did not have the reources to create a permanent alternative. But when youngsters returned to their school in Philadelphia -- imagine the courage this required! -- they wore buttons that said "SNCC" and "One Man, One Vote."
Finally, I believe Freedom Schools contributed to the strong Headstart program that came to pass in Mississippi during the next few years. Often the church basements were the same that had been used for Freedom Schools, and some of the women who had taken in volunteer teachers in 1964 became Headstart staff.

I attended a civil rights conference in Boston last year at the Kennedy Library where the discussion of Boston Freedom Schools arose. Many of the leaders of the Boston civil rights movement were panelists discussing the local civil rights movement history. One of my questions had to do with the curriculum and I was told that in advance of Mississippi Freedom Summer, one of the organizers met with the person in Boston who designed our Freedom School curriculum and took it to Mississippi. Do you know who that would have been?

Even "with the difficulties organizers encounter trying to start or sustain programs," (referenced from the introduction article (Payne, 2), should current freedom school models accept and or seek funding from corporate sponsors with known anti-liberation interests?

I am graduate student in the Counselor Education program at CUNY. I came to the U.S. at the age of 8 from Nigeria. I attended K-12 public “school” in the Bronx. The more I learn about the oppressor-oppressed relationship the more I want to do to counteract the message being sent by the oppressors. As an undergrad I took a class at John Jay College (CUNY) call Psychology of the Oppressed and I have not been the same since. What I would like to know from those of you who have struggled with the feelings of anger, confusion and just wanting to do something but don’t know what or how, is how did you get to the point where you felt and trusted the oppressors or people from the oppressor ethnicity to adequately teach people of color about freedom or African-centered curriculum. I guess my question is what I can do to begin the process of trusting again. I’m sorry is my question is off the topic but I was hoping to get some direction.

Frank Lopez Gonzalez (2004), the 2004 valedictorian of New York’s El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice, said in his graduation address: We unconsciously carry the burdens of our past. We bear the remnants of years of oppression and the backlash of society as we tried to change the social fabric of this country. These burdens have restricted us for decades, but as we try to push ourselves forward, to cure this disease, we must confront the barriers implanted in our hearts and minds. (referenced from the introduction article Payne, 6) We must confront the barriers implanted in our hearts and minds how? What is the process?

It's clear from the wide variety of answers that the concept of Freedom School is something that has many interpretations. I think this is at least in part born from the fact that there is no central authority of Freedom Schools, no Freedom School Pope if you will. And that each iteration of Freedom Schools is its own creation, reinvented by its creators. In some ways this seems like a reflection of the ideals of the 1964 Freedom Schools about challenging authority and rooting education in local needs and concerns.

But I'm wondering if there is any danger of the phrase being co-opted in some sense. We are increasingly seeing the phrase "social justice" being used in education to the point where sometimes I'm not clear what it means. I'm wondering if you see a future in which the phrase Freedom School loses its political bite. This question also relates to the question Teffanie posted about corproate sponsorship for Freedom Schools. Do we see the Nike or AT&T Freedom School in our future? What would we need to do to prevent that from happening?

Co-opting is a much better way to put what I was driving at earlier when I was talking about how hard it is to define "our side" and "their side." I think this also has to do with not knowing whom to trust.

The easy thing to say here is that Freedom Schools raise questions and allow students to figure out their own answers. But the very process of raising questions and allowing people to figure out their own answers has been co-opted, too, by the corporate bosses.

It's only when the answers lead to action, real organizaing, confrontation, demand, and struggle for power that the rug gets pulled and the lip-service to Freedom is revealed for what it is.

Which makes me think that Freedom Schools today need to be all about action and making concrete, immediate demands as a way of testing who is really supportive of freedom, and who is trying to co-opt.

I think there is a constant danger of the term being co-opted. We see this all the time at the school where I teach. Everybody wants to say they're for social justice - it sounds ridiculous to say otherwise. But some people have alterior motives for supporting these efforts. It took a hunger strike to convince the Chicago Public Schools to agree to give Little Village and North Lawndale a new high school that was desperately needed. Now the district wants to show off our school as one of THEIR successes when just a few years ago they did everything they could to avoid its construction.

Recently, with the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination, I heard many people (not in the mainstream media of course) talking about reclaiming his legacy because it has been co-opted to such a large extent - all of his radical ideas have been intentionally exluded from the official history. Very powerful ideas can become very sterile when they are distilled by people who oppose radical change. We always have to be wary of this and we always have to be clear and explicit about what we mean when we talk about freedom schools or teaching for social justice.

Certainly one can see the distortion of civil rights history happening in the recent History channel biography of King --- e.g. emphasizing the "spontaneity" of the montgomery bus boycott.

Indeed, there is no freedom school Pope. I think there is a proliferation of freedom schools, and there will continue to be more, in the context of high stakes testing (high stakes attached to the already centralized, bureacratice and standardized public school system). If you look at the history of alternative schools, there have been two alternative school "movements" (1890-1920) and 1960s. Both, paradoxically fueled by corporate money. We are now in the midst of a third alternative school movement, also being fueled by corporate money (ie Gates Foundation). Gates coopted the NYC small school movement. And at the risk of offending some people of very good will, the Children's Defense Fund has coopted the freedom school idea -- seemingly. They SEEM to either emphasis the academic part at the expense of the citizenship part or aren't folding the academic part into the citizenship part. see Ruth Emerson's advice to Freedom School teachers (1964) on the educationanddemocracy.org website (we have the entire original curriculum -- ie as best as we could collect it).

Alternative schools like freedom schools or small schools emerge when there is pain in the system -- pain from a fundamental transformation in the school system or in society. The current alternative movement is happening because the business roundtable is fundamentally transforming the public school system to serve a new service economy. My co-founders and I of the SF Freedom School came to the conclusion we wanted to do this because we were organizing around small school reform and saw it short circuited here in SF. Perhaps that was the better outcome since in Oakland, across the bay, the small school movement was at first incredibly successful, which is why I think the state took over the district and then coopted the small school movement-- taking it away from the control of the community.

How do we avoid the pitfalls of the past? which are becoming dependent on corporate and government foundation money which gets pulled when they no longer need a safety valve to deal with the pain they are causing, when the transformation is complete and everyone is just trying to figure out how to survive in the new system?

Kathy, can you tell us more about the role of corporate money in the alternative schools movement. This is the first reference I have heard to corporate money being the engine behind alternative schools in the 1960s. Are you referring to Freedom Schools or something else? What do you think the impact of that corporate money was? What lessons can we learn?

The alternative movement in the sixties was incredibly diverse. A lot of money for many of the schools came from the Ford Foundation (I think they were called "lighthouse" schools). Also, think of the Child Development Group of Mississippi being incorporated into Johnson's war on poverty (OEO) and, as a result, the community lost control over that -- see Polly Greenberg's The Devil Has Slippery Shoes!!
e.g. http://educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/Devil.htm
the federal govt coopted CDGM and turned it into head start.
On the one hand, the 1964 MS freedom schools were sort of a victim of their own success -- they were created as part of Freedom Summer -- to develop an alternative political party to the white only MDP. Freedom Summer succeeded in breaking the isolation of MS from the rest of the country, which meant that MS could no longer be a closed society (a condition upon which the brutal white power structure depended) -- so there was the famous crack in the iceberg that summer. On the other hand, the failure to get seated at atlantic city in august, allowed the national power structure to play divide and conquer among the 62 delegates -- between the middle and working class members. So, the issue became, inevitably, a class struggle. Clay Carson has written a terrific book, IN STRUGGLE, which chronicles how white middle class liberals withdrew their economic support of SNCC when the issues of civil rights turned to economic issues. Also, NAACP didn't like how much "shine" SNCC got that summer and felt its status as the preeminent civil rights organization threatened, so NAACP joined forces to undermine SNCC. also, SNCC workers were exhausted and burned out after freedom summer. and then there was the vietnam war and the world anti colonial movement. lots of factors that led to the failure of the movement to move to the next step, not the least of which was corporate cooptation through foundations and the federal government.

What are some lessons today's educators can learn from knowing about Freedom Schools of the past? What are some essential elements?

I think we need to understand that the revolution won't be funded (we need to all read the book by that title edited by INCITE!), which means we have to solve the problem of money. I was talking yesterday to a friend and fantasizing about all SFFS could do with more money. But then stopped and realized that SFFS is much more replicable on the scale it is. So . . . . maybe we should stay a shoe string operation as a model of how we can do this with very little money and LOTS of volunteers. Ordinary people acting collectively at the right historical moment -- that's how social movements happen. but people don't act collectively unless they have gotten ready to be ready for when the right moment happens. (this, of course, assumes that the human race isn't slated for extinction already because of global warming.)

Being part of a "modern day" freedom school has made me weary of all the "money" talk. I am very aware of the fact that money is needed in order to run these programs. I guess being separated from the administrative part of the program removes me from understanding how serious the issue of money is. All I see when I am organizing, or learning, or teaching others is the gain that cannot be measured by government support, or grants, etc. I think this conversation needs to be opened up to the students all of you educators are serving. It is by chance that I was asked to be a part of this panel. There are many of my peers who are oblivious to the strain that our "schools" are put under in order to provide this education. We students value this source of information, and I am sure that if it was explained to us what many of you have shared about monetary obstacles, we may not be able to solve them, but we can help solve them.

I believe Freedom Schools, first and foremost, are about a relationship, and a mutual understanding. I believe Freedom Schools have always been about this. The teacher gains from the student in the same way the student gains from the teacher. I do not think anyone would disagree. The original freedom schools consisted of students who taught other students and who taught senior citizens; who taught any who wanted to learn. You are not politically active or historically aware for a couple of years in high school or college. That is a responsibility you take on for life. It becomes your duty to pass on and to share what you have gained, whether or not in a formal setting, with others. This is the mutual understanding that springs from the respect that exists between teacher and student. There really is no teacher or student. Everyone is learning.

Open the conversation up to your students. We understand the continuation of this type of education depends on our commitment. Let us prove that we are committed. There is no need for us to think this is all for granted.

Zora, I think you make a great point about relationships. Freedom Schools can offer a renewed faith education, traditional and non traditional. Even more importantly, by fostering in intergenerational learning into a FS, we can tackle major moral and character issues in our communities that haver arisen over the past few decades labeled as "generation gaps".

The lessons for educators come not only from the past, I think, but also from the students who experience freedom schools, regardless of the era in which they live. Zora Howard made a good point about believing that freedom school is about relationships, mutual understanding, about everyone learning from each other. Staughton Lynd also hints that relationships were an important part of the Freedom Schools in MS in 1964. Looking at both past and present, other essential elements seem to be focusing on what young people can become and the steps they need to get there, linking to students’ culture and community, and facilitating their awareness of what needs to change and their development as agents of change.

I have some experience working for and researching the Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools, and am aware that they have some trademarks as well as specific terminology and curricula connected with Freedom Schools. Does anyone have comments about the relationship between CDF Freedom Schools and other Freedom Schools? Thanks.

It is my understanding that the Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools have a literacy focus and mostly serve as after school programs for young children. The Chicago Freedom School works primarily with youth ages 14 - 21, but we have no connection to these schools.

It has been invigorating for me to read the posts about the mission of freedom schools tonight. I know little about freedom schools and have not had the opporunity to visit/experience one live and in action. I am wondering--in what ways do freedom schools (past or present) aim to contribute to the overall tone of education, including their affect on neighboring schools, shaping the pedagogical practices of teachers who teach in non-freedom schools,etc?

Second, I am wondering how the philosphy of freedom schools might be more widely recognized--I work and study in urban areas that largely serve African American students, and I am distressed at times when schools are too focused on "teaching the basics" by way of suppressing time for inquiry and exploration. Instead of giving children the opporunity to develop critical thinking skills, in my experience, schools of African American students with low achievement in school are pushed into curriculums that give them little freedom to do the kind of thinking I think is meaningful. And there is mounting pressure with the push for accountability for teachers to focus on curriculum that can be regurgitated from a standard text, instead of engaging students in inquiry that allows them to draw their own conclusions about the world.

Thoughts?

We, at the Chicago Freedom School, hope to eventually work as trainers for teachers who seek to create liberatory classrooms. I think there are techniques that teachers can use, even in the face of testing mandates, that are inquiry-based and problem-posing. There are many teachers out there already doing this. I think one of the role of a Freedom School should be to bring people together to learn from one another and share what works. Not only can Freedom Schools provide a place where teachers share with one another, but also where intergenerational dialogues can occur. Where students can talk to one another outside of a traditional classroom about revolutionizing the way we think about "schooling."

Welcome to Day 2 of talkin ‘bout…freedom schools past and present. I’d like to open today’s discussion with a question about the content of Freedom Schools. Many Freedom Schools have both educational and political goals. For example, the 1964 Freedom Schools aimed both to compensate for the poor education African Americans received in public schools and prepare them to be involved in the voter registration drives. How should a Freedom School balance those goals? Do you ever find they are in competition with one another?

Also, panelists, there were a couple questions posted late yesterday and one posted earlier by Q Nwobodo that have not been addressed yet. If someone could tackle those, that would be great.

It is my belief that political and educational goals can and should be aligned, in almost every case. The problems that our youth face are complex and frequently, so are the solutions. So, their education should prepare them to deal with these problems while also challenging them academically.

In fact, the way I think about my teaching, our political goals are the primary motivation for academic engagement and achievement. We are learning how to read, write, do math, and in my class, do science so that we can transform our lives and our communities. When we come across a challenging concept or I give an especially difficult assignment, the way that I push my students forward is by framing the importance of the concept or the assignment politically. People are frequently surprised that this is true for a chemistry class, but it can (and should) be done for any discipline. When I teach about the elements, I do so in the context of precious gems and metals. We learn the periodic table, but we also learn about conflict diamonds. When I teach about solubility, we learn about the cultural importance of dyes and about the lead poisoning problem cause by lead-based paint.

We need to constantly challenge the false dichotomy between academic achievement and political education. When students study issues that are relevant to their lives, then they engage more deeply and push themselves harder which leads to higher academic achievement. These two types of goals should not compete for time or energy but should be aligned so that our students' learning is authentic and deep.

If a true democracy is predicated on an educated citizenry, then as Daniel Morales-Doyle notes, educators -- whether in Freedom Schools or just dedicated to giving our children what they need to survive, thrive, and lead in the future -- must "challenge the false dichotomy between academic achievement and political education." The original Freedom Schools provided a model that has been, and should continue to be, built upon in the 21st century. They began as an idea that was made a reality by people who believed in what they were doing and worked hard to make it all happend. The hard questions about how to overcome the damage that racial oppression inflicts (on both the oppressor and the oppressed), whom to trust, whether to emphasize academics or citizenship in a Freedom School curriculum may not be answered as soon as we would like, but we are the ones who must seek, develop, craft, imagine the answers. Each one of us has a part to play; we have to live what we believe.

I believe that a period of training is crucial in order for a FS to work. Of course there will always be an aspect of learning. Students naturally imbibe what is introduced to them through political work.

I think, however, that a set aside class, period, etc. should be dedicated solely to liberation education. This includes historical education, and political awareness.

:)

However, one would hope that political education can be a part of all education and that we won't need liberation education to be a set-aside, an option, or an elective.

I challenge us all to hope that more youth see themselves as activists, more activists see themselves as teachers, and more teachers see themselves as freedom fighters whose goals of transformation transcend classroom walls, mandates and even rigid definitions of disciplines.

What a wonderful conversation over these last two days! I am now declaring that talkin 'bout...freedom schools past and present has officially come to an end. However, that does not mean that people can no longer post. This discussion board will remain here for a few weeks, so both panelists and participants are more than welcome to continue the conversation. What it means is that the panelists are officially released from their duties as panelists. Many thanks to Danny, Staughton, Carol, Zora and Mia for sharing their ideas and insights with us. And thanks to all those who participated.