Talk:Critical pedagogy

Malott's critique is inaccurately represented in this article

The last paragraph of this article beings "Scholars who have worked in the field of critical pedagogy have also critiqued the movement from various angles." However, the "angle" of Malott's critic is misrepresented, if not entirely missing. While the quoted text is not in error, these passages do not accurately portray Malott's statements. For example, section containing the quoted fragment "'long journey of self-reflection and de-indoctrination'" is titled "The union of Soviet Socialist Republics", and criticizes *not* critical pedagogy, per se, but very explicitly the "anti-­Soviet position in critical pedagogy". Furthermore, Malott is explicitly non-committal with regard to the other quoted passage regarding the etymology of the term "critical pedagogy". The sentence begins "...we *might* observe that the term ... was created ...to dismiss socialism ..." (emphasis added). In the next sentence, Malott is, again, cautious about the pronouncement that "Critical pedagogy, as a discipine within educational theory, therefore *seemed* ... a conscious break from Marx" (emphasis added) and, yet again, "We *might* therefore argue that critical pedagogy has not become counterrevolutionary..." (emphasis added). Therefore, the critique is more accurately described as against a particular version of critical pedagogy as conceived within the study of education, and not, as the text of this article suggests, critical pedagogy, proper, as described by Friere.

In short, this article suggests that Malott "broke" with critical pedagogy, which not supported by the quotes in this article. These quoted passages criticize the view of *some* in the tradition of critical pedagogy who imbue it with "anit-Soviet" propaganda. I suggest this paragraph be rewritten to more accurately represent Malott's critique. Porcelain mouse (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)