







































Abstract: !is project examines the e"ect of socioeconomic status (SES) on perceptions of adults in Bogotá regarding 
the nation’s educational curriculum (EC) and pedagogical practices (PP). Previous research looked at the relationship 
between EC and the elite’s oppression of lower classes, as well as pedagogy’s e"ect on the sociopolitical development 
of a country. !is research utilizes critical education theory, hence assuming EC and PP maintain the socioeconomic 
privilege of higher classes in society while preventing the social mobility of lower classes by intentionally excluding 
the teaching of critical thinking. !is project unfolds through descriptive statistics and graphic analysis of quantitative 
data collected from surveys. Moreover, the research triangulates data with thematically coded interviews with 
Colombian citizens. !e research argues that the perceptions of EC and PP re#ect a segregated system of education 
along socioeconomic lines; however, oppression is not unique to lower socioeconomic strata. !e project will urge 
primary and secondary education institutions to rethink the present EC and PP by providing data about the perceived 
oppression of current educational content and teaching methods that hinder the development of equitable social, 
political, and economic development in the country.

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  202049

Systems of Oppression or Emancipation? Understanding the 
Colombian Education System !rough Critical Education

by Camila A. Micán

 In 2016, a$er 54 years of bloodshed due to civil 
war in Colombia, “las FARC” shi$ed from a terrorist 
organization to a political party, creating a context of 
relative peace. However, the question remains: how 
is Colombia going to change the country’s history of 
violence into a future of hope and equitable social, 
political, and economic growth? I argue that the 
formation of such a society starts with education.  
 !is research study seeks to understand the 
perceptions of Colombians regarding the K-12 
educational curriculum (EC) and pedagogical 
practices (PP) of the country. EC refers to the 
content of classes within schools, and PP refers to the 
teaching methods used by instructors to deliver class 
content. Critical theorists, like Brazilian educator 
Paulo Freire, suggest elites use the existing education 
systems across Latin America to oppress low 
socioeconomic sectors within the countries in the 
region. In order to explore this claim, the research 
uses surveys to collect primary data and understand 
the perceptions of Colombian adults of EC and PP. 
Furthermore, the project uses in-depth interviews 
to further explore trends identi%ed through survey 
responses. Although current academic debates 
examine whether education is an emancipatory tool 
or, as Freire claims, an oppressive mechanism, the 
conversation usually fails to consider the perceptions 

of students regarding their educational experiences. 
!e inclusion of student opinions in debates about 
the Colombian educational system is crucial to 
address previously unseen problems and create 
policies driven by the people’s interests and not 
agendas dictated by the elite.   
 Primarily, the research %nds that perceptions 
of EC and PP suggest schools in Colombia act as 
oppressive institutions designed to preserve the 
socioeconomic hierarchy of the country. Schools in 
di"erent socioeconomic sectors approach education 
with dissimilar interests; hence, the EC and PP of 
institutions in higher socioeconomic status (SES) 
communities di"er from the EC and PP used in 
lower SES schools. In lower SES communities, 
schools tend to employ PP that are not conducive to 
critical thinking and, consequently, not conducive 
to building leadership skills; by contrast, schools 
in higher SES communities view students as future 
rulers of the country and therefore design their 
curricula to prepare students for leadership roles. 
 In the next section, the literature review explores 
the existing debates within the critical education %eld 
and primarily examines claims about how schools 
utilize EC and PP to either promote or stagnate 
democracy and social mobility. !e methods section 
discusses data collection and analysis procedures, 



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  202050

including descriptive statistics, graphic analysis 
methodologies, and the process of triangulating 
survey data with interviews. !e analysis section 
examines the relationship between the SES of 
students and the di"erent degrees of oppression 
promoted by schools in various SES communities. 
For example, the analysis evidences that lower SES 
schools focus on skills and abilities designed to 
prepare students for the workforce, while schools 
in higher SES communities prepare students to be 
future business owners, diplomats, and political 
leaders. !e discussion section explores how 
perceptions of school oppression have important 
implications for developing an equitable social 
system. Finally, the conclusion o"ers avenues for 
future research, namely, investigating transformative 
EC and PP design and implementation strategies to 
achieve the goal of creating and maintaining peace 
and equity in the Colombian educational system. 

Literature Review
 Critical educators investigate the oppression 
of the marginalized majority by the privileged 
minority, arguing that current educational systems 
lack transparency in EC and PP implementation. 
Scholars note that there is a gap between the way 
elites present and promote education to the public 
and the actual educational curriculum and pedagogy. 
Michael W. Apple, in Ideology and Curriculum 
(2004), argues that the language and framework of 
EC and PP in schools demonstrate the elite’s intent 
to coopt individuals into a cycle of manipulation and 
oppression. Using apolitical and ahistorical diction, 
elites promote a “hidden curriculum” designed 
to mask education’s connection to political and 
economic power, in which schools are mechanisms 
for “anonymizing and sorting out abstract individuals 
into preordained social, economic, and educational 
slots” (Apple, 2004, p. 120).  Apple’s theory of social 
control as a product of EC and pedagogy advocates 
for a revolution in education, one that restructures 
curriculum to be transparent and accessible for all 
individuals in a society challenging power structures 
and the elite’s domination of the social hierarchy. !e 
present research aims to complement Apple’s critical 
theory and add to the body of existing literature by 
surveying people from a variety of socioeconomic 
statuses on how they perceive EC and PP, paying 
particular attention to whether participants perceive 

them as marginalizing or oppressive devices. If 
Apple’s theory is correct, individuals in lower 
socioeconomic sectors of society will more likely be 
unaware of how schools perpetuate a vicious cycle 
that hinders social mobility.
 According to critical education scholars, 
political elites use EC and PP as tools to indoctrinate 
the masses to accept, without question, a medieval 
notion of a hierarchy-based society, in which 
economically solvent individuals rule over the less 
economically stable. Rather than teaching individuals 
to analyze and question existing social structures, 
political elites use PP, such as teacher-to-student 
interactions, as mechanisms to impose knowledge. 
Paulo Freire (2005) insisted schools perpetuate 
social power pyramids by utilizing a hierarchical 
system within the classroom, where teachers are 
unquestionable authorities and students are passive 
receptors of information. In this way, schools can 
negate the agency of students by viewing students as 
homogenized objects without a reasoning, without 
a context, and without the ability to make good 
choices or having knowledge. As a result, schools 
limit students to receiving information from a 
teacher, a subject with authority, with the purpose of 
“%lling” students’ minds with information designed 
to codify students’ perspectives of the world, and 
therefore preparing individuals to “%t” and accept 
the socioeconomic and political status quo (Freire, 
2005, pp 76-78). If teacher-student relations re#ect 
ruler-ruled interactions, then education is not 
a mechanism for the re-formation of a society 
but rather an instrument for the preservation of 
outdated, oligarchy-like sociopolitical regimes. !is 
study seeks to explore the perceptions of individuals 
in a highly class-segregated society about teacher-to-
student pedagogical practices, therefore evaluating 
the applicability of Freire’s theory of oppression to 
the Colombian context. 
 Along with Freire, education scholars have 
argued institutions choose to use speci%c PP designed 
to ensure e&ciency in test-taking, making schools 
institutions for content reproduction instead of 
knowledge production. In Europe and the Americas, 
the results students obtain on standardized tests 
usually measure an educational institution’s success. 
Rather than measuring the individual abilities of 
students and human-related skills, standardized tests 
are designed to evaluate students’ labor-related skills 



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  202051

like agile reading, mathematical literacy, and pattern 
replicability (Maehr, M. L., & Maehr, J. M., 1996). 
Consequently, contemporary pedagogy consists 
of o"ering precise inputs for obtaining equally 
precise outputs, the %rst provided by the teacher 
and the later by the students, thereby reducing the 
complexities of human life into a simplistic stimulus-
reaction behavior (Alcaraz, 2014, p. 59). Previous 
research demonstrates how pedagogy reinforces 
inequities in society, training students to consume 
and replicate information and using teachers as 
transmission objects. When knowledge production, 
critical engagement, agency, and re#exibility are not 
encouraged in pedagogy, structures of oppression 
are maintained. !e present research investigates 
the perceptions of former and current students 
in order to understand if standardized exams are 
a preference for students, and if not, recommend 
other pedagogies perhaps more conducive to the 
development of analytical skills.
      
Methods
Data collection
 For primary data, I collected 358 surveys. 
Although the original intention was to distribute 
surveys in di"erent socioeconomic spaces such 
as high-class country clubs, middle-class malls, 
and low-class marketplaces, I concluded I had 
more possibilities of gathering more data through 
disseminating the survey online. Consequently, I 
used the web-based statistical program Qualtrics 
to create and distribute a 30-question survey. To 
distribute the survey, I sent an anonymous link 
to the survey to individual friends and groups in 
WhatsApp, a popular messaging app, and asked 
my friends, family, and acquaintances to resend the 
link. To make the survey more accessible to lower 
SES communities, I travelled to Colombia between 
December 17th, 2018, and January 14th, 2019, and 
every Sunday I went to a country club in Bogota and 
distributed the questionnaire to the employees of the 
establishment, including cooks, nannies, and golf 
caddies. I asked hybrid questions like, “Do you think 
the educational curriculum prepares you to advance 
in the social hierarchy?,” to which respondents 
could answer “yes,” “no,” or “to some extent.” I asked 
all questions in Spanish, the o&cial language of 
Colombia. !e survey facilitated the gathering of 
quantitative data and the collection of transparent 

information in a reproducible manner. !e use of 
surveys allowed for the discovery of general trends 
regarding Colombians’ perceptions of EC and PP. 
      To triangulate data, I carried out seven interviews. 
I travelled to Colombia during a time when many 
individuals were unavailable, which made arranging 
in-person interviews complicated. Hence, I carried 
out all interviews through online platforms like 
Skype, Zoom, and WhatsApp video and voice calls.  
All interviewees were Colombian citizens, and all 
were contacted through the information each le$ in 
the last question of the survey, which asked if they 
were interested in further sharing their opinions 
regarding EC and PP. I carried out semi-structured 
interviews by asking open-ended questions, such as 
“would you rather enroll your children in a public 
or private school? Why?” Before each interview, 
I provided a consent form for each interviewee 
and informed the participants of the purpose and 
methods of the research. Collecting the data through 
interviews provided an opportunity to obtain in-
depth qualitative data about perceptions regarding 
EC and PP in the country. I used interviews to 
contextualize and further understand the trends 
obtained through surveys, ensuring the reliability of 
the data. 

Data analysis 
      I analyzed interviews using content analysis and 
thematic coding. I audio-recorded each interview 
and stored all materials in a password-protected 
external drive. A$er %nalizing the interviews, 
I transcribed each interview using Intelligent 
Verbatim Transcription. I thematically coded 
responses through core concepts like “equity,” 
“opportunities,” “inequality,” “worthiness,” and 
others. A$er interviewing all participants in 
Spanish, I performed content analysis by creating 
categories like “hidden-curriculum,” “emancipatory 
pedagogies,” and “banking education” and proceeded 
to translate all transcripts, codes, and categories into 
English. I present operationalized data through 
tables. !rough content analysis, I evidence patterns 
in participants’ perceptions and unveiled any 
possible recommendations interviewees might have 
regarding the EC and PP of Colombia by exploring 
topics of equity, social mobility, oppression, authority 
in the classroom, among others. !is analytic process 
allowed for the discovery of commonalities between 



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  202052

participants but also validated each interviewee’s 
input and perceptions. 
 I evaluated surveys through statistical analysis. 
A$er collecting the surveys, I used Qualtrics to record, 
organize, and analyze the answers of the participants. 
First, I used descriptive statistics to analyze the data, 
mainly measuring frequency distribution for the 
answers of each question. A$erwards, I correlated 
demographic variables like SES with content 
variables like perceptions of creativity in schools 
or the use of standardized exams. To correlate the 
di"erent variables, I created cross-tables, linking 
all results from one question to all results from 
other questions. Finally, I presented the statistical 
information through bar graphs, pie charts, and 
cross-tables. Surveying adult citizens of Colombia 
provided an opportunity to discover whether there 
is a relationship between SES and perceptions of 
oppression within the educational system, and if so, 
in what way(s). Collecting perceptions of individuals 
of di"erent SES allowed for a direct comparison 
between social classes and facilitated an in-depth 
analysis of the relationship between perceptions of 
education and SES in Colombia.
      
Analysis
 Data collected through surveys re#ected 
a disproportionate representation of some 
socioeconomic groups, namely the middle-high 
class (SES %ve). Although the original intention 
was to use strati%ed sampling, time constraints 
and security matters in some of the low SES areas 
called for another method of sampling. !e research 
relies mostly on snowball sampling and purposive 
sampling, intentionally approaching individuals of 
low SES a$er noticing a heavy trend in responses 
from middle to high SES-identifying individuals. 
Despite the e"orts to have a balanced number of 
participants in each SES category, most participants 
in the surveys claimed to belong to middle-high 
class (SES %ve) where, for every participant in SES 
one, there were approximately sixteen participants 
from SES %ve. Each of the three individual sectors 
classi%ed as low-SES (SES one, two, and three) had 
some representation, and although individually SES 
one and SES two are low in representation, when 
combined with SES three under the category of low 
SES, they make the third largest group in the survey 
with 24.23% of respondents. Having disparities in 

the representation of the six di"erent SESs within 
the sample might lead to skewed data; hence, general 
trends in the study mostly re#ect the observations 
of middle to high-class individuals. Nevertheless, as 
the study seeks not only to explore the perceptions 
of Colombians but also to correlate participant 
opinions about EC and PP to the individual’s SES, 
the asymmetry in representation is not a problematic 
factor. 

Targeted oppression based on SES
 In Colombia, social fragmentation along class 
lines de%nes school distribution in the country 
by placing individuals of di"erent economic 
backgrounds into schools that match a person’s 
SES. If an individual is from middle or upper class, 
the person is most likely to receive education in a 
private school, while individuals from low SES are 
more likely to attend a public school. !e surveys 
revealed more than 75% of participants identi%ed 
with belonging to either middle class or upper class 
(SES 4, 5, or 6). Furthermore, most participants 
indicated attendance at a private school, while less 
than 20% of participants studied at public primary 
and secondary institutions. School sectorization 
based on the national socioeconomic hierarchy 
increases the perceptions of schools as money-
oriented institutions and not centers for learning. 
Reinforcing the stereotype of schools placing more 



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  202053

value on the money a person has rather than on the 
talent and abilities of a student leads to a distorted 
perception of the di"erences in the academic 
potential of students in public and private schools. 
 !e signi%cance of the social divide between 
public or private schools stems from the perceived 
asymmetry in the quality of education between 
both types of institutions. While public education 
in Colombia is not synonymous with bad education, 
general perceptions regarding the country’s EC and 
PP indicate private education is of better quality. 
Several interviewees de%ned “quality” as personalized 
education that strives to promote individual curiosity 
and emphasize personal talents and passions (Lina 
González, personal communication, March 8th, 
2019; Andrés Paredes, personal communication, 
March 10th, 2019; Martín Serrano, personal 
communication, March 12th, 2019). Interviewee 
Andrés Paredes (personal communication, March 
10th, 2019) noted that public schools tend to have 
more students than private schools due to the social 
distribution of the country, as most of the population 
lives in low-SES neighborhoods; furthermore, the  
teacher-to-student ratio is larger in public schools 
than in private academic institutions, making 
education more personalized in high-SES schools. 
Moreover, general opinions indicate private schools 
usually have more economic resources than public 
schools; thus, citizens perceive private institutions 
as more selective with the teachers they hire, 
choosing instructors devoted to promoting student 
learning rather than individuals who care only about 
teaching the curriculum regardless of whether the 
student understands the content or not (Paredes, 
personal communication, March 10th, 2019). Such 
perceptions indicate a paradigm in which private 
institutions provide more opportunities for students 
to ask questions and receive personalized teaching 
and thus a more meaningful learning experience 
within the academic space than students in public 
schools. Several interviewees noted “quality” in 
education required instructors who are dedicated 
to teaching students and ensuring the creation and 
retention of knowledge (PP) and the development of 
a curriculum centered on students’ needs, context, 
interests, and abilities. 
 !e purpose of schooling in di"erent SES 
communities varies according to the epistemological 
conception of education. While some academic 

institutions view schools as centers to prepare 
students for joining the workforce, others believe 
schools are establishments for educating future 
leaders. !e mission of low-SES private institutions 
is to prepare children to be more competitive in the 
labor market than the students in public education 
through an emphasis on language skills and 
interpersonal communication (Ana Mora, personal 
communication, March 14th, 2019).'In contrast, the 
main goal of high-SES private schools is to foster 
leaders as well as national and international citizens 
(Isabella Sasoon, personal communication, March 
17th, 2019). As a result, the higher the SES of an 
individual, the more likely the person is going to be 
an entrepreneur, and correspondingly, the lower the 
SES of a person, the more likely it is that the person 
will be an employee and not an independent worker 
(Cross-Table 1). By preparing students to ful%ll 
only certain roles in society corresponding to the 
individual’s SES, schools perpetuate the hierarchical 
structures of society in Colombia. Schools, then, 
serve as organizations for the categorization of 
individuals in stagnant social positions, where 
progressive or regressive social mobility between 
di"erent socioeconomic levels is unlikely. 

 Schools in Colombia have to follow a national 
curriculum; however, higher SES schools have 
more #exibility to incorporate additional content 
and di"erent pedagogies than schools in lower SES 
communities. Although all seniors in high school 
should know trigonometry, principles of physics and 
chemistry, elementary English (A2 in the Common 
European Framework of Reference for Languages 
or CEFR), and literature comprehension, students 
in higher SESs acquire additional knowledge not 
measured in the Saber11°, Colombia’s mandatory 
high school exit examination. Some private schools 
in SES 5 and 6 include international programs like the 
International Baccalaureate (IB) within the school’s 
curriculum, providing students with a broader 
set of skills like cross-cultural communication 



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  202054

(Isabella Sasoon, personal communication, March 
17th, 2019). Moreover, most schools in higher SES 
communities include the teaching of a second and 
sometimes third language within the academic 
curriculum of the school, allowing students to 
graduate from high school with a pro%cient use of at 
least two languages (Spanish, English, and sometimes 
French, Italian, and/or German) (Catalina Arias, 
personal communication, March 17th, 2019). As a 
consequence, national standardized exams fail to 
address the nature and magnitude of di"erentiation 
in the skills and knowledge of students in di"erent 
SES groups. Using standarized exams as the main tool 
for measuring the disparities in education quality 
between institutions in di"erent SES communities 
assumes all institutions utilize the same methods 
and teach the same content; as a result, government 
e"orts concentrate on addressing only the gaps in 
the information identi%able through exam results 
instead of solving the underlying di"erences in EC 
and PP. 
 Nonetheless, individuals from lower SESs tend 
to perceive schools as promoting creativity more 
than people in higher SES communities. Creativity, 
promoted through classes such as arts and humanities 
or through pedagogies like physical activity and 
music appreciation, is a component of learning 
critical thinking and acquiring problem-solving 
skills. Although the assumption is that higher SES 
schools promote creativity more than institutions 
in lower SES communities, surveys re#ect an 
opposite trend. Less than 17% of participants in SES 
1 believe schools frustrated creativity while 83.4% 
indicated schools promoted creativity. In addition, 
65% of respondents in SES 2 claimed educational 
institutions promoted creativity. On the contrary, 
most individuals in the rest of SES groups disagreed 
with the idea of schools promoting creativity; rather, 
patterns in responses showcase most individuals 
perceive schools as either ignoring or frustrating an 
individual’s creativity (see Cross-Table 2). However, 
the disparities in perception might be explained 
by the di"erent degrees of conformity students in 
di"erent SES groups have. Schools teach students 
from high SES backgrounds to be rigorous, selective, 
and critical, while individuals from low SES 
households are taught to passively classify whatever 
the school o"ers as ideal and not to question its 
e&ciency, purpose, or form. 

 In addition, data showcased individuals in higher 
SESs believe schools emphasize the upbringing of 
leaders through speci%c EC and teaching methods. 
By using programs focused on the development 
of leadership skills, higher SES schools prepare 
students to pursue positions of leadership inside and 
outside the country. !e inclusion of programs like 
“Leader in Me” teaches students to view leadership 
as an intrinsic aspect of an individual’s life present 
in all the activities that a person is a part of (Catalina 
Arias, personal communication, March 17th, 2019). 
Rather than presenting a single model of what a 
leader is, high SES schools incentivize students 
to develop skills like active listening, proactivity, 
time management, and collaboration in order to 
become hollistic leaders (Catalina Arias, personal 
communication, March 17th, 2019). In addition, the 
teaching of content through alternative pedagogies 
incentivizes students to explore multiple ways of 
creating knowledge, leading to the development 
of innovative thinking, one of the core elements of 
leadership (see Table 1) (Catalina Arias, personal 
communication, March 17th, 2019). While students 
from higher SES backgrounds prepare to be leaders, 
individuals from lower SES backgrounds do not 
have access to the same programs or the same 
pedagogical practices, thus increasing the probability 
of an individual from a higher SES household to 
%ll a leadership position. Although individuals 
can develop leadership skills outside an academic 
environment, the lack of leadership guidance and 
tools might lead a person to believe leadership is not 
a trait everyone can, or should, develop. 



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  2020

 Individuals from di"erent SES backgrounds 
develop di"erent patterns of thinking about society 
and their position within the established social 
hierarchy. In a country where socioeconomic 
segregation permeates education, an individual’s 
social surrounding can condition individuals from 
di"erent SES backgrounds to think di"erently 
about personal roles within a society. Individuals 
from higher SES backgrounds used the words 
“entrepreneurship,” “leadership,” and “global 
awareness” to refer to the overarching elements 
people learned in school (Catalina Arias, personal 
communication, March 17th, 2019; Isabella Sasoon, 
personal communication, March 17th, 2019). 
Individuals from middle-class and lower SES 
backgrounds mentioned schools teach students 
to “follow orders,” “learn how life works,” “respect 
authority,” and “get a job” (Sara Rojas, personal 
communication, March 22nd, 2019; Ana Mora, 
personal communication, March 17th, 2019; Lina 
Gonzalez, personal communication, March 8th, 
2019; Martin Serrano, personal communication, 
March 12th,2019; Andres Paredes, personal 
communication, March 10th, 2019). Schools teach 
students to follow certain codes of behaviors and 
patterns that match the social hierarchy in Colombia. 
Accordingly, education, rather than providing equal 
opportunity for individuals to freely move in the 
socioeconomic pyramid of the country, reinforces 
social stagnation and preserves social inequality 
by indoctrinating individuals into following the 
oligarchy-based system. 

Generalized Trends 
 Some trends in survey responses indicate 
individuals in di"erent SESs experience similar 
frustrations within the education system in 
Colombia. Participants’ opinions demonstrate 
extensive negative attitudes towards the e"ectiveness 
of exam standarization in education. Nonetheless, 
some believe standardized examination is an 
adequate mechanism to measure an individual’s 
knowledge. Eighteen percent of people participating 
in the surveys indicated standardized examination is 
at least somewhat e"ective in measuring knowledge 
(see Figure 2). However, the majority of individuals 
deemed standardized exams as mostly or completely 
ine"ective in evaluating a person’s knowledge. 
Some individuals even claimed the Saber11°, the 

most prominent national standardized exam, 
is a tool for schools to measure an institution’s 
“success” and not to measure or validate a person’s 
abilities or knowledge (Andrés Paredes, personal 
communication, March 10th, 2019; Martín Serrano, 
personal communication, March 12th, 2019). By 
encouraging standardized examinations, schools, 
alongside the government, are indicating to students 
that personal talents are not as important or necessary 
as the ability to repeat information in order to take 
a test. !en, the primary interest of schools seems 
to be training students to reproduce preestablished 
information necessary to pass a standardized exam 
rather than developing students’ abilities to create 
knowledge. 
 As the perceived purpose of schooling is to deliver 
standardized knowledge and prepare students to 
replicate information, students’ objective in schools 
is to reproduce information given during class in 
exams. As a result, students do not see learning as 
a priority. Most interviewees agreed schools should 
be places to gain knowledge, learn new skills, 
and learn how to socialize (Ana Mora, personal 
communication, March 14th, 2019; Andrés Paredes, 
personal communication, March 10th, 2019; Lina 
González, personal communication, March 12th, 
2019; Martín Serrano, personal communication, 
March 12th, 2019). However, less than a third of the 
participants in the surveys indicated being primarily 
interested in learning while in school (see Figure 3). 
Rather, most individuals place obtaining good grades 

55



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  2020

at the center of their academic experience. Although 
the existing paradigm in education indicates that 
learning should lead to good grades, the perceptions 
of interviewed individuals indicate that good grades 
are not dependent on learning. Considering the 
emphasis that schools place on standardized exams, 
learning seems to be completely unrelated to good 
scores on exams and, by extension, to schooling. !e 
high level of importance students place on obtaining 
good results on exams leads them to emphasize 
short-term memorization rather than long-term 
knowledge. 

Discussion
 !e perceptions of EC and PP among survey 
respondents showcase a collective understanding of 
the national structures of power as part of a zero-
sum game where winners win because losers lose. 
!e previously established relationship between 
the national economic distribution, best described 
as an in#exible social hierarchy, and Colombians’ 
perceptions of education validates claims from 
critical educators that political elites use schools 
to maintain the hegemonic political, social, and 
economic power of high SES communities.  As Paulo 
Freire (2005) claims, the individuals responsible 
for the design and implementation of EC and PP 
indoctrinate students, especially low SES individuals, 
to believe in and preserve the class-segregated social 
structure of the country (pp. 43-48). Moreover, as 
Apple (2004) highlights, educational institutions 
promote a “hidden curriculum,” a set of norms and 
morals schools impose on students to homogenize 
the behavior of the student body and, therefore, 
homogenize the citizenry (p. 27). !e perceptions 
of interviewees con%rm the theoretical statements 
of both authors by showcasing the viewpoints of 
individuals from low SES backgrounds on the 
homogenizing intentions of EC and PP designers. 
Participants believe education segregates individuals 
based on long-standing social hierarchies, as 

schools are part of the elite’s monopoly of political 
power. Results support the claims of academics in 
critical education and, through demonstrating the 
perceptions of individuals from many di"erent SESs, 
legitimize the assumptions of CET about oppression 
implicit in EC and PP.
 !e negative perceptions of standardized exams 
support claims by critical educators that governments 
utilize schools as centers for memorizing, not 
learning. By standardizing content, schools expose 
individuals coming from di"erent backgrounds, 
experiencing dissimilar contexts, and having 
di"erent interests to the same information.  !rough 
the promotion of memorization, constituted by 
repetition and reproduction of information, schools 
encourage replication of knowledge rather than the 
development of skills like critical analysis (Apple, 2004; 
Giroux, 1981; Maehr, M. L., & Maehr, J. M., 1996). 
Schools teach students that learning is a mechanized 
process in which individuals repeat content for no 
other purpose than getting a good grade on an exam 
instead of actively engaging with content to actually 
learn (Figure 3). Placing standardized tests at the 
core of EC and PP casts students as passive receptors 
of information rather than knowledge producers 
(Freire, 2005). Understanding standardization 
within the Colombian education system through 
CET highlights a relationship between EC design 
and implementation and oppression, as schools teach 
individuals to accept content without questioning 
or analyzing information. Critical education 
scholars transcend the critique of standardized 
exams as inadequate tools to measure knowledge 
by highlighting the elite’s use of a homogenized 
curriculum as a mechanism of social control. 
 Etymologically, education means to “bring up;” 
consequently, the purpose of schools should be to 
help students from low SES communities climb the 
hierarchical social structures in Colombia.  However, 
imposing knowledge on students through EC and 
PP preserves cycles of poverty and social inequality. 
To combat oppression in education, participants, 
as well as academics like Freire and Apple, suggest 
making creativity the core of EC by teaching 
students critical thinking, contextual and textual 
analysis, and social justice. In addition, schools 
should restructure PP and, instead of continuing the 
imposition of knowledge from teacher to student, 
promote discussion between students and allow 

56



Systems of Oppression or Emancipation?

Aisthesis      Volume 11,  2020

individuals to have an active role in choosing the 
content and methods used to guide their education. 
Additionally, schools should grade students based 
on the measurement of knowledge-production 
and learning progress rather than on memorized 
information and results in standardized tests. If 
the national Ministry of Education and the schools 
in the Colombian territory fail to pay attention to 
the policies recommended, the cycle of segregation 
and oppression will continue. If schools and the 
government ignore the perceptions of some students 
and continue to give preference to voices in higher 
SESs, the social and institutional purpose of creating 
an equitable nation will remain unattained. 
 By teaching individuals from di"erent SES 
backgrounds di"erent content, through di"erent 
pedagogies, the elite ensures future leaders of the 
country come from higher SES households and 
consequently preserve the current social hierarchy. 
While individuals from higher SES backgrounds 
become rulers, entrepreneurs, and social leaders, 
individuals from lower SES backgrounds remain 
trapped in a cycle of limited opportunities of 
socioeconomic growth. Segregating the school 
system based on the SES of an individual leads to an 
education system centered around money and not 
learning or knowledge. Schools are not meant to be 
factories of homogenous citizens, obedient subjects, 
and malleable workers; rather, schools should 
create equitable societies where all individuals, 
regardless of SES, should have equal opportunities 
of socioeconomic advancement. However, if schools 
and the government continue to oppress citizens by 
impeding equitable development of critical abilities, 
social emancipation and the nation’s advancement 
towards a peaceful and socioeconomically 
prosperous society with no social gap will not occur. 
      
References
Alcaraz, N. (2014). Un viejo trío de conceptos: 

Aprendizaje, currículum y evaluación. Aula de 
Encuentro, 2(16), 55-86.

Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. 
RoutledgeFalmer.

Arias, C., personal communication, March 17th, 
2019.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2005).' Pedagogy of the 
Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition (M. B. 
Ramos, Trans.). !e Continuum International 
Publishing Group.

Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, culture and the process 
of schooling. Temple University Press. 

González, L., personal communication, March 8th, 
2019. 

Maehr, M. L., & Maehr, J. M. (1996). Schools aren’t as 
good as they used to be; they never were. 
Educational Researcher, 25(8), 21–24. 

Micán Rondón, C. A. “Educación en Colombia.” 
Survey. December 2018 to January 2019. 

Mora, A., personal communication, March 14th, 
2019.

Paredes, A., personal communication, March 10th, 
2019.

Rojas, S., personal communication, March 22nd, 
2019.

Sasoon, I., personal communication, March 17th, 
2019

Serrano, M., personal communication, March 12th, 
2019.

57


