Educational Liberation

By Jack Grenier
Introduction

Education is often seen as the foundation for individual growth, opportunity, and societal
advancement. However, for many students, particularly those in underfunded schools, the
educational system has become a site of both structural and psychological violence. These forms
of violence are most prevalent in schools that serve marginalized communities, where
inequitable funding, harsh disciplinary policies, and constant surveillance create environments of
control and punishment rather than care and empowerment.

At the heart of these inequalities is the classist mechanism by which schools are funded—
property taxes. This method of funding ensures that schools in wealthier areas, where property
values are higher, have significantly more resources than schools in low-income areas, where
property values are lower. The result is a system in which the quality of a child’s education is
directly tied to the wealth of their community. This system not only perpetuates disparities in
educational resources but also reinforces cycles of poverty and racial segregation, as
predominantly white, affluent communities are able to invest more heavily in their schools, while
schools serving predominantly Black, Latinx, and low-income students are left severely
underfunded.

These class-based funding mechanisms create vast disparities between wealthy and underfunded
schools. In affluent districts, students benefit from smaller class sizes, advanced coursework,
updated technology, and extracurricular activities that enrich their learning experience. In
contrast, students in underfunded schools often face overcrowded classrooms, outdated
materials, crumbling infrastructure, and limited access to critical support services like counseling
or tutoring. The impact on educational outcomes is stark: students in wealthier schools
consistently outperform their peers in underfunded schools, graduating at higher rates and
accessing more opportunities for higher education and future success.

These funding disparities also contribute to a form of de facto segregation within the education
system. While legal segregation was outlawed decades ago, the reliance on property taxes has
entrenched economic and racial divisions in public education. Wealthy, predominantly white
communities continue to thrive, while predominantly Black, Latinx, and low-income students
remain concentrated in resource-starved schools. This segregation deepens the divide between
these groups, isolating marginalized students from the resources and opportunities that could
help them succeed.

This inequality exacerbates both structural and psychological violence within the education
system. In underfunded schools, students are subjected to structural violence through the
deprivation of resources that are fundamental to their academic and personal development.
Psychological violence is also rampant, as students internalize the message that they are less
deserving or capable than their peers in wealthier schools. The constant struggle to learn in
environments that lack adequate support takes a toll on students’ mental and emotional well-
being, contributing to feelings of inferiority, stress, and alienation.
In response to the challenges faced by underfunded schools, many districts have turned to
securitization to manage perceived disorder. Securitization involves the increased use of
surveillance technologies, metal detectors, police officers, and punitive disciplinary policies
aimed at controlling student behavior. Rather than addressing the root causes of disruption—
such as poverty, trauma, and inadequate resources—schools have adopted these security
measures to enforce order and discipline. However, this shift towards control and punishment
has only amplified the violence experienced by students, particularly those from marginalized
communities.

Securitization disproportionately targets low-income students and students of color, transforming

schools into environments of surveillance and criminalization. Minor infractions, such as dress
code violations or tardiness, can result in severe consequences, including suspension, expulsion,
or even arrest. This criminalization of student behavior feeds directly into the school-to-prison
pipeline, pushing students out of educational spaces and into the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, the psychological toll of constant surveillance and the presence of police officers in
schools creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety, making students feel unsafe and unwelcome
in their own learning environments.

These issues of class-based funding, segregation, and securitization are deeply interconnected,
and they serve to perpetuate the structural and psychological violence that defines the current
educational landscape. To break this cycle, the educational system requires a profound
transformation—one that not only dismantles these violent structures but also reimagines schools
as spaces rooted in equity, ethical dialogue, and collective empowerment.

In this paper, I argue that the educational system, funded through classist mechanisms such as
property taxes, perpetuates segregation and expands both structural and psychological violence,
particularly in underfunded areas. The reliance on securitization exacerbates these issues,
creating environments that prioritize control and punishment over care and support. A sublative
transformation of pedagogical methods and the educational system is required to dismantle these
violent structures and create spaces rooted in equity, ethical dialogue, and collective
empowerment.
Section I: The Role of Neoliberalism in Shaping Educational Systems

Neoliberalism has fundamentally transformed education over the past few decades by
introducing market principles, competition, and privatization into the public sector. This has
resulted in the commodification of education, where students are viewed as consumers, and
schools operate like businesses. These changes have deepened existing inequalities and shifted
the focus of education away from its democratic purpose, undermining its potential to foster
critical consciousness and human development. This section explores how neoliberalism has
reshaped educational systems through marketization, privatization, and securitization, while also
highlighting the growing resistance against these forces.

A. Defining Neoliberalism in the Context of Education

Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation,
privatization, and competition. It emerged as a dominant force in the late 20th century,
particularly in response to global economic crises, and has since reshaped various public
services, including education. Under neoliberalism, education is no longer seen as a public good
that fosters democratic engagement and social equality. Instead, schools are expected to function
efficiently within a competitive marketplace, where success is determined by economic
outcomes.

In education, neoliberalism has led to the commodification of knowledge, transforming students

into consumers and schools into businesses. Success is now measured by standardized test
scores, graduation rates, and the ability to produce students who are ready to compete in the
global economy. This focus on market efficiency has diverted attention away from the deeper
purposes of education, such as fostering critical thinking, creativity, and social responsibility.

As public funding for education has declined under neoliberal policies, privatization has become
more prominent. Neoliberalism shifts the responsibility for educational success from society to
individuals, blaming students, teachers, and schools for underperformance without addressing
the broader structural inequalities that shape educational outcomes.

B. The Marketization of Education Under Neoliberalism

One of the key features of neoliberalism is the introduction of market forces into public
institutions, including schools. The marketization of education has resulted in initiatives like
school choice, charter schools, and performance-based funding, all designed to create
competition within the public education system.

School choice policies, such as vouchers and charter schools, are promoted as ways to improve
educational outcomes by encouraging competition between schools. However, these policies
exacerbate inequality by allowing wealthier families to access better-performing schools while
leaving underfunded schools to struggle. In practice, school choice benefits families who have
the resources and knowledge to navigate the system, while marginalized students remain in
schools that lack the resources to provide a high-quality education.

Standardized testing has become a central tool for measuring school performance in the
neoliberal model. Schools are evaluated based on test scores, which determine funding, staffing,
and even a school’s future viability. High-performing schools are rewarded with additional
resources, while underperforming schools are penalized or even shut down. This creates a
feedback loop in which already well-resourced schools continue to thrive, while underfunded
schools, often serving marginalized communities, fall further behind.

The privatization of education has also become a hallmark of neoliberal policies. Private actors,
such as for-profit charter schools and education management organizations, have increasingly
taken control of public schools, often with minimal oversight. Privatization brings corporate
management strategies into education, prioritizing efficiency and profit over the well-being of
students. This shift has led to the erosion of public education, particularly in low-income
communities, where privatized schools often replace underfunded public institutions without
improving educational outcomes.

C. The Commodification of Education and Its Consequences

Under neoliberalism, education has been transformed into a commodity that can be bought, sold,
and traded within the marketplace. This commodification has fundamentally changed the way
schools operate and the experiences of students and teachers within the system.

Students are viewed as consumers who are responsible for choosing the right educational paths
to ensure their success in the labor market. The success of students and schools is measured by
economic outcomes, such as test scores, graduation rates, and job placement statistics. This
approach reduces education to a tool for producing economically viable workers, neglecting its
role in fostering critical thinking, personal development, and civic engagement.

Neoliberal policies have also had significant consequences for teachers, whose roles have been
redefined to meet the demands of the market. Teacher evaluations are increasingly tied to student
test scores, creating a high-pressure environment where the success of the classroom is reduced
to data points. This undermines the professional autonomy of teachers and encourages "teaching
to the test" rather than fostering deep learning or critical inquiry.

The impact of neoliberalism on students from marginalized communities is particularly harmful.

Underfunded schools serving low-income and minority students often lack the resources needed
to provide a meaningful education. These students are more likely to face overcrowded
classrooms, limited access to advanced coursework, and punitive discipline practices. Neoliberal
policies have widened the gap between privileged and marginalized students, deepening
educational inequalities and reinforcing systemic barriers to success.
D. The Rise of Securitization in Neoliberal Schools

Alongside marketization and privatization, neoliberalism has also fueled the rise of securitization
in schools, particularly in urban areas. Schools serving marginalized communities are often
framed as disorderly or dangerous, justifying the use of surveillance technologies, police
officers, and punitive discipline measures.

Securitization shifts the focus of education from student well-being to control and punishment.
Rather than addressing the root causes of student misbehavior—such as poverty, trauma, and
inadequate resources—schools implement zero-tolerance policies that criminalize behavior,
particularly among Black and Latinx students. This has led to an increase in suspensions,
expulsions, and arrests, pushing students out of schools and into the criminal justice system.

The result is the school-to-prison pipeline, where students from marginalized communities are
disproportionately funneled out of schools and into the criminal justice system. Neoliberal
policies that emphasize discipline and surveillance over support and care have exacerbated racial
and economic disparities, further marginalizing already vulnerable students.

E. Neoliberalism and the Erosion of Democratic Education

One of the most troubling effects of neoliberalism in education is the erosion of its democratic
potential. Public education has historically been seen as a foundation of democracy, a space
where students learn to engage in civic life, participate in collective decision-making, and
develop a sense of responsibility to the broader community. However, under neoliberalism, the
focus of education has shifted away from these democratic ideals toward individual competition
and economic outcomes.

Decision-making in education has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of private

corporations, philanthropists, and policymakers, rather than local communities, educators, and
students. This shift undermines democratic participation and limits the ability of schools to
reflect the needs and values of the communities they serve.

Additionally, the emphasis on standardized testing and performance metrics has crowded out
curriculum that promotes critical thinking, creativity, and social justice. Teachers are pressured
to prioritize test preparation over meaningful engagement with complex social and political
issues. Students are discouraged from questioning the systems of power that shape their lives,
undermining their ability to develop the critical consciousness needed for democratic
participation.
F. Resistance to Neoliberalism in Education

Despite the pervasive influence of neoliberalism, resistance has emerged in the form of
grassroots movements, teachers’ unions, and critical pedagogy. These movements challenge the
commodification of education and advocate for equitable, democratic schools that serve the
needs of all students.

Teacher strikes, student protests, and community-led initiatives have successfully resisted
neoliberal policies in various contexts. Strikes in places like Chicago, West Virginia, and Los
Angeles have secured increased funding for public schools, smaller class sizes, and improved
working conditions for teachers. Similarly, student-led movements advocating for climate
justice, racial equity, and educational reform have forced policymakers to confront the systemic
inequalities that have long been ignored.

At the heart of this resistance is critical pedagogy, which encourages students to develop critical
consciousness and engage in the world as active participants in the struggle for social justice.
Educators who embrace critical pedagogy create spaces for dialogue and reflection, empowering
students to challenge the neoliberal narratives that dominate education and society. These efforts
represent a powerful counterforce to the neoliberalization of education, offering alternative
visions of schools rooted in equity, justice, and collective empowerment.

Conclusion of Section I

Neoliberalism has reshaped education, turning it into a commodity governed by market forces,
competition, and privatization. These policies have deepened educational inequality, shifted the
focus of schools away from democratic ideals, and criminalized students from marginalized
communities. However, resistance to neoliberalism is growing, with grassroots movements and
critical pedagogy offering alternative visions for an equitable, democratic education system. As
we continue to challenge these neoliberal structures, it is crucial to reimagine education as a
public good that fosters human development, civic engagement, and collective empowerment.
Section II: The Classist Foundations of School Funding and Their Role in
Structural Violence

The American public education system is profoundly shaped by economic inequality, with
property taxes serving as the primary funding mechanism for schools. This system, which ties
the quality of a child's education to the wealth of their community, perpetuates vast disparities
between wealthy and underfunded schools. By doing so, it institutionalizes structural violence,
ensuring that marginalized students, particularly those from low-income and racially segregated
communities, are subjected to resource deprivation and limited opportunities. This section
explores how property tax-based funding reinforces inequality, deepens segregation, and expands
structural violence in underfunded schools.

A. The Property Tax-Based School Funding Model

Public schools in the U.S. are primarily funded through local property taxes, a system that
creates vast inequities in the distribution of educational resources. In districts where property
values are high, schools receive far more revenue, allowing for well-funded facilities, smaller
class sizes, and enrichment programs. In low-income areas, however, where property values are
significantly lower, schools struggle with overcrowded classrooms, outdated materials, and
underpaid teachers. This disparity in funding reflects a classist mechanism that ties the quality of
education directly to the wealth of a student’s community.

The property tax-based funding model is inherently unequal, favoring wealthier districts at the
expense of those with fewer resources. In affluent areas, schools are able to offer advanced
coursework, extracurricular programs, and state-of-the-art facilities. Meanwhile, schools in low-
income districts, which are disproportionately attended by students of color, often lack the basic
materials necessary for effective teaching and learning. This system perpetuates cycles of
disadvantage, as students in underfunded schools face significant barriers to academic success.

Historically, property taxes became the primary source of school funding in the late 19th century,
reflecting a localized approach to education. However, as urbanization and economic inequality
grew, this model became increasingly problematic. While reforms such as federal Title I funding
have sought to address these inequities, they have proven insufficient to counterbalance the
entrenched disparities caused by property tax-based funding.

For example, Scarsdale, New York, an affluent suburb, spends over $30,000 per student
annually, offering students modern facilities, advanced placement courses, and a wide range of
extracurricular activities. In contrast, Camden, New Jersey, one of the poorest cities in the state,
spends less than half that amount per student. Camden's schools face overcrowded classrooms,
crumbling infrastructure, and a lack of basic supplies, creating an environment where students
are at a significant disadvantage. These disparities in funding are reflected in student outcomes,
with students in affluent districts consistently outperforming their peers in low-income districts
on standardized tests, graduation rates, and college admissions.
B. The Reinforcement of Segregation Through Class-Based Funding

The disparities in school funding reinforce de facto segregation within the American education
system. Despite the legal end of racial segregation following Brown v. Board of Education,
schools remain deeply segregated along racial and economic lines. The reliance on property
taxes to fund schools has created a system where predominantly white, affluent communities
enjoy well-funded schools, while predominantly Black, Latinx, and low-income communities are
left with severely underfunded schools. This form of segregation is driven not by law but by
economic geography, reflecting historical practices such as redlining and discriminatory lending
policies.

Class-based funding mechanisms exacerbate racial and economic segregation by ensuring that
schools in wealthy areas have access to significantly more resources than schools in low-income
areas. Students in affluent districts benefit from well-maintained facilities, a wide range of
extracurricular opportunities, and access to advanced coursework. In contrast, students in
underfunded schools are often confined to overcrowded classrooms, outdated textbooks, and
limited access to college preparatory programs. This unequal distribution of resources reinforces
the social and economic divisions between communities, further isolating marginalized students
from the opportunities necessary for upward mobility.

Segregation in education, driven by class-based funding, is a clear example of structural

violence. Structural violence refers to the systematic ways in which social structures harm or
disadvantage individuals by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. In the context of
education, structural violence manifests through the deprivation of resources in underfunded
schools, denying students the opportunity to reach their full potential. The impact is particularly
severe for marginalized students, as it contributes to cycles of poverty and exclusion that span
generations.

The long-term effects of attending segregated, underfunded schools are significant. Students in
these schools are more likely to experience lower academic achievement, higher dropout rates,
and reduced access to higher education. This not only limits their future earning potential but
also perpetuates a cycle of disadvantage for future generations. Children born to parents who
attended underfunded schools are more likely to attend similarly underfunded schools
themselves, continuing the cycle of structural violence and social stratification.

C. The Expansion of Structural Violence in Underfunded Schools

Underfunded schools are sites of structural violence, where the deprivation of resources prevents
students from receiving the education they need to succeed. These schools often struggle to
provide even the most basic materials, such as textbooks and supplies, and frequently suffer from
overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating infrastructure. The lack of resources in these schools
limits students’ ability to learn, exacerbating educational inequalities and reinforcing cycles of
poverty.

One of the most significant challenges faced by underfunded schools is the shortage of qualified
teachers. Low pay and difficult working conditions make it hard to attract and retain experienced
educators, leading to high turnover rates and reliance on less qualified staff. This contributes to
poor academic outcomes, as students are often taught by teachers who lack the necessary
experience or training to meet their needs. Additionally, underfunded schools frequently lack
access to essential support services, such as counseling, special education programs, and mental
health resources. Without these services, students who are struggling academically or
emotionally are left without the support they need to succeed.

In many cases, underfunded schools resort to punitive discipline measures as a substitute for the
support services that students need. With limited access to counseling and behavioral
interventions, schools often turn to suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement to manage
student behavior. This reliance on punitive discipline disproportionately affects Black and Latinx
students, who are more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers for similar
infractions. The criminalization of student behavior contributes to the school-to-prison pipeline,
where students are pushed out of educational spaces and into the criminal justice system.

A case study of Chicago Public Schools illustrates the impact of chronic underfunding. In 2013,
the district closed 50 schools, primarily in Black and Latinx neighborhoods, due to budget
constraints. The remaining schools in these areas were left with overcrowded classrooms,
outdated materials, and limited access to extracurricular activities. These conditions,
compounded by high suspension rates and the presence of police officers in schools, created an
environment where students were more likely to drop out or become involved in the criminal
justice system. This is a clear example of how structural violence in underfunded schools limits
educational opportunities and contributes to long-term social inequality.

D. Class-Based Funding and Educational Outcomes

The disparities in funding between wealthy and underfunded schools have a profound impact on
student achievement. Students in well-funded schools consistently outperform their peers in
underfunded schools on standardized tests, graduation rates, and college acceptance rates. The
resources available in affluent schools, such as advanced coursework, college counseling, and
extracurricular programs, give students a significant advantage in achieving academic success.

In contrast, students in underfunded schools face significant barriers to accessing the same
opportunities. These schools often lack the resources to offer Advanced Placement (AP) or
International Baccalaureate (IB) programs, limiting students' ability to earn college credit or
compete in the college admissions process. Additionally, the lack of extracurricular programs,
such as sports teams, music programs, and academic clubs, deprives students of opportunities for
personal growth and enrichment. These disparities in access to educational resources reinforce
existing social and economic inequalities, limiting the potential for upward mobility among
students in underfunded schools.

The long-term consequences of attending underfunded schools are severe. Students who attend
these schools are less likely to attend college and, as a result, have lower future earning potential.
This perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as students who are unable to access higher education are
more likely to remain in low-wage jobs, limiting their ability to escape economic disadvantage.
Furthermore, the intergenerational impact of educational inequality means that the children of
students who attended underfunded schools are more likely to attend underfunded schools
themselves, continuing the cycle of structural violence.

Conclusion of Section II

Classist funding mechanisms, rooted in property taxes, create and perpetuate structural violence
within the U.S. education system. By tying school funding to local wealth, the system ensures
that wealthy students receive a high-quality education, while marginalized students in
underfunded schools face resource deprivation, segregation, and punitive discipline. These
inequalities have profound consequences for educational outcomes, contributing to cycles of
poverty and exclusion. As the next section will explore, these disparities are further amplified by
the rise of securitization in underfunded schools, which exacerbates both structural and
psychological violence, particularly for marginalized students.
Section III: The Role of Securitization in Amplifying Structural and
Psychological Violence

As schools have faced growing concerns about safety and student behavior, particularly in
underfunded areas, many have turned to securitization as a response to perceived disorder. This
involves implementing surveillance technologies, employing police officers, and enforcing zero-
tolerance policies that harshly penalize even minor infractions. While securitization is often
presented as a means to maintain safety, it shifts the focus from care and support to control and
punishment. This approach not only exacerbates structural violence by criminalizing student
behavior but also amplifies psychological violence by fostering environments of fear, anxiety,
and mistrust. In this section, we examine how securitization has entrenched itself in underfunded
schools, disproportionately affected marginalized students, and contributed to the school-to-
prison pipeline.

A. Securitization as a Response to Perceived Disorder

Securitization in schools typically involves the use of security measures such as metal detectors,
surveillance cameras, and School Resource Officers (SROs), along with the adoption of zero-
tolerance policies that impose severe punishments for even minor infractions. The turn toward
securitization is largely rooted in public fears about violence in schools, particularly in response
to high-profile incidents like the 1999 Columbine shooting. In the wake of such events, schools
across the U.S. began increasing their reliance on security technologies and punitive measures to
preempt violence and control student behavior.

However, instead of addressing the underlying causes of behavioral issues—such as poverty,

trauma, and unmet emotional needs—securitization has shifted schools toward environments of
control and punishment. Securitized schools resemble carceral spaces, where students are treated
as potential threats rather than learners. The presence of police officers and surveillance cameras
sends a message that students must be constantly monitored and disciplined, undermining the
sense of safety and care that schools should provide.

In underfunded schools, securitization is often implemented as a substitute for the supportive

services that students need, such as mental health counseling and conflict resolution programs.
These schools frequently lack the resources to provide students with adequate support, and
instead turn to security infrastructure to manage behavioral issues. This redirection of resources
worsens the conditions in already underfunded schools, diverting funds that could be used for
educational programs into purchasing security technologies or hiring additional SROs. As a
result, students in underfunded schools are subjected to an environment that prioritizes
punishment over care, exacerbating the challenges they face.
B. Securitization and the Expansion of Structural Violence

Securitization contributes to structural violence by criminalizing student behavior, especially for

minor infractions that might otherwise be addressed through non-punitive means. In securitized
schools, behaviors that are developmentally typical—such as talking back to a teacher or being
late to class—are increasingly treated as criminal offenses. Instead of receiving appropriate
guidance or support, students are more likely to face suspensions, expulsions, or even arrests,
often for minor or non-violent behavior. This criminalization disproportionately impacts
marginalized students, particularly Black and Latinx youth.

Marginalized students bear the brunt of securitization’s harmful effects. Black and Latinx
students are surveilled more closely, disciplined more harshly, and criminalized more often than
their white peers. This reinforces existing racial and economic inequalities within the education
system and reflects broader social biases about race and criminality. Rather than offering
students of color the resources they need to succeed, securitized schools punish them for
behaviors that are often symptomatic of larger systemic issues such as poverty or trauma.

The rise of securitization has also played a significant role in fueling the school-to-prison
pipeline, a term used to describe how students, particularly those from marginalized
communities, are pushed out of schools and into the criminal justice system. Securitization is a
key driver of this pipeline, as the presence of police officers in schools and the use of zero-
tolerance policies lead to higher rates of suspension, expulsion, and arrest. Students who are
suspended or expelled are more likely to drop out of school, and once they leave the educational
environment, they are at greater risk of becoming entangled in the criminal justice system. This
process disproportionately affects students of color, contributing to cycles of poverty and
incarceration.

For instance, New York City public schools saw an increase in disciplinary actions against Black
and Latinx students following the implementation of heightened securitization measures such as
metal detectors and SROs. These students were more likely to face arrest for minor infractions,
such as disruptive behavior, that would have been previously managed through traditional
disciplinary methods. Similarly, in the Los Angeles Unified School District, securitization
disproportionately affected students of color, leading to significantly higher suspension and
arrest rates for Black and Latinx students compared to their white counterparts.

C. Securitization and the Amplification of Psychological Violence

Beyond structural violence, securitization amplifies psychological violence by creating

environments of fear and alienation. In securitized schools, students are constantly subjected to
surveillance, with cameras monitoring their every move and police officers stationed in hallways.
This constant oversight creates an atmosphere where students feel they are always being watched
and judged, leading to heightened levels of anxiety and stress. Instead of feeling safe, students in
securitized schools often feel under suspicion, which undermines their sense of security and
belonging.
The psychological toll of securitization is particularly severe for students who have experienced
trauma. For these students, the presence of security infrastructure often reinforces feelings of fear
and powerlessness. The sight of metal detectors and police officers can serve as reminders of
past traumatic experiences with violence or law enforcement. Instead of receiving the emotional
support they need to thrive, these students find themselves in environments that exacerbate their
feelings of alienation.

Students of color are particularly vulnerable to the psychological violence caused by

securitization. These students are more likely to be subjected to racialized surveillance and
harsher disciplinary actions, which contributes to feelings of exclusion and marginalization. In
many cases, students of color are viewed as potential threats simply because of their race,
leading to an increased likelihood of being disciplined or criminalized. This racialized
surveillance not only damages students’ self-esteem but also fosters a deep mistrust of the
education system, as they internalize the belief that they are inherently deviant or dangerous.

In Chicago Public Schools, heightened securitization measures created a sense of fear and
alienation among students, particularly Black and Latinx youth. Many students reported feeling
constantly monitored and anxious due to the presence of police officers and surveillance
cameras. This sense of alienation was particularly pronounced for marginalized students, who
were more likely to face disciplinary actions as a result of securitization. Similarly, in the
Philadelphia School District, the introduction of securitization measures led to increased levels
of anxiety and disengagement among students, especially those from marginalized backgrounds.

D. Alternatives to Securitization: Restorative Justice and Supportive Interventions

While securitization has become the dominant approach to managing student behavior in many
schools, restorative justice offers a powerful alternative to punitive discipline. Restorative justice
focuses on healing and accountability rather than punishment, encouraging students to take
responsibility for their actions, understand the impact of their behavior on others, and work
together to repair harm. This approach helps build trust and community, creating a more
supportive environment for both students and educators.

Schools that have implemented restorative justice practices have seen notable improvements in
school climate and student outcomes. For example, in Oakland, California, schools that adopted
restorative justice practices experienced reductions in suspension rates and improvements in
student engagement. By prioritizing dialogue and relationship-building over exclusion and
punishment, these schools were able to foster a more positive and inclusive learning
environment.

In addition to restorative justice, schools should invest in mental health services, counseling, and
social-emotional learning programs as alternatives to securitization. These services address the
root causes of student behavior by providing students with the support they need to manage
trauma, stress, and other emotional challenges. Schools that prioritize mental health and
counseling services over surveillance and punitive measures create environments where students
feel safe, supported, and empowered to succeed.

Several districts have successfully moved away from securitization and invested in supportive
interventions. In Denver Public Schools, a district-wide initiative to reduce suspensions led to the
implementation of restorative practices and an expansion of counseling services. As a result, the
district saw significant reductions in disciplinary actions and improvements in overall student
well-being. Similarly, San Francisco schools that emphasized social-emotional learning and
mental health support experienced improved academic outcomes and higher levels of student
engagement.

Conclusion of Section III

Securitization has shifted the role of schools from places of learning and support to environments
of control and punishment, particularly in underfunded schools. This shift has amplified both
structural and psychological violence, disproportionately impacting marginalized students and
contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline. However, restorative justice and supportive
interventions offer viable alternatives to securitization, creating more equitable and nurturing
educational environments. By focusing on healing, accountability, and community, schools can
foster positive student outcomes and dismantle the harmful structures that securitization has
entrenched.
Section IV: Neoliberalism, Fascism, and the Expansion of Violent Control in
Schools

In recent decades, neoliberalism has reshaped public education, transforming schools into
market-driven institutions where efficiency, accountability, and competition overshadow care,
equity, and community. This shift has not only exacerbated existing inequalities but has also
created conditions for authoritarian control to flourish within educational spaces. Under
neoliberal policies, schools increasingly emphasize discipline, securitization, and punitive
measures, particularly in underfunded areas. Marginalized students—those from low-income
backgrounds, students of color, and students with disabilities—bear the brunt of these policies.
Compounding the issue, corporations have begun to co-opt student-led movements for
educational justice, diluting their goals and redirecting their efforts toward corporate-friendly
reforms. This section examines the intersection of neoliberalism and authoritarianism in schools,
the impact on marginalized students, and the ways in which corporations undermine grassroots
activism.

A. The Rise of Neoliberal Policies in Education

Neoliberalism has profoundly transformed public education, promoting policies that prioritize
competition, efficiency, and market-driven solutions over the well-being of students. At its core,
neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes privatization, deregulation,
and reduced government intervention. In education, this ideology manifests through policies
such as school choice, standardized testing, and performance-based funding that tie educational
success to market principles rather than holistic learning or student development.

Charter schools and voucher programs are central to the neoliberal vision of education reform.
These policies allow families to "choose" schools for their children, often bypassing underfunded
public schools in favor of private or charter options. While marketed as empowering parents,
these programs divert critical resources from public schools, which are left to serve marginalized
students with even fewer resources. Performance-based funding, another hallmark of neoliberal
reform, ties school funding to standardized test scores. This practice disproportionately penalizes
underfunded schools that struggle to meet benchmarks without the necessary support, further
entrenching inequality.

The privatization of school services under neoliberalism extends beyond education itself,
encompassing everything from food services to security. Outsourcing these services to private
companies removes public oversight, allowing corporations to profit from the education sector
while further weakening public accountability. Neoliberal policies position schools as
businesses, where students are treated as "products" and success is measured by market
outcomes like test scores and graduation rates.

B. The Fusion of Neoliberalism and Authoritarian Control

Neoliberalism and authoritarianism converge in education, creating systems of violent control

that prioritize discipline, punishment, and exclusion over student empowerment. This fusion of
neoliberal economic policies and authoritarian governance—often referred to as neoliberal
fascism—results in schools that emphasize control at the expense of nurturing and care. The
consolidation of power within school administrations, and increasingly within corporate
interests, reduces democratic input from teachers, students, and parents, while placing greater
emphasis on rigid systems of accountability.

Market logic aligns with authoritarian practices like securitization, which treats students as risks
to be managed rather than individuals to be supported. Under neoliberal policies, schools
prioritize efficiency and order, using surveillance technologies, zero-tolerance policies, and
punitive discipline to enforce compliance. These practices disproportionately target marginalized
students, who are more likely to be disciplined or criminalized for minor infractions.

Securitization has expanded under neoliberal reforms, with schools implementing increased
surveillance, policing, and zero-tolerance policies to maintain order. These measures align with
neoliberal ideals of accountability and control, turning schools into spaces where students are
viewed as potential threats. Zero-tolerance policies, in particular, treat students as liabilities to be
managed, often through exclusionary practices such as suspension and expulsion. These policies
are designed to remove "problematic" students in order to improve school metrics, rather than
addressing the root causes of behavior. In many cases, school security is outsourced to private
firms, turning education into a profit center for corporations while reinforcing authoritarian
practices of control.

C. The Disproportionate Impact of Neoliberal Fascism on Marginalized Students

Neoliberal policies disproportionately harm marginalized students, exacerbating racial,

economic, and disability-based inequalities. Public schools that serve low-income communities
and students of color are most affected by neoliberal reforms, which reduce funding and increase
reliance on punitive discipline. These students are often funneled into underfunded schools
where securitization and zero-tolerance policies are the norm, further entrenching inequality.

School choice and charter expansion have deepened segregation in education. Wealthier
families, often white, can access better-resourced charter or private schools, while low-income
families, predominantly Black and Latinx, are left with public schools that face significant
resource shortages. As a result, marginalized students remain in environments where discipline
and control are emphasized over holistic education, with fewer opportunities for academic or
personal growth.

The criminalization of Black and Latinx students under neoliberal fascism is a direct
consequence of these policies. Neoliberal reforms have led to an increase in the use of punitive
discipline, disproportionately targeting students of color for minor infractions. Black and Latinx
students are more likely to be suspended, expelled, or arrested than their white peers,
contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline. This criminalization not only removes students
from the educational environment but also limits their future opportunities, trapping them in
cycles of poverty and incarceration.

Students with disabilities are particularly vulnerable under neoliberal reforms, which prioritize
standardization and efficiency. These students are often viewed as "problems" in an education
system that values compliance and order. As a result, students with disabilities face higher rates
of suspension and exclusion, particularly when schools are ill-equipped to provide the necessary
support.

For example, post-Katrina New Orleans saw a dramatic transformation of its school system
under neoliberal policies. The privatization of public schools and expansion of charter schools
marginalized low-income and Black students while enforcing strict disciplinary measures aligned
with neoliberal ideals of control. Similarly, Chicago Public Schools experienced school closures
and charter expansion, disproportionately impacting low-income students of color. These
reforms led to an increased reliance on securitization and punitive discipline, exacerbating
educational inequalities.

D. Corporate Co-Optation of Student-Led Movements

Corporations have increasingly co-opted student-led movements, diluting their goals and
redirecting their efforts toward corporate-friendly reforms. In the wake of growing activism
around educational justice, corporations have positioned themselves as allies of student
movements, often offering financial support or partnerships. However, this support comes at a
cost, as corporations steer these movements away from radical demands and toward issues that
align with corporate interests.

Corporate involvement in student movements often results in the dilution of demands. Instead of
addressing systemic racism, economic inequality, or the school-to-prison pipeline, student
movements are encouraged to focus on issues like technological innovation or digital equity—
issues that align with corporate goals but fail to challenge the root causes of educational
injustice. Tokenism becomes a tool for corporations to position themselves as progressive
without making substantive changes that would disrupt their profit-driven interests.

For example, tech companies have partnered with student movements, offering resources and
platforms for activism while redirecting their focus toward issues like digital equity rather than
systemic inequality. Similarly, corporate sponsorship of school protests has allowed companies
to align themselves with social justice causes, only to downplay more radical demands like
divestment from securitization or the removal of police from schools.

E. Resistance to Neoliberal Fascism and the Fight for Educational Equity

Despite the growing influence of neoliberalism and corporate co-optation, grassroots movements
led by teachers and students have pushed back against these reforms. Teacher strikes in cities
like Los Angeles and Chicago have demanded increased funding for public schools, smaller class
sizes, and an end to punitive discipline measures. These movements have shown the power of
collective action in challenging neoliberalism and advocating for a more equitable and just
education system.

Student activism has also played a key role in resisting securitization and neoliberal control.
Across the country, students—particularly from marginalized communities—have led protests
calling for the removal of police officers from schools and the implementation of restorative
justice practices. These movements aim to dismantle the violent control structures imposed by
neoliberal fascism and create schools that prioritize care, equity, and community over discipline
and punishment.

Alternatives to neoliberal fascism in education are emerging in the form of community schools,
which offer holistic education models that prioritize wraparound services, mental health support,
and family engagement. Restorative justice practices offer a viable alternative to zero-tolerance
policies, focusing on healing and accountability rather than punishment and exclusion.

Finally, policy proposals for educational equity call for the elimination of zero-tolerance policies,
the removal of police from schools, and increased investment in public education. These reforms
aim to create a more equitable education system that serves the needs of all students, particularly
those who have been marginalized by neoliberal and authoritarian policies.

Conclusion of Section IV

Neoliberalism has transformed public education into a market-driven system where efficiency,
competition, and control take precedence over equity, care, and community. The fusion of
neoliberalism with authoritarian control has led to the expansion of violent structures within
schools, disproportionately affecting marginalized students. Compounding the issue,
corporations have co-opted student-led movements, redirecting their efforts toward corporate-
friendly reforms. However, grassroots resistance, led by teachers and students, offers a powerful
counter to neoliberal fascism, advocating for an education system rooted in equity, ethical
dialogue, and collective empowerment.
Section V: The Sublative Transformation of Education

Sublation, a concept from Hegelian dialectics, provides a powerful framework for transforming
education by transcending existing contradictions. Rather than simply rejecting current
educational models, sublation integrates and preserves their essential elements while resolving
conflicts to create a more equitable and just system. In the context of education, sublation is
necessary to move beyond neoliberalism, authoritarian control, and punitive discipline while
retaining vital elements of accountability, safety, and structure. This section explores how
sublation, viewed through the lens of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy, can transform the student-teacher
relationship, incorporate restorative justice and trauma-informed practices, and promote equity,
dialogue, and empowerment in schools.

A. Defining Sublation and Its Role in Educational Transformation

Sublation is a philosophical process in which contradictions are resolved by both negating and
preserving essential elements of opposing forces. In education, this process allows us to integrate
the strengths of traditional, rigid educational structures with the values of progressive, student-
centered approaches. Rather than dismissing one model entirely, sublation combines the best
aspects of each to create a holistic and equitable system.

This approach is crucial because it helps dismantle the harmful elements of neoliberalism and
authoritarianism, such as punitive discipline and performance-based competition, while
maintaining necessary components like academic rigor and accountability. Through sublation,
schools can synthesize these elements with progressive practices like equity, restorative justice,
and holistic learning, turning them into spaces of transformation where both students and
teachers thrive.

The dialectical process—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—is central to this transformation. The
current educational model (thesis), rooted in neoliberalism and authoritarian control, faces
opposition from movements advocating for equity and justice (antithesis). Through sublation,
these conflicting forces come together in a new synthesis, creating an educational paradigm that
integrates the best of both worlds.

B. Moving Beyond Neoliberalism and Authoritarian Control

Neoliberalism has commodified education by focusing on competition, standardization, and

performance metrics, often at the expense of student well-being. However, sublation enables us
to preserve aspects of neoliberalism, such as accountability, while rejecting its market-driven
approach. Schools can maintain rigorous academic standards without reducing students to data
points on standardized tests, instead adopting holistic measures of success that prioritize social-
emotional growth, critical thinking, and creativity.

Similarly, authoritarian models of discipline, such as zero-tolerance policies and school

securitization, can be transcended by integrating restorative justice and community-based safety
models. Schools must maintain safety and structure, but this can be achieved through trust,
dialogue, and relationship-building rather than through surveillance and punishment.
Examples of sublative transformation can be found in schools that have successfully
implemented restorative justice and community-based safety initiatives. These schools have
shown that it is possible to create environments that are both safe and supportive, where students
are held accountable for their actions through dialogue and healing rather than exclusion and
punishment.

C. The Freirean Sublative Lens: Reimagining the Student-Teacher Relationship

Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy provides a sublative lens for rethinking the traditional student-
teacher dichotomy. In the traditional model, teachers are seen as the sole holders of knowledge,
which they deposit into passive students—a dynamic Freire criticized as the "banking model" of
education. This hierarchical relationship stifles student agency and reduces learning to
memorization, rather than fostering critical thinking and engagement.

Through sublation, Freire’s approach calls for teachers and students to co-investigate and co-
create knowledge together. Instead of viewing the teacher as the sole authority, the classroom
becomes a space for dialogue, where both teacher and student engage in mutual learning. This
collaborative model transcends the traditional hierarchy and promotes a dynamic learning
environment that is critical, transformative, and liberatory.

In this framework, the teacher becomes a facilitator who guides students in the process of critical
inquiry. By co-investigating with students, teachers encourage them to challenge dominant
narratives and think critically about their reality. This process fosters conscientization—critical
awareness and reflection—allowing both teachers and students to transform the educational
experience.

Freire’s Pedagogy of Indignation adds another layer to this process by calling for teachers and
students to respond ethically to the injustices present in society, including those within the
education system. Indignation is the moral and ethical response to dehumanization and
inequality. Teachers and students must stand in solidarity, co-investigating and resisting
oppressive structures together. Sublation here is not only theoretical but also practical, as it
requires both reflection and action to dismantle inequality and enact liberatory alternatives.

This pedagogy in practice is evident in classrooms that prioritize project-based learning focused
on social justice issues, where students and teachers collaborate to explore real-world problems
and effect meaningful change. This model empowers students as active participants in their
education and positions teachers as co-learners and allies in the fight for justice.

D. Creating Schools Rooted in Equity, Dialogue, and Empowerment

The sublative transformation of education must be grounded in equity. Schools need to provide
equitable access to resources, support, and opportunities for all students, particularly those from
marginalized communities. This requires a commitment to anti-racist and anti-oppressive
pedagogies that actively work to dismantle systemic racism and bias in education.
Ethical dialogue is central to this transformation. Schools must foster an environment where
students, teachers, and administrators engage in open, reflective conversations about power,
privilege, and justice. Dialogue encourages critical inquiry and helps students develop the skills
to challenge dominant ideologies and create a more just society.

Empowering students to take an active role in their education is also key to sublation. Schools
can adopt student-led governance models, where students have a meaningful voice in decision-
making processes. Project-based learning, which allows students to work on long-term projects
addressing social issues, enables students to become agents of change within their communities.
By giving students leadership roles and ownership over their education, schools create
environments that are empowering and transformative.

E. The Role of Restorative Justice and Trauma-Informed Practices

Restorative justice is a critical component of sublation in education, offering an alternative to

punitive discipline models. Rather than relying on suspension or expulsion, restorative justice
practices focus on repairing harm and rebuilding relationships through dialogue and
accountability. This approach holds students accountable while fostering a sense of community
and trust.

Trauma-informed education is also essential to a sublated school system. Many students,

especially those from marginalized communities, have experienced trauma that affects their
ability to learn and engage in school. Trauma-informed practices help schools understand the
impact of trauma on students and provide the necessary emotional and psychological support.

Schools that have implemented restorative justice and trauma-informed practices have seen
significant improvements, including reduced disciplinary actions and increased student
engagement. These models demonstrate the potential of sublation to create equitable and
supportive educational environments.

F. Policy Proposals for Sublative Educational Reform

To achieve the sublative transformation of education, several policy reforms are necessary. First,
zero-tolerance policies must be eliminated and replaced with restorative justice practices that
prioritize healing and accountability over punishment. Resources currently devoted to
securitization and policing should be redirected toward mental health services, counseling, and
social-emotional learning programs.

Second, increased investment in public schools is critical, particularly in marginalized

communities. This investment should be directed toward hiring more teachers, reducing class
sizes, and expanding extracurricular opportunities that promote critical thinking and creativity.

Finally, schools should adopt democratic governance models that give students, teachers, and
parents a meaningful voice in school policies and decision-making processes. This ensures that
schools are responsive to the needs and interests of their communities and that education
becomes a collaborative and inclusive endeavor.
Conclusion of Section V

The sublative transformation of education, viewed through Freire’s pedagogical lens, calls for
the dismantling of oppressive structures while preserving and reimagining the elements
necessary for a functioning educational system. By focusing on equity, dialogue, empowerment,
restorative justice, and trauma-informed practices, schools can become spaces of liberation
where students and teachers co-create knowledge, resist oppression, and build a more just and
equitable future together.

This transformation requires solidarity between teachers and students, as they engage in a shared
commitment to uncover the truth, challenge inequality, and work toward creating an educational
system that serves all students, particularly those who have been historically marginalized.
Section VI: The Transformation of Political Realities through Educational
Reform

Education has long been a central arena for shaping political, social, and economic realities. In
its current state, the education system often reinforces inequalities through classist funding
models, segregation, and punitive measures. However, education can also be a force for political
liberation. By embracing liberatory pedagogy, dismantling securitization, and fostering
democratic engagement, schools can help transform political realities. This section explores how
educational reform can address systemic inequalities, promote political empowerment, and
reshape the relationship between education and society.

A. Education as a Tool for Political and Social Change

Education is inherently political. Schools, whether consciously or not, shape students'

understanding of power, justice, and civic participation. The current system, heavily influenced
by neoliberal policies and authoritarian structures, often reinforces existing political power
dynamics by prioritizing competition, standardization, and control over critical inquiry and
democratic engagement. This entrenched focus on compliance and order serves to maintain
political structures that benefit the privileged while marginalizing others.

However, education has the potential to serve as a tool for social and political transformation.
Through reform, schools can empower students to challenge systems of oppression and advocate
for justice. By integrating liberatory pedagogies that promote critical thinking, collaboration, and
reflection, education can nurture a new generation of politically conscious and engaged citizens
who actively work to reshape unjust political and social systems.

One of the key elements of this transformation is the development of critical consciousness or
conscientization, as defined by Paulo Freire. Critical pedagogy, grounded in the practice of
dialogue and reflection, encourages students to question dominant ideologies and recognize the
structures that perpetuate inequality. By fostering critical awareness, schools can empower
students to become agents of change in their own communities and beyond.

B. Education and the Reproduction of Political and Economic Inequality

The current educational system plays a significant role in reproducing political and economic
inequalities. Classist funding mechanisms—such as the reliance on property taxes—ensure that
wealthier communities are able to provide their schools with significantly more resources, while
underfunded schools in low-income areas struggle to meet basic needs. This unequal distribution
of resources perpetuates disparities in academic achievement, political participation, and
economic mobility.
School segregation further compounds these inequalities. Despite legal efforts to desegregate
schools, many remain racially and economically divided. Wealthy, predominantly white
communities often have access to better-funded schools with more opportunities for advanced
coursework and extracurricular activities, while schools serving primarily Black and Latinx
students are chronically underfunded and over-policed. This segregation ensures that
marginalized students have fewer opportunities to succeed academically or engage meaningfully
in political processes, which in turn entrenches the broader political and economic inequalities
that exist in society.

Moreover, securitization in schools disproportionately impacts marginalized students. The

increasing use of surveillance, police presence, and zero-tolerance policies in underfunded
schools criminalizes behaviors that would otherwise be managed through supportive
interventions. This process pushes students into the school-to-prison pipeline, where they are
more likely to be disciplined, suspended, or expelled, further limiting their opportunities for
educational success and political engagement.

C. The Desecuritization of Educational Spaces

One of the most pressing reforms needed to transform political realities through education is the
desecuritization of schools. The rise of securitization—marked by surveillance technologies,
police presence, and punitive discipline—has created environments that prioritize control and
punishment over student well-being and empowerment. These practices are particularly harmful
to students from marginalized communities, who are disproportionately targeted by school
security measures.

Desecuritization involves dismantling the infrastructure of control that has taken hold in schools,
particularly under neoliberal policies that view students as potential threats rather than as
learners. The presence of police officers, metal detectors, and surveillance cameras fosters an
atmosphere of fear and anxiety, making schools feel more like prisons than places of learning.
This system undermines the educational process by creating a culture of compliance rather than
critical inquiry.

To desecuritize schools, we must replace punitive discipline measures with restorative justice
practices. Restorative justice focuses on healing and accountability rather than punishment,
offering students the opportunity to reflect on their actions, make amends, and rebuild
relationships within the school community. This approach not only reduces the reliance on
exclusionary discipline measures such as suspensions and expulsions but also fosters a sense of
belonging and responsibility among students, which is critical for their political and personal
development.

Desecuritization also requires community-based safety models that prioritize trust, care, and
dialogue over surveillance and policing. Schools should invest in mental health services, conflict
resolution programs, and trauma-informed practices that support students in managing
challenges rather than criminalizing them. These programs not only create safer and more
supportive learning environments but also help students develop the social and emotional skills
necessary for active political participation.

The process of desecuritizing schools directly challenges the neoliberal and authoritarian
tendencies that have dominated educational policy in recent decades. By rejecting the logic of
control and punishment, desecuritized schools can serve as models for a more democratic and
just society, where students are empowered to engage with political realities in meaningful ways.

D. Education and the Potential for Political Liberation

Liberatory pedagogy provides a framework for transforming schools into spaces of political
empowerment. This approach challenges the traditional banking model of education, where
teachers deposit knowledge into passive students, and instead emphasizes dialogue, critical
thinking, and student-led learning. In a liberatory classroom, students are encouraged to question
the world around them, identify systems of oppression, and take action to change them.

Through liberatory pedagogy, education becomes a practice of freedom. Students develop the
skills and knowledge necessary to recognize and challenge the injustices that shape their lives,
both inside and outside of school. This process not only empowers students as individuals but
also builds their capacity to engage in collective political action. Schools that embrace liberatory
pedagogy equip students to participate in movements for social justice, advocate for their rights,
and work toward systemic change.

Liberatory pedagogy also transforms the student-teacher relationship. Rather than positioning the
teacher as an authority figure who imparts knowledge, liberatory pedagogy invites teachers and
students to co-investigate and co-create knowledge. This collaborative approach fosters a culture
of mutual respect and shared responsibility, where both teachers and students are engaged in the
process of learning and transformation.

E. Transforming Political Realities through Community-Engaged Education

Community-engaged education provides a model for how schools can serve as catalysts for
political transformation. Schools that actively engage with their surrounding communities help
build politically active and empowered communities, where students and community members
work together to address social and political issues. This approach not only strengthens the
connection between schools and their communities but also fosters a sense of shared
responsibility and collective action.

Community schools, which integrate academic instruction with social services, health care, and
community engagement, exemplify this model. These schools provide holistic support to
students and their families, addressing the broader social determinants of educational success,
such as housing, food security, and mental health. By partnering with local organizations and
advocacy groups, community schools create spaces where students can develop their political
awareness and engage in activism that addresses the needs of their communities.

Community-engaged education also helps students develop a deep understanding of the political
realities that shape their lives, including issues related to racial justice, environmental
sustainability, and economic inequality. Through project-based learning and civic engagement
initiatives, students gain practical experience in organizing, advocacy, and political participation.
This approach not only prepares students to be active participants in democratic life but also
contributes to the transformation of political realities on a broader scale.

F. Policy Proposals for the Political Transformation of Education

To transform political realities through education, several key policy reforms are necessary.

First, we must eliminate classist funding mechanisms such as property taxes, which perpetuate
economic and educational inequality. Instead, funding should be based on student need, ensuring
that all schools receive the resources necessary to provide a high-quality education, regardless of
their location or the wealth of their community.

Second, we need to promote democratic governance in schools. Schools should adopt

participatory governance models where students, teachers, and parents have a meaningful voice
in decision-making processes. Democratic governance not only ensures that schools are
responsive to the needs of their communities but also teaches students the values and practices of
democracy, preparing them for active political participation.

Finally, we must implement liberatory pedagogy and civic education in schools. These
programs should prioritize critical thinking, social justice education, and engagement in civic
activities, such as community service, activism, and organizing. By fostering critical
consciousness and civic responsibility, these policies will help create a generation of students
who are equipped to challenge injustice and advocate for systemic change.

Conclusion of Section VI

The political transformation of education is essential for creating a more just and equitable
society. Through desecuritization, liberatory pedagogy, and community engagement, schools can
empower students to challenge systems of oppression and participate actively in the political
process. These reforms not only improve educational outcomes but also contribute to the broader
struggle for political liberation by equipping students with the knowledge, skills, and agency to
shape their political realities.

Policy changes that eliminate funding disparities, promote democratic governance, and prioritize
critical pedagogy are necessary to ensure that all students have the opportunity to engage with
political issues and advocate for justice. By transforming education, we can reshape the political
landscape and build a society that is more inclusive, equitable, and democratic.
Section VII: The Need for a Pedagogy of Indignation and Deconstructive
Criticism of Educational Funding Systems

The current educational system, shaped by neoliberal policies, has commodified schools and
treated students as resources within a competitive market. This approach results in significant
inequities, with funding mechanisms like property taxes perpetuating disparities and reinforcing
cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement. In response to these dehumanizing forces, a pedagogy
of indignation and a deconstructive critique of educational funding are necessary to dismantle
these oppressive structures and move toward a more liberatory and equitable model. This section
explores how the pedagogy of indignation fosters resistance, how deconstructive criticism
reveals the simulacrum of neoliberal education, and how a sublative synthesis offers a pathway
to liberating education from these forces.

A. Understanding the Pedagogy of Indignation

Paulo Freire’s concept of the pedagogy of indignation offers a response to dehumanization and
oppression by emphasizing the ethical responsibility to confront injustice and resist systems that
perpetuate inequality. Indignation is a moral reaction to injustice, driven by a desire for human
dignity and liberation. In the context of education, this pedagogy calls on both teachers and
students to critically engage with the structures that shape their experiences and to challenge the
inequities embedded in the system.

Neoliberalism has commodified education, reducing students to products in a competitive

marketplace. Schools are evaluated based on efficiency, performance metrics, and their ability to
produce economically viable citizens. This approach strips education of its transformative
potential, prioritizing economic outcomes over the development of critical consciousness. In
contrast, the pedagogy of indignation invites educators and students to reject this narrative and
reclaim education as a space for critical inquiry, ethical engagement, and humanization.

In the classroom, indignation can become a transformative force. When students and teachers
channel their collective sense of injustice into activism and resistance, they create spaces where
critical dialogue thrives. This dialogue is essential for cultivating the moral and intellectual
energy needed to confront oppressive structures. Through shared reflection and questioning,
indignation can foster a culture of ethical resistance, shifting the focus from passive acceptance
of the status quo to active engagement in the struggle for justice.

B. Deconstructive Criticism of Educational Funding Systems

The current educational funding model—primarily based on property taxes—reflects and

deepens class inequality. Schools in wealthier areas have access to more resources, high-quality
instruction, and broader opportunities for their students. In contrast, schools in low-income areas
are often severely underfunded, lacking even basic resources for a robust educational experience.
This system, tied to local wealth, creates a vast disparity in educational quality, perpetuating
cycles of poverty and reinforcing segregation.

A deconstructive critique of this funding model reveals the simulacrum created by neoliberal
policies. Neoliberalism frames education as a competitive market where success is seen as a
product of individual effort and merit. However, this narrative obscures the reality that structural
inequalities—such as unequal funding and resource allocation—largely determine educational
outcomes. The myth of meritocracy, perpetuated by neoliberal educational policies, is a facade
that hides the structural barriers faced by marginalized communities.

Through deconstruction, we can dismantle the assumptions underlying neoliberal funding

models. The emphasis on competition, standardization, and efficiency is built on the false
premise that these factors inherently improve educational outcomes. In reality, these measures
deepen the inequalities they claim to address. For example, standardized testing is often used to
allocate resources, with high-performing schools receiving more funding. Yet, performance on
these tests is tied to resources and support, which are largely determined by socioeconomic
background. The system thus rewards already advantaged schools and students, perpetuating
cycles of inequality.

Additionally, the neoliberal rhetoric of “school choice”—which promotes charter schools and
voucher systems as solutions to failing public schools—exacerbates inequality. These initiatives
divert public funds away from traditional schools, fostering competition that disproportionately
benefits those with the financial means to access elite institutions. For marginalized students,
school choice is often an illusion, as they remain in underfunded public schools while resources
flow to wealthier alternatives.

C. Moving Toward a Sublative Synthesis of Liberation

To address these oppressive structures, we must pursue a sublative synthesis, a dialectical

process that transcends the contradictions of neoliberal education while preserving necessary
elements of accountability and resource distribution. Sublation involves negating the harmful
aspects of neoliberalism—such as the commodification of education—while preserving essential
elements like transparency and equitable resource distribution.

The first step toward this synthesis is to reimagine educational funding models. Rather than
relying on property taxes, which reinforce class divisions, funding should be based on need,
ensuring that schools in low-income areas receive the resources required to provide high-quality
education. A national funding pool could be established to distribute resources equitably,
addressing disparities and ensuring that all students, regardless of background, have access to the
tools needed for success.

Redistributive policies could help close the funding gap between wealthy and underfunded
schools. These policies might include progressive taxation systems, where additional resources
are directed toward schools serving low-income students. International models, such as Finland’s
education system, demonstrate how equitable funding policies can lead to more equal
educational outcomes and reduce the impact of socioeconomic status on student success.

This sublative synthesis also requires liberating education from the neoliberal simulacrum. This
means rejecting the commodification of education and reframing it as a public good that serves
the collective needs of society, rather than as a product to be bought and sold in a competitive
market. Education must be centered on its true purpose: fostering critical thinkers, engaged
citizens, and empowered individuals.

Community involvement and participatory decision-making are essential to this transformation.

Schools should be accountable to the communities they serve, with students, teachers, and
parents having a direct voice in how resources are allocated. Participatory budgeting models,
where communities decide how educational funds are spent, offer a promising approach to
creating transparency and democratic governance in education.

D. Policy Proposals for a Just and Equitable Educational Funding System

To achieve a just and equitable educational system, several key policy changes must be
implemented:

1. Redistributive Educational Funding: Educational funding must be restructured to

address systemic inequalities. Policies should ensure that schools in marginalized
communities receive the resources they need to provide high-quality education. This
could involve creating a national funding pool to redistribute resources based on need,
rather than local property wealth.
2. Eliminating Market-Driven Models: The commodification of education must be
rejected in favor of policies that prioritize the well-being and success of all students. For-
profit charter schools and voucher systems, which divert public resources to private
institutions, should be eliminated in favor of public investment in equitable education for
all.
3. Democratic Governance in Educational Funding: Policies should support the
implementation of participatory budgeting in educational systems, where communities,
students, and educators play an active role in deciding how educational resources are
allocated. This democratic approach ensures that funding decisions reflect the needs and
priorities of those most affected by them.
4. Supporting Restorative and Holistic Models: Schools should adopt restorative justice
and trauma-informed approaches to create inclusive and supportive learning
environments. These models shift the focus from punishment and discipline to healing
and community-building, which are essential for fostering a culture of dignity and equity.
Conclusion of Section VII

The pedagogy of indignation, combined with a deconstructive critique of neoliberal funding

models, offers a path to liberating education from the dehumanizing effects of commodification
and inequality. By fostering a culture of ethical resistance, schools can become spaces where
students and teachers actively challenge oppressive structures and work toward a more just and
equitable future.

Through a sublative synthesis, we can transcend the contradictions of the current system and
create a model of education that centers on liberation, equity, and human dignity. Policy reforms
that prioritize redistributive funding, democratic governance, and holistic approaches to
education are necessary to ensure that every student has access to high-quality, equitable
education, regardless of their background or socioeconomic status.

By transforming the way education is funded and governed, we can dismantle the simulacrum of
neoliberal education and build a system that truly serves the needs of all students, empowering
them to become active, engaged citizens in a more just society.
Section VIII: A Call to Action for Educational and Political Liberation

Education is not a neutral space; it is a battleground where political, social, and economic forces
collide. It has the potential to either perpetuate existing inequalities or serve as a catalyst for
liberation. In its current form, shaped by neoliberal policies, the education system commodifies
learning, reinforcing structural inequities through classist funding, securitization, and
authoritarian pedagogies. However, the transformative potential of education remains strong. By
centering equity, justice, and critical pedagogy, schools can become spaces of liberation where
students and communities develop the capacity for political engagement and collective action.
This final section outlines the steps necessary for reclaiming education as a force for liberation
and issues a call to action for educational and political reform.

A. Reaffirming the Central Argument: Education as a Site of Political Struggle

Education shapes the consciousness of future generations, reinforcing the status quo or fostering
the critical thinking necessary to challenge it. As argued throughout this paper, the current
system—dominated by neoliberal market logic—has commodified education, turning students
into consumers and schools into profit-driven enterprises. This approach, driven by competition,
standardization, and efficiency, reinforces existing social inequalities and marginalizes already
vulnerable communities.

However, education has the power to be a site of resistance. By adopting principles of critical
pedagogy, schools can become spaces where students and educators collaborate to challenge
injustice. Freire’s concept of conscientization, or the development of critical awareness,
underscores the role of education in helping students recognize and confront the oppressive
structures that shape their lives. Throughout this paper, we have discussed the need for
participatory governance, liberatory practices, and equitable funding models that prioritize
justice over profit.

B. Overcoming the Neoliberal Simulacrum: Liberation through Education

Neoliberalism has created a false reality, or simulacrum, of education—one that appears to serve
democratic and egalitarian purposes but in fact perpetuates economic and social control. By
treating education as a commodity, neoliberal policies have masked the true purpose of
schooling: the empowerment of individuals and the development of human potential. Instead,
schools have become sites of exclusion and inequality, with market-driven metrics determining
their success or failure.

To overcome this simulacrum, we must reframe education as a public good essential to

democracy. Schools should no longer be beholden to the demands of the market but should focus
on cultivating critical thinking, fostering civic engagement, and promoting community solidarity.
Liberation from this neoliberal simulation can only occur through collective action aimed at
restructuring educational systems. Once freed from neoliberal influence, schools can embrace
holistic learning, dialogue, and the well-being of all students.

This transformation cannot be achieved by educators alone; it requires active participation from
students, parents, and communities. Together, they can reject the commodification of education
and advocate for policies that prioritize human flourishing over profit.

C. The Role of Policy in Dismantling Oppression and Building Equity

Substantial policy changes are essential for dismantling the structures of oppression that exist
within the education system. The first step is to eliminate market-driven approaches to funding
schools, particularly the reliance on property taxes. These funding mechanisms, as discussed
earlier, deepen inequality by allowing wealthier communities to benefit from better-resourced
schools while marginalized communities struggle with chronic underfunding.

Redistributive policies, such as those based on student need rather than local wealth, are critical
to addressing these disparities. Resources must be allocated equitably to ensure that every
student, regardless of socioeconomic background, has access to a high-quality education.
Additionally, punitive securitization practices—such as zero-tolerance policies and the policing
of schools—must be eliminated in favor of restorative justice models that emphasize healing,
accountability, and community building.

Another key aspect of policy reform is democratizing school governance. Participatory

governance models that give students, teachers, parents, and community members an active role
in decision-making processes can ensure that schools reflect the needs and values of the
communities they serve. Democratic governance not only empowers stakeholders but also fosters
a culture of responsibility and engagement that is essential for transforming education.

Finally, policies must support the development of equitable and holistic education models. These
models center the well-being of students, prioritizing mental health, social-emotional learning,
and restorative justice over performance metrics and standardized testing. Schools should be
places where students can grow as individuals, learn to think critically, and develop the skills
necessary to engage in civic life.

D. Grassroots Movements and Collective Resistance

While policy change is essential, grassroots movements are the driving force behind real
educational reform. Historically, teachers’ unions, student organizations, and community groups
have been at the forefront of fighting for equitable education. These movements have resisted
neoliberal policies, advocating for fair funding, humane disciplinary practices, and curricula that
reflect the needs and experiences of marginalized communities.
Collective resistance offers a powerful pathway for challenging neoliberal structures and
advocating for transformational change in educational practices. The power of grassroots
movements lies in their ability to mobilize across sectors of society, demanding justice and
equity for all students. From teacher strikes advocating for increased funding to student protests
against the presence of police in schools, grassroots activism has proven to be an essential force
in reshaping educational realities.

Successful examples of resistance and change can be found in movements both in the U.S. and
internationally. In Chicago, for example, teacher strikes led to increased funding for public
schools and a commitment to smaller class sizes, demonstrating the potential for collective action
to bring about significant policy changes. Similarly, student-led movements advocating for
climate justice, racial equity, and educational reform have made headlines, forcing policymakers
to confront issues that have long been ignored.

E. Building a Vision for Liberatory Education

The ultimate goal of educational reform is to build a liberated system where schools serve as
centers for critical thought, collective empowerment, and community well-being. This vision
requires both structural change and a cultural shift toward valuing education as a public good
rather than a private commodity.

In this liberated system, schools would emphasize critical inquiry, creativity, and collaboration.
Students would be encouraged to engage with the world around them, question assumptions, and
participate actively in the democratic process. Education would no longer be about producing
economically viable workers but about fostering thoughtful, engaged citizens who are equipped
to address the complex challenges facing society.

This vision also calls for the active participation of educators, students, and communities.
Educators must see themselves as agents of change, guiding students toward critical
consciousness and fostering a sense of agency and responsibility. Students must be empowered
to take leadership roles in their own learning, developing the skills necessary to challenge
injustice and shape the future of their communities. Communities, too, must be involved in
shaping educational practices and policies, ensuring that schools reflect their values and
aspirations.

F. A Call to Action for Political and Educational Liberation

The need for educational liberation is urgent. As neoliberal policies continue to deepen
inequality and undermine the democratic purpose of education, it is essential that educators,
students, and communities come together to resist these forces and demand a system that
prioritizes justice, equity, and liberation.
This final call to action emphasizes the importance of solidarity across movements. Educational
reform is inherently linked to broader struggles for racial justice, economic equality, and
environmental sustainability. As such, the fight for educational liberation must be connected to
larger political and social movements for justice.

Sustained activism and engagement are crucial. Transforming the education system will require
continuous effort, innovation, and collaboration. From attending local school board meetings to
organizing collective actions in support of equitable funding, there are many ways for individuals
and communities to get involved in this movement. The road to educational liberation will be
long, but it is a struggle worth pursuing.

Conclusion

The transformation of education is not just a policy challenge but a moral imperative. Education
has the power to shape the future of society, and it is up to all of us to ensure that it does so in a
way that promotes justice, equity, and collective empowerment. By embracing critical pedagogy,
advocating for policy reform, and engaging in grassroots activism, we can build a system of
education that truly serves the needs of all students, particularly those who have been
marginalized by the current system.

This call to action urges educators, students, and communities to actively participate in the
ongoing struggle for liberatory education. Together, we can dismantle the neoliberal simulation
that has commodified education and begin to build a system that prioritizes human dignity,
equity, and justice.