And because students are deserving of respect and they all know less than you do (or they should be taking classes with someone else), they should all allow you the space and time to teach, which is inherently asymmetric--a "banking" model where you have what is desired (knowledge) and they don't.

I really...don't know what your point is.

You raise an interesting question and motivate the concerns and outlook from Addams well, but then postulate a non-solution as a solution ("it's like colonialism"--that isn't a solution, it's continuing to describe the problem!), and the natural implementation of it is totally unworkable in most settings.

If you don't want to be a bank/factory, teach an apprentice. The apprenticeship model is old and very well battle-tested for producing new experts based on a more personal interaction with an existing expert.

Now, there's a good argument to make that the apprenticeship model is woefully underutilized. Homeschooled children tend to accomplish considerably more with considerably less instruction than are group-schooled children (public or private school), in large part, probably, because it's run more as an apprenticeship. But even if it's more efficient for the learner, it's very labor-intensive for the expert.

Once you start off gathering a bunch of people who don't know a subject very well into a room with one person who knows a lot (for efficiency of time-spent-by-teacher), you either have a very strict dichotomy or the pedagogy is broken. You can be pleasant and personable about it, but the dichotomy is, again, the entire point of that setup.