Teaching the value of free thought matters now more than ever. Unfortunately, most American public schools take the opposite approach.

Federalist
Auguste Meyrat

Many people have long suspected that governments sometimes attempt to indoctrinate their people to increase the government’s own power and influence. Unfortunately, ambitious governments will not stop at merely controlling what their people can do; they must control their minds.

Indoctrination happens through many channels—entertainment, speeches, and censorship––but its main instrument is the school system. Teachers have a captive audience of malleable young minds for several years. They may not have figured out how to make students smart and productive, but they can at least make them submissive and obedient.

Judging by results and from most people’s experience, indoctrination is not only a problem with rogue regimes, but also a distinctly American problem. However, here it is difficult to determine the extent of indoctrination, how it works, or even if it does work.

Most Americans might receive a mediocre education, but this education may be so mediocre that the intended brainwashing might not even be effective. True, some will feel the Bern and join the Socialist Party, and others will become feminists and beat up women who protest abortion. A precious few may even become conservatives. Most, though, seem content to remain disengaged from politics, religion, and most ideas in general, and allow the mainstream media to think for them.

Far from resembling a unified collective, society has become more polarized and tribal. Some might see this as evidence of the failure of indoctrination, and the insuppressible human desire for freedom and justice, but they are mistaken. Indoctrination does work, and it is one the main reasons America is so divided.

What Is Indoctrination?

Few people seem to have a clear definition of indoctrination, and thus call anything they dislike indoctrination (e.g., “Leftists professors are indoctrinating their students,” “Those fundamentalist Christians are indoctrinating their kids,” or “Facebook is indoctrinating its users.”).

While indoctrination involves pushing a certain opinion, it is also much more. It is the comprehensive effort of passively disseminating a particular viewpoint. The passive aspect is key. People who are indoctrinated with a certain narrative or ideology do not arrive at the intended conclusions through their own thinking, but hear the same thing repeated in a million different ways until they finally take it as unquestionable truth.

Because indoctrination happens in the absence of thinking, many teachers who engage in indoctrination do so unconsciously. They themselves take what they’re given and pass it along without thinking. Ideologues often intervene at this level by writing the scripts for teachers, which is how LGBT advocacy and anti-Semitic fabrications become included in their lessons.

Thoughtlessness is essential. As the fictional demon Screwtape, from C.S. Lewis’s “The Screwtape Letters,” states in his letters to Wormwood, “It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.” A person who really thinks will eventually reason himself out of the things he heard at school.

In some ways this could be good––he could reason his way out of utopian thinking that contradicts reality. It could also be bad––he could reason his way out of superstitious beliefs, but not have the wherewithal to take the next step of adopting reasonable beliefs.

For this reason, it is often fruitless for Republican politicians to insist on incorporating more conservative viewpoints, or for conservative intellectuals to decry bias in U.S. history classes, or for classical schools to replace Maya Angelou with Tacitus. If students are still receiving the material passively, a switch of content will not help, and, in the case of introducing classic literature, it will usually backfire. English teachers have soured multiple generations of Americans on Shakespeare because they taught it as propaganda, not as dense texts requiring complex thought.

Indoctrination In Common Core

Even changing curriculum will not prevent indoctrination. Curriculum should help guide the teacher to create lessons and use materials that will train the students to think and function independently. Instead, most public school curricula, either adopting the Common Core standards or imitating them, do the opposite.

Common Core has facilitated progressive indoctrination by smothering independent thought and stifling intellectual development. It effectively trains students not to think by emphasizing skills over content, process over product, and relative standards over absolute ones.

The humanities suffer the most from the focus on teaching supposedly practical skills rather than quality content. Instead of reading great poetry and literature, English teachers asked their students to read more journalistic nonfiction and develop research skills. Instead of reading for meaning and writing clearly, students read for bias and learn to write fluff.

History teachers now teach their students “history skills,” which involve everything except remembering actual history and synthesizing information. Consequently, both literary and historical content is drained of relevance or meaning. While students learn to process data, they do not think about anything in particular.

Math and science are hurt more by Common Core’s obsession with the process over the product. Reaching the right answer means little in Common Core math. It is more important that students learn various arbitrary methods through which they can arrive at an answer. Students receive more credit for following a needlessly complicated breakdown, complete with color-coding and an array of abstract terms, for relatively simple computation. Word problems also loom large, causing teachers to spend less time on their subject and more time teaching students to highlight the right terms.

Needless to say, some students can make their way through the Common Core curriculum without knowing much math or science at all. Common Core proponents will say that this teaches students “metacognition”––thinking about thinking––and pushes students to learn how to learn. In reality, kids stop thinking, since it’s all pointless.

These two problems come together to bring about a pervasive relativism in education. Content is interchangeable and mastery is either illusory or impossible. Knowledge becomes subjective. One text is as good as another. One period of history is as important as another. One theory or formula is as useful as another. It is hard to learn how to think when there is nothing real to think about.

In such a system, thinking is only the articulation of opinion; it has no bearing on truth. This means that people don’t really need to think critically and understand why they believe what they do. They just need to have the right viewpoint and force others to conform like they’ve been forced to conform. They engage in arguments where the loudest voice wins because no one’s points are better than another. They pressure instead of persuade.

This, in turn, leads to tribalism—groups of people united in feeling and opinion, but not in reason and truth. The lack of thought makes all these groups vulnerable to mass media and prevents any organized resistance to an encroaching state or lawless ideologue in power. Indoctrination is complete when perception (i.e., whatever is on the screen, whatever an “expert” says, whatever is popular) really does become reality for most people because they’re too stupid or apathetic to respond rationally.

Good Teaching Is The Cure For Indoctrination

The only real solution to indoctrination, then, is good teachers. Good teachers (which include parents, mentors, and other knowledgeable adults) train students in methods of thought while supplying the stuff of thought. They teach a person to evaluate an argument properly, find actual solutions to problems, and determine what is true and what is false.

More importantly, they don’t succumb to promoting one ideology over another because they trust their student to reason through to the right position. This was St. Augustine’s argument in “On Christian Doctrine” (back when indoctrination meant teaching, not brainwashing), in which he recommended the inclusion of pagan learning in Christian education, trusting in the rational faith of the Christian scholar to handle it properly.

Only clear thought will be the death of foggy indoctrination. If people want to pass on their ideas on to the next generation, they should focus on building up logic, not just giving them the right texts to read and TV shows to watch. The goal should be to understand the reasons, not follow the signals of the right tribe.

At some point, indoctrination will always collapse on itself and leave mediocrity in it wake. Teaching, by contrast, is what will sustain our culture and bring out its virtues. It fosters the presence of active thought––not uniform thought––and it is what will ultimately mend and civilize our sorely divided country.


Link

I know this will fit very neatly into our suspicions about schools and teaching, but this article is long on conclusions and short on specific examples or illustrations about how the "indoctrination" is being conducted.

For example;

"History teachers now teach their students “history skills,” which involve everything except remembering actual history and synthesizing information. Consequently, both literary and historical content is drained of relevance or meaning. While students learn to process data, they do not think about anything in particular."

We really need more description of what these "history skills" are. We are told what they are not (although not much detail is given even on that negative), but not what they are. And then the conclusion is offered that this drains history of relevance, without explaining how this happens under that teaching regime.

This is no more than the conclusion, and it isn't enough for us to evaluate for ourselves whether the author's argument holds water. We shouldn't accept such a conclusion without more, but we aren't given enough information to do that.

As I said, we will all have some sympathy for this view, but this article is more like the introduction to a longer paper backing up the assertions made. This short article is, in some ways, doing what the author is accusing "them" of doing - asking us to have the right viewpoint without thinking critically or having enough information to form our own view on this subject.

Ha, ha! Made you think.

There is only so much that can be covered in these online essays, I think (sorry!).

What is one to think about when studying history? There are often several versions of history. Which is true, real, accurate?

It may be that thinking is an optional byproduct of mastering the basic skills of elementary school, smoothed into useful shape by high school.

I appreciate the article, but to me it raised more questions than it answered.

quote:

What is one to think about when studying history?

Well... we spend a lot of money. I'm not sure we get much for it:


Under tyrannical systems, it matters little if the people are informed about political life. Autocrats make decisions for them whether they like it or not. But in our republic, we rely on the informed decision-making of citizens to judge policies and the leaders who will implement them.

Unfortunately, we are not very well-informed.
Woeful Ignorance

According to a recently released survey, Americans are woefully uneducated about the most basic facts of our history to the point that most couldn’t even pass a basic citizenship test.

A recent study by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation found only one in three Americans can actually pass the US citizenship test, which asks the most basic questions about our history and how our system of government works.

Passing the test requires answering 60 percent of questions correctly, but a majority of those participating in the survey couldn’t even do that.

“With voters heading to the polls next month, an informed and engaged citizenry is essential,” Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, said.

“Unfortunately, this study found the average American to be woefully uninformed regarding America’s history and incapable of passing the US citizenship test. It would be an error to view these findings as merely an embarrassment. Knowledge of the history of our country is fundamental to maintaining a democratic society, which is imperiled today.”

Young people performed worst on the test. Out of all test-takers under the age of 45, only 19 percent passed.

Given these numbers, it’s no wonder why so many young Americans say they would rather live under socialism than capitalism and have little understanding of what that would mean in reality.

Globally, the US ranks near the top in spending on elementary and secondary education, yet we don’t appear to be getting much bang for the buck. Perhaps it’s time we take a harder look at the public school monopoly that’s failing students and leaving generations of Americans without a basic understanding of our past.

https://fee.org/articles/ameri...about-basic-history/

As a parent with a son in Kindergarten, this has been on my mind lately. Not in a bad way necessarily - he goes to a private school, he is doing great, his teacher is great etc. We are confident in this school going forward.

That said, one thing they do every day does strike me as somewhat 'indoctrinating'. . now don't shoot me for this. . hear me out.

The Pledge of Allegiance.

First, the mechanics of it. These kids are taught to memorize this text, stand up, place their hand on their heart, and recite it together. Strikes me as ritualistic.

Second, they have no idea what they are saying. They get a kick out of saying it, but do not know what it means.

Third, is it the right message to teach our kids to pledge allegiance to anything? What if that thing turns so bad that you must take action. When one gets married they are doing the same. But we all now that if your wife turns on you in a big way, you probably will take necessary action, rather than no action because of your pledge, oath, vows, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I love the USA. I just think that having our kids take part in this ritual, for which they do not know what they are pledging, strikes me as indoctrinating. We are teaching them to say something without having them think about what it means. It's just presented as an absolute truth. Isn't this the definition of indoctrination?

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
As a parent with a son in Kindergarten, this has been on my mind lately. Not in a bad way necessarily - he goes to a private school, he is doing great, his teacher is great etc. We are confident in this school going forward.

That said, one thing they do every day does strike me as somewhat 'indoctrinating'. . now don't shoot me for this. . hear me out.

The Pledge of Allegiance.

First, the mechanics of it. These kids are taught to memorize this text, stand up, place their hand on their heart, and recite it together. Strikes me as ritualistic.

Second, they have no idea what they are saying. They get a kick out of saying it, but do not know what it means.

Third, is it the right message to teach our kids to pledge allegiance to anything? What if that thing turns so bad that you must take action. When one gets married they are doing the same. But we all now that if your wife turns on you in a big way, you probably will take necessary action, rather than no action because of your pledge, oath, vows, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I love the USA. I just think that having our kids take part in this ritual, for which they do not know what they are pledging, strikes me as indoctrinating. We are teaching them to say something without having them think about what it means. It's just presented as an absolute truth. Isn't this the definition of indoctrination?

Indoctrination is one of those words used to connote a negative slant.

We are indoctrinated in various ways from birth. “Socialized” might be a more positive term. Your mom potty trains you, or maybe grandma. You are trained to eat using using tableware, plates, forks, spoons, drink from glasses made of plastic to start. We fall into the observances of our groups, church, lodge, schools, more or less easily.

We are socialized. They indoctrinate.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
As a parent with a son in Kindergarten, this has been on my mind lately. Not in a bad way necessarily - he goes to a private school, he is doing great, his teacher is great etc. We are confident in this school going forward.

That said, one thing they do every day does strike me as somewhat 'indoctrinating'. . now don't shoot me for this. . hear me out.

The Pledge of Allegiance.

First, the mechanics of it. These kids are taught to memorize this text, stand up, place their hand on their heart, and recite it together. Strikes me as ritualistic.

Second, they have no idea what they are saying. They get a kick out of saying it, but do not know what it means.

Third, is it the right message to teach our kids to pledge allegiance to anything? What if that thing turns so bad that you must take action. When one gets married they are doing the same. But we all now that if your wife turns on you in a big way, you probably will take necessary action, rather than no action because of your pledge, oath, vows, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I love the USA. I just think that having our kids take part in this ritual, for which they do not know what they are pledging, strikes me as indoctrinating. We are teaching them to say something without having them think about what it means. It's just presented as an absolute truth. Isn't this the definition of indoctrination?

Well sure it is, but we like that particular bit of indoctrination, in general. Your points do have merit.

JAllen is right. It is, to some degree, all about whether you like that particular bit of brain-washing.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
As a parent with a son in Kindergarten, this has been on my mind lately. Not in a bad way necessarily - he goes to a private school, he is doing great, his teacher is great etc. We are confident in this school going forward.

That said, one thing they do every day does strike me as somewhat 'indoctrinating'. . now don't shoot me for this. . hear me out.

The Pledge of Allegiance.

First, the mechanics of it. These kids are taught to memorize this text, stand up, place their hand on their heart, and recite it together. Strikes me as ritualistic.

Second, they have no idea what they are saying. They get a kick out of saying it, but do not know what it means.

Third, is it the right message to teach our kids to pledge allegiance to anything? What if that thing turns so bad that you must take action. When one gets married they are doing the same. But we all now that if your wife turns on you in a big way, you probably will take necessary action, rather than no action because of your pledge, oath, vows, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I love the USA. I just think that having our kids take part in this ritual, for which they do not know what they are pledging, strikes me as indoctrinating. We are teaching them to say something without having them think about what it means. It's just presented as an absolute truth. Isn't this the definition of indoctrination?

Well sure it is, but we like that particular bit of indoctrination, in general. Your points do have merit.

JAllen is right. It is, to some degree, all about whether you like that particular bit of brain-washing.

I don't disagree. I guess my point is that I do not like the idea of my kid being forced into a symbolic ritual at school. I'd rather they teach the point in a more meaningful way.

For a Kindergartner, that would be that our country is great because we care about each other, respect people who may be different than we are, and have the freedom to be who we are, think our thoughts, and say our ideas.

If I may continue the drift. The pledge.

One makes a pledge when of clear mind and without duress, and the pot/hooe is that when under durres, the oath or pledge will "stay" one, rather than them abanodonig or turning away out of fear, emotional or irrational thought.

And marriage vow is a good example of such a pledge/oath, and many a good "ship" called marriage as weathered a storm, tethered to the oath.

Likewise the Pledge to the Flag.

Neither should cause anyone to stay the course of detrimental cinsequnce, and in fact, should cause one to pay attention and act with good thought on an action serious enough to cause to consider "leaving" the institution of the oath/pledge.

And that comes from "good and proper " indoctrination.

I taught at an adult Ed center for 9.5 yrs.
We ran many of the lecture part of the classes in high school classrooms.
I ran into many assignments left on the Chalk/white boards that were left when I got to the room.
One specific one that got me was the one assignment where the students were supposed to write an essay of the evils of guns in society.
There was no way to take the other side of the issue. I left a couple papers on the facts about the Nazis outlawing guns and about all through history where tyrants have first outlawed guns before they unleashed their lunacy on the people.