To think the idea that education is state brainwashing is BS

[Echobelly]

It’s a bit of a bugbear of mine that some people insist that schools serve a function of keeping young people docile and unquestioning. I mean, I was educated a while ago now, but at a state school, and the absolute #1 thing I remember from history was being taught always to question the bias of your sources. Hardly the actions of system dedicated to preventing children from questioning authority. I’m pretty sure kids these days are not being taught ‘Yay! The British Empire was Great’ or ‘The government is fantastic, questioning it is disloyal’, by those notorious right-wingers, teachers.

With DD starting secondary next term, I’d be interested to know if anyone does feel from their own child’s current experience, that schools are somehow attempting to beat them down into dumb subservience? As most of the people I hear espousing the view don’t seem to be those with kids in schools currently.

I guess people also go ‘Oh, but it’s all this “obedience” and following “rules”’ which I think is also kind of bullshit because people actually are intelligent enough to see the difference between rules needed to get along with things like learning, and things in the world that are profound injustices. You can follow the school rules all your educational life and still go on to protest against government abuses of human rights or whatever – it doesn’t mean you get conditioned to accept everything you’re told to think or do.

Don’t get me wrong, too many young people are ill-served by underfunded schools, but lack of critical thinking is probably more to do with distracting media and the rampant self-interest it promotes then schools being some wicked hand of The State.

Has no one asked the serious question of was going to university worth it.

I pleaded with my children not to go to university as neither were interested in academic subjects but they Insisted on going as most of their friends were going.
The strong argument they gave was that a lot of jobs nowadays are only open to graduates.
They enjoyed themselves at university but it’s an expensive way of enjoying oneself.
Neither of them have needed their degrees for the jobs they are now doing.

Standard parenting doesn't seem to be churning out the most stable and resilient little darlings, is it?

I don't know about that, Eliza . My two have both had pretty standard parenting for the most part - two married parents, ordinary state schools. OK, so we've always had a lot of what they call cultural capital - we are a reading household, we like museums, parks, forests and art galleries as much as we do theme parks, shopping and the beach. We talk about life, the universe and everything.

And somehow my DDs have survived three major bereavements in three years including the loss of their father after the breakdown of our marriage. They enjoy school and do well, they have active social lives, they are happy. Not resilient? Come off it, dear.

Interesting spread of views here. I don’t really think schools can destroy individuality – a teenager is far more likely to have their individuality squashed by peer pressure not to be ‘weird’ and to like the same things as everyone else than by wearing a uniform or being told not to talk in the corridors IMO. Kids will either be politically engaged or not and I think that comes more from home and social media than it does from school.

DD is finishing primary school and I don't think it's been at all joyless, though it has the benefit of having an affluent intake with what you might call 'pushy' parents, so it's never had to worry about results and doesn't make a big deal about tests. But I have also had associations with much more challenged primary schools that also keep the joyous side wonderfully well despite their difficult circumstances.

Re: uni - no, I'm not going to insist the kids go (which would horrify my MIL!) I don't think people have as much to 'prove' about their status anymore by going to university and it does increasingly look like a way to get into debt and still have to take a postgrad and work free for years to even get a foothold in a lot of areas. We are very fortunate in that my late grandfather has left enough money to ensure that uni fees could be entirely or largely covered, but honestly if my kids would rather use that money to start a business or buy a house or something constructive, I'd be up for that.

Let's be completely honest and call a spade a shovel. The primary purpose of public schooling, specifically, is to provide a holding pen for children while their parents are at work. Truly. That was the original purpose of education - to get children off the streets while their parents were working.

I cannot speak to the UK system specifically, but I know that where I live, a major criticism I have is that the system is geared towards the lowest common denominator. If you have children that have SEN, there is support for them. It's not always fantastic, and unfortunately there are children who fall through the cracks as their needs are too complex to be met in a "normal" classroom, but not severe enough to be provided with additional services, but IME many schools do not have the capability to teach children who are exceptionally bright. Now, admittedly that may be due to the fact that my educational experiences have primarily been in rural areas. 300 students in the entire school (K-6) is pretty standard. I do know that my uncle, who was a violin teacher, had students in urban "gifted" programs and he found that these children were so overwhelmed with work that they didn't have time to really complete anything.

My parents homeschooled me from Grade 4-8 and then I attended an online program after that. I still was able to be at home. I think I did a lot better that way than I would likely have done in a traditional school environment.

Schools are very much feeders for a capitalist system. Of course they are. They don't encourage as much critical thinking as you may imagine. In Scotland non-denominational schools are actually Church of Scotland schools and any child who wants to opt out also is forced to opt out of cultural celebrations. If you don't want your child to attend the Christmas church service your child will not be allowed to participate in the Christmas concert or party.

And if you think that the government doesnt push it's own agenda in schools why do we have schools pushing the notion that people can actually change sex? Schools.... Places of learning, reason and science....?

Schools are very much feeders for a capitalist system. Of course they are. They don't encourage as much critical thinking as you may imagine
I guess I better bin my lessons from the last few years. There's been loads of debate and criticism of a range of views. There's been loads of evaluating how and why writers present particular ideologies. We've even unlocked why more left leaning themes tend to dominate in certain types of literature. The GCSE poetry anthology has a whole section unpicking the nature of power, the use and misuse of power etc. The students gain marks for criticality and perceptive thought.
In PSHE issues are regularly debated, they study world affairs, politics, contemporary issues.

It's really not that difficult to promote criticality in schools. There's opportunities everywhere.

..... And yet if a child questions while she is supposed to now share a changing room with someone with a penis she is excluded.

Why not while

Herland that might be your experience but it’s simply not true to say state schools in Scotland are C of S schools. I assume you only have experience of primaries for a start, which can appear more religious in terms of a Xmas or Easter church visit.

You do know that the curriculum changes each year
No really? sarcastic
The curriculum may change but it's still taught with the bias of white, colonial privilege.

The actual brutality of British colonialism and it's entitled attitude/beliefs are still whitewashed.
It's still taught from the perception that white Christians 'saved' the coloured people and taught them how to be 'civilised' and gave them education and industry.
It doesn't teach the truth about how colonialists plundered the wealth of these nations, their resources and changed their entire systems.
It doesn't teach the lasting effects this has had on those countries and their people.
It doesn't teach that institutionalized racism still exists in all spheres of british life.

It doesn't teach you about the covert racism and prejudice that still exists.
It doesn't teach of the concentration camps the British army ran during the Boer War, the Bengal famine of 1943 or the massacres of Kenyans in the 1950s.
The British curriculum doesn't teach that Britain invited Iraqi leaders for negotiations, only to kidnap and imprison them, that it sent planes to bomb civilians when they refused to pay taxes or that it burned and destroyed villages and towns to quash revolts.
No textbook or tutor ever mentioned that Winston Churchill, so deeply venerated as a hero and a brilliant statesman, openly endorsed a chemical attack on Iraqi civilians when they demanded independence from Britain. It doesn't teach that this same man also believed in racial hierarchies and eugenics.
Instead he's lauded as a 'great man and politician'.

In 2010 when the British government decided to overhaul the curriculum, then-education secretary, Michael Gove, decided to invite an apologist of empire, historian Niall Ferguson, to help. As a result, British textbooks still whitewash the British Empire and fail to address the foundations of white supremacy on which colonialism was built and the lasting impact of imperial policies on colonised peoples.
Its legacy continues to disadvantage former colonies, where artificial borders, the unequal distribution of resources, or their exhaustion have led to conflict, impoverishment and underdevelopment.
The perception is still that 'we' are the saviours, with all our charities and the money we give to 'help/solve their issues'.

Our education system should educate children about the economic, political and social advantages they enjoy today as a result of the colonial extraction and plunder their country engaged in during the colonial era.

We make such a big deal out of the Women's Suffrage movement and it's still majority white/christian focused....as though coloured/non christians played no role!
what about Una Marson, a black feminist fighting racism in Britain in the 1940s?
Or Cherry Groce, who was shot and paralysed by police in the Brixton riots in 1985?
Or William Cuffay, who fought for universal suffrage until he was deported to Tasmania by Queen Victoria?
What about Olive Morris, a key figure of Brixton’s Black Panther movement and prominent civil rights activist?
There is clear evidence that shows BAME people were very active within the movement.....Princess Sophia Duleep Singh — an active member of the WSPU — was pictured selling “The Suffragette” newspaper outside Hampton Court in April 1913.
Another shows P.L. Roy, the wife of the director of public prosecutions in Kolkata, and her daughter Leila Mukerjea, who are believed to have been members of the WFL.
Another prominent woman of colour, who was one of the leading voices early in the campaign, was Sarah Parker Remond. She was an African-American who lectured on anti-slavery and women’s rights, and was also a campaigner against slavery in both the US and the UK.
Yet the mainstream 'education' on these topics still focuses mainly on white people - and the perception that yet again white people are the 'saviors' and we should all be grateful for it.

The current curriculum supports an ideology that doesn’t acknowledge many of the flaws in UK history.
It whitewashes the discrimination and bloodshed in our past, is it any bloody wonder that parts of our society are racist, misogynistic and prejudiced?
It’s not enough to discuss these issues just in Black History Month or any other 'allocated' time/space.
It should be taught clearly and overtly, instead of ignoring the reality of racism that minorities have to endure all year round.
Students need to be taught to critically analyse these events and empathise with people across cultures in a diverse but interconnected world.

The first part of your post is bollocks.
Also, there is no such thing as a “British” curriculum followed throughout the UK.
There is more schools can do, but as a pp said teachers are hardly known for their right wing outlooks.

Think about it. What else does the government give us for free. Nothing. Its about learning to Labour and dumbing down original thinking to confirm to the needs for compliant workers for the economy. Its not concerned with a child's happiness but their future potential to generate GDP...

I'll be a contradictory voice :). As a one time teacher in a state secondary, I'd like to say schools certainly channel, encourage and aim to 'produce' young adults that conform to certain behaviours (whether that counts as brainwashing, I'll leave you to decide). I became convinced of this once I entered the education system of a different country.

In the UK, what is favoured is jumping through hoops, not for any intrinsic value but for showing the will and determination to finish a task. This is couched in terms of 'achievement'. Advancement to higher education is virtually a given, as each child that goes 'onwards and upwards' reflects well on the school. There is an ever-present but oh-so-subtle British exceptionalism across the curriculum. But the worst thing of all in our industrial-scale education sector is the power relations and unhealthy pattern of behaviour children learn. There is a certain violence about teachers exerting their will over those more vulnerable. I've seen too many overbearing, borderline sadistic male teachers, or many more that use humiliation though humour (very British). I do have some sympathy with the teachers - they have to process so many students, it becomes difficult to behave well in an essentially dysfunctional system.

The 'goal' is to have young adults that can do a 9-5 office job they may find boring but find the grit to do it day-in, day-out. Sorry to sound so insufferably negative, bitter, or worst of all, a paleo-hippy. I have sympathy for the growing number of families opting out.

*conform

You've put it very well bloo. I appreciate these thoughts.

I think the government would like them to be brainwashers but they’re not.

^although most people are largely conformist of course

Herland that might be your experience but it’s simply not true to say state schools in Scotland are C of S schools. I assume you only have experience of primaries for a start, which can appear more religious in terms of a Xmas or Easter church visit.

Yes mostly primaries. Not just in terms of the occasional church visit but entrenched in the whole school ethos and curriculum. For example, religious education at my childs school consisted of 8 sessions of Christian teachings and 2 sessions of "other faiths". They have assembly every Monday, where hymns are sung. It is an ordinary, state primary school.

As a secondary English teacher I am required to teach critical thinking, to encourage independence, opinions, ideas, creativity and problem-solving. We run debates, explore issues, study historical and contemporary context, relationships, politics, other cultures. Of course we also deal with the basics of written and verbal communication, reading and understanding. We teach how to identify bias and read between the lines, how to support an argument with evidence.

We don't always have a huge amount of control over the set texts we study, however they will always be high-quality, acclaimed works with universal themes. However it's the skills that are most important, not the texts themselves.

Frankly, if this isn't the basis of a well-rounded education then I don't know what is. It's as far removed from brain-washing as it could be.

When I was at primary school (different to children's, also non-denom) we had to say the Lord prayer every day and listened to Christian radio broadcasts. I was shocked such practices still exist but they do. So yes... There absolutely is an element of indoctrination and discouragement of critical thinking.

@LittleAndOften and other teachers. My opinions are genuinely not an attack on teachers who I think have a very difficult job. But I'd like to ask that while you are teaching critical, independent thinking, do you see inconsistencies with how schools are run?

@Herland of course because schools are not cardboard cutout factories, they are unique communities who are shaped by their members, their history and culture. Faith schools, private schools, academies and selective schools have ideologies that underpin the way they operate, but ultimately they all end up following the same exams which assess the same skills.

Every school I have worked at has done things slightly differently in terms of systems, but of course there are huge correlations between schools because of the requirements of the curriculum and exam syllabi, and because of shared best practice with behaviour management, teaching pedagogy, the latest info about SEN, specialist forums etc.

Anyway. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is assessed at GCSE, so you can't get away with NOT teaching independent thinking! The hardest part of that is supporting the weaker students to develop opinions and formulate ideas - they would much rather be spoon-fed!

But I'd like to ask that while you are teaching critical, independent thinking, do you see inconsistencies with how schools are run?
In what sense? Schools like any organisation have systems and rules to run effectively.

Every school I have worked at has done things slightly differently in terms of systems, but of course there are huge correlations between schools because of the requirements of the curriculum and exam syllabi, and because of shared best practice with behaviour management, teaching pedagogy, the latest info about SEN, specialist forums etc.

Anyway. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is assessed at GCSE, so you can't get away with NOT teaching independent thinking! The hardest part of that is supporting the weaker students to develop opinions and formulate ideas - they would much rather be spoon-fed!

I agree with you. It's not only weaker students. Some middle and able students are all too up for trying to find an easy route to the grade they want and think we have some golden ticket that they can metaphorically cash in in the exam.

How much as a teacher are you expected to not question those ideologies? And do you find it personally challenging to be teaching critical thinking whilst also encouraging conformity?

How much as a teacher are you expected to not question those ideologies? And do you find it personally challenging to be teaching critical thinking whilst also encouraging conformity?

Depends what you mean by conformity. E.g. I've heard people bleat on abiut how unfair uniform rules are because they eradicate personality and that's far from the case (personally I can take or leave uniforms but whatever decision is made has to be implemented consistently). Or do you mean conformity in terms of learning because I don't teach conformity in terms of content? Learning?

We are absolutely able to critique ideologies. We discuss and debate what's in the curriculum (non LA schools set their own curriculum). We discuss and debate teaching methods and government policies. School leaders look at what we have to do in terms of statutory things and decide how to implement it in a way that works for our areas or context.

Every organisation and sector has it's rules and guidelines.