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.

Oliversmumsarmy
Many workplaces have dress codes. The 'but wearing X doesn't affect the brain/learning' is a daft argument in my opinion. I could be a great teacher in a pair of leather chaps and corset. Of course I wouldn't wear that to work.
I'm not allowed facial piercings or visible tattoos in my role. A previous job allowed them. Another previous job didn't. That's life. There's a basic maturity in understanding places have rules and sometimes you don't agree with them all.

Students attending school under the impression that rules are a pick n mix of what they feel like following does hinder teaching and learning because it makes every rule optional. Teacher wants silence to explain, but X just wants to whisper... School say no mobile phones, but Y just wants to text their mam in the middle of French.

Though to be honest it's an attitude thing. I've taught in a non uniform school and students had a dress code. Students followed it brilliantly because the ethos was education matters, you're there to learn and everyone (including staff) follows the dress code.

What you have to realise is that the sorts of parents who back their child wearing leggings as trousers, dye their child's hair against the rules and bleat on about uniform are often the people who would be fundamentally incapable of following a dress code because the issue isn't with disagreeing with an individual rule (I think everyone probably disagrees with some rule in their workplace). It's either total disregard for education because they have a chip on their shoulder from their own school days or thinking that them backing their child to school on any issue makes them the cool parent.

A uniform though isn’t a dress code

My child hasn't been at school this year because he has special needs. The thing that i found interesting is the LA has to legally provide an alternative provision that equates to a FT education. This is widely accepted to be 5 hours of 1:1 tuition (the LA hasn't provided that, and I haven't the energy for a judicial review to force it)

Its made me see how much of school is about conforming so that education can be provided to as many people as possible as cheaply as possible. lots of the rules are about conforming and crowd control and I know teachers set and differentiate but there is conformity in what its taught and when and i think it can stop natural curiosity .

I haven't attempted home-schooling, my child just has no education at all, but I have watched him learn stuff by watching you-tube, then carrying out an experiment, then reading a book, then asking people around him about it, then asking to visit a relevant museum and him asking great questions to the staff.

i still want the LA to find him a school but this is for social learning, therapies and maths basically!

Uniform is a great leveller. It means that no matter what their economic circumstances, every student can feel equal. Uniform can be subsidised or passed on second hand - many families could not afford the number of outfits they'd need in a week without uniform, and therefore it can help prevent bullying. Uniform helps students learn the power of being well-presented and the difference looking smart can make. They can feel pride in their appearance.

Uniform can also bring about a sense of shared identity and community. I love going on school trips when students are in uniform and seeing how close and united they become when they see other schools!

If you really want to get down to it, the restrictions of uniform can mean that students are MORE expressive out of school as they have a greater appreciation for the freedom. The contrast in itself teaches a life lesson, and its useful, not damaging. They're only at school for a short time, so we teach them what we can to help them survive in the world - they have their whole adult lives to rebel and explore their identity.

If anyone is interested, I'd recommend reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. Specifically his banking education theory. It was transformative for me. Schooling is, inherently, a political act. The curriculum is at the whim of whomever is in power at any given time as are budgets and strategic frameworks. Critical thinking is kept to a minimum i.e. it must be correct for an adult has told me so...

There might be tokenistic questions for children about the sources for their own arguments but the godly adults need no such thing.

Preparation for exams is not education and should not be marketed as such.

@little

If you really want to get down to it, the restrictions of uniform can mean that students are MORE expressive out of school as they have a greater appreciation for the freedom.

So temporary oppression is a good thing because we appreciate the little moments of tokenistic freedom all the more?

And the uniform is no leveller when items such as branded blazers become compulsory in order to reinforce this fallacy notion of shared identity and said items cost £100 plus. Again, it tells the have-nots they are unwelcome in such a space and they should stay in their own lanes.

I'm in France where only very few private elite schools have uniform. The attitude of parents I speak to is that uniform is elitist and being able to wear ordinary clothes favours the poorer students. Just turns things on its head, doesn't it.

@LolaSmiles Fri 31-May-19 10:30:26
You just explained your way to the answer. Having rules for uniform and then enforcing them does NOT bring about better behaviour. In fact, many studies show punishment is a very poor way of instilling changes of behaviour. What it DOES instil is a sense of the power play between human beings - respect, punishment, authority. In the school where the students were valued but the dress code was relaxed their respectful behaviour was simply a mirror of the way the students were being treated - with trust, kindness, and respect.

Justifying the power systems in school by saying it can't be done another way is a poor excuse. If our industrial-scale schools are not working, they need to be redesigned.

It's an interesting read, but I'm still not convinced it's possible yo make sweeping statements on schooling being oppressive and controlling and crushing original thought.
Let's give schools and teachers some credit. We see government policies come and go, we see ofsted changes come and go, we see exam specifications come and go, we see curriculum documents and strategies come and go. With each one staff takewhat is good and do enough to tick the statutory boxes on the others.

Or are we going to suggest that teachers' personal view change with the wind and thousands of educated professionals kowtow to the latest education minister's gospel?

Do politicians have agendas? Of course. Have they got mind control over thousands of professionals who spend a reasonable amount of time disagreeing with politicians? Not a chance.

@lola

I don't think it's possible to make sweeping general statements about schools and teachers either. I have worked with many who shouldn't be in the profession but remain there because of the perks.

Prepared to be vilified for this but I also don't buy into the hero worshipping of teachers and think they are much better off than many. I also say that while having a career split between education for children with severe and complex needs as well as residential care for homeless young people. I've dealt with my fair share of challenging behaviour.

Lola, I'm sorry you have had the problems you've had. I've heard worse too. It's a horrible system, and as I teacher on the inside, I'm sure it can feel like there is no alternative. I absolutely would not endorse no rules or children behaving how they liked. Never ever. But if the school system was geared up around values and respect - ultimately around healthy human relationships, then many, many things would be different. It's a sorry sight to see poorly behaved students with equally poorly behaved parents. Where will they learn the basic rules of mutual respect?

Actually the industrial scale education system where schools operate like factories processing the next generation fails everyone. The kids, yes, but the teachers too. Teacher aren't leaving in droves because of the pay and workload. It is the daily cortisol-inducing grind. And by god I know far too many poor and incompetent classroom teachers float to the top, thoroughly ensuring the replication of the current cycles of bad relationships.

BlooDeBloop
I think that's the point.

When you have a school promoting basic human values of respect, tolerance, the need to respect everyone's right to an education and you still have a sizable number of students and parents who feel that doesn't apply to them then there comes a choice for the school. As long as School A carried on with it's well-meaning approach, countless children were being failed. More children didn't get GCSEs than did. Children who wanted to learn (the majority) couldn't learn. Good teachers couldn't teach because they'd have 5 untouchables in their class who held court and SLT had to spend their time increasingly in meetings with parents arguing their child was excluded for 'only asking a question'.

There are some poor teachers. There are some poor leaders. I agree that some less than stellar individuals get higher than they probably should.

But I can't get on board with the rhetoric that rules and sanctions and uniforms are some sort of boogieman that ruins creative thinking, is inhernetly oppressive etc. That staff are somehow robots who change opinions based on the governmental view of the day etc.

I absolutely adore my students and want them to do well but we have clear rules. I talk openly about two types of respect: first is basic human respect so manners apply to everyone, if a peer gives an answer you listen, if the teacher is talking you listen, the second comes with relationships over time so you end up really rating a teacher for their pastoral care or subject knowledge or the banter you can have etc. Schools have to have a clear line on the first type to function. That can be difficult though for a range for reasons, for example I've had to teach some year 7 students how to disagree politely because nobody has shown them at home how to do that (people tell and resort to insults). But that line has to be there.

@whatwouldbigfatfannydo you call a child's entire life outside school "little moments of tokenistic freedom". Really? Given that socio-economic factors outside statistically have the biggest impact on a child's development, and that statistically children will learn no matter what school or teacher they have, your argument just doesn't stand up.

As for exams, you seem to think they operate outside the normal parameters of education. How many exam syllabi have you read? They are required by the government to be provide well-rounded programmes of education. English teaching follows the same skill-set and range of activities whether it's an exam year or not.

I fully understand that you don't like the state education system, and I'm not interested in changing your opinion. However your arguments above are misinformed.

@little

You have misunderstood. The concept of 'freedom' is indeed tokenistic. We only have freedom when someone with power deems it appropriate, thus, people are manipulated into thinking they have any power over themselves. This is especially true in the case of children. What choices can they really make for themselves? When given a choice, how often is this genuine and not a token, placating gesture such as 'golden time' or the like? Children are at the whim of the adults. In school, their experience happens through the teachers narrative and at home it relies on their guardians (and I say that on purpose as many children are no longer in the care of their own parents for a multitude of reasons).

If that was truly the case, there would be no market for the private sector, alternative programmes like Montessori, or the academy system. Nor would there be such a focus on competency and fitness to practice in the teacher training and recruiment process as children apparently learn regardless. Some teachers would have no pedestals for themselves if that were true.

As far as exam syllabi go, the current state of the government doesn't give me much faith in the standards of their requirements for anything frankly. Again, a clear example of adults thinking they know what's best when their own narrative is so far removed from the child's that there is nothing but dissonance and enforced ideals i.e. the oppression that I first mentioned.

As I said, given that my career has spanned the criminal justice sector, youth homelessness and complex SEN education, I am well aware of factors which affect development, opportunities, attainment and life outcomes of children, young people and adults. Given that I am qualified in education and have studied at masters level (as well as having significant personal and professional experience), I am by no means misinformed. You fully understand nothing about me. Although your attempt to discredit my argument and appear superior says much more about you than I.

Lola, showing children how to politely disagree is great. Our local school has a regular grievance circle which is also fantastic. Instances of good practice doesn't mean that much of the system is rotten. I worked in a 2000+ pupil secondary school. Relationships were not respected on so many levels. I think this is common. Doesn't mean there were many good people working there - there were. The system does not promote healthy relationships. Where relationships are poor, children don't have secure attachments, their peers are prone to violence, and children don't learn.

I too have been in classes with disruptive kids ruin the education of others. Our natural instincts is to intervene to re-establish order. Where our tools are punishments solely instead of insight, I believe we are making big mistakes. For example, my child is an introvert and follows rules with great zest. In a class based on a bullying kind of respect-punishment system (his current teacher), she sinks massively. It makes her very depressed. It's often the way isn't it - the good kids who need very little rules follow the rules to the letter, the disruptive kids who need more direction don't follow the rules. 'Discipline' can be like punishment for the good kids. I have great sympathy for you - I've been out of schools for over 10 years and wouldn't go back in.

bloo
I know what you mean.
There's a school near me that sounds similar to the one you describe. For me, there has to be a link between discipline and relationships. One can have discipline whilst being kind and caring. If anything, I have the somewhat controversial opinion that being strict can be a sign of kindness and compassion when you want the children to thrive (It's easy for the matey teachers to have banter and inconsistent standards, but it's not best for the childreb long term).

Discipline depends how it's done. One of the funniest things a student said to me when I was on about being a strict teacher is 'you're not strict: you're nice'. It was funny because they seem to have equated strict and discipline with cold or unkind. We chatted and I explained that being strict and kind aren't mutually exclusive.

Personally, there's no room for being unpleasant and rude (though I know some staff do go down that route) because it's perfectly possible to have a classroom that is positive and children feel respected. Alas, I think the likes of me will never make it into senior leadership because some leaders like to adopt the either/or approach on such matters.

Yes x100 Lola. You are in the minority. It is hard to maintain positive outlook under the perpetual grind of modern schools. I did not cope well. Now as a parent, I see boundaries of fundamental importance. In fact, that is the source of healthy relationships, the basis of trust, and of course, mutual respect. Too often, teachers are too stressed / don't have time / think they need to act the powerful-controller / have been mis-trained. They turn to the heavy guns and a disruptive kid is just that - an annoying element to be punished or excluded. Often the worst behaved kids are sources of information. They are telling us - in our faces - that things are wrong. Perhaps with their home, the school, their friendships, but something is not working for them. One of the saddest things I remember from my teaching days was a highly traumatised and abused girl who would not/could not integrate into normal lessons. Didn't stop the school trying though. FGS they ought to have given her a break and realised other things were more important in her life, like keeping her self together. UK schooling needs a revolution.

Whether someone is brainwashed or educated is a matter of perspective.

Of course school teach children certain values that parents may or may not disagree with. The parents in Birmingham consider LGBT lessons brainwashing.

Really, there isn't such thing as an objective upbringing. Kids will always be a product of their environment.

I don't think critical thinking can be taught easily.

There is no point pretending kids are accomplished historians analysing sources directly. They are be taught the history and there view will obviously be shaped by the narrative their syllabus presents. It is worth pointing out to them that just because someone wrote doesn't make it true but that is about as far as you can go.

Uniform is a great leveller. It means that no matter what their economic circumstances, every student can feel equal. Uniform can be subsidised or passed on second hand

You obviously either don’t have children at a state senior school or your school is in the minority that keeps cost down.

Dd went to a specialised private school where sports equipment as well as the school uniform for the “education” bit of the week was needed. (Formal education only took up 1/2 the week).

There was a weekly 2nd hand shop. Discount if you donated the same item.
You could pick up certain items in the supermarket. Everything was done to save parents money.
I did the lot for just over £100.

State secondary Ds went to had no 2nd hand shop.
The response was one of horror when I asked about it.
You couldn’t hand down the uniform as it changed regularly.
Polo shirt was £25 and friend who bought an over sized one for her Ds ended up changing it 3x when the design changed.
So £75 just on polo shirts.

Cost of the initial uniform was well over £300.

Yes the uniform was a great leveller it showed up who’s parents couldn’t afford the uniform and who’s parents could.

Ds wears work trousers and a t.shirt and safety boots when working.
His hair is down his back and he sticks it in a pony tail when he needs to

Dd either wears a black dress and heels or jeans and a t.shirt, sometimes just a swim suit or jeans, work boots and a hard hat depending what she is doing.

None of these dress codes say it should be a certain dress from a certain shop or certain brand and style of shoes that are from a certain store.

I live the fact they don’t wear a uniform any more.

The nights before a school day was just stressful making sure that everything was cleaned and ironed and out for them.

As a teacher of History I always give my students the phrase, “History is written by the victors” and ask them to explain it to me and then apply this understanding to different wars and conflicts. We get some wonderful discussions from this.

I do teach In an indie so maybe I have more freedom to get pupils to think critically but I would hope that all teachers of secondary age students have the opportunity to encourage their students to challenge and not just accept what is seen at that point in time as ‘truth’.

@wine

I don't think critical thinking can be taught easily.

It's not easy but in my experience, the start of it is ensuring that children know that their opinion is valued. Why would they bother with any deeper analysis, or drawing their own conclusions if they believe that no one cares what those conclusions are?

Sadly the curriculum seems to leave no room for this. Questioning the accuracy of words spoken by the authority is just not the done thing in primary. Sparse opportunites may be present in secondary but this seems to depend on the individual teachers. We tell children they should be seen and not heard then wonder why they struggle in further/higher education. The snowflake generation are branded ambitionless and work-shy. I've found this to be utterly false as a whole but there are obviously individuals to which the terms apply. Often they have been brought up being told they don't matter. It's really no wonder.

I think there is a lot of brainwashing at school - the rise of cultural marxism I believe it is called. In London, at my son's school, it was relentless lectures on racism (or wacism as his peers called it, it all became so OTT) or towards the end L&G rights, whatever that means (since its now all legal). The GCSE curriculum is highly politicised in many subjects : English ("protest poems") and history ("migration"). There is definitely a Guardian/BBC political agenda.

Children need their innocence to allow their goodness to grow. This is especially true in the case of sex. I read in a book this morning:-

"A time of innocence is surely a prerequisite for the total experience, i young adulthood, of the ecstacy of erotic love" (Wheels within Wheels by Dervla Murphy). She was lamenting the loss of reticence and reverence when it comes to sex, that it is not a subject to be trivialised as "the facts of life", which is the way it is often taught in schools.

Children only spend around a quarter of their waking hours in school, spread across the whole year. That leaves the other three quarters to family, friends, community activities, television, the internet, etc. I honestly don't think it would be possible to "turn children into robots" or 'indoctrinate' them in 25% of their time, especially given the generally bolshy nature of most teen friendship groups, and free access to alternative sources of information like the Internet.

I always wonder when people say this whether they think that they themselves could have been 'roboticised' into good little workers in such circumstances - or is it always 'other people' who are vulnerable to this?