The Limits of "Indoctrination" Talk

"Those who approve of that part of the curriculum defend it by arguing that it is, in fact, not indoctrinating students. In most cases, the debate reaches a stalemate, with both sides convinced that the other party is ideologically motivated and untrustworthy. At this point, those with the power to decide what "indoctrination" amounts to-be it school, district, state officials, or, in a few cases, even the Supreme Court-issue a verdict and enforce compliance."

"They are merely pointing to educational content that they personally find disagreeable, distasteful, or ideologically unappealing. Indoctrination is a real phenomenon, but our political conflicts have hindered our ability to identify and criticize it. Here is one potential solution: come up with principled (objective, neutral, unbiased, etc.) criteria to distinguish indoctrination from education. Apply the criteria to determine whether accusations of indoctrination are well-founded or merely partisan finger-pointing. This is what most philosophers wading into these debates have attempted to do."

Contemporary education debates frequently center on accusations of indoctrination when opponents label disagreeable concepts or materials as indoctrinating students. Supporters counter that such curricular elements do not indoctrinate, producing stalemates and distrust, sometimes resolved by authorities issuing binding verdicts. Some responses argue that accusations reflect personal distaste rather than genuine indoctrination. One proposed solution is to adopt principled, neutral criteria distinguishing indoctrination from education. Proceduralist criteria focus on whether material circumvents students' rational capacities or prevents later critical reflection, and whether indoctrination should be assessed via teachers' intentions and methods or via observable results.

Read at Apaonline