School curriculum is inherently political
This text is part of: "I would never send my kids to school" by Piotr Wozniak (2017)
Political curriculum
The prevalent model of an ideal industrial nation state includes a system of education that is based on compulsory curriculum. Compulsory curriculum is a violation of human rights, and a violation of the freedom of education. The power of the curriculum to influence the minds is often mentioned in efforts to enact a ban on homeschooling. See: Compulsory schooling must end
Programming minds
Duplication of great minds
A few years ago, when I wrote that "politicians battle hard for the influence over young brains" (in this text: "Learning history"), someone called me a "populist" who supposedly contrasts his good cause with "bad politicians". This indicates that some people in this world do not see that the curriculum is a subject of never-ending ideological battles around the planet. Stalin observed correctly: "Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed". Hitler demanded compulsory education that would make each young boy or girl "conscious of his race and a member of the folk-community (Volksgemeinschaft)". Finally, Lenin noticed: "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted".
It is true that early learning makes a strong imprint on the entire spectrum of a person's knowledge. This fact can be derived from the neurostatistical model of memory, in particular, the two component model of memory stability. Things we learn in childhood can often become literally etched in the brain architecture by shaping neural maps that route information in the cortex. However, Lenin was wrong on at least two counts:
- early learning can be unlearned (even though in can be hard indeed)
- four years of teaching is a very weak indoctrination tool
Whatever made some sense in the 1920s, does not work at all in the modern world. In today's society, kids know everything from the web, and if their access is limited (e.g. by authoritarian parents), they know everything from friends who know everything from the web.
Communication vs. indoctrination
All healthy people attempt to influence the minds of others. This is the purpose of communication. I try to influence your mind with this text too. Advanced English has a great deal of pictures of Tesla and not a single one of Volkswagen. The curriculum is an indoctrination tool as well. After all it has its origins in catechism, which means it is no less than two millennia old.
Most of all, compulsory curriculum is a violation of human rights. My words in this text are an expression of free speech that may convince nobody. Coercive indoctrination by means of the curriculum in compulsory schooling is nothing else than a form of intellectual slavery. Even simple facts of science should not be hammered in coercively. It is not just they do not work. Homogenization of knowledge is harmful. Today we may learn about the heliocentric system, but the compulsory curriculum of 500 years ago would certainly include the Ptolemaic model. In the same vein, we may be locking young minds into the inertia of non-exploration that undermines collective intelligence and may one day spell doom for mankind.
My own indoctrination
Indoctrination pendulum
I devoted a whole chapter to "indoctrination via curriculum" in Ban on homeschooling. In there I show how religions thrive under fire and how religious indoctrination and the atheist curriculum work to fossilize their respective proponents into hermitically closed opposing camps. Fundamentalists thrive in conditions of repression, and fade in conditions of freedom.
The main idea is that all forms of ideological indoctrination tend to backfire in the long term. They simply activate natural resistance implemented in the exploratory learning algorithm in the brain (see: Education counteracts evolution). It is that resistance to indoctrination that underlies the forces of ideological pendulum, and, on a larger scale, the pendulum of history.
These are all natural oscillation that occur in the cultural battle of the memes. There is some value to those oscillations, and there are teaching moments in those extreme contrasts. For example, we learned a lot when Trump followed Obama (see: Mystery of Donald Trump's brain). We will also learn a lot when Trump is ousted by a liberal of possibly far left variety.
However, localized oscillations have the same value and result in less turmoil and social distress. Passions improve learning, but fierce battles may be inhibitory and distortive. This is why homogenization of knowledge via a common core curriculum is harmful. A healthy society is a diverse society in which communication between individuals is nearly always inspirational.
The historical law of creativity says that each oppressive force will meet an opposite and a greater creative force.
China
China is an interesting case study on the evolution of the curriculum. The country can boast of a tremendous cultural tradition built over five millennia. Education in China was nicely decentralized and relatively free until the communist changed this all on a dime. As of then, geopolitical forces and cultural revolutions produced waves of splintering indoctrination trends that keep evolving to this day. The stages of curricular reform are described in detail in this text by professors Yunhuo Cui and Zhu Yan. What follows is just a quick summary.
Mainland
In mainland China, we could see the transition from the Soviet model that de-emphasized humanities and social sciences, to the renaissance of 1958-1968 promoting "socialist and agrarian education", to Cultural Revolution of 1966, and to the decentralization of curriculum in 1985 with more emphasis on vocational education, and less room for creative arts.
Finally, in 1999, new reforms brought new fresh ideas such as learning how to learn, selective curriculum, focus on lifelong learning, semantic learning, and more. Perhaps the system will ultimately evolve towards my own prescription?
Chinese education is not free from adopting bad practices from the west (e.g. early preschool education). Otherwise, China is an intellectual powerhouse. The brains are strong and prolific, and there are pretty many of them. For me, it is a happy yardstick to know that SuperMemo is pretty popular in China. That makes me optimistic. I only hope that the political system won't ruin that massive potential with some authoritative prikaz.
Hong Kong
A typical life of a kid in Hong Kong is a sad illustration of what is wrong with modern education and upbringing.
PISA scores of Hong Kong teens are stellar. However, scoring high is a risk factor for mental health and not only. Learning is propped by cram schools, by kids who are often nurtured by "monster parents", with "stressless" and privileged upbringing that gave origin to the label: "Hong Kong kid".
On top of a stressful and busy life in Hong Kong, China's interference with its political system added one more factor: battle for the curriculum. The new curriculum called Moral and national education is clearly oriented towards communist and nationalist propaganda. It started a wave of protests, incl. those initiated by students themselves (see picture).
In 2017, Henry Kwok described the new curriculum in words that ring familiar in many places around the world:
The rationale is not pedagogical but patently political, i.e. to foster a blindingly patriotic, triumphalist sense of Chinese identity. Pupils and teachers need to identify themselves as Chinese and love their “motherland,” no matter what. […] It echoes Xi Jinping’s pathological desire to tighten control over all aspects of social life in China and wipe out dissidents […] By revitalising a curriculum with heavy prescriptions of political history, the government is turning on its head and actively pursuing an agenda of politicised education […] Children aren’t empty vessels to be filled with nationalistic myths and therefore identify themselves more as Chinese. It is time for the government to stop bullying our children with its pathetic fetish for mind control
Taiwan
In the meantime, it is no surprise that Taiwanese curriculum evolved differently, esp. in the interpretation of the history of China. In the 1950s, children would learn: "Save our mainland compatriots from the deepest water and hottest fire". Today, the new curriculum seeks to find a new balance in the era of globalization, but it cannot escape political squabbles:
The more a nation seeks to embody and to be represented by the cultural history of their nation, the more the international community will consider its culture “unique,” [...] Taiwanese students should develop more confidence about their feelings for their country. [...] If young people do not understand the greatness of their nation and the difficulty of its founding, it would be difficult for them to identify with the country and its history [..] If that were to happen, the Democratic Progressive Party would accomplish its political goal of desinicizing Taiwan entirely
USA
Thousands of articles about the curriculum problem in the US are just a Google click away (I recommend Alfie Kohn's blog site). It does not really matter who is right in that tug-of-war. In a diverse population there will be a diverse set of opinions. This is good. This is why a homogenous common core standard has to make everyone upset, esp. when it comes to topics such as evolution, climate change, civics, history, literature, religion, sexual education, and more.
Here is just a random juxtaposition of angry backlash against indoctrination.
A conservative voice (Michelle Malkin):
America’s downfall doesn’t begin with the “low-information voter.” It starts with the no-knowledge student. For decades, collectivist agitators in our schools have chipped away at academic excellence in the name of fairness, diversity and social justice. “Progressive” reformers denounced Western civilization requirements, the Founding Fathers and the Great Books as racist. They attacked traditional grammar classes as irrelevant in modern life. They deemed ability grouping of students (tracking) bad for self-esteem. They replaced time-tested rote techniques and standard algorithms with fuzzy math, inventive spelling and multicultural claptrap
A liberal voice:
Common Core is the ideological stepchild of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act: another high-stakes testing program imposed from Washington with big help from wealthy foundations and little help from teachers, parents and local communities. This is a set of standards that does not reflect the experience of many groups of students served by public education, does not reflect the concerns that many parents have for what they want to see in their education, and that really doubles down on a testing-and-punish regime that has proven to be the wrong approach to improving public education
Poland
Polish education reform of 2017 is a joke. It is a well-intended effort that resulted in monumental chaos compounded by nationwide teacher strikes. Naturally, the curriculum was the target of the reform as well. The opposition is united in its condemnation. The ruling Law and Justice party "changed the school curriculum to reflect and promote nationalistic and fundamentalist Catholic sentiments, which bought the support of the Church with hefty donations" (source). For more see: Polish education reform, and Polish nationalistic history curriculum.
I pay little attention to similar reforms. They change little at the core of the problem of schooling. However, in the context of knowledge diversity I should mention a pet peeve of mine. In a textbook intended for 7 year olds and named "Tropiciele" ("Pathfinders"), one of the chapters perpetuates the undying myth of the dangers of cold. In a short story, a child chooses to dress up lightly in winter. "Wise" granny tells the kid to dress up well. His well-dressed friends laugh at the kid (this is a threat of bullying to pass the erroneous indoctrination message). The story ends with a moral: the day after dressing "badly", the kid sneezes and coughs, and is penalized by missing a trip to the cinema with dad. In addition to promoting pseudoscience, the story got so many things wrong, I can only conclude it was written by someone born in the 1930s. Unfortunately, the list of "experts" includes more than a dozen of ladies that makes attributions hard. Fully blown symptoms showed up in 24 hours. In case of common cold, this could only happened in immunologically weakened individuals (e.g. due to sleep deprivation). The value of time with dad is dropping from generation to generation. Too many parents delegate parenting to schools, and the best connections kids usually have is with their peers. Last but not least, not many kids crave cinema in the era of Netflix and YouTube. The book is a prime case of silly indoctrination based fake wisdom and the deployment of social pressure. Factual errors abound throughout the book. Even early waking is touted as a "virtue" in which kids should imitate their self-disciplined and hard-working teacher. I pity the kid who gets fooled! Luckily, reality shows that infantile books like this only cause a wave of yawns in the class. The myth of catching cold from cold is lodged culturally well enough to seep in anyway.
For a few details from Polish indoctrination history see: Polish indoctrination see-saw.
Science curriculum
You may say that my examples are all highly political, and they should not predicate on the validity of common core in science. After all, 2+2=4 is not debatable. I disagree.
It only takes a few months of classroom time for kids to be fed up with simple calculations as demanded by the curriculum. One kid may prefer to count fish in his tank. Another will obsessively count the candy to share with his siblings. Instead, they are all force-fed with the same materials from the puerile textbook set. It gets worse when a kid got some true interest in science. Counting planets or ants may be infinitely more engaging. Last but not least, there is the ultimate destroyer of the interest in schooling: videogames. There is no better way to develop a good number sense than to get immersed in virtual reality where numbers abound. See: Videogames are better than teachers.
However, the problem with science curriculum is not just about the method of delivery. Science is perpetually rife with disagreement.
Take my pet meme I want to spread: alarm clock is a brain destroyer!.
I do not recall ever learning a single thing about sleep physiology during my 26 long years of schooling. This is particularly bad as I am a biologist! Instead, I was regularly penalized for treating sleep seriously. My being late for school was always part of my inseparable label of a "kid with behavioral problems". In my teens, I literally tried to explain to my teachers that a "well rested human being is a better member of society". I met no sympathy! Today, we literally make kids sick by waking them up early for school, and then we tell them this is "good for immunity".
Now imagine a fictional scenario in which we develop a new curriculum that would finally give sleep due credit.
What if that curriculum was written by Dr Jerome Siegel (see: If you do not sleep, you die!) or by Dr Jim Horne or Dr Daniel Kripke (see: How long should we sleep?)? All those reputable scientists have rich and precious contributions to science. However, with all due respect, I would want to read that curriculum before I deemed it fit for the imposition on young minds.
Curiosity is a great motor for scientific progress, however, scientific feuds are equally helpful. If we feed all kids with the same set of dry facts, we sow seeds of intellectual stagnation.