Education: The Battle to Shape Society

“The meaning of the community is constituted by individuality and the meaning of individuality by community.”

In his book, The Doctor and the Soul, Viktor Frankl states, “The meaning of the community is constituted by individuality and the meaning of individuality by community.” Deference is shown to both the individual and the community in which he lives, opposing the collectivist perception of society. Also, the vital impact of individual meaning upon society becomes most apparent when it is neglected or subverted. In my decades of teaching and counseling, I have discovered among students and clients that lack of meaning or its subversion constitutes the root of existential despair and a host of psychological and spiritual maladies which ensue.

“When reverence for life, personal meaning, objective truth, and individual responsibility are subverted, the individual and society suffers.”

Individual and social development are dynamic, never static, subject to constructive and destructive stages. In my experience, there abide enduring and immutable core values which infuse and promote healthy individual and social development. These values include: reverence for life; acceptance of objective truth; self-discovery of meaning and purpose; and personal responsibility. When life, personal meaning, objective truth, and individual responsibility are subverted, the individual and society suffers.

“...when any entity changes the values and resultant attitudes of children, the foundation for social values changes, for our children’s values eventually become society’s values.”

As a general rule, older individuals within society resist changing core values and attitudes. On the other hand, the young remain fluid and impressionable, quick to learn and adapt. From conception through the first six years of development, environmental contingencies exert an indelible impact. This impact includes the formation of a hierarchy of values. The highest, or core values influence children’s personal attitudes and choices. Therefore, when any entity changes the values and resultant attitudes of children, the foundation for social values changes, for our children’s values eventually become society’s values.

“In particular, the vital impact of children’s values upon society underscores the ultimate responsibility of parents and teachers.”

In particular, the vital impact of children’s values upon society underscores the ultimate responsibility of parents and teachers. They wield the greatest influence upon a young person’s biological, mental/emotional, social, and spiritual development. Fit parenting and committed, competent teaching, especially at the early stages of life, remains decisive, greatly influencing a young person’s potential, both positively and negatively.

Responsible parents and educators (emphasis upon responsible) engender values of individual initiative, resiliency, personal responsibility, and caring in children at every stage of their development. Research validates these qualities are vital for the well-being of the individual and for society. This principle cannot be stressed enough. The influences parents and educators either promote or inhibit an individual’s values, thereby impacting the community.

“...the local schools exist to complement and reinforce the values of the community which they serve. “

Traditionally, the relationship between parents and educators has been mutually supportive. Most parents everywhere have taken for granted and trusted that teachers and administrators would care for their child to provide a foundational education. Furthermore, the local schools exist to complement and reinforce the values of the community which they serve. Conversely, parents and communities have been supportive of educators, affirming the importance of their vocation to educate children, but this support must not be taken for granted, ignored, or manipulated.

“Historically, local districts or parochial affiliations identified curriculum needs and changes in light of educational (not social or ideological) needs.”

A school’s educational philosophy is clearly evident in curricula and pedagogy: what is taught and how it is taught. These factors manifest themselves wherever education occurs, formally or informally, at home, in society, or in school. Historically, local districts or parochial affiliations identified curriculum needs and changes in light of educational needs. For example, I taught and counseled in a Jesuit preparatory school where our curricula was continually evaluated and adjusted in light of our mission and Catholic orthodoxy, then implemented with Ignatian pedagogy in the spirit of cura personalis. As a college prep school and a Catholic school in the Jesuit tradition, the core of our curricula is anchored by three objectives: seeing God in all things; forming students to become men and women for others; and preparing students for college. Jesuits, parents, and benefactors, alike, share these priorities.

Catholic and Jesuit education clearly differs from secular, public education. Belief in a personal God, seeing Him in all things, and living according to the Gospel of His Son, must endure as the cornerstone of Christian curricula and pedagogy. Public education does not, cannot replicate this attitude and perception of life. Regardless, throughout the years, I shared a camaraderie and dialogue with my fellow educators in the public schools. In fact, I taught and counseled hundreds of students throughout the years whose parents were teachers, administrators, or employees in the public school system. These parents simply want their children to be educated in a faith-based community.

“Governors’ offices and states’ departments of education increasingly exert more control over local school districts, revealing an authoritarian control of curricula under the guise of educating youth.”

In the course of my interactions with public school teachers, counselors, and administrators, I witnessed their curricula and pedagogy become increasingly centralized at the state level. Decisions regarding content and methodology increasingly ignore local issues and family values. Governors’ offices and states’ departments of education increasingly exert more control over local school districts, revealing an authoritarian control of curricula under the guise of educating youth. In addition, the spheres of control have expanded to anything tangentially associated with education, including: DEI; manipulation of the ADA; non-binary sex education; racial essentialism; and a revisionist view of American history. These issues are but some of the major topics being confabulated with and subverting traditional curricula and pedagogy.

“To maintain its control, centralized education agencies and bureaucracies leverage a wide range of school related activities.”

To maintain its control, centralized education agencies and bureaucracies leverage a wide range of school related activities: extracurricular athletics; teacher certification standards in colleges and universities; standardized curricula and pedagogy; and educator and paraeducator professional development. Furthermore, I observe a growing alliance between unelected bureaucrats, politicians, and teacher union leaders, who overlook input from the majority of individual teachers. Teacher unions support politicians sympathetic to union causes. These lawmakers make laws which confabulate student needs with political and social interests. Lawmakers then empower educational agencies to implement these laws. A perpetual, self-serving process persists, consolidating and strengthening central control, forgetting those for whom educational systems exist to serve.

“[Washington] State Bill 5044 reflects a bias of collective racism.”

An egregious example of government codifying the curricula of public education is Washington State Bill 5044, “an Act relating to equity, cultural competency, and dismantling institutional racism in the public school system”. State Bill 5044 reflects a bias of collective racism. In a country with clear civil rights laws, how can a governor or legislature institute a law by merely assuming public schools are institutionally racist? To which schools are they referring? Thousands exist. Does the law include all schools? Far from proving the point, the Governor appears intolerant of the counter-premise that most schools are humane and operate according to civil rights laws.

I am confident most educators do not believe institutional racism is pervasive. However, government assumes it as so and passes laws expecting conformity and compliance. The pivotal question remains: why are state and federal governmental agencies becoming so involved in top-down control of curricula and pedagogy in local schools? And why are so many bending their knee to this control?

Humans innately seek power. Self-control, control of others, and control of the environment are chief expressions of power. Control as power possesses creative and pernicious potential, depending upon the person brandishing control. As it relates to education, control involves curricula and pedagogical approaches.

“...to ultimately effectuate control and change, the focus upon individuality and inalienable rights must be diminished, if not eliminated.

Control of the education of children emerges as the modern battlefield shaping society. Claiming to be concerned for students, an increasing number of educators use curricula to promote ideological agendum. But to ultimately effectuate control and change, the focus upon individuality and inalienable rights must be diminished, if not eliminated. The deprecation of the individual student exposes a systemic shift in American education: a collectivist versus individualist approach to self and society.

Effective control utilizes collectivism to suppress individuality and inalienable rights. In contrast, whenever the individual remains belligerent to group control and does not comply or conform, collectivist control falls apart. Reflecting upon his experiences with facism, Viktor Frankl describes how, “In the mass [collective], unique existence is submerged, must be submerged because uniqueness would be a disrupting factor…. in place of responsible persons, the collectivist idea substitutes a mere type.” The fascist attitude incorporates collective activism to exert control of society, bypassing individuality as the bedrock of society.

“A collectivist worldview denies individual responsibility and unique meaning, chokes an internal locus of control, and promotes dependence and compliance.”

In education, collectivism imperils the welfare of the individual student and society. A collectivist worldview denies individual responsibility and unique meaning, chokes an internal locus of control, and promotes dependence and compliance. Collectivism undermines a student’s uniqueness, acceptance of objective truth and morality, training in critical thinking, personal initiative, and self-transcendence. The student is reduced to a pawn in the engineering of the masses.

In contrast, for example, a hallmark of Ignatian pedagogy is cura personalis, care for the individual. The Gospel mandates care for the one person in ninety-nine. This perception of care for the individual and universal objective values starkly contrasts with the collectivist disdain for the individual and objective morality. Parents increasingly seek a private, faith-based, or charter education for three major reasons: one, for individual attention; two, to be partners with the school; three, to receive an education that inculcates their values.

“...propaganda remains the cornerstone of influence and control, especially of a young learner who is so emotionally and cognitively impressionable.”

In 1928, Edward Bernays wrote in his seminal book, Propaganda, “Small groups of persons can, and do, make the rest of us think what they please about a given subject. But there are usually proponents and opponents of every propaganda, both of whom are equally eager to convince the majority.” Educational collectivists persist in propagandizing students with their curricula, sometimes at odds with parental values. In fact, propaganda remains the cornerstone of influence and control, especially of a young learner who is so emotionally and cognitively impressionable. Historically, propaganda evolved as a means of informing or misinforming groups or individuals in order to achieve a particular goal. Depending upon who wields it, propaganda can effect a life-long attitude.

Targeting the young produces an indelible effect. Alarmingly, government-codified propaganda has drifted from post-secondary education into secondary education and now infects K-8 education. Notwithstanding, this educational battle boils over from public education to private secular and parochial schools, as well. As a private, faith-based educator, I often challenged administrators as to the reason we allowed secular government agendas to influence our mission and curricula. Responses to my concerns ranged from collaborating with public education to meeting state certification standards and student graduation requirements. I thought this reasoning compromised our autonomy and lacked moral courage and foresight.

“I understand a parent's anger and concern when they perceive their child being manipulated or indoctrinated. After all, parents bring the child into the world, sometimes at great sacrifice.”

Standing against undesirable and contentious curricula is only half the battle. I know that a teacher can adjust course content and its implementation in myriad ways, and parents can be left out of the loop. Increasingly, however, parents are becoming aware and are responding with concern, anger, involvement, and even protest. I understand a parent's anger and concern when they perceive their child being manipulated or indoctrinated. After all, parents bring the child into the world, sometimes at great sacrifice. They nurture their child in health and sickness, provide emotional and financial resources, engage and empathize with their child. The child occupies the core of every decent parent’s heart.

Parents’ lives revolve around their child. Parents should be able to trust that teachers and administrators will respect their values. When a teacher or administrator ignores, circumvents, or undermines a parent’s trust, all in the name of some theory or cause unrelated to or projected upon the child, all hell will break loose. Bottom line: educators better not set up a situation of irreconcilable differences with parents. Despite the pervasiveness of laws designed to strengthen schools’ authority in education, the surpassing power of natural law rests with parents.

“Parents entrusted me to educate their child. I took that responsibility personally. So, to be secretive or covert with what I taught would have been anathema!”

The tell-tale sign of a conflict between parents’ values and expectations and a school’s or teacher’s is secrecy. Propaganda often occurs in order to exact change without anyone noticing. This action becomes nefarious when a teacher, administrator, or school system obfuscates curriculum to influence a student’s attitude and values. Throughout my teaching vocation, I experienced instances of tension between what I taught my students and what a parent’s expectations were. If there were concern over content or class dynamics, it behooved me to engage the parent and student and make my case as to the importance of what I was teaching. As a veteran teacher and counselor, my perception remains consistent that collaboration with parents begins with trust and transparency. After all, parents are the primary shareholders who are ultimately responsible for their child’s care and well-being.

With this principle in mind, I began each semester of each class I taught, for each of the 41 years I taught, by presenting and explaining the content and objectives of my courses to parents. Furthermore, I made all materials available to them and invited them to talk with me at any point regarding any questions or concerns. Parents entrusted me to educate their child. I took that responsibility personally. So, to be secretive or covert with what I taught would have been anathema! To try to keep content in the dark is the definition of psychological repression and resulting dysfunction. As both social and psychological history proves, the light of truth will eventually prevail over the lies of manipulation spawned in the shroud of darkness.