I've been doing a little more reading about our board's position. The board's charge to the curriculum review committee includes the following: "Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," as well as "positive aspects of the United States and its heritage." Our local paper cited this passage as the justification for the review of APUSH. I find the use of "promote" instead of "teach" the the focus on "positive aspects" to be telling. This sounds more like propaganda than teaching.
Yep. That's the point at which "education" becomes "indoctrination."
And really, it comes down to a fundamental belief about what role in society you expect social studies education to play. If the role is education, then when it comes to belief outcomes, the results are unpredictable, because reaction to the information will be very individual. However, benefits of this approach are that students will be more likely to learn from the mistakes of the past, and be more critical consumers of information regarding current events/policies.
On the other hand, indoctrinating students yields a greater level of uniformity of beliefs, and greater conformity to authority, resulting in improved social cohesion. This is counter-balanced by reduced critical ability, and an increased chance of repeating the mistakes of the past.
