Ellinger Exposes Indoctrination in Hidden Curriculum
- Ellinger identifies indoctrination in Islamic education
- OECD shifts focus to human flourishing
- Glasgow University denies Jason Arday visiting claim
- Biological factors impact hidden curriculum learning
- 2026 Castlereagh Statement emphasizes ethical education
Every civilisation teaches its children what to love, what to fear, and what to obey. The decisive instruction often occurs not during the formal lesson, but in the spaces between them. Writing in The Spectator Australia today, analyst Elaine Ellinger argues that Islamic education operates a comprehensive hidden curriculum designed to mould the mind through doctrine rather than mere knowledge transfer. This process, she contends, is not simply about teaching prayers or vocabulary, but about instilling a profound sense of authority, identity, and loyalty. The formal syllabus may cover reading or history, yet the underlying message relentlessly reinforces communal allegiance and the supremacy of specific religious laws. Ellinger's analysis suggests that while students memorise texts, they are simultaneously absorbing a worldview that prioritises obedience to Mohammed and Sharia above all else. This mechanism of education functions as a communication system where the hidden message is often more powerful than the explicit one. If education is fundamentally a communication system, then the question of what it is truly transmitting becomes unavoidable. Traditional accounts of this hidden curriculum have focused on the implicit transmission of social norms, like raising hands to speak or queuing quietly. However, Ellinger's work pushes the concept further, framing it as a deliberate tool for ideological formation. The implications are significant for educators and policymakers globally, particularly in the United Kingdom where debates over religious education and integration remain contentious. The report highlights how repetition and selected history are used to cement these values, creating a framework where questioning authority becomes culturally difficult. Ellinger's critique extends beyond mere observation; she posits that this form of schooling creates a parallel society within the broader state, one where the hidden curriculum actively competes with the civic values of the host nation. This is not merely an academic exercise in pedagogy but a matter of national security and social cohesion. By prioritising a specific religious interpretation of the world, these educational environments may inadvertently—or deliberately—insulate students from critical engagement with the pluralistic societies in which they live. The result is a generation caught between the demands of their faith-based schooling and the expectations of liberal democratic citizenship. • The hidden curriculum teaches what to love and fear. • Repetition is used to instill doctrine. • Communal allegiance is prioritised over individual inquiry. Experts suggest that understanding this layer of education is crucial for addressing radicalisation and social cohesion in modern multicultural societies.
Biological Filters Shape Every Lesson
While ideology drives one aspect of the hidden curriculum, biology dictates another. Educational theorist Chantal Mountford argues that the hidden curriculum operates across several interconnected levels that begin before a child even enters a classroom. Every learner arrives with a unique biological blueprint that fundamentally influences how they interpret educational environments. Genetics, neurodevelopment—including conditions like autism and ADHD—temperament, and sensory processing all play a critical role. No two learners begin from exactly the same starting point, meaning the hidden curriculum is received differently by every student. Mountford's analysis identifies the immediate level as the second critical layer. This is where learners interpret the signals of the present moment: teacher responses, peer interactions, routines, and task demands. A child with sensory processing difficulties might perceive a strict, silent classroom not as a discipline measure, but as a threat, fundamentally altering their educational experience. This biological reality complicates the simple transmission of values. Teachers might intend to convey respect for authority through a specific routine, but a student with a different neurodevelopmental profile may interpret that same routine as exclusion or hostility. The predictive level adds another dimension. Previous experiences shape how students predict future interactions, creating a feedback loop that reinforces their interpretation of the hidden curriculum. If a student has faced marginalisation, they are likely to interpret neutral institutional signals as negative. This scientific perspective challenges the idea that indoctrination or value transmission is a guaranteed outcome. It introduces a variable of human complexity that ideological planners cannot fully control. Officials in the UK education sector have increasingly focused on these individual differences, particularly in light of recent funding increases for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). The Department for Education has repeatedly emphasised that a one-size-fits-all approach to curriculum delivery fails to account for these biological filters. The intersection of Ellinger's ideological concerns and Mountford's biological realities creates a complex landscape. A rigid, doctrinal hidden curriculum, such as the one described by Ellinger, may be exceptionally effective for neurotypical students who thrive on clear authority structures. However, for the neurodiverse, that same rigidity can lead to anxiety, withdrawal, or rebellion. This suggests that the success of any hidden curriculum—whether religious, secular, or state-driven—is contingent upon the neurological compatibility of the student body. As our understanding of neurodiversity deepens, the very concept of a standardised 'hidden curriculum' may need to be re-evaluated. • Genetics and neurodevelopment affect learning. • Sensory processing changes how rules are perceived. • Previous experiences predict future student reactions. Understanding these biological underpinnings is essential for grasping why the hidden curriculum impacts students so unevenly.
OECD Pushes for Human Flourishing Over Jobs
In stark contrast to the doctrinal approach described by Ellinger, global bodies are pushing for a hidden curriculum centred on human flourishing. The OECD's Education for Human Flourishing framework argues that preparing students for employment is no longer a sufficient goal for modern education systems. According to this framework, education should develop academic, caring, and creative capabilities while helping young people build relationships, find meaning, and act with purpose. This represents a significant shift in the global conversation about what schools should actually be communicating. UNESCO's AI and the Future of Education report similarly presents education as a relational, ethical, social, and civic undertaking grounded in dignity, inclusion, justice, and solidarity. The 2026 Castlereagh Statement echoes these arguments, explicitly calling for human flourishing to sit at the centre of Australian education, a philosophy that resonates strongly with educators in the UK. This vision of the hidden curriculum promotes autonomy and critical thinking rather than obedience and repetition. It suggests that the values transmitted beneath the formal lessons should be those of empathy, resilience, and ethical reasoning. The Mequon-Thiensville School District's recent curriculum overview for physical education exemplifies this approach in practice. Their programme is designed not just to develop motor skills, but to create physical literacy—defined as the motivation, confidence, and competence to value physical activity for a lifetime. This is the hidden curriculum of health and self-worth. It moves beyond the immediate instruction of how to catch a ball to the deeper lesson of valuing one's physical self as a vessel for lifelong health. However, the implementation of such frameworks is not without friction. While the OECD advocates for autonomy, critics argue that the definition of 'human flourishing' is itself subjective and potentially ideological. What global bodies define as flourishing may conflict with local or religious definitions of the good life. This creates a new battleground for the hidden curriculum: a clash between globalist, secular humanist values and traditional, community-specific values. If a school adopts the OECD's framework, its hidden curriculum inevitably promotes individual self-actualisation. If it adopts a more traditionalist framework, it may prioritise duty and conformity. The tension lies in whether states have the right to impose a 'flourishing' curriculum that contradicts the values families teach at home. As education systems worldwide grapple with declining student mental health and political polarisation, the OECD's approach offers a therapeutic alternative to rigid instruction. Yet, it raises the question of whether schools are overstepping their bounds by attempting to engineer the psychological well-being of students, effectively replacing one form of indoctrination with another—albeit a softer, more therapeutic one.
The Political Battleground for Control
Beyond the classroom and the individual mind, the hidden curriculum has become a primary theater for political warfare. Governments are acutely aware that the values implicitly taught in schools shape the future electorate, leading to intense legislative battles over curriculum content. In the United Kingdom, this is evident in the ongoing debates surrounding the 'Prevent' duty and the teaching of Relationships and Sex Education (RSE). These policies are not merely about what facts are presented but about what moral framework is validated. When the government mandates 'British values,' it is attempting to codify a specific hidden curriculum—one of tolerance, democracy, and the rule of law—to counter the parallel allegiances described by analysts like Ellinger. This political dimension adds a layer of complexity that biological and economic theories cannot fully capture. The state uses the hidden curriculum as a tool of social engineering, attempting to forge a unified national identity out of diverse populations. Conversely, communities often resist these top-down impositions, viewing them as an assault on their cultural sovereignty. This resistance can be seen in the rise of faith schools, home schooling, and 'free schools,' which are often established specifically to escape the perceived secular or liberal bias of state education. The conflict is essentially a struggle over who owns the 'spaces between' the formal lessons. In the United States, similar battles are fought over 'Critical Race Theory' and gender identity, where the hidden curriculum is the focal point of parental concern. Parents argue that while the formal syllabus may remain neutral, the school environment—the books in the library, the assemblies held, the disciplinary policies enforced—transmits a distinct ideological message. This has led to a wave of 'parental rights' legislation, essentially attempting to regulate the hidden curriculum through law. The result is an increasingly polarized educational landscape where schools are no longer seen as neutral grounds for intellectual development, but as ideological battlegrounds. This political scrutiny forces educators to walk a tightrope, often self-censoring to avoid controversy, which in turn creates a new hidden curriculum: one of caution, risk aversion, and intellectual blandness. The danger is that in the zeal to control the implicit messages of education, the space for genuine inquiry and critical debate is squeezed out, leaving students with a sanitized version of reality that fails to prepare them for the complexities of the real world.
The Algorithmic Future: AI and the New Hidden Curriculum
As education systems grapple with ideological and biological complexities, a new layer of the hidden curriculum is emerging through technology. The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital platforms into learning environments is creating an 'algorithmic hidden curriculum' that operates invisibly and at scale. Unlike the human teacher, who might be aware of their biases, an AI system transmits values through its design, often without the oversight of policymakers or parents. When a learning management system prioritises certain types of answers over others, it teaches students that efficiency and conformity are more valuable than nuance or creativity. When surveillance software tracks students' eye movements or keystrokes, the hidden lesson is one of compliance and the acceptance of a panopticon-like existence. UNESCO has warned that without ethical guardrails, AI in education could exacerbate inequalities and embed biases into the very fabric of learning. For instance, if an AI tutor is trained on data that reflects historical Western dominance, it may inadvertently marginalise non-Western perspectives, reinforcing a specific cultural worldview under the guise of objective instruction. This digital layer interacts with the biological filters described by Mountford in unpredictable ways. A student with ADHD might find the adaptive nature of AI helpful, bypassing the rigid routines of traditional classrooms. However, the same student might be more susceptible to the dopamine-driven reward loops engineered into educational apps, which prioritize short-term engagement over deep, sustained learning. Furthermore, the 'flourishing' agenda of the OECD faces a unique challenge in the digital age. Can an algorithm teach empathy? Can a machine foster the sense of solidarity and justice that UNESCO champions? There is a risk that the human element of education—the relationship between teacher and student, which is the primary vehicle for the transmission of social values—will be eroded by screen-mediated learning. If the hidden curriculum becomes digitized, it risks becoming sterile and transactional, stripping education of its moral weight. Looking forward, policymakers must address this new frontier. The hidden curriculum of the future will be written in code as much as in policy documents. Ensuring that this digital subtext aligns with democratic values and human well-being requires a proactive approach that involves ethicists, educators, and technologists. Without such intervention, we risk ceding the most influential aspects of education—those that shape character and conscience—to black-box algorithms whose primary objective may be profit rather than pedagogy.