Calls to "keep politics out of education" arise regularly—especially when curriculum controversies erupt over topics like Indigenous history, gender identity, or climate change. These calls assume education could be politically neutral if only partisan interests would stop interfering. But is apolitical education possible? Or is education inherently political, with calls for neutrality themselves being political moves? Understanding the deep connections between education and politics illuminates why depoliticizing education may be impossible—and perhaps undesirable.
Why Education Is Political
Resource allocation is political. How much to spend on education, how to distribute funds across schools, and what educational activities to fund all involve political choices. Budget decisions reflect priorities; priorities reflect values; values are contested. No neutral formula determines educational spending; political processes do.
Curriculum choices are political. What knowledge is included and excluded, whose perspectives are centred and marginalized, what skills are emphasized and neglected—these choices reflect values about what matters. Someone chooses what students learn; those choices have implications for students' understanding of themselves and society. No curriculum is value-free.
Education serves social functions that are political. Preparing citizens for democracy, socializing youth into society, distributing credentials that affect life chances, reproducing or challenging existing social arrangements—education serves purposes that have political dimensions. What education does in society is political regardless of content.
Power operates in educational institutions. Who has authority, whose voice matters, how decisions are made, who benefits and who is harmed—educational institutions involve power relations that are inherently political. Claims that education is or should be apolitical often serve to protect existing power arrangements from challenge.
What "Keep Politics Out" Usually Means
Calls for political neutrality often target changes to status quo. When curriculum has long neglected Indigenous perspectives and someone proposes inclusion, calls for neutrality may resist change rather than achieve neutrality. The existing curriculum wasn't neutral—it reflected particular perspectives that became normalized. Demanding neutrality when change is proposed protects existing bias.
"Political" often means "positions I disagree with." Those calling something political frequently accept as apolitical positions they agree with. Conservative perspectives can be seen as neutral common sense while progressive perspectives are seen as political intrusion—or vice versa depending on who's speaking. The label "political" itself is politically used.
False neutrality presents partisan positions as objective. Curriculum might present one economic theory as how economics works, one nation's history as world history, or one set of values as universal—all while claiming neutrality. This false neutrality is itself political; it just hides its politics behind claims of objectivity.
Types of Educational Politics
Partisan politics involves explicit political parties, elections, and governmental control. Education becomes partisan when parties make it a campaign issue, when governments change curriculum to match ideology, or when educators explicitly advance party positions. This is the politics most often opposed by neutrality advocates.
Ideological politics involves competing worldviews without explicit partisanship. Progressive versus conservative approaches to education, different beliefs about human nature and society, varying views on individual versus collective—these ideological differences shape education without necessarily mapping onto parties. Ideological politics pervades education invisibly.
Interest politics involves groups seeking advantage. Teachers' unions, business groups, religious organizations, and various advocacy groups all seek educational policies serving their interests. This interest competition happens regardless of parties and ideologies; it reflects normal democratic politics playing out in educational arena.
Structural politics involves how education reproduces or challenges social structures. Class hierarchies, racial stratification, gender relations—education plays roles in maintaining or disrupting these structures. This structural politics operates through taken-for-granted arrangements more than explicit decisions.
The Case for Political Education
Democratic citizenship requires political education. If education aims to prepare citizens for democratic participation, it must address political questions. Understanding government, evaluating political claims, engaging civic processes—these capacities require education that is explicitly political in content if not in partisanship.
Critical thinking about society is political. Examining social arrangements, evaluating institutions, questioning power—these thinking capacities that education should develop inevitably engage political questions. Education that avoids all political content produces citizens unprepared to think critically about their society.
Social justice requires addressing political issues. If education should promote equity, challenge injustice, and prepare students to build better societies, it must engage political questions about what's wrong and how to fix it. Apolitical education that ignores injustice serves to perpetuate it.
Appropriate Political Boundaries
Partisan indoctrination should be avoided. Teachers shouldn't tell students which parties to support or impose their own political preferences as correct answers. Education should develop capacity for political thinking rather than dictate political conclusions. This boundary between education about politics and indoctrination into partisan positions matters.
Developmental appropriateness should guide political content. Young children need different political content than adolescents. Introducing political complexity should match cognitive and emotional development. This doesn't mean avoiding politics entirely with young children but engaging political content appropriately.
Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging contested questions. Where genuine disagreement exists, education should expose students to multiple perspectives rather than presenting one as definitive. This honest acknowledgment of disagreement differs from false balance that treats evidence-based and non-evidence-based positions as equivalent.
Classroom safety matters when addressing controversial political topics. Students need to be able to express views, ask questions, and engage difficult topics without fear. Creating conditions for genuine inquiry about political questions requires pedagogical skill and careful attention to classroom dynamics.
Rather Than Depoliticizing
Transparency about values acknowledges that education involves value choices. Rather than claiming false neutrality, education could be explicit about what values inform curriculum, what choices were made and why, and what alternatives were considered. This transparency enables critique and deliberation rather than hiding politics behind neutrality claims.
Pluralism accommodates diverse perspectives. Rather than imposing single views, education could expose students to multiple perspectives, develop capacity to understand different positions, and enable informed judgment among alternatives. This pluralism accepts that reasonable people disagree while maintaining commitment to truth and evidence.
Democratic participation in educational decisions gives communities voice. Rather than expecting neutral experts to make educational decisions, democratic processes could engage communities in deliberating about what education should do. This political process for making educational decisions doesn't pretend politics can be eliminated; it channels politics democratically.
Questions for Consideration
When you've heard calls to "keep politics out of education," what was actually being proposed? Whose interests did political neutrality serve?
What political content do you think belongs in education? What should be included, how should it be taught, and what boundaries should apply?
Is education inevitably political, or could genuinely neutral education be achieved? What would truly apolitical education look like?
How should education handle topics where political disagreement is genuine and deep? What approaches balance honest engagement with appropriate boundaries?
How political was your own education? Looking back, what political content—explicit or implicit—did it include?