Countering Government Indoctrination in Spanish Schools

The decline of Spanish education, even by basic metrics like reading comprehension, has gone hand in hand with the rise of official narratives in support of the historic Left (in the case of the Civil War) and the post-modern Left (transgender ideology, etc.). It isn’t that Spanish students leave public schools propagandized but at least knowing their Marx or Derrida, it’s that they are being dumbed down and made into uncritical subjects of the existing order.

But in a country in which half of all graduating secondary students according to some polls are functionally illiterate, a former history teacher is trying to stem the tide of ignorance. 

Jose Rodriguez Cuadrado is currently a local councilman for VOX in the Spanish town of Majadahonda, in the Madrid region, a position from which he has spearheaded an initiative to kindle interest in studying and countering the government’s Law of Historical Memory in schools. 

The initiative brings several historical research associations together under the slogan “No one can love what he does not know,” understanding the study of Spanish history as a prerequisite for loving the country. 

It has been launched online, developing history textbooks which are freely available on historiacontexto.com, together with a compilation of recommended books and studies.

These texts contradict the official public school curriculum, but they also disagree with one another, presenting clashing narratives. Rodriguez Cuadrado emphasizes that this is important and that the initiative he is a part of does not seek to indoctrinate, the way public schools presently do. 

Rather, it simply allows parents and school teachers to easily find educational materials with which to enrich students’ understanding.

When asked whether he fears pressure from the government, Rodriguez Cuadrado has emphasized that, since the government’s own education law refers to the need to foster critical thinking, the above initiative cannot be outright rejected by the powers that be.

Of course, the idea that one’s political enemies hold themselves to the standard of their own language and explicit legal commitments, rather than to the ideological spirit animating those commitments, is naïve. But defending alternative history textbooks on the basis of the government’s own aim of increasing critical thought does at least pose a hurdle for the government if it ever wants to move against civic platforms like this one.

Ultimately, there needs to be a minimal canonical narrative—a basic understanding of the history and essential character—of a nation. 

This initiative can serve as a starting point for putting something like that together, and should not be left in the ambiguous, liberal discourse of merely seeking to disrupt official indoctrination, and not to indoctrinate in a different direction.

Again, however, it is a good starting point.