Against the Secular Humanism of Progressive Education

By Brian Tonnell

Originally published as a Classical Conversations blog.

After speaking at a Practicum in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, I was listening to the radio on my way back to the hotel. American Family Radio was airing a program called “Crane Durham’s Nothing But Truth.” On this program, the speaker discussed the importance of philosophy, describing worldview as “the water in which we swim.”

If true, would we not expect to be engulfed in that water? To become a fish comfortable swimming in that water? Would not this philosophical ocean affect our children as well? And if those murky waters repulse us, what can we do about it?

Swimming in a Sea of Worldview

Indeed, we all swim in a philosophical ocean.

Our culture’s worldview surrounds us like water surrounds a fish. In the car, secular radio bombards us with the philosophies of Macklemore, Bruno Mars, Pink, Miley Cyrus, and Lady Gaga (look up their lyrics and you will instantly understand).

In our homes, the barrage continues on television. It is nearly impossible to watch more than five minutes without encountering a blatant disregard for Biblical principles. In the grocery store, magazine covers promote our culture’s prevailing philosophy of humanism, naturalism, existentialism, and so on. Video games, advertising, and even billboards round out the philosophical waters of our culture.

However, there is one more philosophical aquarium that so many children swim—the classroom.

The Philosophy of Public Education

As homeschoolers, we spend much effort decrying public education by pointing to statistics that indicate a broken system, but all we are really doing is pointing to the symptoms.

Perhaps a better understanding of the philosophy underlying public education will help us see the root cause of its brokenness. What kind of water fills the public education aquarium?

In order to understand the problems of our modern education system, we must look to the philosophy which undergirds it. To do so, we must go back in time to the late 1800s.

G. Stanley Hall: The Voice for Child-Centered Education

G. Stanley Hall had an overwhelming impact on our modern educational philosophy.

Hall was a psychologist, educator, and philosopher who founded and served as the first president of the American Psychological Association. He believed that educating children based on a core of required subjects was detrimental to their development.

Largely influenced by Darwin’s evolution theory and by Freud’s ideas on the human psyche, Hall theorized that emphasizing intellectual attainment was disadvantageous and that the child’s needs should be placed at the center of the educational system.

As a result, “Hall’s findings ushered in a new era of pedocentric schooling in which schools adapted to the needs of children.” In his own words, he believed that childhood “comes fresh from the hands of God” and that children were “not corrupt.”

While his intentions may have been pure, his theories had a marked influence on another pioneer of American education, John Dewey.

John Dewey: The Father of Progressive Education

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, philosopher John Dewey made his mark on history and is still considered the Father of Progressive Education. According to PBS.org, Dewey “was the most significant educational thinker of his era and, many would argue, of the 20th century.”

Dewey’s worldview was humanistic, which was clearly evident in his philosophy of education. In 1933, Dewey joined thirty-three prominent religious, educational, and philosophical leaders in signing the original Humanist Manifesto.

Now, in order to understand his philosophy, let’s take a brief look at the Humanist Manifesto.


The Humanist Manifesto

The stated purpose of the Humanist Manifesto was to establish a new religion—one that places man at the center of the universe. The document states, “While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is nonetheless obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”

The first two core beliefs of this new religion strongly assert that evolution is fact and all things are self-existing rather than created.

The fifth core belief is that “modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.” This same core belief insists that human needs will determine the value of reality.

In other words, the concepts of right and wrong are determined by “intelligent inquiry.”

The ninth core belief states that converts to the Humanist religion will cooperate to “promote social well-being,” which, according to the eleventh and thirteenth core beliefs, will be carried out by institutions such as education and government.

Interestingly, and perhaps not incidentally, this belief mirrors that of another religious movement of the time called the “Social Gospel.” Ask your local Challenge III student for more information about this topic.

The fourteenth core belief establishes socialism as the superior economic framework and hints at communism as the premier governmental framework.

Finally, in the last paragraph, “Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement.”

Interestingly, this last idea is stated much more succinctly in the second iteration of the Humanist Manifesto (1973): “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”


John Dewey’s Humanist Philosophy

So, if this was the philosophical water in which John Dewey swam, what sort of educational philosophy did the Father of Progressive Education espouse?

Dewey believed that education was “a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness.” Further, he believed “the only sure method of social reconstruction” was “the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness.”

His goal was to reconstruct society via the education system. He believed that the teacher’s job was “to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.” He believed that the “right character” of children should be formed by “the influence of a certain form of institutional or community life upon the individual and that the social organism through the school, as its organ, may determine ethical results.”

The Humanist’s Goal: Shaping Society Through Education

In a nutshell, he believed that society must be shaped via the school system, that the character of future generations should be molded by the governmental institution, and that the idea of right and wrong should be determined by rigorous inquiry.

Based on his godless, humanist philosophy, the waters of his educational philosophy fell squarely within the ocean of his humanist religion.

The Corrosive Effects of Humanism on Students

So what? If we buy into the idea that Hall and Dewey’s philosophical waters overwhelmingly affected our modern educational system, what results might we expect? Might we expect a generation (or more) of students to grow up sharing this philosophy? That seems reasonable.

Abraham Lincoln once said that “the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” If his statement is accurate, might we expect to see a government that swims in the humanistic philosophical waters?

To say that our government radiates humanism is to speak an obvious truth.

To say the same about the children of our culture is, perhaps, not quite as obvious.

After all, especially in the church, we try to flood our children with a philosophy very different from that of the world, a philosophy opposed to humanism. We try to surround our kids in the philosophical water of a biblical worldview.

However, as a good friend of mine very shrewdly stated, at some point, every one of our children will ask, “Who is lying to me?”


The Nehemiah Institute Study: Worldview Erosion over Time

The Nehemiah Institute asked the same question I ask now: How are our school children affected by swimming in the waters of our culture’s philosophy? They began tracking the worldview of high school students in 1988, and have administered PEERS tests that assess students’ worldview in politics, education, economics, religion, and social issues.

The results are telling.

In 1988, public school students from Christian homes overwhelmingly fell into the “Moderate Christian” worldview—in their opinion, God was relevant to religion, but to nothing else.

By 2007, the same demographic (public school students from Christian homes) overwhelmingly fell into the “Secular Humanism” category (and on the cusp of socialism). Even private school kids from Christian homes showed a striking trend to assimilate into their surrounding waters. They overwhelmingly fell into the “Moderate Christian” worldview in 1988, but by 2007, they were comfortably swimming in the waters of secular humanism.” Only in the very small number of private, Christian schools that actively taught a biblical worldview did the students’ philosophy inch away from secular humanism and toward biblical theism.

Swimming Against the Current

The point is: yes, the philosophy of our culture is the water in which we swim, and regardless of the type of fish you are, if you swim in nothing else, you will eventually be assimilated into that water.

Does this mean that all non homeschooling teachers are humanists and socialists? Of course not.

Many of my own family members and good friends have been public or private school teachers. They love the Lord and reject the godless philosophy of our culture.

However, regardless of the type of fish they are, they are forced to swim in the educational philosophical aquarium of our culture. Are we to then jump out of the ocean and migrate to a new water source in which to thrive?

How to Survive the Putrid Waters

Alas, no. That would defeat God’s purpose for His people. In the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus prays that God will not remove us from the ocean, but that we would be protected from it while fulfilling God’s mandate to be light and salt to the world.

Even so, we are to be foreigners in this world, resisting the temptation to drink from or thrive in its putrid waters. Colossians 2:8 warns us to avoid being captivated by the hollow and deceptive philosophies of the world. And so, we must remain, but we must provide ourselves and our children a cove of fresh, biblical water for respite, training, discipling, mentoring, reviving, strengthening, and resting. The church may seem a good place to provide this, but in reality the church is looking more and more like the world every day.

You Are the Key to Resisting the Secular Humanism of Progressive Education

This task falls squarely on you and me, the parents of our future.

We need to set up our children for success by giving them safe waters in which to swim.

For me, Classical Conversations® is a critical, key ingredient to this task for my middle and high school children. We need to control the influences that bombard our children, whether through music, media, entertainment, or education. We need to train them how to respond to the philosophical waters in which they will eventually be forced to swim.

Sounds a lot like John Dewey’s philosophy. So, what separates this idea from his ideas?

John Dewey’s “savior” of the next generation was man himself through the influence of the school, the state, and the godless religion of humanism. But the real Savior of the next generation is unknown to either the school or the state.

It’s not the responsibility of the state to train our children in the way that they should go. Rather, this responsibility lies solely with you and me.

We must train and educate our children to know God and to make Him known; to love Him with their hearts, souls, and minds.

We must train them to be salt and light so that when they are eventually forced to swim in the rancid waters of our culture’s philosophy, they will be able to impact the culture and make a difference for eternity.

Read other articles on this subject here.

Indoctrination Center. Public school classroom. State Education Social Engineering.

Social Engineering in State Education

By Elise DeYoung

Social engineering is hardly novel. Whether in totalitarian states like North Korea or dystopian novels such as George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, this method of mass manipulation is widely recognized and feared throughout the free world as the silent killer of civilizations.

In his book, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis articulates the aim of social engineering: “Traditional values are to be debunked,” he wrote, “and mankind cut out into some fresh shape at the will of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it.”

Borrowing Lewis’s language, we can conclude that the aim of social engineering is to debunk traditional values in order to cut mankind into “some fresh shape” according to the will of the powerful. The frightening fact is that we are one of those “lucky generations” that has learned how to do it.

There are many plausible methods of social engineering that our generation has at its disposal. To name a few: the creation of a mass social contagion through the internet, fostering a forgetfulness of history, and state infiltration into education. An argument could be made that those “lucky people” with the power to engineer society are not allowing any of these methods to go to waste.

However, by examining the purpose of state education and the methods of academic manipulation used on children today, it will become clear which practice is most prominent in our modern age—social engineering through state education.


The Purpose of State Education

There is a looming debate over public education. What is its purpose? Is it to effectively educate America’s youth or to indoctrinate upcoming generations? We do not have to wonder for long because the proponents of public education have told us exactly what their intentions are.

“The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client of the public school is not the parent, but the entire community, the public.”

The Michigan Democratic Party Facebook page

This quote might as well have been pulled from the dystopian novel The Giver. There can be no doubt—the purpose of state education is, and always has been, to create an institution where “some few lucky people” can cut the minds of the youngest generation “into some fresh shape” on the largest scale mankind has ever known.

The only question that remains is a practical one—how?


The Methods of Academic Manipulation

There are three practical methods of manipulation that are employed in our schools:

  1. Mass indoctrination
  2. Data mining
  3. Installation of Father Government

Mass Indoctrination

Cambridge Dictionary defines indoctrination as “the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question.” It also involves banning certain ideas—those that are contradictory to the ideology of the indoctrinator—from the public square.

These two ideas combined—the forceful instillation of ideas and the banning of contrary thought and expression—make up the most essential tool of social engineering. To put it another way: in order to control a population, you must first control their thoughts.

In the 1963 case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp,[1] the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and prayer in public schools would be unconstitutional. By banning scripture and the expression of religion from schools (ideas that contradict progressive thought), the Court seemed to say, “Let the indoctrination begin.”

Since then, the religion of the Left has been unleashed and forcefully taught in all public schools around the country. DEI initiatives, books like Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, and Critical Race Theory have all been introduced to the K-12 curriculum. This is what schools are really teaching our children.

What’s more, Students who reject these ideas are demonized, teachers who refuse to comply are fired, and parents who object are ignored or condemned as “domestic terrorists.”

Society, through state education, insists on indoctrinating children with the idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys, white people are evil and black people oppressed, the weather is going to end the world, religion is bigoted and intolerant, capitalism is wicked and communism benevolent, America is systemically racist, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a Christian nationalist, MAGA, fascist extremist.

Our state schools are not places of wonder and free thought. Rather, they are prison cells designed to keep both truth and the will of parents locked away so that the minds of children will remain captive and submissive to what “society needs them to know.”


Data Mining

Commonly used to predict investment planning and to track internet analytics, data mining uses technology to sort through large quantities of data on a subject in order to determine patterns and characteristics. Although it seems like basic computer interaction, it is being used for much more than simply organizing numbers and symbols.

This powerful technology has been unleashed on every child in the public school system by the state to collect, organize, analyze, and micromanage their academic performance and personal information.

If your child is in the public schools, their grades, academic history, confidential information, address, family members, personal beliefs, strengths and weaknesses, social tendencies, extracurricular activities, and more are deeply known by the state.

Alex Newman, author of Indoctrinating Our Children to Death and co-author of Crimes of the Educators, details the depth of this dangerous method of child monitoring and explains how other countries, such as China and Sweden, have used this technology to exponentially advance social engineering and further corrupt education.

With this information, the powerful few who are pulling the strings of education will know exactly who your child is and how to shape them into a “creature of the state.”[2]


Father Government

In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce vs Society Sisters that it is both the right and the duty of parents to direct the education and “destiny” of their children independent of the state.

“The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”[3]

This fundamental right of parents should be self-evident. However, in recent decades there has been a drastic shift in western civilization away from parent-controlled education towards state-controlled education.

The Michigan Democratic Party said, “Not sure where this ‘parents-should-control-what-is-taught-in-schools-because-they-are-our-kids’ is originating… The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught.”[4]

James Dwyer, a professor at the William & Mary School of Law, stated in an interview, “The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a child’s wellbeing.”

Even President Joe Biden said in a speech to public school teachers, “They aren’t someone else’s, they are all our children.”[5]

According to those with the power to engineer society, parents are no longer welcome to participate in their children’s upbringing, well-being, or education—that is the role of Father Government.

When powerful people tell you they intend to take your parental rights away, it is best to believe them.

This philosophy is the policy of the political Left in America. We see this in the way that homeschooling, which is the enemy of Father Government, has been heavily restricted and aggressively regulated across the states; teachers have begun to take the place of parents as the mentor and confidant of their students; and schools have shamelessly implemented teachings that contradict the beliefs of the majority of American parents.

Gradually, parents have been conditioned to believe that their job is simply to drop their children off at school. By accepting this lie, they invite Father Government to mold their children into “some fresh shape” until they are “a mere creature of the state.”


The Solution

The purpose of state education has always been to divorce parents from the upbringing and education of their children so that the state can “teach [children] what society needs them to know.” As parents or simply lovers of liberty, it is our duty to strongly oppose the dangerous methods of mass manipulations that millions of children in our country are subjected to daily.

Social engineering requires power and influence to manifest in a society. Currently, it has both. In order to evade the effects of engineering, we must recognize its deeply dangerous influence in state schools and, once again, educate ourselves and our children independently of Father Government. By doing this, those powerful few with the aim of controlling society will lose their power, and this lucky generation will remain free.


Elisa DeYoung headshot smiling at the camera

Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and  Classical Conversations® graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. Elise is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. Elise continues her journey towards the Celestial City with a determined resolve to gain wisdom and understanding. Soli Deo gloria!


[1] US Supreme Court (1963, June 17). Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/203/

[2] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/

[3] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/

[4] Renk. “Michigan Democratic Party Questions Why Parents Think They Should Have a Say in Their Childs Education.” 95.3 WBCKFM, January 18, 2022. https://wbckfm.com/michigan-democratic-party-questions-why-parents-think-they-should-have-a-say-in-their-childs-education/.

[5] (2023, July 4). Biden. X. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1676284124527755266