Is it me, or does the title not match the argument put forth in the article? I guess "Political currents affecting US education funding" didn't have a good ring to it...
Not only are you completely correct, I'm having a slightly difficult time understanding the purpose of the piece, exactly. Because it's not really only about education (some of it is about the finance sector, and relates only tangentially). It's about how Chomsky thinks profit motives lead to bad outcomes sometimes. Which is true, except a pareto-optimal social policy is _really hard_ and most law-makers at least attempt it already. So the criticism seems kind of hollow. "Capitalism As Practiced In America: Not Yielding Exclusively Positive Outcomes In All Aspects Of Life" is not something I would find particularly controversial, interesting, helpful, or insightful.
It hinges on the interpretation of "indoctrination." I think we colloquially use "indoctrination" to mean teaching people to consciously hear and repeat rote beliefs, aware of them but trained not to question.
But Chomsky's use of the term "indoctrination" in this passage is subtler. He's talking about instilling beliefs through confusion, omission, and financial obligation, not inculcation.
This is the third time in a week I've seen this word, or a tense of it. The first time I had to look it up, as I'd never heard it before. Perhaps that's irony since I grew up in the US school system, or perhaps the term is merely gaining favor as of late?
That's an example of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon[0]. The other uncovered-by-the-article-at-the-link reason appears to have something to do with priming, which means that your neurons are freshly acutely aware of that stimulus.