Here's an example from OP:
> Several times in the discussion, children made reference to “giving” Lego pieces to other children. Kendra pointed out the understanding behind this language: “When you say that some kids ‘gave’ pieces to other kids, that sounds like there are some kids who have most of the power in Legotown — power to decide what pieces kids can use and where they can build.” Kendra’s comment sparked an outcry by Lukas and Carl, two central figures in Legotown[.]
The article goes on to transcribe "Lukas" and "Carl" rejecting the author's framing, and insisting that "giving" meant something more like "finding and sharing."
Of course, the kids here are right to push back, since "give" implies only mere possession of a thing, even of an unowned thing like knowledge.
But that didn't stop the teacher!
> These children seemed to squirm at the implications of privilege, wealth, and power that “giving” holds. The children denied their power, framing it as benign and neutral, not something actively sought out and maintained. This early conversation helped us see more clearly the children’s contradictory thinking about power and authority, laying the groundwork for later exploration.
A reasonable teacher would have reacted by questioning her own assumptions about the kids' motives. Perhaps they believed they had ownership (a legal-political claim) or perhaps just possession (a physical-factual claim). This teacher short-circuits this kind of self-skepticism, the aforementioned "epistemic humility," and immediately filters the kids' actions according to her ideology. Her tendentious interpretation of honestly quite reasonable arguments from the kids is a pretty strong indication that she's indoctrinating rather than just teaching.
She has a lot to say on the topic of power, but her analysis curiously falls just short of being applied to herself and her fellow teachers. They are evidently free to use their power to shame, shun and harangue the kids about word choice, distribution of bricks, capitalism and who knows what else.
Using power as a weapon to shame & shun is in itself an indication of indoctrination. I doubt many of us would rationalize Scientology's "e-meter" readings as well-meaning hokum when it's clearly a manipulative ritual employed as a tool to coerce followers into toeing the line. Why, then, should these teachers get a free pass?
Given the totality of the article (or even my excerpts), what is more likely to be true: she holds consistent beliefs about power and equity which she thinks she must inform these kids about, or she feels she is an enlightened activist whose mission is not merely to inform but to impose her beliefs by all means out of faith in her cause?