This comment from JunkkMale originally appeared on Geoff Chambers’ Moderation in Moderation thread. I’ve moved it here, with the comments it attracted, because I think that this is the kind of problem that seriously needs talking about.
The government talks about the importance of individual actions in the fight against climate change, and it is up to each and every one of us whether we buy an electric car, put a solar panel on the roof, or cancel a weekend flight to Rome. Children do not usually have a choice about what they are taught.
This thread has strayed into many areas beyond the main topic, and I for one have enjoyed the quality of debate on display.
One topic I noted was how certain issues are being shared with our kids. To be honest, it was passing interest… until last night.
The subject of ‘who tells, controls’…. especially in terms of authority figures, was rather brought home to me last night.
My kids are revising currently for some serious exams that do count.
One brought in this book, which forms part of the curriculum: AQA GCSE Science Core Higher Ed. Graham Hill. Pub: Hodder Murray
He wanted some advice on a question. From a series including sections such as 3.3, entitled ‘How do humans affect the environment?’ and 3.5 ‘Global Warming’ (other aspects of global warming and the greenhouse effect also covered in Section 6.4, Air Pollution), and 3.6 ‘What can be done to reduce human impact on the environment?. Here it is, as posed, under 6.4, p113:
21. Which of the following three do you think will actually happen? Write a paragraph to explain your answer.
a) We’ll worry and blame ourselves for climate change for thousands of years.
b) Fossil fuels will run out and renewable energy will save us.
c) The oceans will evaporate as the Earth heats up and humans will die.
His face, when I opined that ‘none are very coherent, accurate, or suggest definite answers that are sensible, at least as posed’, was a heartbreaking picture. He just wanted… needed to provide the ‘right’ one as the system demands it to be one of them. Sighing at the ‘will happen’, I therefore attempted to assist based on the hope that the paragraph of explanation would be rewarded if well argued and having a basis in fact and scientific interpretation.Forget a), which is facile and shows a poor grasp of even basic climate science terminology, though maybe does reflect the ‘worry’ mindset being churned out in some quarters.
If you have to choose, choose b) as fossil fuels will run out. They are finite. As to whether ‘renewable’ energy ‘will’ ‘save’ us, that rather depends on how many of ‘us’ there are, and from what we are being ‘saved’. It seems, currently, optimistic to presume renewable sources can meet all current and projected energy demands.
As for c), well, yes, as the sun goes supernova in a few billion years. But humans may be in a different place by then.
THIS… is what they are being served????!
More touching still was his further plea to me NOT to get in touch with the school with my now serious reservations about the way this information was laid out and the questions posed… as he just wanted to pass the unit and not get in trouble.
If this is the state of education, at least in this area (I now wonder about history, etc), I am seriously troubled not only by the course structures, but the mindsets prevalent in our educational establishment.
Are there any teachers out there who would be prepared to comment? anonymously if necessary.
Good luck JM. Marking someone down in an exam for missing a lesson sounds a bit alarming, especially when it was pre-arranged!
Do let us know how you get on…
Tx. Spitting bullets, TBH. I played the game, and it still went pear shaped. I’d like to scream blue murder, but it will serve the boys no good at all. What gets me is all and sundry saying ‘it doesn’t matter’, but admitting that these grades will stay on their record.
I was going to continue the OT apology, but actually this is a clear commentary on the damage done by burrowing too much, too early, into niche areas at the expense of providing an education in the basic topics that other aspects can spin off from when appropriate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/feb/04/university-places-traditional-subjects-a-levels?CMP=EMCGT_040211&
The Graun is late to the story about junk A-levels – the other papers all covered this some 4 weeks ago.
Here is a list of proper A-level subjects from Trinity Cambridge.
Starting with Generally Suitable Science A-levels
Biology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Further Mathematics
Physics
right at the bottom we get
A-levels Suitable Only As Fourth Subjects
Accounting
Applied Science
Citizenship
Communication Studies
Computing
Critical Thinking
Dance
Environmental Science
…
When what I assumed was a poor parody (the cited image) turns out to be an actual educational piece I know things are getting bizarre…
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/nasa-climate-change-and-children/
A worthy message/action totally discredited (IMHO) by a less than helpful mindset.
One can only wonder what else lurks around here in materials our kids are subjected to.
It seems my boys’ school are running after hours revisions sessions to help with retakes, in advance of ‘important GCSE Science examinations that are take place in March’.
They are both required to retake Physics, due to being absent. Fair enough, though we will be raising questions as to the schools role in this happening as it did.
In addition to the revision sessions, the advice also recommends attempting past papers, provided here:
http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcses/science/new/sciencea_materials.php
In passing, I did happen to notice a few old friends getting mentioned:
P1A Energy Resources
P1A Energy, Efficiency, Paying for Electricity
B1B Cloning & genetic engineering
C1B Earth and atmosphere
B1B How Humans affect the environment
C1B Plastics/Ethanol as fuel
Out of a total of 19 ‘science’ subjects being addressed, that is a fair old number that are quite targeted in focus.
First up, on checking that URL I see, in red, that the thing is being replaced next school year. I guess that is normal evolution.
Then it gets a bit more complicated tying the revision subject titles above to the latest (March 2010) papers listed under the relevant main science subject; I’m presuming:
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1AP-W-QP-MAR10.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1AP-W-MS-MAR10.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-BLY1BP-W-QP-MAR10.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-BLY1BP-W-MS-MAR10.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-CHY1BP-W-QP-MAR10.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-CHY1BP-W-MS-MAR10.PDF
I do not have time now, but may take the test myself and see if what I ‘believe’ (beyond a propensity to wanting to argue ‘grey’ areas) gets the marks accorded what is deemed ‘correct’. Most seem relatively neutral at first glance, though the topic areas chosen are notable.
I then had a quick nosey around, and was intrigued at ‘ISA question papers and marking guidelines’, which only covered one historical period. And, specifically, for instance, this:
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4451-4460-ISA12-QP.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4451-4460-ISA12-MG.PDF
I am sure there is a good reason, but clicking further ‘Reports on the Examinations’ seems to only address Biology.
‘Support Material’ looks a fairly lengthy browse to make sense of, so I’ll leave it there for now.
These seem good first ports of call:
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/science/AQA-W-4460TN-TN-JUN10.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4460-W-TN-JUN11.PDF
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/science/AQA-4460-W-TN-JUN11.PDF
Moving on, I found this:
http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcses/science.php?id=03&prev=
Leading to this:
http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcses/science/new/env_science_overview.php?id=03&prev=03&prev=03
And, in turn, this:
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcse/pdf/AQA-44402-W-TN-JUN11.PDF
As things start to become more dogmatic..
A2.3: Why is the use of fossil fuels unsustainable?
Environmental scientists know that easily-accessible supplies of fossil fuels are running out and that
their combustion releases pollutants into the atmosphere. Candidates should know and understand
that the current rate of use of fossil fuels is unsustainable because their combustion releases the
greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Combustion may also release nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides,
carbon monoxide and particles which are associated with poor human health and air pollution.
… at least, presenting possible dilemmas to students wishing to debate the extent of views as opposed to serving up the mandated mantras.
I can live with the above so long as it is not used as a stepping stone for other foundation ‘givens’ which I have lead my sons to be wary of.
JunkMale
I can very well understand and appreciate your dilemma. It is a “slippery slope”.
As an example, question A2.3 is “loaded” to start off with:
The question should have been:
One reasonable answer would have been:
Seen over the next several centuries, one could argue that the use of fossil fuels is unsustainable, since their supply is not infinite. The same could be said for the use of copper, gold, silver or any other naturally occurring resource.
However, seen over the next several decades the use of fossil fuels is not only sustainable, it is essential to maintain the standard of living in the developed economies, to ensure that developing economies can continue to improve their populations’ affluence and to provide the poorest billions of people who have no access to energy today a sound, low-cost energy infrastructure, in order to pull themselves out of the abject poverty in which they now exist.
Why is this so?
First of all, oil and gas drilling technology has greatly improved over the past decades. What would once have been considered “inaccessible” reservoirs are now easily accessible. In addition, it is now possible to drill several slanted wells from one platform, so that the cost as well as the ecological impact at the surface is only a small fraction of what it once was. Oil and gas deposits in shales and tar sands can now be recovered in an economically viable as well as environmentally safe manner, greatly increasing the net recoverable reserves on our planet. Many of the new as yet un-tapped deposits are located in places outside the Middle East, making them also more attractive longterm from a geopolitical standpoint.
As a result, it is estimated that the recoverable petroleum and natural gas reserves will last some 150 years at current rates of use [supporting data to be cited]. Coal reserves are estimated to last close to 200 years at current rates of use [supporting data]. Flue gas cleanup technologies exist today to make coal combustion environmentally unproblematic [more supporting data].
There is, however, no doubt that all fossil fuel reserves are finite, so that a gradual shift to alternate sources of energy will automatically occur over the long term, with fossil fuels eventually naturally priced such that they are reserved for higher added-value end uses (petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.), rather than simply as energy sources.
Alternate energy sources exist today (renewables plus nuclear fission), but improved processes (improved wind and solar technology to make these renewable sources more viable economically, thorium-based fast breeder reactors to essentially eliminate the waste fuel problem, nuclear fusion to eliminate it entirely, etc.) will also be developed while the existing fossil fuel reserves last.
There appears to be no practical limit to available nuclear fuel (uranium, thorium, etc.) today [supporting data] but the sustainablity of wind turbine technology today is in question due to a potentially serious shortage of rare earth metals,essential for the next-generation wind turbine technology [supporting data]. On the other hand, there appears to be no practical limit in the materials required for solar panel technology [supporting data].
So it is safe to say that over the next several decades the continued use of fossil fuels is not only sustainable but essential.
That would be my answer.
Would I “pass the test”?
(Probably not.)
Max
JunkMale
I forgot to mention another new technology that would fit in well with a gradual shift from petroleum products as motor fuels (now being pursued by several of the oil companies): Algae fuel.
(Of course, there are others as well.)
Max
“Combustion may also release nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides”
An American paper, then..?
I don’t wish it, but one senses a detailed fisking may reveal more ‘disconnects’.
Part of me certainly will find it hard to resist trying to see if one can introduce at some (non-critical) stage the US spelling to provoke a UK reaction that would invite sharing this point, but with luck the disciplines of proper English and Science are mutually exclusive?
“proper English”
I just wondered if it unintentionally revealed the source of the questions. Cut and pasted, perhaps, in the best Alistair Campbell tradition…
On a lighter note, the following is ‘doing the rounds’ and was sent to me by a chum aware of my interest in exam papers. It was/is, apparently*, a ‘climate questionnaire’, I presume in the UK, to Year 10s. Like mine.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XHazOdNCzZ0/TVFjB3d1U8I/AAAAAAAAAVs/0Aq8mztE6oM/s1600/climate_questionnaire.jpg
* I can’t testify to it being real. The answers (which are over extreme, IMHO) don’t look like they are by a young teen, and I’d question the ethics of any examiner releasing such a thing.
However, IF the paper itself is one as issued, I simply have to wonder… why?
LOL! It needn’t have been an exam, more likely something brought home and seized upon by a parent (it could have been me!). I particularly like the reference to 100W light bulbs, as I have been looking for ways to ‘frost’ plain bulbs, now we are no longer allowed* to buy the ‘opal’ ones.
If CFL’s were any good, we would not need to be compelled to buy them!
*although I have since found a source on Ebay.
Well, it gets around, if possibly doesn’t solve, certain issues, I guess:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/no-alevel-physics-at-16-per-cent-of-schools-2215067.html
A solution only the box-tickers could love?
Junkkmale have you seen this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/18/johnny-ball-climate-change-attack
The Guardian’s ace warmist Leo Hickman is specifically asking for examples of eco-indoctrination in schools.
I had not. Have now. Gotta love the ‘net:)
Had a quick scope. Kudos to him for not sweeping this under the carpet, as I am sure some will get very busy elsewhere until it blows over.
Need to read it all first before plugging this thread (which speaks, in some detail, with URLs aplenty, for itself) overtly.
One of the more civilised journos on the beat, but not above a bit of crowd pleasing. My greater fear is the CiF thugs.
A quick gander shows a few who are not great irony fans, though Leo has tried to stamp ’em out.
tx, Geoff
ps: Still not a dicky bird out of AQA/publishers.
Decided that, although getting a bit ‘feisty’, and veering off on the importance of an as yet-unsubstantiated claim by Mr. Ball as an all-purpose ground for dismissal of the whole premise, there are enough there keen to discuss this properly to make the parapet worth peeking over.
With luck, debaters from all corners more keen on helping our kids get the best education they can to progress and succeed as intelligent adults in a competitive world, will be motivated to join in.
One poster has shared the original piece, for some reason freed from the paywall (luckily… for now – I miss having the extra contributions of The Times on my daily surf).
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070579
I will add this thread there too, as it is a good opportunity to get further input from actual foot-soldiers within the profession.
Was wondering why not a single visitor from this:
Maybe this can explain it (if little else):
For those who appreciate irony, I share:
A bit more on the TES ‘story’…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/21/johnny-ball-climate-smear-challenged
…which perhaps goes to show how hard it is to arrive at a view based on what one reads in the media.
Especially that which gets chosen or is allowed to be printed.
And a smidge more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/22/brainwashing-climate-johnny-ball?CMP=twt_fd
I rather suspect my comment…
…may not last long
I’m banned from CiF, but someone might like to link the organisations Alex Cull mentioned at
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=360
Hickman and Randerson are positively chortling at the lack of support for Ball. It’s so childish I can’t be bothered to invent a new name and join in.
Junkkmale
I changed my mind and got my comment in. Bet it gets banned before yours
We are CiFicus:)
Not sure the slash and burn is doing them much favours, even amongst the faithful. Mine was up a while, and the irony of its excising will not be lost on any who saw, and recommended it.
Interesting how few seem to have actually gone to the actual TES piece, which I did before leaping into the fray, and posted pretty much the same ‘offending’ comment.
I wonder how long before the Guardian starts seeing the merits of hiring Nigerian mercenaries to preserve the grip on ‘free speech’.
Bunker mode seldom works out well in the end.
Junkkmale
It was Hickman’s headline challenge that got me so angry: “Why are you all so quiet?” he asked innocently, knowing perfectly well that your comment had been removed and that most sceptics have been banned. This was the language of the playground bully and the Mafia boss, I pointed out. (Actually, I was ruder than that, and my comment was bound to go).
The Guardian has always used hired mercenaries via the Guardian Environment Network, though at £62 an article (according to Paul Kingsnorth) they’re hardly doing it for the money. One of the few successes of sceptic commenters at CiF has been to discourage these occasional contributors, I feel. Many an academic or establishment panjandrum has retired hurt after a volley of what must seem like “friendly fire” coming from Guardian readers.
Are they in “bunker mode”? Certainly the number of comments has decreased dramatically lately, and I’ll do my best to keep it that way. Starve the Queen Troll and the workers will die of boredom.
This should be worth watching – Johnny Ball on the BBC’s Daily Politics show from 11.30 am today on BBC2(2nd March, 2011).