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.
TonyN #20
I remember saying to Robin that we ought to press for a court case in front of a real judge (probably would have to be a tv type event) as that would mean the ‘evidence’ would actually have to stand proper scrutiny. I thought that Robin was dead against this sort of idea so I am bemused by your comments. Perhaps he came round to the idea after all?
As can be seen by Peters persistent attempts to evade the questions, the evidence for CAGW is very thin and it would be good to see it challenged by someone that would actually have to read the material from both sides. Look forward to your new thread.
The propaganda put out to our schoolchildren from both Futerra and the Sage 21 UN progranmme is truly distressing in its one sided message coupled with the horrific scenario that are painted.
As far as I remember the ruling, I thought that in theory whenever AIT is shown the school should also put the sceptics viewpoint. Perhaps that aspect will come out in the new thread?
tonyb
Messenger, that’s an excellent post of yours, over at Bishop Hill. The key, I think, is this bit (for “my emphasis”, read “Messenger’s emphasis”):
“This rather closed environment [of schools] makes it an arguably unique situation where communications about climate change can work together to influence not only knowledge of climate change, but attitudes to and behavioural responses to it” [my emphasis].”
And that’s where the major push to win over malleable young hearts and minds is now going on, where it is difficult for parents to oversee and interfere; those who guide the project are clearly expecting it to bear fruit in the years to come, when the generation now in school start to have a say in how society is run.
Taking a step back and attempting to look at the big picture, surely any sort of solution boils down to politics in the end. Is it not politics that ultimately determines what gets taught in schools, how much influence NGOs, quangos and corporations have in education, and also what sort of legislation we end up with? The solution to all this is surely a new political movement. Not necessarily a new political party, but a grass roots political movement – goodness knows, there are enough people now who are thinking and feeling in similar ways to us.
Here is the sort of stuff being fed to children of 4 and 5. This is a play popular in British primaery schools.
http://www.outoftheark.co.uk/eddie-the-penguin-saves-the-world.html
The synopsis is mentioned and it is worth clicking on the songs. Typical line from ‘The melting song’
Drip drop drip drop can you hear a sound
the icebergs where we like to play
are melting melting away.”
To indoctrinate 4 year olds with this sort of stuff and scare them like it does (one 4 year old was told that if they didn’t turn off the lights a penguin would die) is criminal.
Putting over perspective and context to such a young age group is difficult. This is useful however for older children and comes from the website Messenger linked to;
“In every 85,800 molecules of air, 33 are CO2. Of those, humans just produce one. That the UN IPCC and Al Gore claim that one (1) molecule of CO2 in 85,800 molecules of air catastrophically warms the planet is nonsense. That the UN IPCC and Al Gore claim that one (1) molecule of human CO2 causes catastrophic warming while the remaining 32 molecules of Nature’s identical CO2 do not is insanity. “Hans Schreuder
I wonder if Peter thinks all this stuff is OK because it will ‘save the planet.’
tonyb
TonyB
PeterM is silent (and rightly so) on all this fear mongering and brainwashing of children (even 4 to 5 year olds!).
He will not admit it, but he knows that it is immoral, reprehensible and should be illegal.
When I was young, I lived in the “Bible Belt” of the USA. There I heard “hell-fire and damnation” preachers frightening children (and gullible adults) with their garbage. I’m sure that these misguided souls thought that they were doing this for a good cause.
The current AGW doomsday fear mongering of children is no different (and just as unacceptable).
Max
Max,
I’m not sure what you want me to say on the question of the way science is taught in schools. In the US, and UK for example, I would suggest that all schools and universities should take their lead from organisations like the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences.
There should be no place for Creationism or Intelligent Design in the Science curriculum.
Similarly, science teaching should be straight down the line as reported by the IPCC. I’m not sure if there is anything that is too scary in there for kids. What is scary, is that you have people like yourself and Snr Inhofe saying it’s all a hoax and therefore nothing needs to be done and not enough is being done.
PeterM
You ask:
Nothing, Peter.
I do not think that you have anything constructive to add to this discussion.
Just read what all the other bloggers here are saying. Maybe you will learn something (and maybe not) – it depends entirely on you.
Max
First you say I’m avoiding the issue then later you don’t want me to comment at all. Well make your mind up!
I would have thought that my views in science teaching, outlined in #29, would be those held by the vast majority of the population whether in Australia, the USA, Switzerland or the UK. Nothing controversial at all.
Reading, and mulling further, I am minded of some satirical commentary on a possible future where critical faculties are taken by (or, worse, handed over by abuses of trust to) others, mainly because it seems easier that way:
http://r33b.net/
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=340#comments
Not, as such, in a good way. TBH.
Even if the ‘justification’ of ‘the majority’ is used:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2W38tLp_Q
And whilst constructing icons of straw can prove suitably distracting to some, I remain hopeful that any who would defend the questions posed in the course book, and the thinking behind their posing, preferably from a position of authority, would do so.
tempterrain #29
The Royal Society takes no position on matters of controversy, so has nothing to tell us about Eddie the Penguin saving the world. (see TonyB”s #27). In a free society, I can write a musical about Eddie the Penguin inventing a fusion reactor and turning the Antarctic into a softly lit tropical paradise, or Sammy the Seal joining a religious sect in order to protect his children from a world run by drug barons and porn merchants. Both my scenarios are based on feasible projections of our future world, backed up by peer-reviewed science. Neither will get past the school governing board. Why not? Pure ideological prejudice. I think the kids ought to know about my utopian dream of unlimited energy / my dystopian fears of sex and drugs. Most people don’t.
Similarly with catastrophic global warming. It isn’t happening, no-one knows whether it might happen. The penguins are fine for the next few thousand years. Let’s teach the kids some science and let them sort out the world in 2050.
PeterM
You reveal your ulterior motive to “influence” rather than to “stimulate” pupils when you write (29):
Why not write:
The reason why both statements are wrong is simple, Peter.
Because neither viewpoint has been definitively validated by empirical data based on actual physical observations, nor has either withstood scientific attempts at falsification by empirical data, so both viewpoints remain uncorroborated hypotheses, rather than reliable scientific knowledge.
Moreover, most recently the scientific viewpoint of Lindzen (i.e. that AGW does not constitute a serious danger) appears to be getting the upper hand, with a) the physical observations of Spencer et al. on cloud feedbacks and b) the most recently observed cooling of the planet (atmosphere plus upper ocean) despite record CO2 increase.
It is now up to the proponents of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis a) to scientifically falsify the Spencer et al. observations and b) show where (within our climate system) the missing energy is hiding (from where it can come out of hiding some day in the future to cause dangerous warming).
Failing this, it appears that the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis will have become a falsified hypothesis, which, like the “phlogiston hypothesis” and “cold fusion”, can be discarded.
So until this process has run its course it is foolish to say that
It always comes back to the science, Peter, and to the scientific method, as I have been trying to tell you on the NS thread.
Max
The teaching profession should take the best advice on the state of scientific opinion on any taught subject. I’m not sure that either you or I are particularly well qualified to give this.
IPCC could be used as a world authority – but if anyone had a problem with them being part of some UN world conspiracy or whatever such nonsense they might have in their heads, then the US National Academy of Sciences or the UK’s Royal Society should be equally acceptable.
Both these organisations are run by smart and well qualified guys. They don’t need any lessons on the scientific method from a diesel engine mechanic.
PeterM
Are you a “diesel engine mechanic”? (I always thought you were a physicist of sorts – not that it really matters a hill of beans to our discussion here.)
As I pointed out to you, the IPCC view of “dangerous AGW” is not “reliable scientific knowledge” according to the “scientific method”. It is simply an “uncorroborated hypothesis”.
As is Richard Lindzen’s view that “AGW is not a real danger”.
Neither has been conclusively validated by empirical evidence based on actual physical observations or withstood scientific attempts of falsification based on empirical data (although it appears that Lindzen is closer on this score than IPCC, based on the latest observed physical data, as I pointed out).
Science teachers should give both views equal coverage (without spending too much time on either) and indicate that neither view has as yet been “validated” according to the “scientific method”.
What the NAS or RS political leadership happen to state today is meaningless. They revise their political stand from time to time and, besides, we are talking “science” here, Peter, not “politics”.
But I realize that “science” is not something you like to discuss (especially when you are on thin ice). Discussing “politics” is more your game (it’s more “wishy-washy”).
Max
PeterM
You seem to like to talk about “mainstream science” in support of your view that AGW is a serious potential problem.
To support your position, you “appeal to authority” (RS, NAS, IPCC, “all the world’s climate research organizations, all the world’s universities, all the world’s top scientific bodies”, etc.) rather than appealing to “evidence”, following the scientific method. Your latest post (37) parrots this same “appeal to authority”.
This is, of course, a logical fallacy, as Wiki tells us:
So it is an invalid basis. Now that we’ve laid that argument to rest, let’s look at the “scientific method”, and see how it has been applied in support of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
An essay “An Introduction to Science” (which I cited previously, but will repeat the link) discusses the application of the “scientific method” as follows:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html
The scientific method involves four steps geared towards finding truth (with the role of models an important part of steps 2 and 3 below):
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena – usually in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to quantitatively predict the results of new observations (or the existence of other related phenomena).
4. Gathering of empirical evidence and/or performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments, in order to validate the hypothesis, including seeking out data to falsify the hypothesis and scientifically refuting all falsification attempts.
How has this process been followed for AGW?
? Step 1 – Warming and other symptoms have been observed.
? Step 2 – CO2 has been hypothesized to explain this warming.
? Step 3 – Models have been created based on the hypothesis and model simulations have estimated strongly positive feedbacks leading to forecasts of major future warming
X Step 4 – The validation step has not yet been performed; in fact, the empirical data that have been most recently observed have demonstrated (1) that the net overall feedbacks are likely to be neutral to negative, and (2) that our planet has not warmed recently despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, thereby falsifying the hypothesis that AGW is a major driver of our climate and, thus, represents a serious future threat; furthermore, these falsifications have not yet been refuted scientifically.
Until the validation step is successfully concluded, the “dangerous AGW” premise remains an “uncorroborated hypothesis” in the scientific sense. If the above-mentioned recently observed falsifications cannot be scientifically refuted, it may even become a “falsified hypothesis”.
So the flaw of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis is not that several scientific organizations have rejected it, it is simply that it has not yet been confirmed by empirical evidence from actual physical observation or experimentation, i.e. it has not been validated following the “scientific method” .
And this is a “fatal flaw”, Peter (and there certainly is no sound scientific basis for wrecking the global economy with draconian carbon taxes and caps as long as this “fatal flaw” has not been resolved using the scientific method).
And this is also why “dangerous AGW” should not be taught as “science” to our school children by teachers who just happen to personally “believe” in it.
Max
Max,
Ultimately what should be taught in schools is a political decision. Politicians can either decide for themselves the content of the school curriculum or they can, and probably should take the best scientific advice available.
But Max, that won’t be you! :-( Sorry!
PeterM
You are right
Politicians (as well as schoolteachers) are payed by the taxpayer to perform a public duty.
As long as the taxpayers are satisfied that these “public servants” are performing the duties as wished by a majority of the voting taxpayers, things run well.
One they become dissatisfied with the duties as performed, it’s time (in a democratic society) to exchange politicians (and/or teachers).
I would think that most parents do not want their children to be frightened by school teachers, so that many (as witnessed on this thread) are becoming dissatisfied and are looking at ways to get things back on the right track.
That’s how it works, except in autocratic societies run by non-democratic governments, where these decisions are made “top-down” by the political elite.
In our society the politicians will ultimately have to bow to the will of the majority in their “decision” on “what is taught”.
And the teachers will have to comply with this “decision” (or move on to some other profession).
Then there are judicial decisions on “giving equal time” to conflicting uncorroborated scientific hypotheses in order to “offer a balanced presentation of opposing views”, so as to “stimulate discussion” rather than “influence opinion”, which must be followed, particularly for older pupils, who can absorb this information intellectually and emotionally.
The principles are simple. The implementation is often a bit more complicated, as this thread has shown.
But I am convinced that the “system” will eventually work and that teachers who violate the trust of their pupils’ parents by fear mongering (even in the “name of a just cause”) will be removed from the system.
Max
There is much with the education of our children, across many subjects, that I think has the potential to inspire a variety of emotional responses.
In many ways it can only be down to the skill of the individual teacher how the information is imparted, received, reacted to and, if necessary, managed. Plus, of course, with complementary support, if made aware, or sought, by parents. Frankly I want them fired up a bit on occasion.
However, I do not think it unreasonable that the original curriculum information be at least accurate, objective and shared in a sensible manner to kick things off in the various directions such things can lead.
To repeat, are there any who feel the questions posed that inspired my original concerns (and this new thread) can still be defended as falling reasonably under that (already very wide and generous) category? At best, the only sensible answer was ‘none of the above’, with extra kudos for taking the sloppiness of each question sentence apart. But… that was not an option to see a tick in the box.
Whatever the macro aspects, the fact remains those questions appeared in a specific ‘teacher to pupil to test to marker to grade’ form either fully agreed by many as being unacceptable on any measure, or… have thus far been ignored in favour of pointless generic nit-picking and obdurate irrelevance by a few.
It serves little to be treated to endless exercises in cherry picking, straw man debate and distraction, which honestly seems only to illustrate that there are some with too much time on their hands and little productive to do with it save digging deeper holes.
There are clear tangibles I have found, and am now in the process of challenging, as high as needs be. Sadly (for some), I do not consider the establishment to be such a bastion of competence and trust to let this, or any other ‘oddities’ blow by without flagging and seeking explanation.
There may be some positives. I certainly am now a lot more interested in the detail of what ‘politicians’ ‘decide for themselves’, and will in future be holding them, and those who deem themselves ‘qualified’ to ‘advise’, better, best or via complicit placeperson appointee, much more to account.
Junnkmale #40
The example you give at the top of this thread is awful. The multiple choice question format is a very questionable format at th best of times, but the three choices offered aren’t mutually exclusive, or even linked logically. So what is a pupil to do but try and guess what the teacher wants to hear?
I am sure there must be teachers and others involved (scientific advisers to education departments, publishers and writers of text-books, etc) who must have their doubts, if not about global warming as a IPCC-established fact, at least about its treatment in current exams. In my own field of language teaching, it’s easy to find blogs where teaching methods and the politics of language teaching (we non-scientists don’t have to pretend that we are purveyors of objective truth) are fiercely discussed. I haven’t found anything similar for science or geography teachers. This would be a ideal starting point for a discussion, I think.
Apart from parents complaining to the schools, is there any other practical way that this biased curriculum can be challenged?
John Shade is looking at the geography curriculum with a view to a post soon, and the findings so far are pretty awful. The question of the multiple-choice questions, with no opportunity fro the children to give an unauthorised answer, is a shocking example of the inherent bias, whatever the subject.
What?????????
It is the parent’s decision, not the State.
Are you guys insane?
The State can put forth an offered curriculum, but ultimately it is the parent’s decision of what should be taught to their children.
I teach…..(vocationally/trade schools). I did away with all multiple choice questions. I pose a question and the question is answered in essay form….not multiple choice.
Anyone can check a box, I require my students to explain their answers. In this way not only do I verify that they actually understand the material, it also prepares them for the real world in the context of being able to explain the topic thoroughly.
In addition, I’ve found that 75% of the students are functionally illiterate (public school education graduates). If nothing else, answering my questions in essay form assists with their (lack of) grammar skills.
A teacher that uses multiple choice tests is a lazy teacher………not willing to invest the time to actually teach……
My eldest daughter has just started at secondary school and yes it’s bad.
The dilemma is that I disagree strongly with the teaching of this bogus nonsense in schools. But I don’t want my daughter to be a martyr for her dad’s opinions.
I’m interested to hear what other parents – and others – are doing. Who are you talking to and what line are you taking?
A few months ago a small group of us answered an ad on Bishop Hill and discussed this issue. John Shade of Climate Lessons was in the group. We had divergent ideas on what to do and how to do it so the group fizzled.
But it would be useful to know:
1) We are not unique in our concerns – mutual support and encouragment.
2) What others have done and what has worked / not worked.
I tend to agree. I guess we would not be here, now, if what I’d seen hadn’t rattled me to the core.
But it was the mixture of opinion with science, topped off by a large dollop of mandated answer methodology that appeared so utterly rigid, that pushed me over this time.
Frankly I haven’t had a clue what on earth a ton of my kids’ homework was about since primary, but foolishly put it down to ‘new’ ways of doing stuff that my old memories were inadequate to cope with.
At least with maths, or physics, or chemistry, I was fairly confident that there were ‘right’ answers still, and all those involved were sincerely interested in getting the kids to them, and along they way show how their minds were working to get there. With the process being as important as the result, and in getting to the latter the building blocks of the former got laid down and reinforced with each new application.
But even so, I was often biting my lip. Too many times my first reaction was that ‘this is so badly framed, almost any answer is inadequate’. Especially with the rigidity of multiple choice imposing black or whites when I was seeing massive shades of grey at every stage.
However this particular set brought into stark relief what I perceived to be a very clear agenda from the outset, from which all other aspects were stemming, albeit with the added negative imposition of rotten framing.
Which is why I am so keen to hear some kind of defence from those who seem so quick, and vocal, and assured that this is ‘for the best’… usually.
It’s not about the over-arching pros and cons of (A)GW science and its communication, but how I… we got to be faced with these three questions above, by some kids needing help and seeking to deliver the ‘correct’ answers to gain maximum marks…. I presume from a party they have and will never meet to ask ‘what the heck are you on about?’.
This book comprises some revision component of the science curriculum at this age. There was a bunch of other stuff in there; stuff I recognised and was more comfortable with. But there were also a raft of chapters that included not only science, but it in the form of ‘topics’ that almost scream topical, still hotly-diputed agendas.
Folk at high level must have debated these in generic terms, and then others will have derived more detailed aspects, down to specifics. And these will, I presume, have been seen and peer-reviewed by qualified folk who are not only educated in science, but are also savvy in the responsibility of being science educators.
Please… explain how my kids get presented with three such questions, phrased in such a way that all seem to have some presumption of validity, with one edging it as ‘correct’? With ‘correct’ being ‘what teacher wants to hear’.
As Geoff has articulated, as an educator, he cannot even see the logic of how they are portrayed irrespective of any ‘climate beliefs’.
Max,
By the way, an entire thread can be devoted to the influence of the teachers unions and their efforts to retain teachers that simply cannot teach. The Liberal politicians in the US have been in bed with the teachers unions for years………paying them off (buying votes) in exchange for promoting leftist ideology with the result being students who graduate that cannot read or make change at a convenience store.
Take a look at any public school text book today……any level………you’ll be appalled.
JunkkMale, Geoff, I’m not a great fan of the multiple-choice question format either – it probably has its place, but it is a lazy way of testing students, and is not a particularly great indicator of anyone’s understanding of a given subject. Geoff’s Lua tribe example is an excellent one. Once I remember looking at some course materials given to my wife when she was taking an IT Change Control Management course at work. I know almost zilch about Change Control Management but simply by paying attention to the way questions and answers were worded and arranged, I found that I could usually sense the correct answer, and would have passed the tests with flying colours.
It’s almost a kind of non-education, as it forces attention away from the subject and towards figuring out what the examiners and teachers want to hear (Geoff, as per your #41). But it does suit today’s box-ticking culture to a T, and at the risk of sounding cynical (moi?), it would seem to be a good preparation in life for coping with officialdom in all its forms.
Alex #48
My feeling exactly about Multiple Response Questions. But they exist, and there’s no doubt a huge body of research into how to frame them. No educationalist could frame a question like the one Junnkmale cites, regardless of his opinion on climate change.
Who are AQA? (“the largest of the three English exam boards” they announce on their site). Is it like the company which made such a mess of the A-level results last year, which was employing unqualified undergrads to mark papers?
It’s important to separate two lines of criticism: 1) The quality and level of the questions and 2) The question of global warming bias.
The worst thing to do, it seems to me, would be to approach the school and complain of global warming bias, at least before doing a lot of research, since one would simply be lumped in with religious fundamentalists who don’t want their children to be taught evolution.
I recommend anyone to take a look at the sample past exams on the AQA site (I only looked at GCSE biology: evolution and environment).
I’m still looking for a blog where teachers discuss questions of exams and curricula.These two
http://www.geographyteachingtoday.org.uk
and
http://www.teachclimatechange.org.uk/
are government sponsored, and effectively dead. Their discussion pages have one comment each in the past year.