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.
Maurizio said in 268
“Let me add even more cynicism…nobody complains about educational standards because most consider schools like a parking areas during office hours, with any “education” an un-necessary bonus, at least until the A-levels get in sight.”
Far from being flippant there is a large grain of truth in this. There is an imperative for people to go out to work in order to pay for the increasingly large bills we are faced with (many ironically because of our energy policy)
This is permeating further down the chain where many parents now ‘park’ their children from 2 years old upwards in pre school-there are even ‘breakfast clubs’ for this age group.
It is doing harm to the social fabric of the country and we even see it manifesting itself in parents expecting others to look after their children in such places as pubs.
As regards the overall Education policy we are bound by the Kyoto protocol to follow the UN’s Agenda 21. (see my earlier post with links)
I seriously doubt that other in the private sector whether there is much scope for teachers to follow their own instincts or knowledge in teaching anything other than what has been set out.
tonyb
No worries. Frankly a degree of flippancy can often enliven things.
As to what gets gone through here, until recently the school (where, in truth, the boys have indeed been ‘parked’, perhaps with too much faith placed in OFSTED plaudits) has been sole source of ‘academic’ education, with home being more a source of practical experience.
That said, between TV (especially the Discovery channels, and even some video games – they seem to have a very good appreciation of much in history thanks to strategy titles from Rome to the nuances of modern day, state-sponsored terrorism) and Dad’s oft voiced notions on what is pumped out, pro or con, they are encouraged to have an opinion and defend it.
To be honest they seem mildly tolerant of this as opposed to enthusiastic sponges, which is perhaps the best thing. I don’t wish to create clones… or dynastic drones.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11716796
The positive, so far, to all this, is that I have taken a deeper interest in what is happening in that parking lot.
I have a meeting scheduled with the Headmaster and will take the opportunity to find out a lot more first, whilst reserving the right to then voice an opinion if any areas seem wanting. With the clear acceptance that other parents need to be made aware and if in agreement, have our views embraced.
Not perfect, but better than nothing.
In terms of meeting the Head, if specifically on AGW then it’s not going to be easy at all. The findings of the AITruth UK case might help, as might the recent bull (as in Papal) from the Royal Society, contrasted with its previous version but the apparent authority and certainty of the IPCC is a problem.
If you witness the resistance of PeterM/TempT on this site it’s clearly not a simple battle of logic.
I like the video games as history idea, although my other half might not agree. Does this mean my Herodotus-based First Person Shooter idea has legs?
Oh heavens… not going anywhere near that… or even specifics. I wouldn’t lumber my kids with the burden of an ‘awkward’ parent.
Simply using the invitation to make the most of a new status (he’s meeting the PM next week) to show willing as parent to work with the school to make the most of all that’s available to get our kids great grades and good Uni places… and him many ticked boxes. Think Bill Murray’s character in Ghostbusters explaining to the mayor about a no lose/win option: ‘Think Larry. If I’m wrong, I stay here. If I’m right… you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters!‘.
If, in the the process, I get to crank an eyebrow at a few examples of what is being deployed then, well, why not:)?
With my two… not for long once they start mixing and matching on the ordnance set-up and pop Boudicca-styly wheel hubs on the chariots. But enough gore with the history, and they’ll get on board… and learn a bit more history.
… big society beckons then, enjoy. Do report back.
BTW God of War is an excellent game too but not so much detail on Greek mythology. Mixing pop culture into learning can be very powerful – see the first link if you search for “Snyder Marshall Herodotus” for a great comparison of the 300 – film and comic fiction versus ‘fact’.
LW (#382):
Don’t say it. Junior is convinced that The Hoff is a guy from the Spongebob movie playing the judge in America’s Got Talent. Oh, and Piers is a careful and considerate man just as Sharon is sweet and grandmotherly.
I can’t imagine what kind of confusion could happen if Erodotus were to appear in Strictly Come Dancing, or Nietzsche become a topic of a slow afternoon in Big Brother.
M. #279
I’d watch them!
Luke Warmer #273
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. Of course the Lessing quote was profound and true. She always is, even when she’s totally barmy. One of my favourite memories from her is ideally appropriate for Harmless Sky. Her protagonists, idealist young white middle class members of the African Communist Party in colonial Kenya circa 1950 are picnicing on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro. They gaze out over the idyllic unspoilt landscape and one of them says: “I suppose, if we get our way, all this will be covered in council houses “ and another replies “Yes, I suppose it will”.
My problem with the 30 books education plan is similar to the problem I see with the internet. Studying alone might work for Doris because she’s already a formidable intellect who knows how to sift, reason and use her judgement. Similarly, Google and Wikipaedia are fine for us because our generation learned in public libraries how to use a catalogue, bibliography, encyclopaedia etc.
Well, I can’t fault the speed of some responses, reflecting a serious concern around this issue.
I have now had a pretty definitive ‘answer’ from the horse’s mouth as it were, in the form of the Science Publisher of AQA:
It has of course, even in those few short paras, raised a few more questions…
Notwithstanding ongoing concerns on scientific accuracy, I am first of all now wondering why my sons are revising as guinea pigs on a future curriculum, one presumes not to be examined now.
The overall tenor on ‘the question’ is encouraging, in that this suggests an interest more in the thinking going into ‘an’ answer that is, apparently neither right, nor wrong. As many of us were keen to explore.
However, I have trouble reconciling this claim with the actual phrasing used…
That ‘will’, to me at least, suggests one of these is expected to be ‘the answer’. Even if not, it is not made clear at all that all or none may be ‘correct’. Or that the majority of the grading is in the argument, and that this is then left to the views of the examiner.
I have to say her attempt an example is by way of what would satisfy them is… not very encouraging.
Other than telling them that I am not very convinced even on their science, and their confidence in how such poorly worded questions can be fairly graded, especially by kids with a broad appreciation of the issues, I am now frankly a bit stumped.
Perhaps more for dialogue with those at the sharp end?
I have had a long conversation with the school head across the entirety of the syllabus, and on the specifics of science with the Head of Department (to whom I will be sending the initial para of the AQA publisher for comment). He has sent me this:
http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcses/science/new/sciencea_materials.php
And broke out a PDF entitled ‘General Certificate of Secondary Education, 2007 examination – Science A ‘, which suggests it is or will be via the link above.
Locally I am encouraged, if only on them trying to make the best of an overall very dodgy job. These guys seemed to well aware of all we have discussed here. And they are walking a fine line, juggling where they get work from, how it gets discussed and then how it gets taught and marked.
But… ok, they are feeling our pain. Just not too sure that all suffering together is quite the place to stall.
Junkkmale
Thanks for the link – had a quick look e.g. Chemistry specimen paper 1F
http://store.aqa.org.uk/sciencelab/AQA-CHEM-W-SQP-1F.PDF
It’s worse than I could ever imagine. Firstly, some really poor questions, e.g. 2(a) shows no source of heat under the water and yet the student is supposed to know that steam is generated there. Also, 2(b)i is wrong – the oil separates from the water because it is immiscible. Whether it then floats or sinks is another issue to do with relative density. Sadly the answer key doesn’t acknolwedge this.
Then the indoctrination begins – Q4 is a doozy:
Quarrying limestone has impacts that cause environmental problems. Tick two impacts that cause environmental problems:
Puts off tourists Causes dust pollution
Increases jobs Increases traffic
According to the answer key, dust pollution and increases traffic are the 2 ‘right’ answers. However, if you’re deep green the increasing jobs might add to aggregate demand and the loss of tourists is a benefit.
For some reason they’re using US spelling – sulfur in 5d. “The sulfur must be removed from these fuels before they are burned. Explain why.”
Q8c – “Use the information above and your knowledge and understanding to give reasons why shops should ask people to pay for plastic bags.”
Q9 is on plate tectonics and scientific controversy.
Awful stuff and most of it not chemistry. Perhaps we need a new name – GSCE Socio-chemistry.
Just saw a dire typo…
It should be ‘feeling’. Apols.
[TonyN: Corrected]
And so the nightmare unfolds. Along with the dilemma, unleashed as I just had to open Pandora’s revision notes.
If we can stumble across questions that trip us so easily, so quickly, how many more may there be?
And if the science is suspect, complemented by such incoherence in posing the questions sensibly, what chance do our kids have…. especially if they have been taught properly?
If I assemble a selection if instances such as these, and barrel along to the school, just what on earth will the result be… and how will it benefit my kids, unless we end up with some Disneyesque final act of the show where these guys realise what they believe is good honest education is being made a mockery of, and we band together and overturn a clearly unfit-for-purpose system with MPs and journalists cheering on?
Not very likely.
I’m probably missing something, but how did plate tectonics get into a chemistry paper?
But as it did, the only ‘right’ answer to 9 (a) (i), so far as I know, is that Wegener pinched the idea from Taylor’s 1906(?) paper in the Journal of the American Geological Society without citing him.
Luke Warmer
Butter. It’s the only one that tastes any good. It’s also the least processed.
Junkkmale #284
It’s important to separate what you do for your kids at the school level, and what needs doing at the level of saving science education. Some kind of national campaign would be in order, and contacting a sympathetic MP might be an excellent move. Graham Stringer springs to mind as a scientist who obviously cares about the subject, but a specialist in education might also be a good bet. Your own MP is almost certain to deal with a letter, if necessary forwarding it to a colleague with knowledge of the subject. My experience is that they are sympathetic to coherent complaints (given that a large proportion are probably totally batty). Maybe the first stage would be a dedicated site, where interested people could send in examples of horror stories, in order to compile a black book.
It would be important to define strictly the area of interest. Just exams? Just AQA? Just science? A group of people willing to spend some time on basic research would be the first requirement, preferably with some people with specialised knowledge. (Retired teachers wiuld be ideal). Just thinking aloud.
Geoff
Surely there has to be a limit to ‘big society’ being forced to rectify the mistakes of others who are actually paid to do the job. The void is always accountability.
I see the Royal Society of Chemistry has offered to help:
http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2010/RSCAdvisesEdSec.asp
Maybe just make a market for it – exam question papers posted on the web after each wave of exams – any mistakes found then a ‘reward’ of £1-10K is paid from AQAs budget or something (plus the resultant re-marking). Would soon put a rocket up QCDA/AQAss.
JamesP – a long day, I need that butter now!
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I see the AQA chemistry paper.
It looks like it was written by George Monbiot – or maybe those serial tut-tutters at the BBC’s “you and yours” programme.
The syllabus seems to revolve around CO2 and the “war on plastic bags”.
The only good news in sight is that they did not use the loaded expression “fossil fuels” – unlike my daughter’s science teacher.
We’ve been infiltrated. It’s not science. It’s socio-science or maybe new-age-science.
Luke Warmer and JunkkMale
Having studied chemistry myself before switching to chemical engineering, let me comment on the AQA “chemistry” test, point by point:
1. Question on elements OK
2. a) useful oils from plants OK
b) oil floats on water OK
b) oil emulsion OK
3. a) Earth atmosphere like Venus FALSE (ignores pressure/mass)
b) CO2 removed from atmosphere by plants/ocean OK
c) CO2 graph MISLEADING – axis should start at 0
too much emphasis on CO2, question on why does increased atmospheric CO2 worry some people is loaded + HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY
4. a) Limestone mining question HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY
b) and c) OK, but rather limited chemistry
5. a) properties of hydrocarbons OK
b) products of burning CH4 OK
c) products of burning CH4 with restricted air OK
d) reasons for sulfur removal OK
6. a) copper in coins OK
b) copper value increase HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY
7. a) atomic groups + structure OK
b) NaCl reaction OK
8. a) hydrocarbon cracking OK
b) PE polymerization reaction OK
c) pay for plastic bags HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY
9. a) Wegener plate tectonics HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY
BUT
Could be used as a good example of why “consensus” is meaningless in science
All in all, I’d say this is a sorry chemistry test –there are too many misleading, false or “loaded” questions that have nothing to do with chemistry, but more with the politics of “climate science”, plus way too much emphasis on human CO2, without mentioning the chemistry of photosynthesis and the essential role CO2 plays for all life on Earth.
My advice:
1. Get rid of this nonsense as soon as possible and get back to teaching and testing “chemistry” not “political climate change awareness”.
2. Get rid of the people who wrote this test and replace them with people who understand the subject matter being tested.
Max
Luke Warmer #288
Of course we shouldn’t have to do this. We elect and pay politicians to do it. But my guess is few will want to; the right won’t attack a private company, and the left won’t attack a product of the Blairite business model.
The Royal Society of Chemistry document looks promisingly aggressive:
Whatever procedure is chosen to tackle this, the first step is clear enough: gather the evidence.
So are you lot lining up with the Royal Society of Chemistry now? That’s good if you are. You may want to take a look at:
# The major cause of global warming is the combustion of fossil fuels and subsequent emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
# Reductions in man made greenhouse gas emissions are imperative to halt the rise in global temperatures and the negative impact this will have on our climate
http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/ImportanceOfChemicalSciences/ClimateChange.asp
and
“Mike Pilling, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Leeds, UK, described the increased [climate change] scepticism as a ‘very great cause of concern.’ Keeping global warming within acceptable limits will require ‘substantial change in behaviour – both in the way we live our personal lives and the ways in which we influence politicians,’ he says. ‘This dramatic shift in opinion shows we seem to be moving in the wrong direction.”
There are lots of other links if you Google their website. Maybe if you feel I’ve misrepresented their opinion you could give me some of your own that are closer to your ‘opinions’.
Ah Peter/Temp, the squeaking wheel.
If you’d understood the gist of this entire blog and indeed this post, you’d see that most of us here think that organisations like the RSC and the RS have overstepped the mark in terms of their advocacy on the subject of AGW. In fact my first ever comment here was on “nullis in verbia”.
Rather than trying to score points, as a true believer aren’t you at all concerned by elementary mistakes in the exams and their lack of educational content? Do you detect any issues with the questions, or do the ends justify the means?
A agrees with B.
B agrees with C.
Therefore, A agrees with C.
I think there’s a term for that. In debate, not a scientific one. Now back from the creche to the school of reality and actual commentary of value:
Thinking aloud is fine, and infinitely preferable to simply jerking a knee over and over and hitting the keyboard without engaging much more than a limited collection of pre-progammed responses. Though that does seem to be the way to ‘pass’ and ‘excel’ in some quarters.
I’m trying to get my head around local battles and overall ‘wars’.
The small stuff, now, does matter.
Ruthlessly, every mark matters to the grade. I have discovered that there are pockets of competence and commitment who, to take the military analogy further, are lions led by donkeys.
My sons are under their immediate care, but there will be a point at which they are released, in a cold silent exam room, into no man’s land, with intractable folk who do not know them, or care. People who simply look at what they have written, and measure against a grid.
And by what I now know, by the evidence of my own eyes and ears, and have confirmed here, in the uncontested shared experience of others more qualified, this has the potential to end very badly.
Hence I am very keen to learn what my MP has to say, especially as I have directed him to this thread as reference. And, as an ex-banker, he should have at least some empathy with the wisdom of applying fact in deriving a result over hoping the best for spin in making the process seem all that matters. As well as having no excuse not to wade through often extensive, and complex paper trails to discover where mistakes are perpetrated.
The other suggestions you make appear sound and I would support them. I, and it appears others, have been surprised… not in a good way… by specific bad examples being easily found, highlighted and held up for scrutiny.
And found wanting.
These need to be ruthlessly tracked down and brought to the attention of any and all who need to know, and explain, and correct. With… ‘incentives’… ;)
My kids sliding down a grade for answering correctly according to science (or any other subject) but not according to sloppy standards or, worse, adherence to dogma, is… unacceptable.
The talent, and the time is out there. And so is the will.
Maybe the internet now offers the means.
Baby steps.
Junkkmale
Perhaps you should simply thank the powers that be, after all didn’t F Scott Fitzgerald quip that “Intelligence is the art of holding two opposing ideas at the same time”?
I wonder if Peter/Temp is happy with this scientifically semi-literate definition of climate change:
“Climate Change – The process of changing weather patterns caused by the increased number of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere as a result of human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”
From a DECC document linked to by Barry Woods at Jeff Id’s place:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/a%20low%20carbon%20uk/co2_off_setting/1_20100115105713_e_@@_aguidecarbonoffsettingen.pdf
In the spirit of answering questions and seeking to keep from offering openings to those who don’t (and hence I really have no time for) new opportunities at spinning off thread, at the moment I’d just be fine if the ‘powers that would like to stay in office via my vote’ would stay on top of ensuring the basics get shared at school for now, and restrict efforts at indoctrination to later when my boys can assess the theories based on solid science foundations, and with an appreciation of what counts as scientific method…. and tell ’em where to stick it themselves (I was interested to read a review of the recent protests that suggested the anger was not just on the cuts, but on the current quality of teaching being provided for the spiraling fees – you don’t get to do an MSc at Harvard or a job at a Singapore tech-centre by making EU box-tickers happy).
Plus, as I am starting to gather, also simply getting the basics right now, if they wouldn’t mind.
Luke Warmer,
You ask “aren’t you at all concerned by elementary mistakes in the exams and their lack of educational content?” Yes of course.
However, there is too much unstructured criticism in your approach. Yes, I would agree that plastic bags should be re-used and recycled. Giving them a monetary value of a few cents certainly would help to achieve this. However, I would agree that its nothing to do with chemistry, and its shouldn’t be classed as such in the school syllabus.
But that’s not your real concern. Its climate change, not recycled plastic bags or limestone quarrying, which you want removed from school science lessons.
Tempt.
I’m not sure how your final assertion relates to my viewpoint at all – certainly not from what I’ve commented here. I began with a quote saying all education is indoctrination.
Personally I’d want climate change covered as a core element, making the point that CO2 levels used to be higher and lower, temps have been higher and lower, sea levels etc, O2 is a pollutant (GOE) and so on. Perhaps as a wider unit on the history of the universe, nucleosythesis and all that. Instill some awe, a sense of the sublime, not make the ankle biters come back home from school to nag their parents about bags for life.
Re those plastic bags, if you’re really concerned about CO2 then it’s the total emission you have to look at, not some gesture of conspicuous green consumption. Why not a few cents on the yoghurt pot, milk carton, ready meal tray etc which are far more massive? (And that’s not a policy suggestion).