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.
Long Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge. 1st day for a young student doing ‘environmental science’.
Teacher required students to get up and stand on one side of the room if they accepted AGW and on another side if they didn’t. It was obvious to the student I knew, who told me about it, which were going to be the teacher’s pets.
Philip Foster
You describe “step 1” (at Long Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge).
“Step 2” is shown in the 10:10 “Splattergate” film.
Max
Luke Warmer and PeterM
Looks like we all three agree that “climate science” (including a major emphasis on “meteorology”) would be a good optional subject at the higher level (pupils at least 16 or older).
However, this should not be a replacement for other more basic “science” subjects: general science, biology, chemistry, physics, but rather an optional “extra” for those who choose it. It probably requires as a prerequisite that the pupil has been exposed to some prior instruction in physics and chemistry.
In this “climate science” course the primary emphasis should be on meteorology and our planet’s climate history, with some mention of specific natural climate forcing factors as well as the greenhouse effect.
It would be important (at today’s level of scientific knowledge) that the course points out that the greenhouse effect itself is real and that it is likely that human CO2 might have an added net warming effect on our planet, but that it is not at all certain whether this effect could be substantial (i.e. more than 2C over the next 100 years) or imperceptible (i.e. less than 1C, as it has been over the past 150 years), with an even greater uncertainty regarding the impact of the many natural forcing factors.
The cyclical nature of our climate should also be taught. This would include not only longer-term warming and cooling periods, such as the MWP and LIA, but also the 60-year warming/cooling cycles we have seen since modern measurements started in 1850.
It should be pointed out that some scientists have concluded that we may be heading for a prolonged period of naturally caused cooling, while others believe that anthropogenic greenhouse warming will dominate our climate over the next several decades.
The IPCC view on AGW should be taught as one hypothesis. At the same time, opposing views, such as those of Lindzen, Spencer et al. should also be presented.
Politics and policy should be kept out of such a course, as should any kind of alarmism or fear mongering. Instead, the course should stick to the subject matter of “climate science”.
Would you both agree with such an approach?
Max
You beat me to it Max! Did the teacher have a red button, by any chance?
Junkkmale – #296
Absolutely agree, getting the basics right is the critical bit. Again my quote was half in jest.
Some relevant stuff here (BTW the guy is not a climate skeptic):
http://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/category/gcse-standards/
IMHO so long as the “theology” of science is well taught (by that of course I mean the scientific method, which is not easily bottled and far more complex than most think – not just the lone hero scientist against the world with a refute it thus falsification) it should include the critical fact (with examples) that science is and continunes to be fallible. This would increase trust in science and help your (and all) kids once the wheels fall off the AGW bus.
Manacker
I agree until we get to the opposing views bit. The problem here is that it would be used to open the floodgates to a wide range of scientific ‘controversies’ some of which are not controversial. [Read this sentence closely before sniping PeterM] – Like creationism v evolution. Also cold fusion, abiotic oil, dark matter, MMR vaccination, margarine/ trans fats, vitamin C and cancer, flat earth, coffee enemas, astrology, happiness, aliens and many, many other things. You will always find someone willing to speak for the other side.
I would rather kids be taught about AGW than destroy the fundamentals of science. If AGW had its political aspirations clipped that would be a start. This coupled with my final point above should suffice.
Luke Warmer says:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Oh dear, I fear I may be coming across as a bit po-faced:) Not my intention. Sorry.
However, while I have my own views on many things, especially matters controversial, in this I am trying to be ruthlessly focussed (eg: avoiding giving any opportunity to professional contrarians to scoot off and stick question marks on irrelevant stuff whilst still avoiding answering the topic at hand), like the Tommy Lee Jones Marshall in ‘The Fugitive’. Whatever may surround ‘the arguments’, if it doesn’t add up on the basics… I don’t care.
Equally, if questions are poorly phrased especially to the extent of being unanswerable, I do care. A lot.
Hence me now taking a few folk ‘in the system’ to task. And not taking waffle for answers.
Fellow travellers here are unearthing more and, sadly, more, which I am throwing at them.
Frankly, on current evidence already, reprints are in order. If not rethinks.
ps: I like Geoff’s notion of a ‘rogue’s gallery’, not specifically on hairy issues such as (A)GW or restricted to ‘science’, and am looking at a very simple online grid, as a website or even Google Doc URL, whereby stuff that ‘may’ be considered ‘loose’ by concerned parents can be posted for opinion and maybe even grading or referral. I had started one years ago around politicians’ promises, but that got lost in the wash as no one seems too believe any get honoured any more.
As with all things the trick would be to achieve balanced, objective moderation, to avoid various ‘camps’ trying to use it as yet another swamp to throw mud at each other and lose the audience of simply concerned, tribally-unaffiliated parents I’d like it to serve.
Subjective topics such as English would be a zoo from the off, but as already shown in posts above, in such as Chemistry, Physics, etc, if the questions are flawed on clear bases they need to be highlighted.
Junkkmale – surely not po-faced.
The link I gave above has an interesting link to this blog/page:
http://howscience.co.uk/contributors/michael-de-podesta-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-asylum.html
Some more food for thought there.
In my opinion, you have to approach this on an even keel not on a single issue. The aim should be to improve the quality of science teaching. Have a quick gander at this curriculum:
http://www.vandammeacademy.com/science/outline.htm
and then weep when you see the age group covered at the bottom of the page. My only slight concern is its potential for a Whig interpretation of history, but even that’s a minor price to pay in terms of the scope.
You could do a lot worse than buying the course from them for use with yourself and your children. [I am not connected in any way with Lisa Van Damme or the school] As we both realise though, the problems come if the dumb curriculum we have is not able to cope.
http://www.vandammeacademy.com/science/index.htm
BishopHill was on to this subject four years ago.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2006/11/7/politics-in-school.html
It might be worth following up articles and comments and contacting commenters
Meanwhile, in my occasional browse through the AQA site, I found this, from GCSE environmental science:
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcse/pdf/AQA-44401F-W-SQP.PDF
Note that the sentence I’ve highlighted is presented as an incontrovertible fact, on which students are expected to base their answer.
junkkMale
Have a look at this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/unhinged-lsu-professor-gives-stemwinding-global-warming-lecture/#more-27964
Its where the US is headed with older children. Is AGW like climate porn, you need stronger stuff all the time in order to get the desired effect?
The lecturer is a complete idiot but he uncomfortably reflects the ethos of the slattergate video recently.
This sort of indoctrination does need to be challenged.
tonyb
Luke Warmer
In #301 I was suggesting some thoughts for a “climate science” course for 16+ year olds who have already had some basic exposure to general science and physics (as an alternate to brainwashing, fear mongering or tossing in “one-sided” socio-political climate pseudo-science into a “chemistry” course, for example, all of which we are reading about on this thread).
I have not suggested “opening up the floodgates to a wide range of scientific ‘controversies’”, but rather presenting scientific views of Lindzen/Spencer or Curry (and others) along with those backed by IPCC, and letting the pupils know that there is still a very high degree of uncertainty regarding the importance of natural forcing factors and the potential impact of AGW on our planet’s climate.
This all has nothing to do with “Creationism” versus “Darwinism” (a discussion, which IMHO has no place in a “climate science” course).
Nor does it have anything to do with all the many other controversial (non-climate related) topics you listed.
BTW, I fully agree with you on these points (and that “you will always find someone willing to speak for the other side” even if it is totally absurd), but this has nothing to do with what I was suggesting regarding an objective and de-politicized “climate science” course for 16+ year olds.
And I take it from your post that you agree both with taking out the politics and objectively showing the whole picture rather than just one view.
So I conclude that we are in agreement on the topic of my #301.
If not, please state your specific objections, so we can discuss these further.
Max
TonyB
The LSU film (your 310) is much more frightening that the 10:10 “Splattergate” gaffe.
This professor needs to be reprimanded and, if he repeats this kind of behavior, fired on the spot (assuming that this is a real video of a real professor at LSU).
Max
Just watched the video – if genuine, what a weird and semi-coherent lecture.
No wonder few of the students appear to be paying attention.
Back in the UK, want to study science at the Open University? Here‘s the OU’s web page for science at undergraduate level.
The first two courses listed are these:
“Environment: journeys through a changing world (U116)”
“Exploring science (S104)”
Here’s the description of the Environment course:
And here’s how the Exploring Science description starts:
“What is causing global warming?”
Well, at least they’re asking the question…
[TonyN: I think that there is a link missing at the beginning of this comment.
The Senior Lecturer in Environment [sic] at the OU is Joe Smith, co-founder and co-director with Roger Harrabin of CMEP, the joint organisers of the BBC seminar mentioned in the submission to the BBC science review. This profile makes interesting reading.]
LW (307): in the other thread you criticise the 4-step model for science, and here you praise VanDamme’s “historical” approach. Not sure if it’s the same you 8-)
Alex (313): have you ever heard of a Gender Studies course that doesn’t pivot around the notion that women are exploited the world over, for all topics and in all circumstances? Me neither. That’s why I am not surprised at all by the OU Environment course’s approach. Imagine a French Culture course centered on showing the supremacy of German or English culture?
M – 314 Good spot, it is the same me, here’s why:
I’m praising Vdamme’s scope and content for the science course. (The shocking point being it is for 5 to 7 yr olds. I still haven’t heard of Hauksbee and Dufay! I did spot what looks like an error about Gilbert and magnetism – it needs to go back about another 300 years to Petrus Peregrinus).
But I did add a caveat on Whig history in my original comment, where the danger is that we make heroes of those who were temporarily right whilst making ludicrous statements like “Priestley continued to cling to the pre-medieval notion of phlogiston.” true quote) Similarly we laugh at anyone who thinks the sun goes round the earth because we “know” it doesn’t, yet it took Wittgenstein to ask “What would it look like if it was the other way round.” It’s perhaps where I mis/understood? your other comment – incommensurability is a critical factor over time.
Anything we teach on the scientific method though is usually scientistic rubbish. Yes we can idealise it, maybe even aspire to it but it ain’t like that.
Also, experimenter’s regress, faith in the results of one’s peers on the basis of their reputation not the facts, schools of thought and many other things get in the way. That’s my point on the other thread.
Keeping it consistent, I’m assuming that the VDamme academy course does not take a political stance on the issues. However, going all of the way back to the start of my entries here – all education inevitably veers towards indoctrination, which implies some form of politics/ subjectivity/ value judgement.
I hope this is clear.
LW (315) – every storytelling should have caveats 8-)
One thing I am not fully grasping is, why should we be so concerned about the quality of education? After all it didn’t do much harm to many of the people commenting here, did it? I’d say it was beneficial for me to discover that things were not as told in school.
My first “skeptical moment” was in the equivalent of year 4, when we were told the Nile started from Lake Victoria, whilst I knew perfectly well about the other branches, and the rivers feeding the Lake itself.
Years later I was told the geography teacher got quite upset because of my “correction” 8-D
It’s been downhill since…
Luke Warmer,
I’m not opposed to extending the principle beyond plastic bags, but concern over the effects of discarded bags goes further than just emissions caused in their manufacture.
They block drains, they kill cattle, and wildlife, they are an eyesore.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/africa_wages_wa.php
Furthermore when they get into the sea they kill turtles and whales:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/bag-the-plastic/story-e6frfiho-1111115310147
PeterM
We may (finally) agree on something, namely, that a good percentage of all the throwaway plastic stuff we are discarding ends up in the ocean – apparently a major portion ends up in one area of the Pacific, where it degrades only very slowly.
And, as you say, there have been cases of turtles and whales dying from plastic bags.
What we do not know is what will eventually happen with all this plastic flotsam (or jetsam).
Will bacteria evolve that use it as food or will it gradually degrade naturally (eventually to CO2 and H2O)?
As we saw following the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, natural bacteria were much more effective in “gobbling up” the oil at the surface than the chemicals, which were sprayed on the oil slick to make it sink out of sight.
Polyethylene may be a bit more difficult to “gobble up” than petroleum hydrocarbons, but who knows what will happen?
In any case, I would agree with you that discarding plastic bags or other objects where they can enter sewer or drainage lines rather than where they will be land-filled or incinerated is not the environmentally responsible thing to do.
But outlawing plastic bags would be just as stupid.
In my opinion, a better solution would be to use biodegradable plastics for these “throwaway” uses (they exist).
Putting a marginal price tag on plastic bags (as we do in Switzerland) so that they get reused rather than discarded after one use is another good approach.
But this all has very little to do with the main topic here.
Max
TonyN, sorry I should have made it clear in my #313, I was commenting on the video in the link posted by TonyB (#310) in which the lecturer seems to be seriously considering a scenario where India and Pakistan launch a joint nuclear strike on the US over CO2 emissions.
Very interesting re Joe Smith’s profile and the CMEP connection. The OU does seem to be very on-message re climate change, so that now makes sense.
Maurizio, re climate change, the environment and gender studies, here‘s an example of the connection: a book called Climate Change and Gender Justice, edited by the UEA’s Geraldine Terry.
“This can make it hard to find an entry point to introduce gender-equality issues into the debates.” But somehow they managed it…
[TonyN: my fault for not paying attention. I’ve added the link anyway]
Maurizio #316
It wasn’t me who started the thread, although I do think there are valid concerns with the quality of education, exacerbated by the poor exam papers.
But you’re right, as someone said, education begins when you forget what you learnt at school. Whilst a bad teacher (like your own example) can be a stimulant, I think the more prudent and reliable route is to have a good teacher (and you did advocate a pay rise for these earlier). That is unless and until I see a school mission statement acknowledging the bad teacher approach.
I think if you have integrity and a scientific outlook/ understanding, you kind of expect journalists to be able to screen out some basic facts. There is far too much vincible ignorance on display. Without running onto a tangent, thick greens always get my goat when they say that things don’t have chemicals in them, for example.
Here endeth the lesson. Work beckons. I am ignoring Tempterrain’s thing on plastics – he’s confusing evidence of additional harm with his own views on the solution. Plus ca change…
Agree. But it’s a labyrinthine system, and one needs to be sensitive that one is demanding answers from those who may themselves be asking questions:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100064343/hands-up-if-you-want-a-child-to-feel-good/
The secret perhaps is to combine to rule.
Quite like twitter. Stumbled across this http://twitter.com/#!/TimesEducation to get to* this http://twitter.com/#!/schoolgate to get to* this http://twitter.com/#!/uktf to get to this http://www.ukteachersforums.co.uk/ (though that blog system looks awfully familiar, and not in a good way… http://learningnet.co.uk/geoforum/ as TonyB will empathise)
* don’t ‘do’ paywalls.
Alex’s quote from the Open University prospectus #313 show the problem is wider than AQA’s GCSE papers. How far up and down the educational ladder do we want to go?
LukeWarmer #315 What’s wrong with a Whig interpretation of history (at least for schoolkids)? What we’ve got is Postmodern Videogame history, where no-one’s really right or wrong, and science is decided on a show of hands, like a gladiator’s fate.
Maurizio #316: “Why should we be so concerned about the quality of education?” It’s back to the failings of the Doris Lessing education plan. It’s not good enough to say “we all came through alright”. We are all weird. Thats why we’re commenting here.
My granddaughter, studying architecture at Oxford, is worried about my grandson, who can hardly read at the age of 13. Her (thoroughly selfish) point is that she wants to be able to have an intelligent conversation with her step brother when he’s older. Similarly, I’d like to see a circle of people capable of discussing science sensibly slightly larger than readers of this blog.