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.
Well, I am interested and care deeply enough not to let what was initially a small query that has become a more major ‘project’ not founder on being ‘tricky’ or ‘too hard’.
Maybe I should thank my own education and parents for that.
Have come to a strategy for the site Geoff launched me at, but am currently being thwarted a tad by there being a loooong gap between registering and getting approved to post.
For my boys, one thing I am pondering is leaving them where they are but funding extra-curricular tutition.
Being twins this would be more affordable as they share topics. This also, possibly, presents opportunity through my being a home worker.
But I am no ‘home tutor’, so want… need them to learn via and conform to the set system. However, I can lurk during tuition enough to have them involved with any debates (if need be) between what they are being fed and what might need ’rounding out’ if I think matters are straying into rather ‘agenda-unhealthy’ areas.
How that gets identified, and appropriately handled, is another issue alluded to and discussed in others’ and your posts above, which I do intend to chip in upon later.
For now, feeding the cubs and a bit of paying the rent beckons:)
Pragmatism vs. idealism. It can be time consuming, costly.. and exhausting!
Well, retried and this may explain much, if not solve it!
Or maybe, again, I am not understanding the new contradictory logic?:)
Meanwhile, back at what gets shared, or not, and discussed, or not, or in what way…
Couldn’t agree more…. but…
As devil’s advocate, is there not a chance of allowing legitimate idealism blind oneself, a bit fruitlessly, to reality? Some bias is inevitable. The key is to what degree, and the level of sincerity, professionalism and self-awareness on the part of those in control.
Even at my (minor) public school, I don’t recall too many of the teachers wearing blue rosettes, especially in the arts faculty. Yet somehow information was shared, with a ladle of opinion, to be digested and accepted by a bunch of kids with not much more support – peer or parent – than exists today.
I know trust played a big part, and there was a very powerful head answerable more to parent purses than education board mantra, which probably was all the check and balance needed. A teacher straying from the factual straight and narrow was allowed some leeway, with that freedom of thought so celebrated in classic books and movies indulged; but once tribal dogma crept in, the response was fast, and severe.
Which brings me to…
As with blog debate, and modding, part of me says ‘Bring it on!’.
But I would not have been even aware of this being proposed, or taking place, but for the internet. For all I know it may already have happened.
And the notion of a ‘form’ going out in mitigation/as balance strikes me as pathetic enough only for the boxtickocracies the West has become to view as ‘solutions’. Beyond the propagandistic nature of the presentation, I thought in any case ‘Inconvenient Truth’ was discredited as a piece of credible science even when launched, much less several years later.
Using such material is putting a lot of trust in individual teachers, especially a class of professional, it seems to me, with nearly all notions of freedom to roam, and investigate issues, well and truly knocked out of them.
Plus the stuff they are give to ‘teach’. Witness those test set questions I quoted, kicking this all off. Not a heck of a lot of leeway there.
In the rare instance we do have a free-thinking talent, inspired by the joy of in turn inspiring, I’d say they’d be fired before you could say Katharine Birbalsingh.
Hence I have to say that while I can cope with materials for extreme viewpoints being brought in to be debated, they should not be from ‘on high’, and not exclusively from a single direction.
And if that is going to happen, and I am powerless to do much about their being presented, then I expect to be advised so, as a parent, I can at least ensure that my kids are aware that the folk who raise, feed and clothe them may not necessarily be on board with what’s being trotted out all the time by those more motivated by the pay and pensions. And why.
Then our kids can make their own minds up. They are smart that way.
I might also wish to keep the other ‘them’ who presume to steer on their toes that there is still an ‘us’ with a vote, and ‘we’ might be prepared to use it in a very targeted manner if pushed too far.
Sorry, made a flip aside that some may not have connected.
This should suffice as a backgrounder:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100060990/the-left-wing-friends-who-have-dropped-me-now-that-ive-spoken-out/
Her own words to be judged by.
Reading some of the comments it seems that certain aspects discussed here are resonating.
Could the Freedom of Information Act be used to obtain copies of marking schemes or any instructions given by examination boards regarding the “correct” answers to such questions?
Brute and JunkkMale
That stupid you tube film that Brute posted can only succeeed in converting people en masse to scepticism. It was truly dire in scope and content and the presenter must have the most iritating female voice on the planet. Apart from the UK born Aussie Prime Minister of course!
Just who was the film intended for anyway?
tonyb
tonyb
JunkkMale said
“I thought in any case ‘Inconvenient Truth’ was discredited as a piece of credible science even when launched, much less several years later.”
Sadly once a stone starts rolling down a hill it is very difficult to stop it. Many aspects of climate change have been discredited but that doesnt stop it still being proclaimed as the truth by those who WANT it to be the truth.
tonyb
While there may be few controversial areas in the Australian schools curriculum – it’s just about impossible to teach history, and religion too, without some discussion of the political questions raised for instance – its obvious that what seems to be of prime concern is present day science teaching.
This is the sort of thing that the Australian CSIRO put out as a guide for science teaching:
http://www.csiro.au/resources/Education.html
So just what exactly are your criticisms of what they are suggesting? Is it just the question of climate change or do you have other concerns too?
PeterM
You cited CSIRO as an example.
In their page on Climate Change CSIRO tells us:
http://www.csiro.au/org/ClimateAdaptationFlagship.html
And in the detailed write-up the four research themes are listed
http://www.csiro.au/org/ClimateAdaptationFlagshipOverview.html
We all know that “climate changes” all the time (also in Australia), and “adaptation” to these changes sounds pretty reasonable to me, IOW responding to whatever climate changes will occur for whatever reason.
In the CSIRO blurb you cited, we read
I see nothing in there about “fear mongering” or “raising the awareness (i.e. ‘anxiety’) in children of impending deleterious climate changes” (the topic of this thread), so this also makes perfectly good sense to me (unless there is a “hidden agenda” somewhere that I cannot see).
Max
TonyB (and Brute)
The “Stuff” youtube is absolutely horrible and a real “shot in the foot” for the “dangerous AGW” cause.
What’s more, it is so totally inane that it almost reaches the 10:10 “Splattergate” level of stupidity (but maybe not quite).
You ask
Maybe Brute has the answer to this question, but I’d guess that it was probably intended to “brainwash” school children (government in “pocket” of evil, money-grubbing industrialists and their lobbyists, etc.).
From the content and presentation, I’d say that these children would have to be less than 10 years old, or they would see through this rubbish.
Max
Max,
I think that is the same point that I am trying to make. If schools take their best advice from organisations like the IPCC, the RS, and the US National Academy of Sciences and ensure that their teaching reflects this, then , surely, what can be the objection?
The CSIRO are saying we will have to include adaptation to climate change, as well as measures to mitigate future change. Every scientific world organisation are saying the the same thing. The CSIRO are not out of line with anyone else on this.
JunkkMale
That is your ultimate weapon in a democratic society, as you are fully aware.
And it is precisely this “weapon”, in the hands of the voting citizenry, that will ultimately win this battle – not the political elite, who ignore the voice of their constituents, or any of the other powerful groups in TonyN’s “convenient network”.
But this is a slow-moving process, and you are quite apparently looking for faster results for your boys. Lots of luck.
Max
PeterM
I read the CSIRO write-up on changing climate. I saw several specific references to “adaptation” projects, but only twice read the word “mitigation” and never “carbon taxation” or “IPCC”. This is obviously not their thrust, even if you would like to imagine that it is.
In their “Energy Transformation Flagship” they mention three projects
· Economic modeling and technology to reduce Australia’s carbon footprint
· Renewable energy generation and storage
· Smarter ways to use electricity
Their blurb on science in schools is fairly straightforward.
It says nothing about brainwashing and frightening schoolchildren with stories of impending climate disaster. Hey, Peter, that is what we are discussing here, get it?
It also says nothing about direct or indirect carbon taxes.
Science is taught and practiced following the “scientific method”, i.e. “argument from evidence” (where “evidence” = empirical scientific data derived from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation).
It is NOT based on the scientifically fallacious “argument from authority” (where “authority” = the IPCC, the RS, the US National Academy of Sciences, the “Holy Bible”, Catholic Church or anyone else).
Don’t try to put your personal “spin” on the CSIRO, Peter. Your efforts are too transparent.
Stick with our topic here, which is “What the hell are we doing to our children?” (IOW “brainwashing” and “fear mongering” of children in the name of the “dangerous AGW” cause).
Max
Max,
I’m very pleased to hear that you’re now accepting that the Australian CSIRO have got their climate science right. Good on yer, mate! As we say over here.
http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-Risks-Beyond-2C.html
Science teaching does have to be referred back to a single authority. ( no not God Brute!) It wouldn’t make much sense for children to be taught that the Earth was only 10,000 years old and that CO2 emissions weren’t a problem by one teacher, then later on, that it was over 4 billion years old and Co2 emissions were a problem by a different teacher.
All teachers need to be singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak.
The “Story of Stuff” was created and promoted by the Tides Foundation.
Former Board members are President Barrack Hussein Obama-dinejad and William Ayers……admitted domestic terrorist and self avowed Communist Party member.
Another notable member is George Soros who provided funding for this “film”.
This “film” was distributed through teachers unions to be shown in primarily Kindergarten through 6th grade (grammar school).
Tides Foundation
San Francisco, CA
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5184
“New NASA Web Site Launches Kids on Mission to Save Our Planet.”
The Climate Kids website has ‘Big Questions’ with answers, e.g.:
“What does global climate change mean?”
-”Earth has been getting warmer fast, causing lots of serious problems”
–”Humans are causing this warming”
etc.
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/
I forgot to mention that this NASA website has a button “Educator Resources” included [but it is not red].
@Michael Snow
You are quite right about NASA not knowing much about science. For instance they say:
“Now, scientists think that, between the ocean and the plants, Earth naturally takes up about half of the CO2 that humans produce. Go, Earth! But as Earth warms up, will the ocean be able to absorb as much CO2? Scientists are worried about that. Think about what happens when you open a can of soda. The bubbles in soda are CO2. If the soda is cold, you hear a little whoosh as a tiny bit of CO2 escapes. If the soda is warm, the CO2 might be so eager to escape that you get Old Faithful spewing out of the can. So, as the surface waters of the ocean warms up, the ocean may not be able to absorb and hold as much CO2 from the atmosphere.”
Nonsense! We all know that warm water dissolves sugar much better than cold water! Just try it for yourself to prove them wrong. Take a can of Coke from the fridge, warm it up, give it a good shake just to make sure that all the CO2 is well and truly dissolved. Sit down, dressed in your best suit, with the Coke can on your lap and observe that nothing at all happens when you open the tab!
Nudging back to the specific case closer to home…
Gosh, could it come to that? And what does that say? I wouldn’t even have a clue how to start an FoI (tried one once on the BBC and they smugly informed me it wouldn’t do any good as it didn’t apply to them).
Seems a heck of a nuclear option, but maybe it will be ultimately become necessary.
I am still on the hunt for feedback on that little AQA question above.
That it is multiple choice and phraseology of the intro suggests there is one of those three deemed better than the others at the very least.
With, perhaps, some latitude in the explanatory para. But unless my sons’ science teacher is a devotee of Monbiot and Delingpole and all else inbetween, I’d say she would be struggling a bit without guidance, to get to what’s righ… expected.
Hence, somewhere, one presumes this is written down to facilitate marking. Where? Written by whom? Guided in turn by what and whom?
My promise means the direct approach (asking her for this information) is now off the table.
As AQA is discussed a lot on http://learningnet.co.uk/geoforum/ I have hopes for posing my dilemma there.
I just have to gain access to ask!
Failing which, an FoI to try to unravel the background to a question in a revision book. Sheesh.
Sounds so trivial, but in a world where every mark counts, and just one tips from A to B, I am no mood to let such a thing slip by, especially if symptomatic of a education establishment mentality that pits accuracy and clarity against mantra and dogma.
Peter said;
“The CSIRO are saying we will have to include adaptation to climate change, as well as measures to mitigate future change. Every scientific world organisation are saying the the same thing. The CSIRO are not out of line with anyone else on this.”
We are fixated on man made climate change making us warmer and with more violent extremes. That is what children are being brainwashed to accept. It is like the British at Singapore who had all their guns facing the wrong way so the enemy went round them from the other side-they didn’t contemplate the scenario.
It is quite evident that different parts of the world are experiencing different climates-some are warming some cooling. (I have cited these previously)
The net effect is helped by very many of our thermometers having been placed in increasingly urban areas and even you will not disagree that such places can be much warmer than rural areas close by.
There is simply no evidence to suggest the climate is becoming more violent-the most prodigious weather events(storms etc)tend to take place during colder times.
I have argued here before for at least three plans. A plan ‘A’ for warming, a plan ‘B’ for cooling and a plan ‘C’ fr a ‘Carrington event/cyber terrorism. There ought to be a plan D as well which would just mean enjoying our current warmish epoch without getting hysterical.
If you teach Children that the world only warms and man is fuilly responsible, it is only going to result in certain attitudes being formed which won’t enable them to countemplate the highly realistic alternatives.
tonyb
JunkkMale
I would suspect that The Sunday Times education adviser- who used to be head of Ofsted- could help you find out the parameters for setting questions. He is quite a traditionalist and I would suspect be concerned at the situation.
tonyb
TonyB,
Just on a point of information, your statement: “the most prodigious weather events(storms etc)tend to take place during colder times.” illustrates your lack of even a basic knowledge on the subject of climate and weather.
Cyclones, Typhoons, Hurricanes, Tornadoes all tend to take place in the warmer regions of the World and predominantly during the summer months.
‘Your mission JM, should you choose to accept it..’
On it. Just, with me still struggling to stop Geoff’s tipped edu-site going in circles trying to register (I am sure it’s a Mac thing – but ‘To confirm, please enter email… sorry that email is already taken’ is really maddening), please don’t let it be behind a paywall.
As information is being shared, on the actual point of this thread, any specifics to add to help with the questions posed to my kids at the start? After 146 and counting.
Because cluttering up space on an exam question with irrelevancies to the point at hand was, in my day, a #fail.
I stand corrected…
‘Just on a point of information, your statement illustrates your lack of even a basic knowledge on the subject of climate and weather.’… is about as good as it gets for my kids to pop in as an answer to the guys in charge who have set the paper.
Now, I do wonder how would that go down and what marks would be logged on their record?
Peter 144
Do read what I said. I said ‘storms’. I suggest you read ‘Historic Storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe’ by Hubert Lamb in which hundreds of these are painstakingly reconstructed.
The events that destroy villages and change terrain tende to happen during the colder epochs not the warmer ones. Such a storm saved Britain from the Spanish Armada. I wonder if they still teach that sort of thing?
Of course I know about Tropical events-I dare say there is a book that covers these as well.
If you look at the Hurricane index you will see it has been declining in recent years.
tonyb
Your pitch & ball, but I merely hope that in pursuing this avenue an excuse in some quarters is not found to avoid my 147 a bit longer.
But the point on what gets read, then left out, shared and/or interpreted to suit does also have a bearing on the education system. GIGO.
There seems little flexibility to allow for, much less credit often valid input that may be gleaned from non-mandated resources.