Bishop Hill Education or green propaganda?
Apr 8, 2010 A guest post by Messenger
The Climate Change Schools Project (CCSP) brings together organisations, schools and teachers around the North East to support a novel approach in bringing climate change to the heart of the national curriculum. The CCSP has established a network of ‘Climate Change Lead Schools’ who [sic] in 2008-2009, consisted of 80 schools across North East England. Thousands of young people took part, representing a minimum of 14,000 hours of climate change related activity across the schools.
For those of you dear old-fashioned things who still think that 14,000 hours of education might be better spent on education in English, maths, science, history, a modern language or two and perhaps art or music or woodwork, think again. Following the Bishop’s post about the Climate Change Schools Project, I came across this associated report on the first year’s implementation of the project in a number of schools in the North East of England...
A new generation of children here are being indoctrinated- [and I wonder if this is with or without parental permission?] – into thinking the way that the government believes they should about six themes of climate change – “climate change science, climate change and the media, indicators and impacts of climate change, climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation”. This remit apparently includes encouraging children to watch their parents and to complain if Mum and Dad’s behaviour with regard to recycling, using the car, or turning off the lights does not accord with green instructions received at school. Success in this regard is considered a positive outcome. There were several criteria for viewing the outcomes of the CCSP as successful, which included having positive influences on other children and on staff attitudes and behaviours related to climate change.
A number of children from the Lead Schools were chosen for the trial year. Year 5 and Year 8 were selected in 33 schools (25 primary and 8 secondary). Eight schools were recruited as controls and there were 200-300 children in each group. Six smaller “focus groups” were also recruited after the first phase.
And who is paying for this new project? Well, mostly you are, of course, as CSSP is a joint initiative by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and also receives money from the Wellcome Trust. The paper from which I am quoting evaluated the outcomes of the first year’s trial and was funded through the Environment Agency by the Northumbria Regional Flood Defence Committee. [This does seems a trifle odd - wouldn’t the Flood Defence Committee be better off spending its money on – well, flood defences?]
Admittedly the Schools Project began before some time before the global warming juggernaut began to wobble, so the latest climate change news was not available to the instigators, but we find that the project was driven by the conclusions of the IPPC Fourth Report, the Stern Report, the actions demanded by EU and the UK Climate Bill CO2 targets, and the policies expected to emerge from Copenhagen in December 2009. The justification for introducing this extraordinary propaganda exercise was shaped round the usual paranoia surrounding claims of “thermal expansion and melting glacier ice”, and the resulting necessity to drastically reduce emissions of CO2 as a consequence of global warming. [I’m sure it must have mentioned polar bears somewhere.]
Schools and young children are seen by the global warming lobby and the government as the ideal place to change ways of thought and action in order to counter “the many barriers to adults undertaking the desired low-carbon behaviour …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]. Students were assessed both before and after the climate modules had been undertaken, in order to judge how far their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs around climate change and environmental issues had been altered - in other words, how far the conditioning of the children by such a propaganda exercise has been “successful”.
The document has some terms unfamiliar to me, in what sounds like the new ecospeak. What is the “New Environmental Paradigm”, for example, “designed for adults but successfully adapted for children”? I looked up the quoted authors, G.W Evans et al’s paper on influencing young children’s attitudes to the environment, but after reading it I’m not sure I’m any the wiser.
Two reliable and valid instruments to assess first- and second-grade children's …environmental attitudes and behaviors are presented. A series of games derived primarily from dimensions of the new ecological paradigm theory of environmental attitudes are described for the assessment of environmental attitudes. The games include felt board construction, a board game, and an adjustable worry thermometer.[?] Environmental behaviors are assessed in the same sample using magnitude estimation (jumping different distances to indicate frequency of engagement in behavior) based on an adoption of Kaiser's General Environmental Behavior Scale for adults. The behavior scale employs a Rasch measurement model because environmental behaviors are viewed as a consequence of attitudes in concert with difficulties to implement actions.
[Ah, so that’s what it is.]
What did the children do?
Among the activities and modules undertaken by the young participants of Year 5 and 8 was the composition of something called an “ozone rap”, a viewing of the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth [including, one hopes, but not mentioned, the obligatory caveats now demanded by the law in the UK], playing a computer game called Footprint Friends [to which they had to pay for access], watching a power point presentation about coal–fired power stations, watching a windfarm video, researching climate on the Internet, learning about the youth groups known as Climate Cops, watching a “recycling magician” and creating a fashion show. Some of these events were more popular than others. One student (Year 5) remarked:
I thought it was quite fun because we got to cut out food and waste from newspaper and made a big waste pile to show people
Another said of the ozone rap:
I thought I learnt a lot from the rap because like you got – you did research and you put it in a sentence and like you put it into a rap and you put it into a poem like and then back into a rap and you did it with your friends and that and then you got to add more to it and me and [classmate] did like the school assembly.” (Year 5)
The students obviously liked watching films, but what they got out of them is debatable. Could this following comment possibly refer to Al Gore’s offering?
It got a bit stuck in your mind because it kept repeating things. It was really good because when it started off with the music and stuff, it got you right into it, like an action film. It was really good for me, like everyone listening and getting involved and the way he was speaking and stuff just made you go like wow.
but some of them seemed a bit confused, and still fearful (emphasis added).
We watched a video on like lots of different topics, like how the world could end in 2012…
I read something on the internet about how the ice caps will be fully melted by 2013 so it’s a bit scary
Assessment after the project
The pupils were given a climate quiz before and after the climate change modules had been taken. Some of the conclusions reached in the second, post-project one seem pretty alarming, and one wonders about the wisdom of what these children have been told. We find that Year 8 students were more likely to accept the idea that climate change “is a risk to them and will kill plants and animals”, while it was noted that among the younger students the climate change activities raised fears and concerns about the future of the world, some of them writing:
I'm worrying a lot
I feel it’s really scary what is happening right now
It's made me a bit more cautious about what I do. I'm worried that the world will flood. (Year 5s)
On the other hand, some of the older ones responded
I care a bit more about it [climate change]
They have changed my feelings by making me angry about how we mistreat the environment (Year 8s)
Students who said they had changed their actions were also asked to describe in what way, but could not always explain how. Asked about other impacts of the project it was clear that it was the Year 5s who were most susceptible to the new influences.
[I have been] Encouraging others
I have talked to people about it and said what I do and convinced them to do it too which to be honest I’d never have done before!
I joined the eco committee
They let me know how other people dealt with Climate Change
They made me more passionate about climate change
To give them their due, the authors of the report indicated their concern that the message was not getting across as they would have wished, and they considered that teachers must use more discernment in the choice of materials, particularly because of the worries many of the Year 5 children had expressed. However, things were more prosaic with the children’s view of the recycling magician, who was universally disliked. They saw him as “boring, [he] talked too much and wasn't very good at magic”. [Let’s hope they can be as discerning about all the messages they receive at school these days].
Other aspects of the children’s attitudes to climate change were also assessed, with questions about how much they knew about it before the project and what they now felt about it. Before the project was taken two groups were identified: those that were indifferent or thought that climate change was someone else’s problem “I felt like it’s really not my fault” (Year 5); and those that already felt concerned, anxious or sad about what humans were doing to the planet:
“I feel awful sad, myself, that we’re doing something bad to hurt the Earth when we’re supposed to respect it.” (Year 5).
However the authors were encouraged by what they saw as the positive effects of the propaganda exercise, with those who had been indifferent now basking instead in the warmth and light of state-approved conclusions:
I thought they were being a bit over-dramatic with all the pictures of polar bears and icebergs. But I’ve found out how dramatic we should be about it, because it’s really bad. (Year 5)
[I knew there’d be polar bears somewhere…]
while individual fears were still being expressed by others :
And how sea levels with [sic] rise and maybe flood the land and then the sharks can come in and so on.
I don’t want any animals like to be extinct. Not like mammoths like because of the ice and like penguins. (Year 5s).
However, the project with the Year 8 students was not as successful as the authors would have wished because many of them “were also aware that they could not stop climate change from happening.” – [so could someone explain to me why they’re doing all this carbon footprint nonsense then?]
“Empowering” the children to change behaviours
But fear not, however scary or contradictory they find things, the project-indoctrinated children are now “empowered” to change their behaviour and save the world:
Now I know that it’s a really big problem for us to solve, so we’ve got to try and do whatever we can, like recycling, to stop the Earth from warming up (Year 5).
And how have the students been empowered? By being encouraged to change their own behaviour in any number of greenly acceptable ways, included conserving electricity, recycling (both at home and at school), using rechargeable batteries, conserving water, using sustainable forms of transport and [the one that really annoys me} influencing others to change their behaviour.
Well a few of my friends, well I told them about climate change because some of them they just binned a lot of their stuff. And I told them about it and so they thought about it and now so instead of binning a lot of your stuff you should recycle it to stop – because it burns a hole in the ozone and also it’s rotting away at the earth and just not very nice. (Year 5)
And now to the epitome of all that I abhor about this global warming propaganda exercise, Climate Cops, a friendly little section full of fun and games for the children. As I’m finding it difficult to keep my blood pressure down, I can do no more than quote directly from the project report.
A really successful activity …was the Climate Cops event run by nPower. After an interactive event at school, students were given police officer-style notebooks, and they could ‘book’ themselves, friends or family members if they saw them wasting energy or performing other climate unfriendly actions. This worked by the child (the climate cop writing out a ticket and asking the other person to sign it and agree to a forfeit, such as helping with homework. This appeared to work well to give the students a fun mechanism for influencing others to be more climate friendly.
Many other Lead Schools reported …that they had delivered activities with similar elements to some of those in ‘Climate Cops’ …such as establishing ‘climate monitors’, ‘climate champs’ and ‘green police’, and they had experienced similar successes.
[Oh, what fun, - if you like that sort of thing].
What next?
All the schools involved felt they would continue to implement [in view of the number of films, videos, power point presentations, computer games, etc, someone of my generation would not think the word “teach” to be appropriate here] and perhaps extend the modules used in the project. The report says that the next phase will be for the project to be delivered in all schools across the country, so watch out for your own children and grandchildren. Quite how the teachers will fit it all in remains to be seen, as the report indicates that state primaries are already offered a hundred and one green involvements with such groups as Eco Schools, Sustainable Schools, Green Flag, Healthy Schools, Prince’s Rainforest, Arts Mark, Food for Life, International award, School Travel Plan, Let’s Grow Appeal, British Council Connecting Classrooms, Fair Trade, Earthkeepers, Walk to School Week and the Primary Science Enhancement Project. CSSP is just one more to add to the green list. Is there any room left for over teachers to prepare and teach the basics of education?
What do I think about CSSP now?
The question of the fear engendered by this project, especially among the younger age group, is one which concerns me greatly and did concern the authors too, although they felt that other school subjects might also be alarming when first encountered. [I was racking my brains to think what these subjects might be- zoology perhaps, or chemistry, or physics?- oh, I forgot, they aren’t taught anymore.] It is sad and reprehensible that the state seems to feel the need to make children face all the difficulties of the world, including sex, drugs, and the supposedly imminent end of the world, when many of them are too immature to cope. Can’t our children be carefree for a little longer?
Children are not the property of the state. I would say: ”stop telling my grandchildren to behave in ways that I and their parents do not agree with”. Why should the state insist that schools impose on young people what I consider to be an outrageous doctrine, or creed as it is now, and one which so many of us in the community at large find unacceptable, largely untrue and apocalyptic? The teachers involved seem to cheerfully adopt the indoctrination process, and it worries me that the authors of the paper and their colleagues appear to have no concerns about this unethical stance. If belief in global warming is now a religion, perhaps my grandchildren could be withdrawn from lessons like the ones described in CSSP. If this project is “rolled out “ across the country, as it undoubtedly will be, unless you can choose a fee-paying school with a more balanced viewpoint, home education seems to be the only answer, but unfortunately it is one that is impracticable, impossible, or just too difficult to undertake for so many people.
The MSM ignores or belittles the sceptic viewpoint, 99% of the MPs toe the warmist party line and the government and the EU give loads of our money to whichever green gimmick or shady carbon cabal appears over the windfarm-covered horizon. The nursery rhyme television advertisements on global warming produced by the state shows how they have tried to influence our children at home. State education attempts to influence them at school, but parents must not permit this usurpation of their own responsibilities.
I am not aware that the instigation of this new green propaganda project has been discussed anywhere, in Parliament or at the NUT conference or on school councils. Do you know better? Are you teacher? Do you live in the North East? Did you want it? What do you think of it? What can we do about it? Those are the $64,000 questions, or if you read Richard North at EUReferendum, possibly quite a lot more money than that. Answers in the comments please.
Reader Comments (33)
I'd really like to know more about 'the youth groups known as Climate Cops'.
This is depressing...are our children going to be asked now if their parents are 'climate change deniers'. Are we going to have to undergo 're-education'.
This has happened before in the cultural revolution in China.
Jeez am I taking this too far ?
Ah, the plan is working. Soon all the children in the world will have been exposed to the ideology, and most will have been, er, "converted". They will be programmed to spy on their parents, relations, neighbours, and report back any transgressions to Green Control. We shall then deal with the miscreants in a manner appropriate to their crime. From removing their source of electricity (for a predetermined period) for leaving electrical items in "standby" mode, to summary execution for driving on days during which this activity is proscribed. There will be NO appeal procedure, no leniency, no mercy...
We at Green Control will save the planet. You will do our bidding Scepticism is verboten and will be dealt with harshly.
In recognition of your efforts you will be allocated one eco-light bulb per month. Should your children be successful in their efforts to expose family anti-eco wrongdoers, they will be permitted, as a reward, to study one "real" subject at school in addition to their eco tasks, and will qualify for additional lentils at dinner time.
That is all.
Long live The Greening. Our goal is one world, two poles, and no carbon dioxide - anywhere.
I don't live in the UK, but for those that do, election day is coming. I expect you will already know how to "recycle" your ballot papers.
Great guest post, thanks "messenger".
This is a very shocking report indeed. The windfarms will in due course be abandoned, and merely pollute landscapes and seascapes until they are removed, but the harm done to children's mental wellbeing may be impossible to remove. There may also be damage to their attitudes to their parents and the wider community, given this talk of 'green police'. We can be but a step away from them denouncing their own families if they do not toe the line. Their attitudes to, and appreciation of, science and technology may also be at risk of corruption, and for those who go on to deeper studies, there will be cynicism and disillusion to look forward to as and when they discover how far they may have been mistreated by their schools.
I would like to study this area in more detail. I am not aware of any group who is doing this, and would appreciate it if someone could post details of any such group here. The kind of group I am thinking of would seek to obtain copies of educational materials linking to climate, and review them for their scientific merit, as well as for any harm they may do in general (such as instilling fear of the future). The aim would be to publish the findings, and provide these as an input for discussion into whatever parts of the educational or political 'system' that can be reached.
What can we do? indeed.
I don't have an answer for the pervasive and serious problem of political propaganda masquerading as good education other than to reject the Big State at every opportunity and in every way.
But on a personal and daily level I feel it's important to find out what my kids are doing at school and in particular, what they have learnt. Then, the next step is to test this knowledge to destruction, probe its every weakness, look at counter claims or points of view, and finally see if we can find proof for any of our conclusions.
We usually do this whilst simultaneously destroying the planet in the car on the way back home. And we try to do this on every subject or fact or lesson taught. Well, at least on those my kids will tell me about.
Perhaps the greatest weapon ordinary people have against this endless state interference is to do everything we can to encourage our kids to develop their powers to enquire, to wonder, to question and to think for themselves.
The worst actors in all this, of course, are the teachers. It's to be expected that this government, especially through the machinations of Ed Balls, will seek to subvert bodies and introduce propaganda into schools. Children can't be blamed, and parents probably know little about what is going on and feel 'disempowered'. But one group is not disempowered and has the ability to prevent this disgusting propagandizing: teachers and headteachers. That so many schools have fallen for this propaganda and social manipulation is testament to how unprofessional they in the teaching profession have become, as well as how statist and socialist they are.
Such teachers look back with guilt and anger at their predecessors decades ago who, for example, enacted government policy to drive Welsh out of use by killing it in the schools. Children who spoke Welsh anywhere in school, including in the playground, were reported and punished. Yet these teachers who (rightly) condemn the use of schools to enact government social policy in the past are doing the very same things today.
Of course, the other aspect of this is that it is so widely believed these days that education is the role of the state rather than the family, and since the state controls the schools, which are funded through coercive general taxation, then the state can do what it likes, and use the educational system as an instrument of political indoctrination and control. It is essentially a religious view that the state is the highest order and that it is in the gift of the state to allow bodies to have autonomy or not. The state assumes a messianic role where salvation is through statist law from the supposed evils of the environment: as Al Gore stated in the NYT (February 28) in respect of whether he could get his own way with draconian legislation "From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption". When people talk like that, you know that the discussion has moved into the realm of the religious idea of the messianic state.
I am appalled and have nothing to add.
Like, it was sort of hard at first because like, you had to read all this stuff, but then, like, it was sort of cool, because there was all these pictures which was more like a video game. So I felt really, well, sort of confused, mostly, but like I went home, and they had all the lights on, so I got real mad and turned down the heat. They go, what? So I go, this is what you got to do. So they done it.
Adults of a certain age in the US will remember school drills on the subject of nuclear war. These consisted in making the children get under their desks, to rehearse what they would do if the US were under nuclear attack. There were dire and completely confusing and terrifying warnings about what this would do.
A whole generation as a result grew up with the urge to get under things whenever they felt frightened, which explains the increasing popularity of cave diving since then, a phenomenon to which too little attention has been paid.
On 26 March 2010 I posted on the "Climate change in schools" thread/topic on this blog, giving an example of my Year 8 son's Geography exam question on the environment.
Personally, one exercise I wouldlike to try in schools is, after watching Al Gore, I would like to give them the ice core temperature data as a graph on a sheet of paper and the CO2 curve printed on a transparent overlay and ask them to say what's wrong with the correlation shown by Al Gore. I suspect Year 8's would spot the 800 year lag the wrong way quite easily...that would make an interesting discussion topic.
That's really great. So they grow up illiterate, innumerate and devoid of any kind of cultural or scientific knowledge, but they do "know" that leaving the lights on is killing polar bears, and that their loyalty is to the cause, and by extension the state, rather than their family or neighbours. In similar fashion, there was an article in the Times about a child who had come home and instructed the family not to eat meat one day a week so as to "save the planet". The worried parent was asking for advice, and nobody said "tell her to prove it".
Any residual guilt I had as a grammar school boy having my children privately educated has now been replaced by relief.
Are children still mostly rebellious?
If so, then perhaps this campaign will backfire rather spectacularly.
Anyone Peak Oil aware should be able to see the underlying agenda here. CAGW is a cover for peak oil. The new political cover buzzword is "Peak Demand", I'm hearing it more and more in the MSM.
"the most ardent critics of the peak oil thesis - namely BP’s chief executive Tony Hayward and oil industry cheer-leader Cambridge Energy Research Associates - who now declare that the developed world has passed “peak oil demand”. However, that is nothing but a delusion to disguise the fact that dwindling oil supplies have ended economic growth in the developed world for the foreseeable future"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9694&page=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63539420100406
Peak Demand = Peak economic growth, it's that simple IMO.
Pete,
And what about coal?
Anyone thought of teaching the children how to invest in Carbon Credits? Or was the indoctrination limited to turning them into obedient contributors to carbon profits?
In a broader context, has there ever been a course showing children how the stock exchange works and how to invest and make money? A course of that kind whould allow all of the population to participate in the wealth of the nation and not just a minority. If people knew how Carbon Credits work there would not be any need for a scientific debate on climate and other arcane details. Most people would see the financial black hole being created.
Nik
if children have parents who make a habit of talking to them they are more likely to believe the parent than a teacher (who is paid to talk to them)
Julie
I'm not sure about that. Does the child see it in those terms?
Mike Post,
Peak coal by 2025 say researchers http://www.energybulletin.net/node/28287
And this is before we start trying to convert it to liquid fuel to replace 85 million barrels of oil a day. We'd need to replace oil at a rate of 85m/4.5% per day (conservative depletion rate) just to keep up with demand (if demand does not increase), not counting the extra oil energy required to mine all that extra coal, this amount would have to increase year on year to mitigate further production decline & increasing global demand, and we haven't started yet. Coal to liquid also has a very low EROEI and may cost an equal amount of oil energy to produce as we get from it, it's not a viable replacement, at best it can only put off the inevitable collapse by a very short time.
Using the buzzwords "peak demand" as a political cover, is similar to viewing a bloated bellied, starving hungry, 3rd world child on an Oxfam advert, and declaring his problem is "peak food demand".
I don't want to derail Bish's thread with a peak oil debate, so I suggest people research their own questions after reading the links I posted above you can find more at http://www.energybulletin.net and http://www.theoildrum.com/ which have their own site search engines, or reading at http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/ who has been documenting the collapse since about 02.
Economic impacts are clearly visible now, we have between 2-5 years to personally mitigate before food prices become so high we'll end up being the oxfam poster child ourselves IMO.
Teaching the Sciences to children will only equip them with the tools to think for themselves, whereas immersing them in "climate change" propaganda will produce unquestioning drones.
Another example of why governments should not be in charge of education.
Indoctrination is nearly education, and is much easier to accomplish and is easily confused with real education.
But it steals our children, our culture and as we see here, the truth.
Next project: empowering the kids by teaching them how to read and write (in English) "like".
Pete,
"peak oil' is just Malthusian garbage dressed up in modern garb.
Frankly so is AGW.
'Peak oil' claims have been around since the early 20th century.
They are not any more accurate today than they were then.
The safe bet is to always bet against Malthusian thinking.
Now if AGW policy demands are implemented we may achieve some sort of general social catastrophe that leaves people in the West starving, but that will only be the case if the Malthusians get there way.
And please do not show the latest sales tools of fear mongers as *proof*. Malthus used great state of the art graphics when he made his stupid predictions, as well. Gore got an Oscar for his.
People are suckers for scary graphs and phonied up data like fish love water.
Anybody scaring children with such false or unproven scare stories, or indeed paying others to do so is, if the English language has meaning, guilty of child abuse.
Sinve 99%+ of MPs are child abusers they should at least lose their jobs,& pensions & get chemically castrated. There are some who would be more harsh towards such people but I am a forgiving sort.
Bold faced propaganda- teaching children what to believe and not how to think.
This is a serious matter that needs to be attacked at both community and state levels.
Here is another shocking glimpse at what some people think is suitable for children:
'Darren Shan, author of popular Vampire themed stories such as The Saga of Darren Shan and the Demonata series
said: ‘If London gets hotter and drier, everyone will sweat more! The city will stink of sweaty armpits and feet and other body bits!! The heat will turn the sweat to steam, which means we'll be walking through swog (sweaty smog) every time we step outside!!! Every time you breathe in, it will be like licking a slug's belly!!!! There will be no more trains in the tube - you'll simply grab a rubber ring and sail down an underground river of sweat to your destination!!!!!
‘Unless you LIKE sweat, it's time to start walking whenever you can, use public transport, recycle, don't waste water or energy - hey, we're not talking rocket science here! The world's in bad shape, and a lot of people don't care - they're going to carry on as recklessly and selfishly as before. Don't be one of them. Fight the good fight. Do what you can to help the environment. Try getting your friends to do their bit too. We're NOT helpless. This is a battle we CAN win. But only with people like YOU. It's going to take billions of small, personal steps to stop climate change and get our planet back on track. Every one of those steps is essential. Every individual counts. Be brave. Be considerate. Be smart. Or prepare yourself for the horrors to come as one of the unfortunate, stench-ridden citizens of PLANET SWEAT!!!!!!’ '
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/young-people%C2%A0urged-give-creative%C2%A0climate-change%C2%A0ideas-top%C2%A0vampire%C2%A0autho
This seems to be the official website of the Mayor of London's office.
This is horrible.
2 weeks ago my daughter's primary school had an open day. Her class was doing art and the theme was "the future".
She was painting a planet earth with a sad face and tears coming from its eyes. "The earth is sad because we aren't looking after it properly" was her explanation.
This made me sad myself. She doesn't get this depressing zeitgeist from me or Mrs Hughes. She gets it from school and the TV - CBBC. And a creepy newsletter that comes to her school once a term chock-full of left-wing stuff published in the Isle of Man.
The school itself really seems to be running some kind of siege mentality: nagging signs on every light switch and every tap. The subjects and priorities often have a leftist angle or priority: "poverty" or "fair trade".
I'm going to combat this by seeing the head and also a governor who lives nearby.
I think the secret is not to discuss the merits of the themes but the priorities: why are they doing "fair trade" instead of something else like "castles" or "space travel".
for hunter
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_22/b4036057.htm
So far I haven't had too much nonsense being taught to my children (yrs 10, 8 and 2) but the secondary school that my boys attend do have an eco group, there's a no power day and both my boys have been involved with the Green car challenge (more interested in making cars than being green).
My 12 year old son came home last week and said that they had to write down a question to be asked at the 'Ask the climate question election 2010' meeting that is taking place later this month.
He went to school the next day and handed the teacher who is in charge of the eco stuff a big list of questions that were not the usual 'how do we save the polar bears' type of thing he was expecting! he asked questions like ' Do you think the cru email scandal and the misinformation in the ipcc ar4 report has damaged the global warming cause'? 'Why is co2 classed as a pollutant when it is a life giving gas?' 'Do you support the carbon trading scheme even though it has no effect on co2 levels and has made a number of people very rich?' and many more in the same vain.
The teacher just said 'interesting' and walked off. We shall see if there is any sort of backlash!
Surely as a parimary teacher your job should be to present facts, or where facts are questionable to encourage and enable children to debate the issues. Not to teach something which is questionable as fact - that would be a line crossed
As a parent I would object to this strongly and I would use the indoctrination argument with them. Its less important to me that my son (primary) is a skeptic but more that he makes his own mind up. If he chooses to believe in AGW thats up to him, as long as he does genuinely and can put forward his argument intelligently.
So when he is shown Al Gore he will see the alternatives. I'm not sure the English caveats about that film apply in Scotland.
I've asked him about what he has been taught so far (we get little or no info from the school despite asking) and he mentions something about May 7th 2005 - which was the day of the London bombings, but he thinks his film was about greenhouse gasses.
Any ideas ?
[...]of the new ecological paradigm theory [...] an adjustable worry thermometer.
Got to get me one of those.
This has been going on for a long time. Years ago my niece (around 6/7 then) got very upset when the family were trying to find out why she didn't want to go to London with her father for a few days. After many tears it turned out that she just couldn't swim very well. She got out her "green" project book and there was the famous Photoshop of London under water complete with "gold star" and complementary teacher remarks.
1. I think many of you are crediting teachers with more power than they actually have to choose what curriculum to teach.
2. Can any of you actually prove that climate change is not occuring because of human industrial and technological activity?
As most of you are anti-propoganda, I am sure you will reflect on this last question with a truly open and critical mind
1. Carolyn, I guess you are a teacher.
2. Can actually prove that climate change is occuring because of human industrial and technological activity?
I am sure you will reflect on this last question with a truly open and critical mind
Can you actually...