You have to wonder who at the National Science Foundation thought funding a website that makes fake voicemails from the future and games that have people running around looking for fictional fallen “chronofacts” (artistic plastic disks named “chronofalls” that apparently fall out of time) was a good idea? Yes, you can hear voicemails from the future about “Arctic Corn” and “Hurricane Simulator Booths”. Your tax dollars at work.
Eric Worrall writes:
Columbia University’s Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university’s “PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership,” to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”
The funding was used to create climate change “games”, including fake voicemails from the future, one of which bizarrely warns that in 2035 neo-luddites would kill scientists, anyone who “knows anything”, and other oddities such as advertisements for Tsunami insurance.
http://futurecoast.org/voicemail/93594-38625955/
This cloud has one silver lining – next time anyone you know suggests that the government spends your money wisely, on your behalf, send them a link to the Future Coast project.
================================================================
Note from Anthony.
When I saw this story submitted I thought surely this must be some sort of mistake, but the deeper I went, the more bizarre it got. And it is true, the website is set up by Columbia on a grant from NSF: See http://www.futurevoices.net/the-fine-print/
Strangely, and perhaps illegally (since this is publicly funded), the ownership of the website is secret: http://whois.net/whois/futurecoast.org
Here are some voicemail topics: http://futurecoast.org/voicemail/93594-38625955/
And a video they produced, which looks like a bad version of the “Blair Witch Project”:
Actually, ten of them: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa0iSEwmopVXf2Y8x1NnbSg
And of course, anyone can play. You can call this number and make a “voicemail from the future” about climate. From http://www.futurevoices.net/
Here are the people and rationale behind it, something called “The Polar Hub”, they say:
Mission and Vision
The world’s polar regions are changing rapidly. What implications do these changes have for polar ecosystems and communities? How do they compare to changes of the past? Do changes in the Arctic and Antarctic regions affect life outside of the poles? The Polar Learning and Responding Climate Change Education Partnership (PoLAR CCEP) seeks to inform public understanding of and response to climate change through the creation of novel educational approaches that utilize fascination with shifting polar environments and are geared towards today’s adult learners.
Supported by a five year grant from the National Science Foundation, the PoLAR Partnership is developing a suite of interactive and game-like tools that capitalize on the iconic imagery of the Arctic and Antarctic, areas of the globe that are experiencing the most dramatic shifts in climate. Games and game-like activities are increasingly used to engage diverse participants in problem solving. Focusing on the poles also leads to discussion of broader impacts, especially as the changes taking place in the polar regions are increasingly linked to concerns about rising sea levels and extreme weather around the globe. Adult learners, be they community leaders, the general public, pre- and in-service teachers, or college students, are today’s decision makers and are more likely to make informed decisions if they understand the scientific evidence of climate change and its social, economic, and environmental consequences.
The PoLAR Hub is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DUE-1239783. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
![PoLAR_ProjectMatrix_10-25[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/polar_projectmatrix_10-251.jpg?quality=83)
http://thepolarhub.org/content/mission-and-vision
The next time somebody complains about a climate skeptic getting a tiny scrap of funding for a study or a project, show them this.
“Drawing from 15 independent testing services, the Progress Report 2009: Homeschool Academic Achievement and Demographics included 11,739 homeschooled students from all 50 states who took three well-known tests—California Achievement Test, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, and Stanford Achievement Test for the 2007–08 academic year. The Progress Report is the most comprehensive homeschool academic study ever completed.”
“Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.
National Average Percentile Scores
Subtest Homeschool Public School
Reading 89 50
Language 84 50
Math 84 50
Science 86 50
Social Studies 84 50
Core a 88 50
Composite b 86 50
a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.”
Not to mention that public schools spend @ur momisugly$9,000 per year per student and the rest spend far less while achieving better results – when not regulated and managed, as smaller competitors, by the teachers’ unions. Graph of public school spend vs. results:
http://www.cato.org/blog/public-school-spending-theres-chart
Common Core, good for giving non-privileged non-whites the best education possible. While privileged whites need something better to become something better. And that’s equal opportunity.
Go read the piece, lots of links to supporting items. Also lists these recent Common Core news stories, with links:
“REPLY: And in the scope of the larger train wreck and squandering of public funds, I don’t anybody but you cares about the pedantry sir. – Anthony”
I take your point, but truthfully there is a worthwhile correlation to note here. To quote the self-admittedly “scurrilous” Fred Reed concerning an equally ludicrous topic, “… it may seem that I am being pointlessly snotty about the infelicity of language. No. I am being pointfully snotty. There appears to be a direct correlation between the rise of political hobbyism and the decline of careful literacy, and for that matter of genuine scholarship, in our academic theme-parks.”
Sad to see that the usually sensible Pamela Gray has bought into the Common Core indoctrination package. Nothing good has ever come from the federal government being involved with education — and nothing good will come from this uncommonly stupid initiative.
Nope. You are mixing apples and oranges. Once demographic variables are controlled for (remember I was referring to solid research), public schools do as good and with some groups better than charter and private schools. Homeschooled students are in a class by themselves and difficult to include in large studies. Because it is a much more monogamous group, one would have to clearly tighten the study design in order to properly compare across subjects.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncspe.org%2Fpublications_files%2FOP111.pdf&ei=_-SDU6vXBYmRyASz6YLICQ&usg=AFQjCNHJW5IR4kYXDu_rt3joUWa-92b3MA&sig2=IdQz-TY3T3515wS3HNsk0w
Once again, I would have to declare that I see little relevance between this gaming thread and public school boogiemen.
I think what you don’t realize is the the NSF is really really into “outreach”. Every single grant has a section where the lab writing the proposal explains how they are interacting with the public, and if you don’t do it, you don’t get funded. (For us, we have HS students and their teachers in the lab once a year in the summer; sort of lame, but they like it. I mean, the NSF likes it…)
But I haf to admit, I have never reviewed a grant for them that was completely outreach. Sort of interesting…
Americans need to understand that in our law it is the right and duty of the parents to raise and educate their children. And each state has agreed on subjects to be taught, hours of instruction, and testing. The laws are to be interpreted broadly, and as you know there are many successful ways of teaching children. There is absolutely no reason on God’s green earth to homogenize children in this way.
And I notice that the states that seek to regulate homeschoolers the most have the worst performing schools.
kadaka, poetry is one of the standards so I hardly see it being removed. If you had read the standards you would have known it is a specific standard mentioned several times. So it is painfully obvious you are telling us about something you do not know much about other than what you read at propaganda sites. So much for championing the cause of unbiased research Kadaka. You have bought into rhetoric and haven’t even studied both sides of the issue!
There is precious little connection between public school and the likes of Mann and his ilk. You lash out at a favorite target without doing the ground work necessary to prevent yourself from being propagandized.
My voicemail? “Watts was right. Pump more methane, the glacier is almost in Miami.”
noloctd, have you read them? Front to back? Have you compared them with a variety of other state standards they have replaced? There is not one ounce of connection between climate warming issues and these standards. However, there is a major standard that states students will be able to read informational text with a critical eye, discerning reasonable evidence from non-reasonable evidence, and the essential differences between fact, opinion, and conclusion. They must also learn the technique of clearly stating their source when discussing issues gleaned from the text. There are many here who could use that training.
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 6:34 pm
there is a major standard that states students will be able to read informational text with a critical eye, discerning reasonable evidence from non-reasonable evidence, and the essential differences between fact, opinion, and conclusion. They must also learn the technique of clearly stating their source when discussing issues gleaned from the text.
===============================
Ms. Gray,
Do you believe that, without the CC standards this won’t happen? If it isn’t happening now, is that failure due to lack of standards or perhaps something else?
NASA looking down instead of up:
27 May: WaPo: Brian Palmer: This summer, NASA will begin keeping an eye on your garden
When you’re working in the yard this summer, take a look up: Using a satellite, NASA scientists are paying attention to how healthy your lawn and garden are.
Next month, the agency plans to launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Its primary aim is to create a global map of carbon sources and carbon sinks…
A detailed map of photosynthetic activity and carbon absorption will better inform conservation efforts…
Managing a garden from space sounds a bit futuristic, but horticulture is about to enter the space age. From now on, you’re not just trying to impress the neighbors with your green thumb.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/this-summer-nasa-will-begin-keeping-an-eye-on-your-garden/2014/05/23/8bc1f4de-df79-11e3-8dcc-d6b7fede081a_story.html
Farmers have been doing that for years. Tractors are now driven via satellite. Fields are canvassed for issues related to plant disease and soil condition. And drones are being used for hunting purposes! Now I like that!
Science standards in Common Core will drop other sciences to cover evolution and climate change more fully:
“Educators unveiled new guidelines on Tuesday that call for sweeping changes in the way science is taught in the United States — including, for the first time, a recommendation that climate change be taught as early as middle school.”
“The guidelines, known as the Next Generation Science Standards, are the first broad national recommendations for science instruction since 1996. They were developed by a consortium of 26 state governments and several groups representing scientists and teachers.”
“Educators involved in drawing them up said the guidelines were intended to combat widespread scientific ignorance, to standardize teaching among states, and to raise the number of high school graduates who choose scientific and technical majors in college, a critical issue for the country’s economic future.
The focus would be helping students become more intelligent science consumers by learning how scientific work is done: how ideas are developed and tested, what counts as strong or weak evidence, and how insights from many disciplines fit together into a coherent picture of the world.
Leaders of the effort said that teachers may well wind up covering fewer subjects, but digging more deeply into the ones they do cover. In some cases, traditional classes like biology and chemistry may disappear entirely from high schools, replaced by courses that use a case-study method to teach science in a more holistic way.”
And so on and so forth. Under these guidelines, climate change is the measuring rod of scientific literacy and is used for the purpose of “learning how scientific work is done.” ref: New Guidelines Call for Broad Changes in Science Education, NY Slimes
““Educators unveiled new guidelines on Tuesday that call for sweeping changes in the way science is taught in the United States — including, for the first time, a recommendation that climate change be taught as early as middle school.”
It sounds as though the government is about to represent pseudoscientific climatological research to be scientific. It’s time to change the government!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/11/01/where-do-public-school-teachers-send-their-kids-school
Public school teachers send their children to private schools at almost twice the rate of the national average, but it is as high as 44% in many large cities. Notice the Hollywood activists for public schools also send their children to private schools, as do the Congresscritters. They all have waivers from the nationalized healthcare system as well. Do you see a pattern of the progressive urge to ghettoize people and stratify society? That is how they roll.
You conflate the two organizations. Science standards are not a part of the Common Core State Standards. These standards are specific to language arts and math. There is no common core state standard in them outlining the science standards you speak of. It is a separate organization. States are free to adopt them or not just as with the CCSS. Oregon has a good set of science standards we will likely continue to use. I have lots of issues with the Next Generation Science Standards. But they are unrelated to CCSS. Conflating the two seems purposeful on your part. Why? I can’t believe you do not know the difference between the two.
Robin’s research and field work shows the parallels and similarities between the developers and the funding of these nationalized programs.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/5-7-million-nsf-grant-to-columbia-university-for-climate-voice-mails-from-the-future/#comment-1646442
Arne Duncan, Sec of Education, outlining how schools will expand the hours of school to 12 or more hours per day, seven days a week, all year, and many have “health clinics and are the centers of community.” Duration 45 sec.
Americans need to snap out of it. There is a longer version if you like, just search Arne Duncan on Charlie Rose.
“I have lots of issues with the Next Generation Science Standards. But they are unrelated to CCSS. Conflating the two seems purposeful on your part. Why? I can’t believe you do not know the difference between the two.” ~Pamela Gray
Thank you, I did not address your point. As the article points out, “In many respects, the [Science] standards are meant to do for science what a separate set of guidelines known as the Common Core is supposed to do for English and mathematics: impose and raise standards, with a focus on critical thinking and primary investigation. To date, 45 states and Washington have adopted the Common Core standards.”
The missing piece is the process by which these standards are adopted. The Federal Gov’t provided states with over 4 billion dollars in “Race to the Top” funding; when they signed up for the funding they were also agreeing to adopt new standards. Now several years later, two things are happening: 1. Now that states are seeing Common Core, some are attempting to drop it and losing their funding; and 2. The public opposition to Common Core is so stiff, that many states which adopted it are simply changing the name.
So I appreciate your point but the fix is in; the federal funding and the Gates funding is behind “voluntary adoption” of standards, and not as many as you would hope are saying “no” to the golden hand cuffs.
Make a copy of this website, it is going to disappear very quickly.
Not that I think taxpayers should have to foot the bill but in one regard it is a step in the right direction – at least they admit that it’s fiction.
Kate, states dictate standards and districts are obliged to teach to those standards using appropriate district determined curriculum and teaching methods. Teachers are evaluated based on their knowledge of state standards and how they teach to them in the classroom. If those state standards do not specifically state a standard dealing with whatever, that “whatever” will not be addressed to the degree that the specific standards are addressed. This is nailed home by state tests that are based on state standards.
That procedure has not changed simply because a state has switched to another set of standards. From my investigation, the CCSS are more rigorous and include new standards not addressed by the vast majority of previous varieties of individual state standards.
There is only about 6 hours a day of academic instruction in public and charter schools. They can’t fit in the standards plus their own additions to any degree that would be fruitful.
“No Child Left Behind supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education.”
And yet, raising standards was found “burdensome,” and many of the states signed up for “Race to the Top” partly to receive waivers from NCLB. It is clear that raising standards does not improve education in public schools. Common Core is nationalized education with curricula and a tracking database.
I just sent a note to one of my Senators telling them about this absurd waste of money. I am convinced that up to 50% of the money our government spends is spent on crap like this that is unproductive and unnecessary.
Who in their right mind would take out a loan to pay for this? That’s what the government has done.
I actually came here to put up the link to using gaming to teach empathy. http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/05/how-do-you-teach-empathy-harvard-pilots-game-simulation/
I suppose Pamela will be insisting ASCD’s Whole Child Common Core Initiative has nothing to do with the standards. Pamela, as an attorney, one of the things I do is examine who has binding authority on the classroom and what they are requiring. Under both Federal civil rights law and disabilities law as this Justice Dept is interpreting it and under the accreditation standards and under the incorporated Universal Design of Learning, most of the actual Common Core implementation is gaming and new values and a Discourse classroom and social and emotional programs to change attitudes.
It is also not appropriate to tell readers that there is no connection between CCSSI and the Next Generation Science Standards when both come from massive amounts of Gates Foundation funding to pay for curricula and assessments and the ELA Standards call for science and history and social studies to be embedded in ELA’s concept of what is Literacy.
The Next Generation Science Standards use precisely the same type of ‘Learning Rubric’ with the same language as what has been created for ELA and Math. NCTM has also released a very alarming Principles to Action that also applies to science. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/learning-to-walk-naked-into-the-land-of-uncertainty-while-calling-it-math-science-or-lit-class/
NCTM ‘practices’ are explicitly incorporated by reference into CCSSI. Makes it binding without popular outcry for the most part. Consistent with the cybernetic theory of behavior and research conducted by Piotr Galperin in the USSR in the 50s and 60s, the actual CC classroom implementation in all areas, math, English science, and social studies, puts the focus on “Core disciplinary ideas. The idea is these become ‘lenses’ to guide student perceptions.
Finally, I don’t know Pamela’s age, but lucky me still has children in K-12 so I go to actual school meetings. At those classwork is integrated [now] throughout as either STEM or Humanities. Common Core is pushing away from any concept of disciplinary coursework. Ultimately it is all to be transdisciplinary ‘real world problems’ group projects apart from all that gaming.