by Gregory Wrightstone
The science teachers’ bureaucracy is driving climate education into an unquestioning adherence to unscientific methodology. The cost will be measured in students without facility for the more than 400-year-old scientific method and lacking the critical thinking necessary for sustaining civilization and advancing humankind.
Many observers of education have been concerned for some time about the state of science education in America. Teaching, it seems, has drifted from open inquiry to an indoctrination of students into a political agenda. Members of the science-based CO2 Coalition of Arlington, Virginia were concerned enough to launch an education initiative to provide scientific knowledge for elementary and middle school-age students without the climate alarm that permeates the public-school curriculum.
Their concern spiked to alarm with the publication of “The Teaching of Climate Science,” a position paper of the 40,000-member National Science Teaching Association (NSTA). In it, the NSTA advocates that teachers conform to the “consensus” opinion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide will cause dangerous overheating of Earth. Possibly even worse than the promotion of “consensus” was their endorsement of censorship of any scientific information that deviates from the consensus groupthink.
A critical review of the NSTA Statement was recently completed by a select panel of CO2 Coalition experts and summarized in their publication Challenging the National Science Teaching Association’s Position Statement on Climate Change. The panel was comprised of some of the most esteemed scientists and experts in the field including three members of the National Academy of Sciences.
The review found that the NSTA’s Position Statement on Climate Change promotes the education of students through indoctrination instead of critical thinking skills and the scientific method. Throughout the document, promotion of “consensus” is advanced, while all dissenting scientific facts are censored or derided.
Instead of promoting conformity and indoctrination, the largest science teacher’s organization in America should be promoting an open debate on scientific matters, including climate change. What is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations. Historically, scientific consensuses have often turned out to be wrong. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus. The frequent assertion that there is a consensus behind the idea that there is an impending disaster from climate change is not how the validity of science is determined. To quote the profoundly true observation of Michael Crichton:
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it is science, it isn’t consensus.”
Reliable scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, where theoretical predictions are validated by observations or rejected by failing to do so. Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth. Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Observations anchor understanding and weed out theories that do not work. This has been the scientific method for more than 400 years.
The objective of persons of science is to discern the truth. Unfortunately, the NSTA and too many climate scientists have abandoned that mission, and they have done so at great cost to their own institutions and to the reputation of science itself.
Science, as the Islamic mathematician and empiricist al-Haytham (965 to 1040 A.D.) could have told the NSTA, is not done by mere head count:
“The seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus, however venerable or widespread. Instead he questions what he has learned of it, applying to it his hard-won scientific knowledge, and he inspects and inquires and investigates and checks and checks and checks again. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.”
Prof. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, incisively explained the scientific method and provided his thoughts on consensus in science:
“[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature…compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
A primary role for the NSTA should be to develop critical thinking skills for students and to instill in them knowledge and use of the scientific method. Students should be encouraged to review all facts on a subject (in this case climate change) and make up their own minds rather than be indoctrinated into an established political agenda.
Unfortunately, the NSTA has taken a strong position that is antithetical to the scientific method, critical thinking and open scientific debate. Its position is one of censorship of any scientist or science that does not support the NSTA-approved “science.” In short, the NSTA Position Statement on Climate Change fails to delineate between real science and political science.
We respectfully urge the National Science Teaching Association to take to heart our commentary and return science education to the foundations of reason, open debate and tolerance for alternative thinking.
Perhaps Richard Feynman summarized it best, saying:
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy, March 27, 2023, and can be accessed here.
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va.; and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know.”
For another Feynman quote: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
What they are advocating is a catechism, not science. Lysenko lives!
As long as we are quoting, here is one on “their endorsement of censorship of any scientific information”
“Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
― Robert A Heinlein
Okay, so long as you realize R.A.H’s passion is religious. SF authors of the 50’s (esp. Asimov and Heinlein) were obsessed with atomic energy to the extent that they almost never went more than a chapter without it.
Your point being? For those of us who grew up in the Atomic Era, and survived the Cold War, it was pretty hard to ignore the importance of “atomic energy.” I don’t see a problem with RAH giving the Devil his due.
I loved those guys! Too bad we aren’t in the Atomic Era now.
The Windmill Era is a poor substitute.
““Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.”
Yes, we seem to be getting a lot of secrecy from the Joe Biden administration.
And we seem to be getting a lot of outright intimidation from the Joe Biden administration.
And we are getting political prosecutions/persecutions of political opponents from the Joe Biden administration.
It looks like the beginning of a radical Democrat tyranny to me. Or actually, a continuation of the tyranny started by the Obama-Biden administration.
He also said if your theory isn’t confirmed by experimental finding, the theory is rubbish.
Using well the established formulae of quantum mechanics Feynman then proceeded to calculate vacuum quantum energy and found it be 10^114J/m3 (that is 1 followed by114 zeros), the equivalent mass being billion of trelions of Andromeda galaxies squeezed into one qubic meter.
He then made his other well known comment about ‘boiling world oceans’.
Never mind nothing is perfect in science.
p.s. just found that estimated mass of Andromeda is (2.0×10^42 kg)
1kg mass=9×10^16J
Vuk, I catch your joke about the energy, but think of it this way: A submarine has to withstand pressures of hundreds of atmospheres, a spaceship has to handle but one. No matter how thin space gets, it can never be emptier than one earth atmosphere below earth atmosphere. My point?
That energy level seems ridiculously high, but is that not just relative to the puny energies we know?
In the end, who do I believe, Feynman, or people who deny the ether altogether?
If it cannot be questioned, it’s propaganda.
Exactly.
Propaganda – “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.”
This is Alarmist Climate Science.
It’s a religion to the true believers.
There is a ray of hope out there, unless agenda group bias is inserted first….
story tip
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230328145321.htm
Preschoolers prefer to learn from a competent robot than an incompetent humanResearchers at the Cognition and Language Development Lab tested three- and five-year-olds to see whether robots could be better teachers than people
Date:
March 28, 2023
Source:
Concordia University
Summary:
Researchers found that preschoolers prefer learning from what they perceive as a competent robot over an incompetent human. This study is the first to use both a human speaker and a robot to see if children deem social affiliation and similarity more important than competency when choosing which source to trust and learn from.
That’s interesting but I don’t see how that changes anything. The robots just do what they’re programmed to do. Just look at ChatGPT and the misinformation it confidently presents.
Huge advance in centralizing curriculum control.
“Researchers found that preschoolers prefer learning from what they perceive as a competent robot over an incompetent human.”
I’m wondering how a preschooler would know the difference?
Article says”…censorship of any scientific information that deviates from the consensus groupthink.”
Ultimately they will have to censor the laws of thermodynamics.
…while forcing their children into AP courses to get into USA’s prestige Universities.
…while forcing STEM for underrepresented groups
…while attempting to redefine standardized test results by social standing
People are interested and have aptitude in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or they don’t. When the STEM recruiting for equity push began, I knew these disciplines were doomed. NSTA’s approach to teaching science will drive children away from science, except those who haven’t the aptitude.
From the time I was able to read, I studied dictionaries, encyclopedias, and books and magazines on science, especially astronomy. Nobody had to coax me into it. When my fellow students and I were administered aptitude tests in 8th grade — surprise, surprise — the results suggested that I might do well as a civil engineer. I ended up in meteorology and soil physics, but have spent my career in the company of engineers (and farmers).
Kids don’t need no steenkin STEM New Age climate religion taught by alleged science teachers.
I could have written that comment. I even read from cover to cover a Scientific Equipment catalog the HS Chemistry/Physics teacher was going to throw away after receiving a new one.
Today’s schoolteachers can’t even teach Math, how can they teach Science, Technology and Engineering? All of which need an excellent foundation in Math. [And now the “Woke” group call Math Racist.]
I finished my Engineering degree while in the Navy. As a result, every time I got another duty assignment, I had to take the core courses over again. Thus, I had taken most Sophomore and Junior math courses over twice. When I got to Senior level Physics it was a breeze, Physics was nothing more than “Applied” Mathematics – like the dreaded word problems in homework assignments. Anyone that has laid small square tiles in a pattern can recognize the Pythagorean theorem, even an uneducated tile layer, high IQ not needed. Easily demonstrated with a bunch of Square Legos and a right angled triangle.
I don’t remember taking any course in HS or college that stressed reason, open debate, and tolerance for alternate thinking. I think the best we can hope for is that the students sleep through the indoctrination.
A better hope is sending kids to private schools that don’t adhere to the propaganda or, if possible, homeschooling. After the covid lockdowns, many a parent discovered to their dismay and disgust exactly what was being taught (or not taught) to their kids. Any many of them have chosen the aforementioned alternatives, and even more have gotten involved in school board races to try and change things in public schools.
Several states have recently passed laws that require money to follow the students.
That is, whatever school a child registers in, will get the students share of education spending. Doesn’t matter if it’s a government owned school or a privately owned one.
Some of these even allow home schooling parents to bill the state for the cost of curricula.
Re: ” whatever school a child registers in, will get the students share of education spending”
Danger – what if 99% of the lemmings run their kids off the cliff?
The chances that 99% of parents will agree on anything are infinitesimally remote.
The much greater certainty is that the US Department of Edumacation and the teachers union march the kids off the cliff to achieve ideological purity.
This is occurring today not only in the unscientific teaching of global warming ideology, but also in CRT and gender transformation propaganda.
Our government schools today are teaching the unscientific ideology that kids have the knowledge and capacity to decide that they are the wrong sex, and the unscientific ideology that changing from male to female or vice versa is biologically possible.
“I don’t remember taking any course…“
________________________________
Same here but al least two papers in my experience required original research One in ichthyology required the professor’s approval of the thesis and method. And one in Plant physiology was an assigned subject on transport across the cell membrane. Back then nearly 100% of the papers were measuring electrical potential across squid cell membranes. Finding original thought in that morass of “follow the leader” was not easy.
I’m sorry to hear that. You have my condolences. I won a science award in my junior year in high school for asking the question if micrometeorites were abundant enough to be detected chemically in black, magnetic beach sands. I demonstrated that such sands did give a positive reaction for nickel after being dissolved in aqua regia. The point is, my chemistry instructor encouraged and supported me.
However, that was a couple years after Sputnik was launched and there was a push to upgrade the science and math courses. There is little doubt that standards have lapsed in recent years
Congratulations…what a great little experiment! I’ll henceforth look at black sand accumulations with a new insight…
“I don’t remember taking any course in HS or college that stressed reason, open debate, and tolerance for alternate thinking.” My HS Civics course teacher in my senior year did – but this was over 50 years ago, and in a small, conservative town with more than 50% Catholics, this was the only openly conservative teacher I saw in public schools K-12. .
As secondary industry has declined relative to tertiary industry society has changed to accommodate that. Education has followed.
Secondary industry manipulates the real world to make goods from primary resources. It’s manufacturing. And it needs to deal with real world. If you ignore reality, then the goods don’t work.
Tertiary industry provides services that enrich the customer. And its definition of success is not “Does the service work?” but rather, “Is the customer satisfied?”
Wait a moment and think about that.
A service that isn’t perfect can be acceptable if the customer is satisfied with their full treatment. For example, personal shoppers may not find the best bargains or the best styles but the experience may be enjoyed by the customer. Suddenly, reality is less important than subjectivity.
Disagreeing with the mainstream is rarely popular. It’s no way to get contracts or a “happy team environment”. Independent thought may even disagree with the customer. That is the new definition of being wrong.
This societal change, buttressed by post-modernism, is the reason for the changes in education. Education curricula are symptoms, not initially causes.
Please define primary industry.
I’m guessing it would be something like farming.
Yep. Agriculture, mining, forestry. The production of raw materials rather than the processing of them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/primary-industry
It is important to distinguish wealth created from new sources from wealth created by cycling from one pocket to the next.
The original wealth creation from primatey production is far more valuable and it cries out for preservation and freedom to work for those primary industries.
W
( We are having that type of discussion in Melbourne Australia right now, with some people crying out for more money to be put into the medical sector, while others want to have a big spend on the annual Grand Prix formula one motor races.
Geoff S
The definition has always been “Is the customer happy”. There is nothing new in that.
Very few products of the so called “secondary industries” are perfect. I’ve never worked with a product that couldn’t be a bit better.
Good answer. Good enough is always defined by the customer. Yet the criteria the customer uses is different.
There is a lower quality limit related to ‘the product’, rather than ‘the perception of the product’, for manufactured goods. It has to work.
For services the ‘perception of the product’ is ‘the product’. It has to be liked, that’s all.
Back in the first half of the 20th Century, Leitz had a reputation for over-engineering their microscopes, and they were respected because there were so few complaints about where Leitz stood on the technology curve. Back in the ’50s, Leitz had features and accessories for their petrographic microscopes that are not available today, for any price.
MCourtney says:”“Does the service work?” but rather, “Is the customer satisfied?””
If the service doesn’t work the customer can’t be satisfied. “Doesn’t work” is different than “isn’t perfect”.
Isn’t perfect is often followed by a request for a reduction in price. Doesn’t work is followed by non-payment of invoice.
I think yours are important observations. As society urbanized a declining percentage of people lived their lives as primary/secondary producers – i.e. harvesting resources and producing products from those resources. We’ve gone from most people participating in agriculture to a very tiny percentage who actually know where and how food is produced.
In exchange we have a very large segment of society living in cities, removed from the natural environment and devoid of any intimate knowledge of where food and things come from. As such they are insulated from the need to make daily decisions that can affect their own comfort and survival on short time scales. They live in a world created by human technology and culture and that world is now largely perceived through perceptions and feelings, not hard facts. They are educated in careers that have little if anything to do with the laws of nature and more to do with social values of consumption, image, fame and power.
Our educators seem largely consumed by this new world view where what you feel or believe is far more important than what is real. They are passing on their state of mind to those they educate. It isn’t hard to see the disasters that will come if this continues. The laws of physics, math and economics cannot be repealed by popular consensus.
The panel was comprised of some of the most esteemed scientists and experts in the field including three members of the National Academy of Sciences.
What a shocking revelation of the losses already achieved among ‘science’ teachers in comprehension of the scientific method. They’ve finished their decline period, now it’s explicitly a fall.
I suggest that academic groupthink since the 60s has created this marvellously unanimous rejection of one of humanity’s greatest achievements. They should have unanimously stood up and delivered a thunderous ‘Hell No’ when that miserable document came around for signing.
Parents and the general public are now very concerned about what and how their children are actually being taught in public schools. The Covid lockdowns and school closures opened a window for parents to see the indoctrination for themselves. Hopefully, parents will continue to be involved in their children’s education.
Parents send their kids to schools (so parents can go to work, and, oh yeah, for learning math) where their kids are “educated” by people they disagree with online (while both supposedly work). The pool of potential educators with right-leaning politics is shallow.
Most parents don’t want left or right leaning politics in their children’s schools.
Science isn’t the only subject validated by consensus in the educational system. So, too, is history. Students are fed propaganda rather than the facts that enable them to make up their own minds about critical personalities and events in the past.
That’s a strange thing to say, considering this article appears to be rejecting appeals to authority.
In any case according to the NAS it currently has approximately 2,400 members. I guess the other 2,397 were busy that day.
Wow… that’s dumb even for you.
The article is basically complaining about expert advice whilst quoting… experts.
The fact that the panel was composed of “experts” in no way alters the observation that the NSTA now advocates for the unquestioning obedience of students to Climate dogma.
Your research skills on display again TFN? –
The 2,400 NAS members aren’t all climate-focused –
Members are affiliated with a section (scientific discipline) in one of six Classes:
Did you discover how many of these are climate-focused? Maybe it was just 5?
So nitpicking a statement that 3 members of the NAS were on the CO2 Coalition review panel could be right up there with other consensus science?
“The consenus” is believing more in model outputs being not more than projections. Facts or measurements are last century and have nothing in common with these projections.
It’s a good thing the NSTA wasn’t around a few decades ago…. if they were, and they they were like they are now, imagine the state of science. Dinosaurs would still be regarded as tail dragging, cold blooded lizards (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary), Mars would still be seen as possibly harboring Martians, due to the pre-Viking observance of “canals” on the surface (maybe the Viking missions may have never been sent, or if they were, their results ignored and covered up), and who knows what other kinds of ideas that were accepted years and decades ago that we now know are wrong.
There’s an enormous amount of money and many reputations at stake. But I detect a note of desperation.
It goes all the way to the mental & physical state of the individuals making up that, or whichever/any/all organisation(s) these days.
From within 2 hours of having had breakfast every day (9 times out of 10 it would be carbohydrate-based) they will be asleep on their feet.
From 09:30 onwards only thing going on inside their heads is:
‘When is lunch, it can’t get here fast enough’
Before it arrives they are fractious & grumpy and will say, do and agree to anything that speeds up the arrival of more sugar at lunchtime.
They get lunch (more carbohydrate and refined sugar) and by 15:00 are asleep in their chairs taking a ‘Power Nap’ with nothing more inside their heads than:
When is going-home time?
The post-lunch blood-sugar crash and sugar-induced dehydration will make them slow, dull and perfectly not in the mood or state-of-mind for anything new, different or original.
So they agree with, and sign their names to, anything passes in front of them.
They *just* want to go home, eat more sugar, drink alcohol, watch TV and sleep.
Then tomorrow, they will repeat the whole exercise.
And because everyone around them is in the same boat and has been for decades now, they think that that is how The World Works.
and why not. it makes life easy and the sugar/alcohol/Trash-TV, being drugs that release Dopamine, actually give their consumer a Big Phat Reward every single time.
The sugar tells it’s consumers how good, clever, intelligent and hard-working they’ve been when in fact, the sugar actually caused them to ne none of those things. They were asleep while all those things happened.
And that is where Science went.
To sleep.
PS One of the most reliable indicators of oncoming diabetes (pre-diabetes) is actually a cognitive skill test.
i.e. Just a little exercise in short-term memory, pencil & paper maths or a simple crossword puzzle. Learning a new video game maybe or seeing how well at an old one, like Pacman. Just simple things, no rocket science.
What those things record are actually the onset of Type 3 Diabetes.
Ain’t that a fact Brandon?
great article recently in the American Thinker about all the ways the Democrat Party is following the model of Hitler’s NAZI party and of course the biggest is censorship – and they continually call conservatives NAZIs and fascists – right
I should point out there never was a consensus in the first place.
That has been the biggest lie put forth by the climunists.
The original claim came from a survey in which surveys were sent out, and of those few that bothered to fill out and return the survey, over 90% were excluded for one reason or another.
Of some 15000 surveys sent out, a total of 79 were selected. Of those 77 responded positively to three poorly worded questions.
Every other attempt to prove the “consensus” has suffered from so many procedural problems, that in any field other than climate science, they would have been laughed out of court.
Yes, and the primary reason most scientists were excluded from the study was that they held the position that they weren’t sure what might be causing global warming. Only scientists who had the temerity to claim they were certain they knew the cause of global warming were allowed to participate. Saying “we need more information” got you kicked out of the study. That was the real consensus.
Excellent article. Science has been going downhill for a long time, but the climate change agenda has accellerated it. Universities once were open forums of debate and discovery, but now are almost a closed priesthood. Here are a few quotes from scientists that fit into your critique of the modern unscientific consensus.
“We see that adherents of the best-known theory have not responded to increasing adverse evidence by questioning the validity of their beliefs, in the best scientific tradition; rather, they have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology. In response many alternative explanations have introduced even greater elements of mythology, until finally science has been abandoned entirely in substance, though retained in name.” –Robert Shapiro, Origins
Michael Faraday warned against the tendency of the mind to rest on an assumption, and when it appears to fit in with other knowledge to forget that it has not been proven.” W.I.B. Beverage, The Art of Scientific Investigation.
and a few from Albert Einstein:
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Mathematical descriptions, models and proofs can only be an approximation of reality.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
To be a faultless member of the flock, first one must be a sheep.” – A. Einstein
A real scientist has Einstein’s attitude.
“”The science teachers’ bureaucracy is driving climate education into an unquestioning adherence to unscientific methodology.””
They are in the vanguard of the climate change clerisy and their mission is to socially engineer mass climate anxiety
” their mission is”
I think they mostly want air-conditioned living space, a cell phone with a data plan and warm hamburgers.
Thank you Gregory Wrightstone! I appreciate the efforts of the CO2 Coalition. Good article. I read through both the NSTA position paper and the Coalition’s challenge to it.
In this post – “Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth.”
Be careful with this. Agreement with observations is necessary but not sufficient to establish cause and effect. We see the climate activist misuse of this fallacy in pushing the claim that GHGs MUST be the cause of the observed warming. And that the climate models demonstrate validity by paralleling the observations. NO!!
So at the top of my list of suggestions to the CO2 Coalition is to expose the cause-and-effect fallacies directly. Push with overwhelming force at the weak point.
For example, emphasize the evidence from space that the emission of longwave energy is highly variable over time and location largely because of the formation and dissipation of clouds, which means the output is NOT what you would get from a passive radiative “trap.” The GOES visualizations, especially Band 16, and the hourly CERES data is openly available to make this point. The claim of harmful warming caused by GHGs depends on the concept that the passive radiative trap effect of the atmosphere will control the outcome. It cannot do so, and the evidence from space shows it to be a misconception.
Another example is to expose the inherent inability of a parameter-tuned, large-grid, discrete-layer, step-iterated computer simulation to have any diagnostic or predictive authority to determine the climate response to GHG emissions. Pat Frank gets this right, as I see it, and I would urge the CO2 coalition to take better account of the reliability problem made clear by his analysis.
So please keep on with the important work of pushing back against the unsound claims of harmful warming.
“Agreement with observations is necessary but not sufficient”
I used to be surprised that the model needed training data.
“…parameter-tuned … step-iterated …”
Agreed. Add to that the fact that during the period where we have instrument measurements of both atmospheric CO2 and temperature, from the start of Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, we have had temperatures FALLING, then RISING, then more or less STEADY all while CO2 levels were consistently rising.
Every possible temperature outcome DOES NOT EQUAL CO2 “driving” temperature.
“Thank you Gregory Wrightstone! I appreciate the efforts of the CO2 Coalition. Good article.”
I agree. Very good article.
“The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” provides a clear and accessible response to the one-way zealotry of alarmists. Alex Epstein makes the best use of a philosophy background to teach the value of unclouded thinking. His book would make an excellent addition to any high school curriculum in multiple subject areas.
There are two things that will neutralize the green indoctrination in schools. One is the natural resistance that kids have to authoritarian group think. Adolescents, particularly, want to learn to think for themselves, and the unvarying theme of catastrophism and the hypocritical “do as I say” position of the greens will eventually turn kids off.
Good, rational teaching will provide the other agency for neutralizing indoctrination. Watts’ and Epstein’s books have applications in many subject areas. Geology, physics, spoken and written rhetoric, math, climate history and the natural world.
The parents’ movement in the U.S. is attempting to claw back bad curriculi on gender critical race and climate change. Their legislation passed in the House, but it will die in the senate. Parents have gained attention for simply wanting to be “in” on their kids’ education. But whether they’ve sparked any kind of lasting effect is dubious. The anti-reality movement has imbedded itself in every facet of education. Neutralizing it is not just a matter of denying it. Epstein actually makes the moral case in an accessible and readable way for youngsters.
‘Their [parents’ movement] legislation passed in the House, but it will die in the senate.’
Public education is a matter for states, localities and parents – NOT the Feds. While I’m sympathetic with what the House Republicans are trying to do here, they don’t help the cause of limited government by weighing in like this. If they want to do something useful, they should zero out the Dept. of Education. I’d be willing to bet there’s a meaningful relationship between falling literacy and the latter’s budget.
I agree that curriculum and content should be left to local schools and districts and feds should stay out of it. But the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” movement has to do with transparency, not mandates. Parents have a right to know if indoctrination into any ideology has become part of the curriculum. Armed with the knowledge of what is being taught in their childrens’ classrooms, parents have the ability to a) protest b) take their kid out and put them somewhere better.
Parents Bill of Rights Act
This bill establishes various rights of parents and guardians regarding the elementary or secondary school education of their children. Local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools must comply with the requirements of the bill in order to receive federal education funds.
Specifically, the bill requires schools to notify parents and guardians of their rights regarding the education of their children. These rights include the right to
The problem is that parents are not being informed of BLM content, climate catastrophism, multiple gender and gay activism, violence and bullying and (you are particularly aware of this in Northern Virginia) degradation of AP and Gifted programs which make too many other kids feel inferior.
Activism is already embedded in the curricula of many states, counties and schools. But in many cases (as in NoVA) it is covert. The PBoR would make it difficult for districts to get away with this.
‘But the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” movement has to do with transparency, not mandates.’
Transparency, mandates, whatever – it’s not the fed’s business. I could easily re-write your list to make it applicable to local police departments. What do you think that would look like if a Democrat-controlled Federal government did that? Would you be in favor of it?
Like I said, I’m very sympathetic. But at some point the parents and other concerned citizens are going to have to get off their butts and pay attention to what’s going on in their schools, i.e., talk to their kids, limit the social media crap, go to church, attend school meetings, run for office, etc. In other words, get active.
‘Local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools must comply with the requirements of the bill in order to receive federal education funds.’
Federal funding of state and local schools is the problem because the piper calls the tune. Get rid of it and the D of Ed.
“…the piper calls the tune.”
the federal government covers less than 10 percent of school funding. The rest we pay through property and sales taxes. Thus a national “Parents’ Bill of Rights” would be a very small cudgel.
It doesn’t seem to matter where the money comes from as long as public education is framed as the proper habitat for social reformers who see it as their mission in life to impose their liberal values on everyone else. See, for example, Michael Bennet (Yale Law and Wesleyan U.), whose only public office prior to becoming a U.S. Senator was his tenure as Denver Public Schools Superintendent.
I agree parents need to become engaged with their kids and with their schools. But until the vast majority get motivated… transparency of district curricula should be required.
‘It doesn’t seem to matter where the money comes from as long as public education is framed as the proper habitat for social reformers who see it as their mission in life to impose their liberal values on everyone else.’
Public education was a hot topic even before the Progressive Era. Horace Mann et al were impressed with the Prussian system that provided tracks for obedient elites, workers and cannon fodder.
Yes. An invetse relationship.
“… the natural resistance that kids have to authoritarian group think …”
Don’t lean too hard on that one.
Why are students being taught anyone’s version of “climate science”? My recollection was that there was way more than enough uncontroversial / non-political content to be covered in high school physics, chemistry, biology, geology, earth science, etc.
Yup. Sometimes people even think we should focus on teaching basic language skills and mathematics. What a shocker.
“…the largest science teacher’s organization in America…”
Alas, many chrysalis never hatch into scientists.
Training for that discipline does not attract free thinkers.
The pay stinks.
We can argue which way cause-and-effect goes, but the institution today (and until that generation passes of natural causes) is not built for fomenting scientific (or other) revolution.
One of Epstein’s main points in his “Moral Case” is that deaths from climate related disasters are way down and falling. Now even Google search results confirm this:
“Climate Related Deaths by decade” currently cites multiple references to the “International Disaster Databse” graph which shows the dramatic decline. These all appear at the top of Google’s search results page.
Epstein still cites drought and heatwaves as more deadly than cold, a statistic that should be countered by one of his own sources:
https://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf
Table 4
It’s not just science education. The state of our public schools is disgraceful. I put 100% of the blame on centralization. The old we are experts and professionals so we know what is best. Phooey! One size fits all is not a good idea and it never works best.
I believe in neighborhood K-8 schools with the principal guiding the school within broad bounds. If you don’t like what is happening with your school the parents fire the principal. No interference from school boards, cities, counties, states or feds. If you are not happy with your neighborhood school then you are free to move them to a different neighborhood school.
When a student graduates eighth grade he/she can go to any high school they choose. There would be at least one plain old regular high school that would be like the ones we all attended. However there would also be alternative schools. Some schools would lean heavy towards math and science, some would lean toward literature, philosophy, political science and most important some would lean toward the trades welding, mechanics, carpentry, electronics, plumbing, civil engineering and last but not least a place for trouble makers and problem students, they would get the special attention they need but more importantly not be disrupting the general school population.
My final thought is if a student really doesn’t want to be in school and is skipping and causing problems let them leave the system no shame no dishonor no fighting with them. I’m sure we could help them find a better use of their time, probably work of some sort but something to help keep them out of trouble and jail.
As for higher education it is probably in worse shape. I haven’t figured out what should be done there yet. I would start by decentralizing them and warning the current administrators that what they have been doing lately is unacceptable and all of them will be fired if changes aren’t made in a suitable amount of time.
Parents in the UK are fined GDP60 if their kids miss time from school without permitted absences. This embeds a compliance mindset on individuals at an early age and the all-encompassing authority of the government.
It is no wonder modern Britain is no longer Great and have so thoroughly embraced the climate religion. Individual freedom has been flushed into the sewer.
The first myth is that there is a consensus among scientists that CO2 is the control knob for global warming. The 97% percent consensus figure itself is propaganda that was determined in a non scientific survey.
In addition, consensus is only meaningful in the realm of politics, not science.
China, India, and many other countries clearly do not agree with the “consensus”. The Chinese are building 2 coal fired power stations per week, and other countries are also adding fossil fueled power plants.
Clearly, if their scientists were certain that CO2 is going to cause widespread destruction of life in 10 years, they would not be doing this. China may be totalitarian, but they are not suicidal.
The broad consensus back in the late 1930s and early 1940s was that an atomic bomb was impossible. It simply required too much uranium to make a critical mass. Then two bright physicists working at the University of Birmingham under Marc Oliphant’s direction hit on the idea of separating the isotope U-235.
The whole basis of the super-bomb set out in a 6 page memo:
https://web.stanford.edu/class/history5n/FPmemo.pdf
The entire climate modelling effort is now fraudulent. It is based on pure speculation that a tiny amount of CO2 can alter Earth’s energy balance and is obviously wrong.
Part of the problem—maybe a large part—is that too many teachers possess only the knowledge that’s dictated to them by a frequently Leftist-slanted curriculum. As long as their students can parrot back whatever is dished out, that’s good enough.
I had the great misfortune to judge highschool science fairs for several years in Canada. I never met a high school science teacher who understood the concept of a controlled experiment and very few who understood the importance of replication. Canada does not have a culture that is scientifically astute and this is manifested by widespread belief in farce like chiropracty, acupuncture, endless dietary fads, the magic protective power of masks and global warming. It is my perception that the state does not want a well educated, critically thinking population in Canada, above all they want a compliant population. To achieve that goal the state is conspiring to introduce children into state controlled environments as early as postible (day care).
From the article: “Their concern spiked to alarm with the publication of “The Teaching of Climate Science,” a position paper of the 40,000-member National Science Teaching Association (NSTA). In it, the NSTA advocates that teachers conform to the “consensus” opinion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide will cause dangerous overheating of Earth. . .
Instead of promoting conformity and indoctrination, the largest science teacher’s organization in America should be promoting an open debate on scientific matters, including climate change.”
Here’s the challenge, kids: Try to find any PROOF that CO2 is the control knob of the temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere, keeping in mind that speculation, assumptions and assertions are not proof of anything.
What you will find if you are diligent, is there is no proof that CO2 controls the temperatures of Earth’s atmosphere, there is only speculation, assumptions and assertions about CO2 and the atmosphere. That’s the bottom line.
There is no need to fear CO2. It is a harmless gas essential for life on Earth. The sooner you realize this truth, the better for your mental health, and the better for science.
There’s no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, kids. And believe me when I tell you I have looked for it. Can’t find it. And no climate change alarmist can provide it when asked. Try it yourself.