Okay… as along as they get concurrent lessons in junk science and the history of totalitarianism.
“Those who are young today will, for better or worse, have to bear the brunt of the decisions made by my generation. That gives them a unique right to be listened to on climate change.”
Heh, they’d probably do as well as the current 51-y-old.
We have the same problem in BC school system and I had to send them a letter …
I admit that I am not a climatologist on the issue of global warming. However; I support the principle that young people should be educated, not propagandized — and I know something about what that means.
One of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how they deal with great controversies.
In education, students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them.
In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.
In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.
In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democracy, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.
As we find in the science section of these guidelines, students must learn to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.
The issue is that although students should be taught about both sides of a scientific theoretical controversy, your assignment, based on the description in your permission request, appears to only present one side and are shielded from the weaknesses. contained in. BC Science 10.
How can a student write a critique about assertions made on global warming without having anything to compare and contrast the assertions to? Your permission/assignment sheet gave no indication as to how, if any, the views to counter Anthropogenic Global Warming would be taught.
In addition, it is not clear what alternate assignment is available to the student/teachers should they choose to Learn from a climatologist instead from a television show hosted by a journalist with no science degrees.
If the “theory” of global warming is to be taught in your classroom, I urge that the topic should be taught like the other sciences and like other controversial theories — with honesty about both . When classroom activities and/or textbooks are biased, you(the school board)) are the check and balance.
Statements are made in Science 10 that are assertions that mix cause and effect: “climate change is affecting our planet right now. Ice is disappearing earlier in the spring, trees are budding earlier, and extreme weather events are causing more outbreaks of disease than 20 years ago.” They are not only inaccurate but also dishonest.
I urge The school board to require that the scientific data to both sides of this controversy be taught and that not one side be suppressed.
To do so would be not only be good training in science, but good education in citizenship.
W Robichaud
williams lake BC
No one has a “right to be listened to.”
Notice the switch from being educated to being listened to. Having 8-year olds setting policy is stupid.
I think most people would agree to teach kids about science and about climate and weather. When the children are old enough to begin distinguishing between good ideas and bad ideas, the curriculum could include more controversial material, like the range of opinions on climate change and the human role in climate change.
Reasonable people would like education to be education rather than the indoctrination that some “educators” have in mind. When does education cross into indoctrination? I’m too chicken to answer that. But I will say that the anti-industrial anti-wealth anti-Western-thinking stuff sounds like indoctrination to me.