Forget evolution, climate science is the most controversial subject in school

posted at 8:20 pm on March 12, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Little by little, the federal Department of Education appropriates ever more power for itself. (Never mind that the department might very well be unconstitutional in the first place.) Today, most public schools are dependent one way or another on federal funds. Those funds don’t come without strings — and, under the Obama administration, bureaucrats have tightened those strings considerably.

Through the Race to the Top competition, the Ed Department enticed states with reward funds to adopt national standards. (Some state leaders — like Texas Gov. Rick Perry — turned down the funding, but they were the exceptions.) The common core applies to just English and math — relatively straightforward subjects. But it’s probably just a matter of time before the administration bribes states to adopt national science and history standards, as well.

When that happens, the administration will likely turn for inspiration to science standards that have already been developed by several national bodies. These organizations will release a new draft of science education standards in April — and some parents will probably not like what they contain. If you think science should be more straightforward than English, think again. Science hasn’t been noncontroversial since Charles Darwin first forwarded his theory of evolution (and probably before that!). Parents are as outraged today about the way schools teach climate science as they were then about the way schools incorporated evolution into their curriculums.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The groups preparing the standards include the National Research Council, which is part of the congressionally chartered National Academies. They are working from a document they drew up last year that says climate change is caused in part by manmade events, such as the burning of fossil fuels. The document says rising temperatures could have “large consequences” for the planet. …

While states set their own educational curriculum, many are likely to use the scientific standards as guidelines. But the approach to climate change could be a sticking point for some states. In one, South Dakota, the state House has already passed a resolution saying climate change should be taught as a “theory rather than a proven fact.”

Rose Pugliese, a lawyer in western Colorado who has asked her local school board to prevent teachers from presenting climate change as fact, said schools should encourage students to reach their own conclusions.

“Unless we’ve got conclusive evidence one way or another—and I don’t think we’ll have that for hundreds of years—I think both sides should be taught,” Ms. Pugliese said. “Allow the kids to figure it out for themselves.”

That approach would mislead students, contends Martin Storksdieck, a director at the National Research Council who is helping to develop the new science standards. “What would be conveyed to them is not how science works—it’s how politics works,” Mr. Storksdieck said.

The relevant question here is actually not, “Is the planet warming?” or “Have humans caused global warming?” The relevant question is, “What role should the government play in education?” or “Who should teach children?”

In general, we’re gradually approaching a mentality that says the upbringing of children — of which education is a fundamental part — is best left to the government — and not local or state government, but the federal government. Why? I’m really asking. What is the philosophical basis for that mentality? What natural claim on children does the government have? What is the practical basis for that mentality? What evidence do we have that a child educated by the government is better off than a child educated by his parents or, at the very least, under the auspices of local or state control?

In fact, the evidence is very much to the contrary. As Katie Kieffer writes in her column this week:

It costs taxpayers over $10,000 per year to educate the average public school student. For zero cost to the state and under $1,000 a year to themselves, parents can educate their child at home and the child will probably have better academic test scores. Last month, USA Today analyzed a 2009 National Home Education Research Institute study revealing that homeschooled students score higher than public school students by an of average of 37 percentile points.

So, besides the fact that the Department of Education is unconstitutional, there is no evidence that more money and federal control invariably produce smarter children. My brother is in medical school now and he was homeschooled through sixth grade.

(Note that money for the public school system is an unfair tax on those who make no use of it, whether because they have no children or because they opt to send their children to private or home schools.)

In a state of nature, government doesn’t exist, but the parent-child relationship still does. The decision of the people to form a government does not nor ever can obliterate the parent-child relationship or the obligations it creates. The family exists prior to government and, so, will always be the fundamental unit for organizing society. Parents have the right and responsibility to educate their children. That some parents do not take seriously that responsibility might be a reason for the next-nearest to a child to step in and fulfill the responsibility, but it’s not a reason to deny parental rights.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This article totally lost me. You seemed to be making an arguement against government involvement in setting teaching standards and then mentioned home schooling. Correct me if Im wrong but currently if a parent isnt happy with a schools lesson plans then they are more then welcome to take their kids out and home school them no?

As far as a national standard for what is taught in classrooms, I think that is best decided on a national level. What happens when Billy from Texas meets Joey from New York at College in California and their science teacher gives them a test. If you allow the standard to be decided by the state in elementry/middle school how do you rectify that at later levels?

Politricks on March 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Sorry.Misread.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I think may be confused.

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Not a bit. That is why I put a sarc tag. I find it interesting that so many ,especially liberals, cannot trust the states to set standards yet they want us to treat people as adults when they see fit (see abortion). I was trying to make the point that yes we can have standards without the federal government. Also, I imagine of the Dept. of Education was abolished states would consult with each other and voluntarily collaborate on standards.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Politricks on March 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM

THe point of an education is not to collect facts and figures like pokemon cards.

The point of an education is to learn critical thinking skills so thet you can adapt, evolve, and be of some value in the marketplace.

Critical thinking skills are shunned in the current makeup of the education system.

When kenny from topeka meets mike from sacramento at community college in newbury, they make out, just like they were taught in ‘health’ class.

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 10:01 PM

If you allow the standard to be decided by the state in elementry/middle school how do you rectify that at later levels?

Politricks on March 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Why don’t you trust men and women? If you cannot trust them with their education now can you trust them to raise their kids?/

*well only semi-sarcastic.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Dante and no my sarcasm was not directed at you…I just thought you would appreciate it. The statists never would.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Dante and no my sarcasm was not directed at you…I just thought you would appreciate it. The statists never would.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM

I thought I was probably reading it wrong. So my apologies.

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

There all sorts of holes in this post, Tina.

Little by little, the federal Department of Education appropriates ever more power for itself. (Never mind that the department might very well be unconstitutional in the first place.) Today, most public schools are dependent one way or another on federal funds. Those funds don’t come without strings

This section is self refuting. The federal government is funding education, as you admit. Is your argument that they should fund education without applying some kind of standards? “Here’s money for your schools, no questions asked” – that would be incredibly irresponsible.

But it’s probably just a matter of time before the administration bribes states to adopt national science and history standards, as well.

So now “funding” is the same as “bribes”? Are you serious?

You yourself point out that it’s hardly surprising that the government that funds schools will attach strings to those funds. So why complain that she points out that the “strings attached” are one potential downside of federal funding for schools.

As for whether funding can be called bribes, that’s a pretty common metaphor for a demand based on money that you consider inappropriate. And if the DOE uses funding of schools to try to force states to toe the “party line” on global warming, then “bribe” is not really a stretch. You shouldn’t be forced to teach something you consider to be false because the government is offering you funds on that condition.

These organizations will release a new draft of science education standards in April — and some parents will probably not like what they contain.

Whether or not individual parents “like” science has no bearing on whether or not science is true.

This moves straight to the core of the argument. If I consider that global warming is a sham argument and not based on sound science at all, that is my decision. It is also my decision to pass on that teaching to my child. Schools should not teach controversial subjects like global warming that has been more a question of politics than of science.

Schools act to instruct children in the place of parents. That is, their authority is derived from the parents’ authority. It is absolutely relevant what the parents think of what their children are being taught.

Rose Pugliese, a lawyer in western Colorado who has asked her local school board to prevent teachers from presenting climate change as fact, said schools should encourage students to reach their own conclusions.

“Unless we’ve got conclusive evidence one way or another—and I don’t think we’ll have that for hundreds of years—I think both sides should be taught,” Ms. Pugliese said. “Allow the kids to figure it out for themselves.”

Granted, this one isn’t Tina. But how is this remotely considered a logical argument? “I’m not a scientist, I’m lawyer. And my opinion is: this situation is awfully complex, but what we should do is just let unqualified kids sort it out for themselves. Obviously they will reach the right conclusion.”

It seems pretty reasonable to me to say, “Don’t teach it as a scientific fact unless you know it’s a scientific fact.” There will always be things about the world that we don’t know. So why should we teach one side as if we know it, when it may be correct. I would say false information is more damaging than saying, “that’s controversial, and has not yet been settled definitively.”

It costs taxpayers over $10,000 per year to educate the average public school student. For zero cost to the state and under $1,000 a year to themselves, parents can educate their child at home and the child will probably have better academic test scores.

This is because the vast majority of home schooled children come from families where the financial situation is such that at least one parent can afford to be home, schooling their children. And family income is a far clearer indicator of student performance than “home schooled or not.”

True enough, but that probably has more to do with the fact that successful people tend to have both successful incomes and successful children students. At any rate, most private schools can educate children at roughly a quarter to a third of what public schools spend. Being generous.

(Note that money for the public school system is an unfair tax on those who make no use of it, whether because they have no children or because they opt to send their children to private or home schools.)

It is not an unfair tax because everyone benefits from a society with an educated populace, whether they have children or not.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

That is indeed the argument for requiring everyone to pay taxes for education whether they have children in the public school system or not. But it starts to look a lot less fair when someone is paying tuition to a school while also paying taxes to support public schools. If you’re educating your own children, aren’t you already contributing to an educated society? Is it fair to ask that you pay both full cost for educating your own children, while also paying the full tax burden to educate children in the public schools?

That’s the kind of question that could be easily ignored when only the very well-to-do sent their children to private or Christian schools. But as more and more parents decide the public schools are not doing their job, and start home-schooling their children or sending them to private or Christian schools, it’s going to be harder to ignore the question.

tom on March 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

There’s also the little fact that it would be just dandy if we could divorce it from the Feds and leave things to individual states.

MelonCollie on March 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM

America will be much better off if the definition of science changes when you cross state lines.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

America would be better off if the government didn’t try to define science at all. Let the definition of science be something that scientists fight over. And if the definition changes over the years or depending on who you ask, that’s part of science too.

tom on March 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Science hasn’t been noncontroversial since Charles Darwin first forwarded his theory of evolution (and probably before that!).

Science has always been “controversial” for religious zealots, whether the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago (heliocentrism), or Evangelicals today (evolution).

BocaJuniors on March 12, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Schools should all be private and there should be a lot of options for parents. If one school isn’t gettting it done, you send little Suzy Q to antoerh one that will. Competition would make all the schools better.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yes, and the children can ride their unicorns to school each morning, through this magical fairy tale land of limitless school choice you’ve envisioned.

Nothing accelerates a child’s learning like shopping around schools every couple of months

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Yeah, the current system is so much better, where your school system is chosen for you based on where you live, and if they’re not doing the job, your only option is to cough up thousands of dollars and send them to private or Christian schools while still paying the same level of taxation to support the public schools your children are no longer going to because the schools are so bad.

Or something like that.

tom on March 12, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Bureaucrats in the National Climate Data Center – starting in 1940 artificially reduced temperatures records for 23 out of 46 stations making current temperatures appear as though they are getting warmer than the actual unaltered data shows. In other words, an artificial warming trend has been manufactured.

Why manufacture a warming trend that doesn’t exist?

Answer: So the public doesn’t find out that, despite the rise in co2, it has not warmed in the past 17 years. Thus humans are not causing global warming via their use of fossil fuels. Moreover, there is no need to forgo the use of the vast and affordable coal,oil and natural gas energy sources in the US. Plus there is no excuse for wasting billions of tax payer dollars to fund his green energy cronies like the bankrupt Solandra. http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/ghcn-temperature-adjustments-affect-40-of-the-arctic/#more-964d

Of course if the truth was known that humans are not respoinsible for global warming there would be no need for all those government funded climate science studies in our Universities, thousands of highly paid EPA bureaucrats with the power to control our lives and billions of dollars wasted on green energy companies like GE and Solandra. Those in government know this so they need to indoctrinate our children with lies about Climate Change to keep the scam going.

nomoneytocorruptgov on March 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

In the British public service system, a position was created to scan a particular port with a telescope, in case the French (under Napoleon) attempted a surprise landing in the harbor.

The position was abolished in 1914.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM

…but the widow of the last civil servant to hold that position is still drawing survivor benefits of his pension.

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

In general, we’re gradually approaching a mentality that says the upbringing of children — of which education is a fundamental part — is best left to the government — and not local or state government, but the federal government. Why? I’m really asking. What is the philosophical basis for that mentality? What natural claim on children does the government have?

Ah, echoes of the past. These same questions were raised in the late 1970s, when Carter proposed creating the federal Department of Education.

I was told at the time (I was a pesky teenager) that the very same questions were raised in the 1950s, when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was created.

They knew, in the ’50s, the answers to Tina’s questions. The reason for having federal oversight was to achieve centralization on the Marxist model. People arued passionately that nationalizing education was what Mussolini did, what Hitler did, what Lenin and Stalin did.

They were shouted down. Of course, nothing so crude as Fascism or Stalinism was in view with the creation of HEW and then the Dept of Education. The federal agencies served as centers around which the teachers’ unions were able to coalesce on a national basis. They became a source of funding for those who hewed to the approved philosophy of the day. Armed with a professional monopoly and a funding source, the teachers’ unions and professional organizations began crowding out dissent within their ranks as well as eating away at local school board independence.

Having a national agency is a means of moving money around, broadening a power base across state lines, and gaining control of big chunks of the public interest. The Marxist Socialists abroad did it with brute force. In America, it was done through indirection: the creation of national government agencies. For the concept of those agencies, Wilson and FDR had set the stage in previous decades.

J.E. Dyer on March 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Science has always been “controversial” for religious zealots, whether the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago (heliocentrism), or Evangelicals today (evolution).

BocaJuniors on March 12, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Dayum. I missed this comment. Hey Boca(cayate) let’s discuss your ignorant bigotry.

Define evolution in your own terms.

Pretty please with sugar on top. :)

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM

In the British public service system, a position was created to scan a particular port with a telescope, in case the French (under Napoleon) attempted a surprise landing in the harbor.

The position was abolished in 1914.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM

…but the widow of the last civil servant to hold that position is still drawing survivor benefits of his pension.

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

You know you’re just encouraging him…….

tom on March 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM

What happens when Billy from Texas meets Joey from New York at College in California and their science teacher gives them a test. If you allow the standard to be decided by the state in elementry/middle school how do you rectify that at later levels?

Who’s to say the national standard would be superior to an individual states standards or a specific college or university’s standards.

Who’s to say an individual professor’s standards would not be immensely under served by a national standard?

The standard we should be seeking is a political environment that prevents politicians and bureaucracies from limiting ambition, talent, and creativity from seeking unlimited possibilities and potentials.

If Billy and Joey want to go to a specific school in California for whatever reason they choose, they should already be conditioned in their minds to meet THAT SCHOOL’S standards, whatever that may be, and if they’re ambitious, or talented, or creative, or intelligent enough, then they will achieve their goals. If not, they fail and try try try again until their abilities, ideas, and temperament are matched to the school that accepts them.

You want excellence? That’s how you get it.

Saltysam on March 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM

You know you’re just encouraging him…….

tom on March 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Why should I not be encouraged. I used absurdity to illustrate an absurd situation, that plays out countless times in our rush to a centralized control system.

Unless you were joking, in which case, my question to you is moot.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Define evolution in your own terms.

Pretty please with sugar on top. :)

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I think it works like the underpants gnome master plan;
1. Steal all the underpants
2. ???
3. Make money!

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

This is correct.

e-pirate is wrong. 2+2 doesn’t always equal 4. It only equals 4 in base 10.

Why do liberals hate math and science?

blink on March 12, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Careful. You might be responsible for a liberal’s head exploding.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Why do liberals hate math and science?

blink on March 12, 2012 at 10:37 PM

And why did Newton and Einstein believe in God?

Saltysam on March 12, 2012 at 10:56 PM

You know you’re just encouraging him…….

tom on March 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Why should I not be encouraged. I used absurdity to illustrate an absurd situation, that plays out countless times in our rush to a centralized control system.

Unless you were joking, in which case, my question to you is moot.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Mooted, then. (Note: never forget the sarc tag)

/sarc

tom on March 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM

And why did Newton and Einstein believe in God?

Saltysam on March 12, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Experience, revelation, and reason.

Foremost? grace.

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I’m trying to figure out what is so severely conservative about RT3? after all Mittness is for it and thinks Dr. Arnie “Foster” Duncan is a genius. Waiting for mitt-bots to reconcile that one.

AH_C on March 12, 2012 at 11:49 PM

If you happen to be so misinformed as to still believe that man-made Global Warming is true, be sure to watch these to correct that problem. Some of the world’s top climate scientists appear and explain the entire scam.

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#

———————–

Axion on March 13, 2012 at 12:13 AM

This section is self refuting. The federal government is funding education, as you admit. Is your argument that they should fund education without applying some kind of standards? “Here’s money for your schools, no questions asked” – that would be incredibly irresponsible.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

But the track record has been continuous and consistent, the more the feds get involved the dumber our kids get. If we want to return to quality education then we need to kick the Department of Education and the Unions out and put parent’s ideas back in.

Actually I think we need to scrap the entire public school system, sell the buildings to the highest bidders and privatize the whole thing. We would see a dramatic increase in the quality of education in a very short period and it would be less expensive too.

Axion on March 13, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Oops disregard above, posted in wrong thread.

Axion on March 13, 2012 at 12:33 AM

What happens to kids stuck in lousy schools who aren’t learning? Doesn’t this harm the entire country? Shouldn’t there be at lease a minimum federal standard of basic knowledge to be learned in public school? I think there should be.

philrat on March 13, 2012 at 1:02 AM

De-fund the Dept. of Ed. Return the power to the states.

petefrt on March 13, 2012 at 1:28 AM

To answer the question about the philosophical basis for education being controlled by the state (and I disagree with this philosophy profoundly):

Plato’s theory of the state holds that children should be taken from their parents at a relatively young age and some “enlightened” philosopher will determine what portion of their soul is strongest (of three choices).

Appetitive: These become the lower castes of society, the workers, farmers, etc…

Emotive (some interpretations call this “spirit”): These become the Soldiers, Police, Firefighters, etc…

Rational: These select few are deemed worthy of becoming philosophers themselves who will be placed in positions of power above others.

And of course Plato envisioned a philosopher would be in charge of it all, and while Plato never personally referred to the office as such it is commonly referred to as the “King Philosopher”.

Now with that out of the way the basic idea behind all of this was that essentially that in the same way a Captain of a ship would be trained in the navigation by charts and stars and the lowly sailors would be lost without his guidance so too the masses must heed the word of the philosopher who had been trained to understand and be wise in the ways a society should work and what was best for each individual etc…

There is a lot more too his theory of the state but this portion of it is what is relevant to your question.

As for where it came from, it was largely Plato’s attempts to rationalize why the Athenians sentencing Socrates to death was morally wrong and how to prevent such things from happening to philosophers who were saying things the people didn’t like.

In fairness you should also understand that Plato believed firmly that the world of ideas was more real than the world of experience, in essence if you had a basketball that was spherical the basketball, imperfect as it is, exists in the world of experience, and the concept of a sphere exists in the world of ideas and is perfect. Plato believed leaders should know the world of ideas because the common rabble was unable to make sense of this world which he felt was crucial to running a country.

Ultimately Plato’s mistake is the same mistake liberals, fascists, and the like have been making since the beginning of western philosophy (which is what Plato was part of), and that mistake is that what works in theory very rarely translates into practical use as theorized.

I’m sure others will be able to add to or correct my limited understanding of this area of Philosophy but this, as far as I know, would be the beginnings of this position philosophically.

PS – I think conservatives would dig Socrates and Aristotle a lot more than Plato if you’re interested in reading about some of this stuff. Having said that you should know most of what we know about Socrates is through the lens/filter of Plato because Socrates rarely if ever wrote things down. Luckily Plato did a fairly good job (we think) of preserving the uniqueness that was Socrates.

Sqrl on March 13, 2012 at 4:35 AM

Science has always been “controversial” for religious zealots, whether the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago (heliocentrism), Leftist/Marxists decades ago (Eugenics) or Evangelicals today (evolution).

BocaJuniors on March 12, 2012 at 10:25 PM

FYFY, to include other “settled science.”

MNHawk on March 13, 2012 at 7:38 AM

This section is self refuting. The federal government is funding education, as you admit. Is your argument that they should fund education without applying some kind of standards? “Here’s money for your schools, no questions asked” – that would be incredibly irresponsible.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

A) they shouldn’t be funding education.

b) what would be wrong with simply returning money to the states – via educational funding – that the gov’t took from the citizens. How is that irresponsible? is it not more irresponsible to require nonsense be taught as “science” or to basically ruin public education as the feds have managed to do?

We obviously have different definitions of “irresponsible”. Your definition is that it would be irresponsible appears to be of the federal government NOT to do things to destroy public education.

Monkeytoe on March 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Interesting article in yesterday’s WSJ about the development of “standards” for science, with global warming as the backstory. It’s just another tactic for pimping “consensus” as the basis for settled science, rather than utilizing the proper scientific method. The director of the agency in charge admitted as much in the last paragraph of the article. The consensus in Galileo’s day was that the earth was flat.I, for one, have not forgotten the leaked emails from the East Anglia professors regarding their falsified data. Sadly, science is driven by politics vis avis grant money. Data can be generated to support a point of view and keep the cash flowing.

subsonic on March 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM

It is also important to remember that the Department of Education is barred, by three separate laws, from enforcing, or even “supervising” curriculum. It is ILLEGAL.

This from Jay P. Green:

While the Fordham Institute and its friends who are supporting the Common Core might find it a pesky reality, the advancement of standards, tests, curricular materials and instructional practice guides is illegal. Go back and read that sentence. Perhaps the view of two former counsels general doesn’t matter to Checker and his fellow travelers, but you are breaking three federal laws—the General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The three laws prohibit the direction, supervision or control in any way of standards, curricula and curricular materials and instructional practice. For example, the GEPA clearly states:

“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.

HakerA on March 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Since the late-1980′s, the curriculum has been more and more loaded with indoctrination in Attitudes. A spin on how to interpret facts.

For instance, not Recycling is taking refuse and making it into something useful or reusing something expensive instead of sending it to the landfill, but: Recycling is Good. Holy. (Even Scrupulous.)

They have already infused the curriculum with the phoney climate science, they did not need anyone’s permission.

What you will see now, is a theory of good and bad Sustainability. If you want a sustainable budget, forget it. If you want a pie-in- the-sky, sustainable, (by liberal definition,) farm, you are dealing with The Sacred. Holy Sustainability Batman.

Stay away from Sustainability. It has been hijacked. They are trying to teach the children to only make one kind of conclusion, that this is the most important thing.

Also, too many people on the earth are not sustainable…according to these nuts.

Fleuries on March 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM

When kenny from topeka meets mike from sacramento at community college in newbury, they make out, just like they were taught in ‘health’ class.

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 10:01 PM

I get the point you’re making, but if you think the kids couldn’t figure that out on your own…and even if they couldn’t, there’s always the internet, their friends, TV, etc.

At least in health class, they learn protection and risks, which they sure as hell won’t learn when drunkenly stumbling through a first encounter, ignorant of everything. Sex happens, and you can’t stop it. Sex is the single thing that separates us from the animal kingdom more than anything. You deny this basic fact of nature at great risk.

(For the record: abstinence is the best policy, and if you point is we should stress this, then yes. But they won’t. So you need to teach them safety as well. That’s really the only way to make abortions irrelevant, is to drill consequences and contraception into their horny little heads.)

ctwelve on March 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Saltysam on March 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM

I appreciate your comments.

It is very sobering to see the lemmings we’ve become, who not only follow like sheeple whatever those on high decree for us, but also will fight to see that they continue to do so. (i.e., we NEED to all be learning the same things, as if someone, somewhere knows ALL we should know, and we need to just follow them) Soon, the original American spirit of adventure and liberty and exploring and creating, will be squelched in exchange for the order and that comes with being “mastered”.

bntafraid on March 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM

subsonic on March 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Would that be the article to which this original post refers??

bntafraid on March 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Free government provided education (mandated of course) plus
Free government provided healthcare (mandated of course).

Voila! We now have two new “rights”! And a top-down government to ensure both.

One little thing missing. Liberty.

bntafraid on March 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The problem I have with teaching “climate science” is that it’s really not science that is being taught but some particular group’s conclusions/theories about what the result will be. If all they were teaching is the actual science of what constitutes climate, how it works, how it changes, I wouldn’t be concerned – but that’s not what they’re trying to do.

I have the same problem with the religious right trying to insert “intelligent design” into schools. That’s pure religion with no basis in actual science. If that gets into schools then per the 1st Amendment, we should also be teaching the beliefs of other religions about the origins of the universe.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Btw, if schools only taught good science, than much of what is currently taught would be omitted.

Regardless, what does any of this have to do with a federal mandate?

blink on March 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Everything – the federal government has no business pushing political agendas (from either side) into school curriculum. If you want your kids to learn “intelligent design”, then send them to a religious school that teaches it or home school, but public schools should be covering the basics and not anyone’s slanted agenda.

And before you jump in the wrong direction, while I am a “believer” in evolution (because there is scientific and factual basis to support it) I do not believe in AGW (because the science is faulty and it’s based entirely on a political agenda) and I do support school choice and vouchers, local control of education, and elimination of the federal Dept of Ed.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2012 at 5:08 PM

And for the record, I don’t think evolution is necessarily contrary to what’s in the bible. What bothers me is when religious extremists (IMO) try to deny the existence of the vast collection of geologic and archeaologic data we have to justify a claim that the entire earth is only 6000 years old. If you believe in an all-powerful God who always has and always will exist, then who’s to say evolution of species over billions of years (a blink of the eye to an ever-present God) isn’t his way of creating everything? People with a very primitive understanding of the world wrote the Bible to try to explain things in a way they could understand. The 6 days of creation for God could easily equate to billions of years of our limited perception of time.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Correct me if Im wrong but currently if a parent isnt happy with a schools lesson plans then they are more then welcome to take their kids out and home school them no?

Politricks on March 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I’m correcting you: You’re WRONG!!!

The politicians heavily penalize home-schoolers in many ways: financially by withholding educational funding, by imposing extra requirements on them, etc.

And your second point amounts to: “What happens if everyone is not equally mis-educated”?

How come the Liberals see “value in diversity” in everything EXCEPT educational curricula??? There certainly is a crying need for some diversity in teaching methods, goals, and subjects: what we have now is NOT WORKING.

IMHO, “education” should ultimately be “preparation for work.” The Liberals have perverted the goal to “preparation to be a Liberal” without regard for any useful result.

landlines on March 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Correct me if Im wrong but currently if a parent isnt happy with a schools lesson plans then they are more then welcome to take their kids out and home school them no?

Politricks on March 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM

You’re wrong.
If you have enough money you can take your kids out of public school – like the wealthy libs do who support the teacher unions and public schools and kill voucher systems – but put their own kids in private schools (like Obummer). If both parents have jobs to support the family they cannot home school, and without vouchers msny families cannot afford private school.
It’s the standard hypocrisy of the left.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM

BTW:

Chemistry is “good science”. Physics is “good science”. Both are built with theories confirmed via reproducible, independently-conducted experiments which (if the theory is valid) produce a predictable result. Confirmation that there is a predictable, reproducible result is called “validation.”

Evolution is NOT such a “science”: it is a built on observations which lead to conjectures which lead to unverifiable theories which can never be validated. As such, it cannot lead to the same kind of “truth” and predictable results.

“Global warming” is, similar to evolution, a theory presented with no reproducible, independently-conducted experiments to validate it. And even hugely-flawed efforts to produce useful predictions based on this theory have all failed miserably: often comically.

Theories presented with no validation should be given no more credence than fairy tales: they are NOT “science”.

landlines on March 13, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Theories presented with no validation should be given no more credence than fairy tales: they are NOT “science”.

landlines on March 13, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I agree with most of what you said. But there are many “theories” that are still just theories precisely because they are impossilbe to “reproduce in a controlled laboratory environment” – according to our own definition of scientific process. There is a huge amount of valid evidence supporting evolution – even the human race has gotten measurably taller over the last few hundred years – that’s evolution in action. Evolution is fundamentally about small changes in genetic makeup of any given species to become more adaptable/survivable/reproducable in their environment over long periods of time – not a theory that can be easily tested in a lab. But then if we can’t teach scientific theories, there’s also no discussing the theory of relativity in physics class, and many others as well – because we do not yet have the technological ability to prove or disprove them.

I don’t put AGW in the same category as evolution. AGW is all about political agenda and the use of outright fraud and manipulation to justify the political agenda. There is no political agenda with evolution – it’s just an attempt to understand and explain the science of how species change over time – which they do – and which is what Darwin (a religious man BTW) was originally trying to do. The only extrapolation in evolution, and the part the religious right really seems to object to, is in using it to look backward to explain how humans came to exist. While I see that as a reasonable deduction, people who interpret the Bible absolutely literally see it as some kind of threat to their own “image of Godliness”. (see my other comment at 5:19 for my thoughts on that idea)

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2012 at 6:27 PM

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Absolutely nothing wrong with teaching theories…as theories!!!

But it is dishonest to teach theories as fact, and I believe that such teaching actually retards true scientific progress.

A reason that evolution is such a hot button is that its proponents seize upon changes within a species and falsely represent those as proof of transitions from one species to another. And their historical record of ‘finds’ offered as “proof” is also flawed by the presence of outrageous conjecture (this was buried near that, so this ‘proves’ they are contemporary) and other huge, illogical leaps with no validation.

landlines on March 14, 2012 at 1:02 AM

In our son’s 7th grade social studies class, the teacher said “global warming is real and anybody who believes it isn’t is stupid and ignorant.”

Yeh…. no brainwashing there…….

pastselldate on March 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM

You’re argument is 180 degrees wrong.
There’s no threat of the federal government mandating ID.
Regardless, are you against ALL such federal government mandates?

blink on March 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Yes I’m against federal mandates in education – as well as many other places – especially where they have no Constitutional authority to do so. If the religious right were to actually gain control of Congress and the WH, and if they didn’t follow through instead with eliminating the Dept of Ed., we could see attempts at mandating religion based subjects. I doubt that would happen, but the point is to follow the Constitution no matter who has control. So how am I 180 degrees off? I want consistency according to the Constitution.

dentarthurdent on March 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM

landlines on March 14, 2012 at 1:02 AM

I agree with what you’re saying – BUT the problem you state about evolution is not about evolution itself – it’s a problem with lib greenies with an agenda using it and also falsifying data (same as AGW) to justify their radical policies, like their over-use of the endangered species act, to stop development.

And I fully understand the problem you’re tlaking about. We have huge swaths of land in Colorado that are now unuseable because of the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse – which is genetically identical to common field mice – but because some of them have a different color pattern the EPA has declared them a separate and endangered species. Total BS. However, I had a house built next to open space that is designated as mouse habitat, so nobody can build anything behind me (good for me). But if got caught killing any of those damn mice – even in my house – I’d face a huge fine – double-edged sword to say the least.

dentarthurdent on March 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM

In our son’s 7th grade social studies class, the teacher said “global warming is real and anybody who believes it isn’t is stupid and ignorant.”

Yeh…. no brainwashing there…….

pastselldate on March 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Ya – that’s the kind of faulty and biased education indoctrination we need to eliminate.

dentarthurdent on March 14, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2