webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

mis- EDUCATION

THIS SECTION HAS TWO ISSUES, PRIVATIZATION, AS WELL AS ROLE OF EDUC IN GW

merri ok

 new cat 12/17 SCHOOOLS will just refer to generic pedagogy

HENCEFORTH K12  PRiVATIZATION WILL BE UNDER VOUCHERS

 includes textbooks

see EDUC 2 5/17  EDUC 2 gw bs

see also univ

 red means opposed to fossil fuel denier BS

a bit neglected?

===

heated gmail 6 26

...the gas giants behind Switch

Switch repeatedly describes itself as “objective” throughout its website. Source: Switchon.org

Switch is not a household name. But it is not marginal, either.

According to the group, more than 16,000 teachersand 85,000 students across the U.S. and Canada use Switch Classroom, its free online platform of energy and environmental science lesson plans, videos, labs, and quizzes. The group says more than 1.7 million activities have been completed on Switch Classroom.

Switch is also part of Clever Library, one of the largest K-12 education technology platforms where teachers can find vetted digital learning tools. Its lessons cover methane gas, coal, oil, environmental impacts, wind, solar, and AP Environmental Science. They are designed for students from grades 4 through 12, and are created with the help of a teacher advisory council—a network of science teachers in the U.S. who help create content, advise the curriculum, and attend teacher conferences to promote Switch’s materials.

Tax filings reviewed by HEATED show that Switch in 2023 received a $200,000 grant from The Ovintiv Foundation—the non-profit arm of one of North America’s largest oil and gas producers. It also received a $3,000 grant from Shell USA’s grant-making organization.

Switch is also listed as a grantee of Energy Corps, a non-profit financed by some of the country’s largest gas companies, including Boardwalk, Alegacy, Next Decade, and Spotlight Energy Company.

Switch’s board also has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, including former executives and geologists from BP, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Cobalt, Howard Energy Partners, and other fossil fuel companies.

But the group’s backbone is founder Scott Tinker, a geologist and PBS television personality who worked for oil companies before becoming the Texas State Geologist in 2000. Since then, Tinker has remained embedded in the oil and gas world, leading Texas’s Bureau of Economic Geology, serving in petroleum geology organizations, and joining the board of Howard Energy Partners.

His public brand is not climate denial, but a reasonable-sounding argument that fossil fuels are simply too necessary and too embedded in modern life to move away from quickly. That argument is also embedded in Switch’s lesson plans.

We reached out to Switch Energy Alliance to ask about the group’s funders and why they’re kept private; the contents of their lesson plans; and Helen’s exchange with the group’s representatives. The group did not respond. Energy Corps also did not respond to HEATED’s request for comment.

Smell something fishy (or oily) you’d like HEATED to look into? Contact Emily securely via Signal at emorwee.06

Teaching kids to accept oil as inevitable

Across Switch’s curriculum, the pattern is consistent. Fossil fuels are introduced as the practical backbone of modern life. Their harms are acknowledged briefly, often in softened or incomplete terms. Then students are steered back toward the same conclusion: oil and gas are necessary; renewables may be cleaner, but they are limited; and the climate crisis itself is never clearly named.

In the “Oil” lesson plan, Tinker gushes about the fuel.

---

CSM

By Stephanie Pappas LiveScience Senior Writer

Feb. 15, 2012

Leaked documents from the free-market conservative organization The Heartland Institute reveal a plan to create school educational materials that contradict the established science on climate change.

The documents, leaked by an anonymous donor and released on DeSmogBlog, include the organization's 2012 fundraising plan. It lists Heartland Institute donors, from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (established by Koch Industries billionaire Charles G. Koch), to Philip Morris parent company Altria, to software giant Microsoft and pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly.

The climate change education project is funded so far by an anonymous donor who has given $13 million to the Institute over the past five years. Proposed by policy analyst David Wojick, who holds a doctorate in epistemology and has worked for coal and electricity generation companies, the project would create education "modules" written to meet curriculum guidelines for every grade level.

"Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn't alarmist or overtly political," the report reads. "Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers, but has had only limited success."

Funding skepticism

Heartland focuses on free-market issues across the board, including promoting charter schools, lobbying for business-friendly finance, insurance and real estate rules and promoting prescription drug availability before full Food and Drug Administration testing.

In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month). They've also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at WattsUpWithThat.com.

The documents also reveal a communications strategy aimed at "keep[ing] opposing voices out" of publications such as Forbes Magazine, where the audience is "reliably anti-climate."

On the education front, Wojick would be paid $5,000 per module, or $25,000 per quarter, according to the report's tentative estimates, to produce the Heartland climate curricula. The Institute's anonymous donor has pledged $100,000 to the project, which the Institute hopes to match from other donors.

Each module would inject skepticism into the scientific consensus on climate change. Example statements in the report include: "Whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy;" "Models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial;" and "Whether CO2 [carbon dioxide] is a pollutant is controversial." The modules would also teach that the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is "controversial," arguing that carbon dioxide is crucial to life on Earth and that natural emissions are 20 times those of human emissions.

Creating controversy

In fact, while some of these statements may be politically controversial, they are not particularly scientifically controversial. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, which synthesizes global scientific findings about climate change, states: "Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."

Likewise, while models cannot represent the climate system perfectly (thus the uncertainly in how much the Earth will warm for a given amount of emissions), climate simulations are checked and re-checked against real-world observations and are an established tool in understanding the atmosphere.

And while carbon dioxide is crucial for plant life, the carbon balance on Earth is a delicate cycle, with oceans and land able to absorb only so much CO2. Humans do emit only a fraction of the 750 gigatons of CO2 that move through the atmosphere each year, but small changes in the total amount can overwhelm so-called carbon "sinks" such as the ocean, resulting in important, and cumulative, changes in the atmosphere. [10 Ways the Weather Changed History]

"These documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what many of us have long suspected: That there is a campaign afoot by groups directly funded by the fossil fuel industry and right-wing foundations such as Koch Industries to mislead the public about climate change," Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience.

---

---

LAND MAN FUEL-LESS api you cant be cool wo fuel 1995 clueless

personal responibililty recycle

part of -- harn env but we are reversong that trend aa sci teacher

The Forbidden Film Big Oil Tried to Erase

Climate Town

677K subscribers

279,888 views Dec 17, 2025

Stricter standards have been adopted. Take back your personal data with Incogni! Use code CLIMATE and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/climatePatreon: / climatetown sUbScRiBe FoR mOrE ViDeOs: https://www.youtube.com/c/climatetown... Want to support us and also get access to behind the scenes videos, discounted live show tickets, and a secret phone line you can call and talk to Rollie? Well then you’ll be shocked to find that’s exactly what our Patreon offers: / climatetownWanna see Climate Town but live and in person? Well you’re in luck because we’re going back to San Francisco Sketchfest on January 21st for a show at the Great Star Theater. We’re going to perform a live version of an episode before it’s released here on YouTube, and then never perform that show live again. It’s a once in a lifetime experience: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/climate-...

The Forbidden Film Big Oil Tried to Erase - YouTube

How Oil Propaganda Sneaks Into TV Shows: • How Oil Propaganda Sneaks Into TV Shows | ... The Brainwashing of America’s Children: [ • The Brainwashing Of America's Children | C...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pNRuafoyZ4&pp=0gcJCR0AztywvtLA) The News Media Is Selling You Out: • The News Media Is Selling You Out | Climat... It’s Time To Break Up With Our Gas Stoves: • It’s Time To Break Up With Our Gas Stoves ... Exxon Lobbyist Caught on Camera Going Full Cartoon Villain: • Exxon Lobbyist Caught on Camera Going Full... We also have a podcast! It’s called The Climate Denier’s Playbook and you can listen to it right here: https://linktr.ee/deniersplaybook And good lord we have a newsletter too! You can check it out here: https://www.climatetown.news/EPISODE SOURCES & CITATIONS: https://www.climatetownproductions.co...

===

10 24

for the first time, a gas utility could be on the hook for its role in deceiving the public about the climate crisis. Multnomah, Oregon, has added NW Natural — Oregon’s oldest and largest supplier of “natural” gas, also known as fossil or methane gas — to the list of defendants in a lawsuit that seeks to make fossil fuel companies pay $52 billion for their role in the deadly 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome.

NW Natural “has routinely misrepresented” the climate harms of gas while undermining the energy transition “in an effort to frighten customers and discourage policy makers from using their authority to protect the public,” according to the county’s amended complaint. The company has portrayed gas as “safe, clean, and environmentally friendly,” despite the fact that methane, its primary component, is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

In its original complaint, Oregon’s most populous county argued that oil and gas companies’ decades-long climate deception helped lead to the heat dome that killed 69 people in Multnomah — an event scientists said would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change. The 2023 lawsuit seeks to recover costs incurred from other extreme weather events and make Exxon, Chevron, McKinsey, and other defendants pay for a range of adaptation measures to protect residents from future ones. The updated complaint now adds that NW Natural “engaged in an enterprise of misrepresentation about the effects its products would have on the climate, and that the use of its products could cause an extreme heat event to occur.”

That enterprise has reportedly ramped up in recent years as the company fights a growing push for policies to limit emissions and phase out their product. The utility has run advertising campaigns touting “renewable natural gas,” targeted children through school books depicting gas as safe and clean, and created front groups posing as local grassroots advocates to fight electrification and promote “consumer choice,” according to evidence cited by the complaint and further detailed in additional reporting, investigations, and challenges to state regulators.

“As we learned in this country when we took on big tobacco, this is not an easy step or one I take lightly but I do believe it’s our best way to fight for our community and protect our future,” Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson said in a press release.

Like many fossil fuel and petrochemical companies, NW Natural sponsors sporting events, concerts, and small nonprofits in the region reliant on external funding. The utility’s embedded presence in the community makes it all the more important for the county to “highlight the insidious nature of their communications,” said Carra Sahler, a Multnomah County resident and Director and Staff Attorney at the Green Energy Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School, which has represented advocacy groups in cases against NW Natural for customer rate hikes.

Sept 13, 2024 via X

“People want to trust that their utility is doing the right thing, that the utility is providing the information necessary for them to make choices about their energy use,” Sahler said. “It feels like we’ve crossed into a new era where there is no way forward but to stop [NW Natural] from spreading misinformation.”

“Renewable natural gas”

On a “low carbon energy future” page on its website, NW Natural claims it “has an important role to play in helping our region move to a lower-carbon, renewable energy future in a more resilient and affordable way.” The company goes on to boast its investments in so-called “renewable natural gas,” or gas acquired from decomposing organic matter at livestock operations and landfills.

For years, the utility has used customers’ money to fund ad campaigns promoting “renewable natural gas,” blasting out the slogan “Less We Can,” and insinuating that the company is already providing the “renewable” energy source to Oregon homes. The utility calls RNG a “carbon neutral resource,” but its own filings with Oregon regulators show that’s not true: two of its extraction sites at Tyson slaughterhouses in Nebraska, for example, have a climate footprint.

The company also appears to overstate its use of RNG in its operations. At the Tyson slaughterhouses, the Nebraska-sourced gas is piped mainly to Nebraska customers rather than Oregonians, ProPublica reporters found. And according to the company’s reports, RNG makes up less than 1% of the total gas acquired by NW Natural — a statistic the company blames on “uncertain support from policy makers and regulators, coupled with ongoing barriers created by certain climate advocates.”

According to ads and internal powerpoints scrutinized by DeSmog and documents revealed by ProPublica, the RNG ad campaigns were part of a strategy to beat back the growing “anti-fossil fuel chorus.” That strategy also involved convincing the state legislature to greenlight a state-produced inventory of Oregon’s “technical potential” for “RNG,” and using the highest possible estimates — the amount of RNG Oregon could produce if it had unlimited money — to successfully lobby for another bill to make ratepayers cover the added costs of the biogas, and establish voluntary goals for its use, which the utility would then use to battle regulation.

Targeting schools

NW Natural’s campaign to “promote the continued use and consumption of fossil fuel gas by influencing public opinion” also “targets the next generation through children,” according to Multnomah’s complaint, which cites “gas-related” activity workbooks sent by NW Natural to schools. The books, which target children as young as kindergartners, use puzzles, word games, cartoons, and other activities depicting fossil gas as safe, clean, and beneficial for society, reporting from DeSmog found.

Screenshot from formal testimony to the PUC on April 22, 2022, cited in Multnomah’s complaint.

A group funded by the utility, called Bonneville Environmental Foundation, also planned an event for teachers — which was ultimately canceled after students planned to protest— called “Clean Energy Teacher Training: Exploring Renewable Gas.” The utility promised each teacher who attended the session in Portland a $200 stipend, plus reimbursement for mileage if they traveled more than 50 miles.

In 2022, a coalition of nonprofits and state representatives sent a letter calling on Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum to investigate the utility’s “misleading advertising,” stating that “it is particularly concerning that school children are being subjected to misinformation from corporate entities of any kind, but especially by a fossil fuel corporation selling a product that is harmful to children’s health.” In 2023, the group once again called on the AG to “investigate and sue NW Natural if appropriate.”

In response to concerns raised by a coalition of local environmental and consumer advocates, the state Public Utility Commission ruled in April that NW Natural can no longer charge ratepayers for pro-gas advertising targeting schoolchildren.

Battling climate action

NW Natural hasn’t just advertised fossil gas as a cleaner, “renewable” fuel — it has also fought policies to reduce emissions and shift toward electrification. Reports show the utility hired a scientist to oppose bans on gas in new construction, worked with a public relations firm and its front group to “defeat policies detrimental to the natural gas industry,” and sued the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission over the state’s landmark Climate Protection Program that aimed to reduce emissions.

The company even posed as a local grassroots group to oppose a partial ban on new natural gas construction by Eugene’s City Council in 2023. Just days after the ban was passed, “Eugene Residents for Energy Choice” was registered with the Oregon Secretary of State. Funded by NW Natural to the tune of nearly $950,000 in a span of two weeks, the group collected signatures to revoke the ban — which was ultimately repealed by the city council.

Recently, state regulators accused NW Natural of misleading consumers about Oregon’s carbon crediting program after the utility claimed in a newsletter that the program would raise rates without reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

NW Natural’s actions are part of a much larger push by the gas industry to fight regulations, including longstanding campaigns by the American Gas Association — an industry trade group of which it is a member, and where its CEO, David Anderson, [sits on the board]

https://substack.com/redirect/29c56708-84aa-4364-b1fc-3a6c46f36cba?j=eyJ1IjoiN3ltancifQ.i0HJl3aVWG8sHp566T-pebMssFGKcgvxVOFLuZyEDpw

. As more communities pass laws to tighten standards for appliances and limit new construction of gas pipelines to homes and businesses, the group’s campaigns to counter scientific evidence that using gas stoves is harmful to human health have resurfaced.

Another new defendant

Multnomah County’s amended complaint adds one more new defendant to the case: the ​​Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The nonprofit ran the 1998 “Oregon Petition,” which claimed to capture signatures from 17,000 scientists who agreed there was “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

In reality, the petition was not signed by 17,000 scientists, but included fictitious names, deceased persons, and celebrities, according to the complaint. The project was designed to look as though it was approved by the National Academy of Scientists, but was actually authored by Fred Seitz, cofounder of the Exxon-backed think tank GMI.

“A signal to the gas industry”

In June, the county won a procedural victory when a federal courtruled that its lawsuit could move forward in state court.

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor and senior fellow at Vermont Law School, said the evidence of the utility’s deception cited in the complaint fell short of the “massive” amount of evidence plaintiffs have cited against oil companies. Further evidence of NW Natural’s deception could expand through the course of discovery and additional reporting, he added.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, agreed that gas utilities’ “histories of climate deception have not been as thoroughly mined as those of the oil companies,” but noted that additional evidence could land more utilities in court for climate deception.

“It does send a signal to the gas industry that these sorts of plaintiffs are looking at them more closely than they have in the past,” Gerrard said.

===

---

mma 1 24

Right-wing media figures are systematically attacking a variety of initiatives intended to increase racial equity and inclusion in America’s education system. Since 2021, they have attacked or rebranded certain related concepts in order to vilify them: critical race theory; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and affirmative action.

Schools in Oklahoma and Florida are even starting to partner with right-wing media’s PragerU and “parental rights” group Moms for Liberty, which spread conservative propaganda in public schools. These ongoing strategic assaults from right-wing figures and outlets are poised to make education a culture war issue for the 2024 election.

}:

*}:

*

}:

---

---

wapo

?itid=lk_inline_manual_53

Climate deniers ejected from teachers conference for pro-carbon comic

At a meeting of science teachers, the CO2 Coalition handed out comic books depicting carbon as good for the planet. They got kicked out.

By Maxine Joselow

:{:{Updated April 11, 2023}:

Students measure a tree at Farragut State Park in Idaho to learn about the effects that trees have on the environment north of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho on May 18, 2017. (Rajah Bose/For The Washington Post)

To science teachers attending a recent convention, the comic books titled “Simon the Solar-Powered Cat” seemed unremarkable at first. Their story began with Simon, an orange-and-white cat, begging for more food in typical feline fashion.

Sign up for the Climate Coach newsletter and get advice for life on our changing planet, in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday.

But on Page 5, the story took an unusual turn: A “friendly scientist” explained that Simon subsisted not on kibble, but on carbon dioxide. The scientist concluded that CO2 was a “miracle molecule” that fueled all life on Earth by helping plants turn sunlight into food.

That message and the comic book were the brainchild of the CO2 Coalition, a group that rejects the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. The group claims that it distributed about 700 comic books to teachers at the National Science Teaching Association’s convention in Atlanta last month before being kicked out of the event.

“We were overwhelmed by the positive response from the teachers at the convention,” Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of the CO2 Coalition, said in an interview. “In fact, by the second day, we had handed out all of the comic books we had brought.”

The episode, details of which have not previously been reported, raised concerns among scientists and education experts that the teachers could spread climate misinformation to their students. It comes as states take divergent approaches to climate instruction in public schools, with New Jersey requiring students to learn about climate change in nearly every class and the Texas Board of Education calling for science textbooks to emphasize the “positive” effects of fossil fuels.

A large majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming by emitting massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Humanity must rapidly reduce these emissions, scientists say, or face catastrophic consequences such as dramatic sea level rise over the next few decades.

A page from a comic book from the CO2 Coalition, titled “Simon the Solar-Powered Cat.” (CO2 Coalition)

“By focusing 100 percent on this idea that plants need CO2, they’re intentionally misleading people by avoiding the real problems of CO2, which they didn’t talk about at all,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. “It’s kind of like if you’re talking about cigarettes, and all you talk about is how cool they make you look.”

The influence of climate denial groups has waned over the past several decades, as the science has become clearer and the impacts of global warming have become starker. But the Virginia-based CO2 Coalition, which describes its mission as informing policymakers and the public of the “important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy,” has persisted in spreading its message.

Members of the coalition, which has received money from far-right organizations and donors with ties to the fossil fuel industry, ran a booth at the National Science Teaching Association’s convention. They spent the first day distributing three comic books and accompanying lesson plans to some of the roughly 6,500 attendees.

All of the comics featured three young sisters named Sophia, Ariana and Elyssa — the owners of Simon the cat — and their neighbor, a scientist named Mr. Gordon. In a book titled “Once upon a time: A true story about the miracle molecule — carbon dioxide,” Gordon tells the sisters that CO2 has net benefits for the planet.

“Everything green in our very green world owes its existence to carbon dioxide,” Gordon says to them. “And every person and every animal … are built from the carbon in CO2, which we get from eating vegetables and meat.”

A character named Mr. Gordon touts the benefits of carbon dioxide in a comic book titled “Once upon a time: A true story about the miracle molecule — carbon dioxide.” (CO2 Coalition)

While it is true that CO2 helps plants grow, its accumulation in the atmosphere will have net negative effects for plants and people alike, Dessler said. Telling kids they need CO2 to survive, he said, “is like telling a drowning person they need water to survive. It’s not helpful.”

On the second day of the convention, an official with the National Science Teaching Association asked members of the CO2 Coalition to stop distributing their materials or leave, according to aYouTube video uploaded by the coalition.

Global carbon dioxide emissions hit new highs last year, says IEA report

“You can take down your literature or you can go home — it’s your choice,” NSTA chief operating officer Ryan Foley says in the video. When Wrightstone refuses to comply, Foley responds, “All right, then you’re being kicked out. You should pack up and get out.”

Jakob Namson and Sarah Morris, with their class from Lake City High School, measure a tree at Farragut State Park in Idaho to learn about the effects that trees have on the environment north of Coeur d'Alene in 2017. (Rajah Bose for The Washington Post)

When coalition members requested a booth at the convention, they signed a contract certifying that their materials were consistent with the association’s position statement on the teaching of climate science, NSTA Executive Director Erika Shugart said in an email. But then they violated the contract, she said.

In addition to the comic books, she said, coalition members circulated a pamphlet that criticized the position statement, which recognizes the “overwhelming scientific consensus” that the “Earth’s climate is changing, largely due to human-induced increases in the concentrations of heat-absorbing gases” such as CO2.

Debating the science

The CO2 Coalition does not disclose its source of funding, and it declined to do so for this story. But in 2017, the coalition received $170,000 from the Mercer Family Foundation and more than $33,000 from the Charles Koch Institute, according to tax filings obtained by the Climate Investigations Center, a watchdog group.

The Mercer Family Foundation — financed by New York hedge fund executive Robert Mercer and directed by his daughter Rebekah — has also helped finance the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has denounced climate science as rigged. Heartland in 2017 mailed some 200,000 teachers books titled “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.”

Sign up for The Climate 202, a daily newsletter about climate change policy and politics

It remains unclear whether the Mercers have continued to fund the coalition. Wrightstone said in an email that although “we cannot release details on our funding sources,” the “vast majority” of donors are individuals making small contributions. While the CO2 Coalition paid an artist to create the comic books, the members of the group’s Education Committee are unpaid volunteers, he said.

These volunteers include William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University who has challenged the idea that carbon dioxide could damage the planet. Under President Donald Trump, Happer served as a senior director on the National Security Council, where he oversaw a controversial initiative to reassess the federal government’s analysis of climate science.

Physicist William Happer in 2017. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Sharon Camp, a retired high school science teacher, designed the lesson plans accompanying the comic books. One lesson encourages teachers to use beads, Legos or Styrofoam balls to help students visualize CO2 molecules.

Camp, who taught Advanced Placement environmental science at Walton High School in Marietta, Ga., for 15 years, said students should be allowed to reach their own conclusions about climate science. “This is the only branch of science where you are not allowed to debate, you are not allowed to question,” she said in an interview. “Science is not supposed to work that way.”

Climate in the classroom

The coalition’s efforts come as some states have failed to update their standards for teaching climate change in public schools, leaving students at risk of learning incorrect ideas.

How teachers are getting it wrong on climate change

In a 2020 report, the National Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund graded all 50 states on their standards for teaching climate change. The groups examined whether the standards helped students understand that climate change is real, caused by humans, and already affecting nature and society, among other criteria.

Twenty-seven states scored a B+ or better. Of the rest, 20 scored a C+ or lower. In the coal state of West Virginia, the standards require students to debate climate change in their science classrooms, despite little debate among scientists. Those standards received a D. And in Alabama, which received an F, the standards suggest that human activity “may have caused” a rise in global temperatures, similarly downplaying the scientific consensus.

In March, the Republican-dominated Texas State Board of Education altered its internal guidance to say science textbooks should emphasize the “positive” aspects of fossil fuels, a leading cause of global warming. As a result, the state would probably still score an F if the report were conducted today, said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education.

Some Democratic-led states have moved in the opposite direction. New Jersey in 2020 became the first state to adopt learning standards obligating teachers to instruct kids about climate change across grade levels and subjects.

In one state, every class teaches climate change — even P.E.

Shannon Falkner, an English teacher at Chatham High School in Chatham, N.J., said her freshman English students have written climate fiction, or “cli-fi.” Some students have penned dystopian tales about flooded cities, while others have offered more hopeful stories about the nation’s transition to renewable energy. Falkner said the reaction from students has been largely positive, and no parents have complained about the assignment.

There is evidence that climate instruction is popular. About 77 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “schools should teach about global warming” in a 2021 poll by Yale University’s Program on Climate Change Communication; about 22 percent disagreed.

“It’s actually one of the most supported policies we have measured,” said Tony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale program. Both the CO2 Coalition and conservative policymakers, he said, “are standing in front of the tide of public opinion and trying to hold it back with a piece of cardboard.”

---

---

an 8 23 ni lnx

Texas eighth graders will soon be required to learn about climate change — but not without a showdown

man and woman sitting on chairs

Erin DouglasandThe Texas TribuneAugust 30, 2023

Starting next year, Texas will require that eighth graders learn about climate change as part of a science curriculum overhaul approved two years ago.

But which textbooks they’ll use to learn about it will largely depend on the state board charged with setting curriculum standards, and questions during a Tuesday meeting to hear testimony on the proposed teaching materials showed that the 15-member body — which has taken a rightward turn since 2021 — could make its decision along partisan lines.

One Republican member of the State Board of Education asked whether students ought to learn about the benefits of burning fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Democrats advocated for texts that emphasized the scientific consensus on climate change.

Dozens of publishers submitted textbook proposals for the state’s overhaul of its science curriculums. Any resident of Texas can submit written comments on the instructional materials before Oct. 30. The board plans to adopt instructional materials in November; the new science standards and textbooks will take effect at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year.

:{:{}:

}:

Many critics say the new curriculum standards, called the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, don’t go far enough to teach kids that climate change is caused by human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels. And while the TEKS changes will require eighth graders to describe how human activities “can” influence climate, students won’t be required to learn about how “a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions” could mitigate climate change after the board previously declined to include that language.

:{:{}:

}:

Publishers can choose to include information in textbooks that go beyond the state’s new minimum requirements for teaching climate change — the question is whether the board, which strengthened its Republican majority during last year’s election, will approve such textbooks.

The board’s decision could impact how science is taught in Texas classrooms for years. And while school districts aren’t required to use board-approved textbooks, many do so for the assurance that those materials meet the state’s standards.

At least one Republican board member, Will Hickman, who represents Houston, indicated that he’d advocate for instructional materials that do not include climate change solutions in science courses. He argued those solutions would be a better fit in social studies.

Hickman also asked one testifier if the textbooks should “also include the benefits we get from burning carbon,” arguing that many facets of modern society, such as air conditioning, are powered by fossil fuels. Hickman, an attorney who was elected to the board in 2021, has worked as in-house counsel forShell OilCompany since 2004.

The testifier, Susan Meredith, an Austin-based energy and education consultant who had testified that students should be presented with instructional materials that prepare them for climate change related jobs in the future, told Hickman he was conflating topics.

:{:{}:

}:

“What you’re collapsing is that electricity has to come from gas and oil, and it doesn't,” Meredith said.

Another Republican SBOE member, Pat Hardy, who represents Tarrant and Parker counties and parts of Dallas County, has previously said she wants children to learn about the good fossil fuels have done for human society, such as helping the Texas economy grow. Texas is the nation’s largest oil and gas producing state.

:{:{}:

}:

Texas is one of only six states that does not use the Next Generation Science Standards to guide its K-12 science curriculum. The standards — developed by states and a committee convened by the National Research Council in 2013 — emphasize that climate change is real, severe, caused by humans and can be mitigated with actions that reduce greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

A 2020 analysis of science curriculums in all 50 states by the National Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund gave Texas an F grade for how well schools in the state taught about the scientific consensus on climate change.

Some Democrats on the board pushed back on the soft-on-fossil-fuels language proposed by their Republican colleagues.

“We absolutely should say humans do impact climate change,” said Marisa Perez-Diaz, a Democrat who represents San Antonio on the board, in an interview with The Texas Tribune. “It doesn’t have to be political — it is just fact. But I think because sometimes we get into these culture-war conversations, it blurs what should and shouldn’t go into the standards.”

Although all the textbooks that have been submitted for approval explain that climate change is happening and “can” be due to human activity, not all of them explicitly say that human activities are the primary reason or include information on how to mitigate climate change. In other words, some of the textbooks don’t say that humans will need to quickly and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions, largely by phasing out fossil fuels, to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change, as international climate scientists have long warned.

During the Tuesday board meeting, Perez-Diaz asked the other board members to be cautious of only supporting textbooks that meet the state’s minimum requirements and nothing more.

“When publishers take the time to include additional information past the TEKS [standards], for me, that is a text that stands out above and beyond the others,” she said.

Some educators, former teachers and education advocates are concerned that the political influence of the fossil fuel industry in Texas has prevented, and may continue to block, robust education on climate science ahead of the board’s November vote on science instructional materials.

“Climate change might be politically controversial, but the scientific consensus is clear,” said Carisa Lopez, a senior political director for Texas Freedom Network, during a Tuesday press conference. “It’s past time for the board to be clear about textbooks: that textbooks in public schools should teach the truth.”

Judy Dickey, a graduate lecturer at Texas A&M in the department of atmospheric sciences, said she thought some of the textbooks were trying to “soft-peddle” climate change by not explicitly saying humans were the cause, casting doubt on the scientific consensus or not including solutions.

:{:{}:

}:

But Dickey, who reviewed the textbooks for a Texas Freedom Network analysis of the proposals, said most of them did a good job of explaining climate science, treated climate change seriously and explained how it occurs.

“To me, that is a huge step forward,” said Dickey, who was previously a science teacher in Florida. “I was pleasantly surprised. … It was nice to see that no one was trying to pretend it was volcanoes.”

One 11th-grade student who testified during the Tuesday meeting, Marygrace Beinke, said none of her teachers have ever told her that climate change is a hoax or that evolution isn’t real. She emphasized to the board that all students in Texas should be given the opportunity to learn about those topics, which she said have reinforced her faith in God.

“I’ve never felt closer to God as when I’ve been learning about how fragile, beautiful and complex our Earth is,” Beinke told the board.

Geoff Carlisle, who taught eighth-grade science at a KIPP school in Austin for a decade, said in an interview with the Tribune that like Beinke’s teachers, he taught his students about climate change, even though it was not required by the state’s standards. Carlisle incorporated information about climate science into his own lesson plans — something he said most teachers in Texas don’t likely have the time or resources to do.

He said many of his students understood that climate change was happening and that it might have something to do with burning fossil fuels, but they could not explain the greenhouse gas effect or what role burning fossil fuels had in it. He wants the state to go further and require climate science to be taught at all levels. Other states, such as New Jersey, have such standards.

“When I think about the alarming emergency that our students are going to face or are facing, it’s unethical to not be talking about this in all grade levels,” Carlisle said. “Our students deserve the right to understand what’s happening.”

---

https://www.zinnedproject.org/if-we-knew-our-history/koch-brothers-want-students-learn-slavery/

adam g -- 2018

given that the billionaire Charles Koch has poured millions of dollars into eliminating the minimum wage and paid sick leave for workers, and that in 2015 he had the gall to compare his ultra-conservative mission to the anti-slavery movement, he’s probably the last person you’d want educating young people about slavery.

Yet the history-teaching wing of the Koch brothers empire is seeking to promote an alternate narrative to slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. The political goal of these materials is to ensure students see racism and slavery as flaws in an otherwise spotless U.S. record, rather than woven into the fabric of our country from its inception.

The Bill of Rights Institute (BRI) is the education arm of the network of front groups the Koch brothers use to promote their far-right ideology. Maureen Costello, the education director from Teaching Tolerance, has pointed out the:{many factual inaccuracies in the “Homework Help” video the BRI has recently promoted to teach students about slavery. She concludes that the history presented is “superficial, drained of humanity, and neglects to reckon with the economic and social reality of what opponents called ‘the slave power.’”}:

A dive into their “Documents of Freedom” readings reveals an even more disturbing agenda. The BRI bills the “Documents of Freedom” as a “modern take on the traditional textbook” — a “completely free digital course on history, government, and economics” authored by unnamed “teachers.” It’s essentially an online textbook that aims to promote a particular version of history, government, and economics that aligns with the interests of the Kochs.

The main “Documents of Freedom” reading on slavery, titled “Slavery and the Constitution,” is essentially a defense of the founding fathers and the Constitution against “some scholars” who “portray the founding fathers as racists.” The reading cherry-picks quotes from “the Founders” to argue that they believed slavery was morally wrong. Although the authors write that “most of the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution own[ed] slaves,” they steer clear of the brutal reality of chattel slavery.

They paint Thomas Jefferson as an anti-slavery crusader who “attacked the slave trade in harsh language” and “included African Americans in the universal understanding of the promise of liberty and equality.” But the Kochs’ curriculum fails to mention that Jefferson wrote Black people were “inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.” Jefferson kept nearly 200 people in bondage, and even in his death emancipated only five. He regularly sold human beings away from their families to raise money to buy wine, art, and luxuries that only wealthy planters could afford. Nothing in the BRI reading acknowledges any contradiction between “the Founders’” awareness of “the immorality of slavery and the need for action” and their actual actions defending and protecting slavery.

Furthermore, the reading justifies the so-called three-fifths compromise — whereby an enslaved person was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of congressional representation — by arguing “the Founders” had to make a “prudential compromise with slavery because they sought to achieve their highest goal of a stronger Union of republican self-government. Since some slaveholding delegations threatened to walk out . . .” Not only is this type of “compromise” immoral, but the problem with this logic is that the “slaveholding delegations” that threatened to walk out were themselves “Founders” who played an important role in crafting the Constitution.

In addition to selectively quoting the founders, the authors use quotations from Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln to bolster their argument that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. It ignores that most politicians, including Lincoln, believed that the Constitution protected slavery where it existed. It also ignores the very large wing of the abolitionist movement, whose most prominent figure was William Lloyd Garrison, that viewed the Constitution as a “devil’s pact,” one “dripping with blood.” Douglass himself was part of that wing of the movement until he broke with Garrison in the 1850s, when he became convinced that framing the Constitution as an anti-slavery document could be a useful tool in the struggle to end slavery.

The reading also ignores how central slavery was to the economic growth of the United States, with phrases like “the number of slaves steadily grew through natural increase.” Natural? There was nothing natural about the expansion of slavery. Slavery expanded because it was profitable. The authors seek to divorce the expansion of slavery from the economic design of the capitalist cotton empire and from the horrific practice of breeding, which became a large source of revenue, especially for Virginia slaveholders.

What is most egregious is what the reading leaves out. Even today’s corporate textbooks will include a paragraph or two that attempt to provide the perspective of enslaved people. However, this reading concludes by arguing there was a steady “rise of freedom” after the Constitution because “the new nation was mostly bent on expanding liberty and equality.” The only way the Koch brothers’ Bill of Rights Institute can draw this conclusion is by completely ignoring the perspective of those whose land and labor were violently stolen by the wealthy U.S. elite.

As if that reading wasn’t bad enough, the follow-up reading, titled “Civil War and Reconstruction,” is a long, boring account that almost exclusively focuses on the battles between Radical Republicans in Congress, who the authors claim wanted to “punish the South,” and Presidents Lincoln and Johnson, who favored more “moderate” reconstruction plans. It might be the first reading I’ve ever looked at on Reconstruction that makes almost no mention of what Black people were doing during the era and barely discusses anything happening in the South.

Only in a pro-KKK film like *Birth of a Nation* and in the Koch brothers’ curriculum is Reconstruction reduced to a punishment for white Southerners. Let’s look at Reconstruction from the standpoint of those who were freed from more than 200 years of enslavement. It was a time when the formerly enslaved became congressmen; when the Black-majority South Carolina legislature taxed the rich to pay for public schools; when experiments in Black self-rule in the Georgia Sea Islands led to land reform, new schools, and a vital local governance. During Reconstruction Blacks and poor whites organized Union Leagues, and led strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, and educational campaigns. During this period other social movements, especially labor and feminist movements, were inspired by the actions of African Americans to secure and define their own freedom.....

---

---

ton on heartland and this pow in mashey 2012

https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/fake.pdf

mis-education

Z.2003.05-12 Book Review by Jay Lehr

New Book Series Encourages Critical Thinking in Youth

“Two free-market policy groups have collaborated to launch a new series of

books for young people, under the titleCritical Thinking about Environmental

Issues.

Unlike many environmental books found in schools today, the first three works

in the Critical Thinking series— focusing on global warming, endangered

species, and pesticides—offer objective and balanced discussions in a very

readable format. … Jane Shaw’s brief treatise on global warming is excellent

because it gathers all the existing evidence for and against global warming and

evaluates it fairly. ... She exposes the failings of reports issued by the United

Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ... and quotes the

wealth of real scientific evidence produced by senior climate scientists Sally

Baliunas, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and Robert Balling,

to name a few.”

---

---

https://www.desmog.com/2013/01/31/three-states-pushing-alec-bill-climate-change-denial-schools/

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – known by its critics as a “corporate bill mill” – has hit the ground running in 2013, pushing “models bills” mandating the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems. 

January hasn’t even ended, yet ALEC has already planted its ”Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” – which mandates a “balanced” teaching of climate science in K-12 classrooms – in the state legislatures of Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona so far this year. 

In the past five years since 2008, among the hottest years in U.S. history, ALEC has introduced its “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” in 11 states, or over one-fifth of the statehouses nationwide. The bill has passed in four states, an undeniable form of “big government” this “free market” organization decries in its own literature.

ALEC‘s“model bills” are written by and for corporate lobbyists alongside conservative legislators at its annual meetings. ALEC raises much of its corporate funding from the fossil fuel industry, which in turn utilizes ALEC as a key – though far from the only – vehicle to ram through its legislative agenda through in the states. 

A Frankenstein Co-Created with Heartland Institute

A DeSmogBlog investigation last year found that the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act’s orgins date back to 2000.

The Act’s creation is directly connected to the ongoing efforts of another corporate-funded group, the Heartland Institute – of “Heartland Institute Exposed” fame – a group well plugged into the climate change denial machine.

ALEC‘s Natural Resources Task Force, now known as its Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, adopted this model at a time when the Task Force was headed by Sandy Liddy Bourne. Bourne, who served in this capacity from 1999-2004, would eventually ascend to the role of Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC in 2004. 

Upon leaving ALEC in 2006, Bourne become Heartland’s Vice President for Policy Strategy. Today she serves as Executive Director of the American Energy Freedom Center, an outfit she co-heads with Arthur G. Randol. Randol is a longtime lobbyist and PR flack for ExxonMobil, a corporation which endowed the climate change denial machine for years.

Heartland’s website still lists Bourne as one of its “experts,” stating that ”Under her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11 percent.” 

Importantly, Heartland is still a member of ALEC‘sEnergy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force that originally passed the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act.

According to internal documents leaked to and published by DeSmogBlog in Feb. 2012, Heartland obtained funding for a “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project beginning in 2012. This cirruculum aims to teach that there “is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather.”

If this sounds similar to ALEC‘s model bill, it should, given the fact that the two outfits share funding from the same honey pot. In fact, Heartland actively promotes the ALEC model on its website. 

Model Bill Introduced in OK, CO, and AZ

Oklahoma and Colorado came first and within just over a week, Arizona followed suit in proposing the ALEC climate science “mis-education” bill.

Oklahoma: Sooner Rather than Later

On Jan. 18, the Sooner State’s legislature took the lead for 2013 in pushing the ALEC climate change education model in the form of HB 1674, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.”

HB 1674 calls for the teaching of “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories,” including of global warming, saying it’s a theory steeped in “controversy” – not that the actual scientific record thinks so.

This is necessary, the bill states, “to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens,” going on to explain that it’s important to explore “differences of opinion on scientific issues.”

The ALEC model similarly calls for the teaching of “critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies.” The model also mandates creation of “an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas” in the scientific sphere.

The OK bill is sponsored by Rep. Gus Blackwell (R-61), unsurprisngly a dues-payingmember of ALEC. According to a Dec. 2012 report published by the Center for Media and Democracy(CMD) titled, “Buying Influence,” Blackwell has paid for his attendance at least one ALEC meeting with taxpayer money.

National Institute on Money in State Politics‘ data demonstrates that Blackwell’s largest pool of campaign funding for his 2012 electoral victory came from the oil and gas industry, which gave him $28,800. This includes taking $7,500 from shale gas industry giant Chesapeake Energy, $2,350 from ConocoPhillips, and $1,000 each from Koch Industries and coal industry giant Duke Energy, among others. All of these corporations also fund ALEC.

Colorado’s Same Day Affair

One sure sign of a coordinated, ALEC-lead effort is the fact that Colorado’s state legislature introduced the ALEC model on the same day as did Oklahoma’s. The two states, it’s worth noting, share a border on Oklahoma’s panhandle.

On Jan. 18, 2013, eight representatives and four senators introduced HB 13-1089, coining the bills the “Academic Freedom Acts.”

Paralleling the language in the ALEC model and the Oklahoma bill, the HB 13-1089 aims to “Inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills,” also recognizing that the teaching of the concept global warming “can cause controversy.”

One of the senators co-sponsoring the bill, Rep. Scott Renfroe (R-13) is an ALEC dues-paying member. He’s also attended at least one ALEC meeting paid for by Colorado taxpayers, according to the CMD‘s “Buying Influence” report.

Of the $91,000 dollars he raised for the 2012 election, over $5,000 of it came from the oil, gas and electric utilities industry, according to the *National Institute on Money in State Politics*. This includes taking money from Chesapeake Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, Williams Companies, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

The Arizona (Sun) Devils are in the Details 

Eight days later, ALEC‘s model billmade its way to Arizona, a state sharing a “corner border” with Colorado.

Arizona’s SB 1213 was introduced on Jan. 26, 2013 by six senators that, as it turns out, are all dues-paying ALEC members. Five of the six have attended conferences totally on the taxpayer dime, according to CMD‘s report.

SB 1213 incorporates the “critical thinking skills” operative language, the “scientific controversies” operative language and the  “teaching…global warming” can “cause controversy” operative language.

In short, SB 1213 is the same exact copycat ALEC model bill that’s been proposed in both Oklahoma and Colorado.  

ALEC Celebrates Groundhog Day 2013

Groundhog Day is on Feb. 2 and fittingly, ALEC and its corporate patrons continue to sing the same tune, simultaneously promoting fracking, blockading a transition to renewable energy and pushing bills mandating teaching climate change denial on par with actual science.

“It’s the same old schtick every year, the guy comes out with a big old stick, raps on the door,” actor Bill Murray said in the classic film “Groundhog Day.” “They pull the little rat out, they talk to him, the rat talks back, then they tell us what’s gonna happen.”

Replace “guy” with “corporate lobbyist” and “legislators” with “rats” and that’s ALEC in a nutshell, serving as a mere microcosm of the current American political system at-large.

---

---

Aha: this is an extension of pinko prof brainwashing and campus conserv student silencing b/c of PC cancel culture; gin up hype in front of election (TP kirk bloody revenge coming for your kids?! also reaction to BLM for end of systemic racism.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/loving-your-country-is-not-the-same-as-loving-trump-how-the-right-makes-a-mockery-of-us-patriotism

on September 17, in a speech delivered at the National Archives Museum, President Trump announced he was signing an executive order establishing the 1776 Commission, aimed at promoting what he called a “patriotic” and “pro-America” education.  The announcement was a direct attack on the 1619 Project, a New York Times initiative that explores the legacy of slavery in the United States. For Trump, teaching critical race studies is akin to committing child abuse “in the truest sense of those words.”

“Our youth will be taught to love America with all of their heart and souls,” Trump announced. He accused the left of destroying children’s love of their country by teaching the facts of its history — facts, he claimed, wrongly “rewrite” American history as founded on oppression rather than freedom. He’s demanded that schools “teach American exceptionalism” and said that schools are teaching students to “hate their own country.”

This was just the latest show of Trump’s blatant conflation of racism with patriotismand it served as yet another example of how Trump has turned patriotism into a self-serving performance free of any connection to facts. From the start, Trump has attempted to define patriotism not as loving the country, but rather as loving Trump. All we need to do is remember that the same man who dodged military service spent over $2.5 million on a Fourth of July military parade designed to be primarily a celebration of himself.

Before analyzing the damage Trump has done to U.S. patriotism, let me be blunt: “loving” your country is stupid. Patriotism, when it is nothing more than blind adoration of a country, is idiotic at best and fascist at worst. Countries don’t need to be loved; they need to be built, critiqued, developed and improved. They need to be held to the highest ideals and they need to face their shortcomings so that they can strive to be better. The relationship citizens have to their nations may always include some affect, but real support for a nation thrives when citizens emote less and reflect and engage more. So, when patriotism is synonymous with loving your country, it is always, already a bad idea. but setting aside the question of whether it even makes sense to debate who does or doesn’t love their country, there seems little doubt that the time has come to push back on the way that the right has conflated loving the United States with loving Trump....

==

---

6/20

New Jersey Becomes First State to Put the Climate Crisis in Its K-12 Curriculum

CLIMATE CRISIS

==

==

icn 320

...Heartland has been trying to influence science curricula in schools for years. In 2017, it sent hundreds of thousands of copies of its publication "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" to teachers around the country.   

One of the recipients was Jane Ramos, who teaches 8th grade science at Vincent J. Gallagher Middle School in Smithfield, Rhode Island. She said she's never used it with her students, but has referred to it on her own and was struck by its tone, which she found misleading.

"They take something that seems quite straightforward, and then they make you say, 'Oh wait a minute,'" she said. "They put out all these other facts that sound so scientific, and I feel like it muddies the waters."

Michael Whaley, who teaches environmental science at Pendleton High School and at Tri-County Technical College in South Carolina, said he has used the materials as "a conversation starter." He said he thinks all sources are biased, so he has pointed his students to Heartland's materials as an example of one side of the story.

"I do like what Heartland is doing, because they do call attention to it," he said. "I think what you see in the media is heavily biased more towards alarmism. No matter where you look it's easier to find that stuff, so they're playing a role in at least keeping it even."

While the new website's launch comes amid Heartland's latest controversies and financial problems, the organization registered the website last summer, before any of this was news.

==

320

HEATED, a newsletter for people who are pissed off about the climate crisis—written and reported by me, Emily Atkin.

It’s Day 3 of our week-long series on climate education in America, and the fossil fuel industry’s role. While yesterday’s piece detailed the ways the oil industry is currently influencing schoolchildren around the country, today’s article reveals the long history of the strategy, and why it’s so important to, as they say, “get ‘em while they’re young.”

https://heated.world/p/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-public

many lnx grfx

The fossil fuel industry's public school takeover

Big Oil is pouring millions of dollars into creating pro-fossil fuel classroom content for children across the country.

Emily Atkin

Mar 4

Hello, and welcome to Day 2 of HEATED’s week-long series on climate education in public schools.

We kicked off Day 1 by shining a light on the positive impacts of comprehensive climate education.We cited research showing that classrooms can be essential breeding grounds for climate-conscious citizens. Not only do climate-educated students have lower individual carbon footprints; their behavior pressures others to behave more sustainably, too. This is important, because the planet’s livability depends on peer pressure to build public enthusiasm for decarbonization.

But as a whole, American classrooms are not currently creating climate-conscious citizens. Indeed, many are doing the exact opposite.

Students are taught about climate. Just not very well.

There are approximately 13,500 school districts in America, containing more than 100,000 public schools. The federal government does not require any of these schools to teach climate change.

Every state has different standards for what kids should learn about—and each school district is individually responsible for implementing those standards. That means that how climate is taught—if climate is taught—varies widely from district to district, and often even classroom to classroom.

Most kids do appear to be learning about climate change. According to a 2016 survey by the National Center for Science Education, 70 percent of middle school teachers and 87 percent of high school teachers spend at least an hour on global warming each year. Only about 3 to 4 percent of students receive no teaching of human-caused climate change.

Still, even though kids in America are learning about climate change, their lessons are limited and often contain misinformation, according to the NCSE survey. Newsweek summarized some the more concerning results:

Although most students will hear something about climate change in a science class, the average teacher devotes only one to two hours to the topic per year. Nearly one-third of teachers emphasize that recent global warming is likely due to natural causes—and tell their students that many scientists say the same thing. The researchers speculate that some teachers may wish to teach "both sides" out of respect for the individual values and opinions their students bring to the classroom.

Half of the surveyed teachers have allowed the students to discuss the supposed "controversy" over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported conclusion. Three of five surveyed teachers admit to being unaware of, or actively misinformed about, the near total consensus among scientists that climate change is man-made.

That last sentence is bolded because it’s especially critical to understanding why most public school students don’t receive a comprehensive climate education. Teachers, notoriously overworked and underpaid, are often individually responsible for deciding whether and how climate change gets taught. They don’t have the resources to educate themselves on the nuances of the climate crisis, much less develop lesson plans around it.

The fossil fuel industry, however, has plenty of resources. And it’s using those resources to provide teachers across the country with pro-fossil fuel lesson plans.

“The school systems of the country are so fragmented and under-resourced that they have no choice but to turn to people like the oil industry who offer them free stuff,” Charles Anderson, a professor of science education at Michigan State University, told the Associated Press last year.

These lesson plans aren’t focused on educating kids on the dangers of human-caused climate change, or the importance of stopping it. They’re focused on promoting the false idea that fossil fuels are essential to human prosperity—and that taking them away will cause everything students love to die.

In Oklahoma, students are told "Having no petroleum is like a nightmare!"

Before her retirement in 2016, Tara Barker was a public school science teacher in Oklahoma for 33 years. Throughout her tenure, she taught her kids about fossil fuels using Petro Pete—a little boy who looks like an old man dressed as an oil worker.

Petro Pete is part of an education series on fossil fuels proliferated by the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, a state agency funded by oil and gas producers. According to The Guardian, the OERB “has spent upwards of $40 million over the past two decades on providing education with a pro-industry bent, including hundreds of pages of curriculums, a speaker series and an after-school program—all at no cost to educators of children from kindergarten to high school.”

Barker said the industry’s lesson plans and workshops were helpful to her. “I loved getting the materials,” she said. But the outcome of the lessons always left her feeling like something was missing. “I just felt like they didn’t finish the story,” she said. “They didn’t tell the whole thing.”

The missing things, it turns out, were climate change and renewable energy. Neither is mentioned in “Petro Pete’s Big Bad Dream.”

In this widely taught story, Pete drifts off to sleep and wakes up unable to find anything he normally depends on. He has no clothes; no toothbrush; no comb. His schoolbus never comes, so he walks to school, and when he gets there the clock has a sad face on it. During lunch, Pete wants strawberry ice cream, but there is none. Later, he goes out to play soccer, but there are no soccer balls. “Pete is disappointed,” it says.

Eventually, Pete’s science teacher—the appropriately named Ms. Rigwell—explains that all the things Pete was missing were either made by oil or made possible by oil. “Having no petroleum is like a nightmare,” Pete concludes.

Barker said saw Petro Pete have an impact on students. “It makes the kids feel like, ‘Oh wow, we really need this,’” she said. “It scares them that we’re going to run out.” She said she wanted to make sure she was teaching about the possibilities of renewable energy, too—but the oil industry didn’t provide free material on that. She had to develop that curriculum herself, on her own time.

Today, that alternative curriculum is called the Oklahoma Renewable Energy Education Program. “We call it the other side of the story; the compliment to it,” Barker said. Barker’s group is trying to hold workshops for teachers across the state just like the oil and gas industry does, and have the curriculum accepted in all of Oklahoma’s school districts. But she’s struggling with funding. “We don’t have a grant right now, so we’re using leftover materials and we’re working on what we have.”

The oil and gas industry, of course, does not have this problem. And its bid to influence public education extends far beyond Oklahoma.

Creating pro-fossil fuel kids across the country

There are many more state-specific examples of fossil fuel industry and interest groups funding educational material. The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Educational Program, for example, is an industry-funded effort to provide workshops and educational material for Ohio teachers. These materials include a worksheet on the environmental benefits of crude oil and gas, a crude oil word find, and an activity placemat for kids.

Culver Company, a consulting firm for energy and natural gas utilities, provides educational material for schools, including aworkbook from kids Grade 3-6. In Natural Gas: Your Invisible Friend, “youngsters explore where gas comes from, how it’s used, and why it’s important to be careful around natural gas,” the description says.

Then there’s the National Energy Education Development Project, or NEED Project, which is sponsored by more than 100 corporate partners, including nearly every major U.S.-based oil and gas company and oil industry interest group. The NEED Project “publishes thousands of pages of K-12 energy lessons online,” according to the non-profit education news publication the Hechinger Report. Those lessons include one where students learn “how to frack a frozen layer cake using chocolate syrup and a syringe-like turkey injector.” Another guide tells the story of Sue Ann, “a sticky pool of oil waiting to be freed.”

These educational materials are not all misleading in their own right. Many actually contain scientifically robust information about how fossil fuel extraction and power generation work. But when these materials aren’t paired with robust climate change education, they paint a false picture in students’ minds about the benefits of fossil fuel use.

If industry groups were only creating energy-specific lesson plans that upsell the benefits of their product to the next generation, perhaps that could be justified. But that is not the extent of their activity.

Indeed, the oil industry is also creating and promoting a climate science curriculum for public school children which downplays the crisis their products are directly worsening every day.

A nationwide climate science curriculum, sponsored by Big Oil

Climate denial groups have long tried to push their agenda on the public school system. For example, as Outside Magazine notes, “In 2017, the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank funded in part by fossil-fuel interests, sent every science teacher in the United States a misleading book called Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.”

This type of outright denial, however, wouldn’t be allowed to be taught in at least 36 states. That’s because those states have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards, which require schools to “introduce global climate change as a core idea in middle school,” and include in that core idea that “human activities affect global warming.”

But the NGSS is not a deterrent for oil companies. Indeed, through the NEED Project, oil companies like BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips are funding the creation of industry-friendly climate lesson plans.

These lessons include accurate information about climate change, in that they admit the phenomenon is human-caused and that there are detrimental impacts. But they’re also heavily laden with industry-friendly talking points, including that fossil fuels are necessary for human prosperity; that “the climate has always changed;” and that humans will simply adapt to the outcome.

Take a look, for example, at the NEED Project’s “Introduction to Climate Change.” It begins by saying that the climate “has been in a constant state of change.” It cites the earth’s orbit and the sun before mentioning greenhouse gases. It says “natural and manmade” forces govern the climate. These are classic red herring rhetorical devices commonly used by Republican politicians to downplay and question human-caused climate change.

Take a look, also, at the NEED Project’s section on the “effects of climate change.” It begins, not by talking about ocean acidification or extreme weather, but by extolling the benefits of fossil fuels. It then says scientists “are studying” the effects and what they “may be,” implying falsely that scientists aren’t already confident about it.

The NEED Project’s section on solving climate change is perhaps most alarming. It insists that “societies around the world have adapted to changes in their environment,” giving false hope to students that society will simply adapt to the effects of the climate crisis.

It also says “Many scientists believe that climate change can be mitigated through advances in technology and individual lifestyle modifications,” which is untrue. The vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change can only be mitigated by ramping down the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

Of course, this is not mentioned.

Still, material like this may be better than most currently available. According to the Associated Press, less than 3 percent of all publicly available climate educational resources for teachers contain 100 percent up-to-date, factual information about climate change.

“There’s a lot of information that’s out there that is broken, old, misleading, not scientifically sound, not sound technically,” Frank Niepold, a climate education coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the AP.

And it’s been like this for literally decades.

Is it any wonder the current generation doesn’t have the political will to address the climate crisis?

Later this week, HEATED will delve into some of the history of the fossil fuel industry’s school influence campaigns, exploring the rationale behind those campaigns and the results.

game?

See http://TheClimateTrail.com

---

intercept

all in all, Long admitted, it had been a tough year, in which some 376 anti-plastics bills were introduced, and the perception of the plastics industry has continued to “spiral down exponentially.” The Plastics Industry Association is taking its cratering image seriously, working to offset it with pro-plastics presentations for elementary and middle school students, a plastics ambassadors program and, so young people can “feel good about” working in the industry, Long said, a “future leaders in plastics” group.

==

==

behind bastards:

lombord did agw curric for australia?

===

---

BS blog

May 24 2014

Common Core’s Global Warming Agenda

Vicki E. Alger

http://www.iwf.org/blog/2794034/Common-Core%E2%80%99s-Global-Warming-Agenda

viki alger

Earlier this month, Wyoming became the first state to reject Common Core “Next Generation” Science Standards because they push man-made global warming as a settled fact. Also a growing number of scientists have been issuing scathing rebuttals against reputedly “scientific” findings on global warming, including the White House’s National Climate Assessment. Moreover, a majority of scientists believe that global warming is largely nature-made, not man-made (see here, here, here, and here).

TheHeartland Institute’s James Rust, a retired professor of nuclear engineering, takes the standards to task, suggesting Wyoming and other states are right to question adoption of politicized standards:

The coverage mentions computer modelsare used for predicting future climate and weather conditions for the planet.  The report claimed, “However, it is clear not only that human activities play a major role in climate change but also that impacts of climate change—for example, increased frequency of severe storms due to ocean warming—have begun to influence human activities . The prospect of future impacts of climate change due to further increases in atmospheric carbon is prompting consideration of how to avoid or restrict such increases.”  There is insufficient coverage that computer models fail to replicate what happens in the future when data for comparisons are available.  In my opinion climate models should not be included in K-12 education because our understanding of forces influencing climate is incomplete and model’s failure to be validated.  Material in the book does not make this clear. …

Our science programs should stimulate students to be adept in analysis and have an inquiring mind.  Never be exposed to ideas of “the science is settled”.  It is my opinion the science portion of Common Core is dangerous for the country.  Damage from its implementation for a few decades could harm the country for many years.

Abandoning basic elements of scientific inquiry in favor of politicized agendas is bad enough. But Rust goes on to note that worst of all:

It is easy for teachers to be caught up in promoting teachings of the catastrophic climate change movement because of “warm feelings” from working to save the planet.  Over-zealous teachers, perhaps in concert with environmental groups, may wish to develop slogans, songs, T-shirts, and even arm bands for students to use to help spread the gospel of human-caused global warming. … Potentials for mischief to the country over teachings of perverted science are enormous. …

The entire Common Core program provides opportunities to instill propaganda in our young people ages 5 to 18.  Common Core should be discarded from an intellectual point of view.

And that’s saying something, considering that Common Core national standards are intended to make American students college- and career-ready.

==

==

PETE HEGSETH (GUEST CO-HOST): Charlie, there's no doubt kids have worries and anxiety. I mean, just last night, one of my boys was worried whether he'd be on the team with the other two boys in basketball camp this morning. But it's not just families. It's schools are reinforcing this eco-anxiety too by being obsessed with climate change.

CHARLIE KIRK (TURNING POINT USA): That's exactly right. And unfortunately, this is a really important point. Elementary school children spend much more time focusing on climate change and the environment than they do on American history. You'll have fourth and fifth graders --

HEGSETH: True.

KIRK: That will know much more about the idea that the world will end in 10 years than about 1776, the War of 1812, the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, or the beauty of the American founding. And that right there can answer the question of how these radical ideas are actually able to spread in our society, when you spend far more time on the idea that the world is going to end in 10 years, which is totally false, and not on the history of our country.

==

the conversation dorn &

https://www.alternet.org/heres-brief-history-battle-over-patriotism-and-pledge-allegiance-us-schools

When a California school principal called controversial quarterback Colin Kaepernick an “anti-American thug” for his protests during the national anthem at NFL football games, passions were inflamed anew over whether patriotism should be taught in America’s schools.

As our new book “Patriotic Education in a Global Age” demonstrates, such debates are longstanding in American history.

Posting schoolhouse flags

Seventy-five years ago, at the height of America’s involvement in World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that guaranteed public school students’ right to refuse to stand in patriotic salute.

Barnette’s origins go back to the late 19th century, when patriotic societies such as the Grand Army of the Republic – a Civil War veterans’ organization – and the Woman’s Relief Corps – the organization’s women’s auxiliary – launched a campaign to place a flag in every public school classroom. “The reverence of schoolchildren for the flag should be like that of the Israelites for the Ark of the Covenant,” the organization’s commander-in-chief William Warner enthusiastically declared at a rally in 1889.

Three years later, in 1892, the schoolhouse flag movement received a huge boost when The Youth’s Companion – one of the nation’s first weekly magazines to target both adults and their children – hired minister-turned-advertiser Francis Bellamy to develop promotional strategies to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ voyage to America. Bellamy’s national Columbus Day program involved assembling millions of students at their local schools to recite a pledge in salute to the American flag. The magazine profited from flag sales leading up to the event. The United States didn’t have an official pledge of national loyalty, however. So Bellamy composed his own: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Over the course of the next 40 years, the pledge underwent three revisions.

The first occurred almost immediately following the Columbus Day celebration when Bellamy, unhappy with the rhythm of his original work, inserted the word “to” before “the Republic.” Between 1892 and the end of World War I, this was the 23-word pledge that many states wrote into law.

The second modification occurred in 1923 when the American Legion’s National Americanism Commission recommended that Congress officially adopt Bellamy’s pledge as the national Pledge of Allegiance. Fearing, however, that Bellamy’s opening phrase – “I pledge allegiance to my Flag” – permitted immigrants to pledge allegiance to any flag they desired, the commission revised the line to read, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”

Over time, schools adopted the revision. Finally, in 1954, after the federal government included the pledge as part of the U.S. Flag Code during World War II, Congress reacted to the so-called godless communism many believed was infiltrating U.S. public institutions by adding the phrase “under God.”

Mainstreaming the pledge

Throughout the early 20th century, states across the nation passed laws that required student recitation as part of a morning flag salute so that by the time the United States plunged into World War I against Germany in 1917, pledging allegiance to the flag had become the standard beginning to the school day.

This explains why, in October 1935, 10-year-old Billy Gobitas and his 11-year-old sister Lillian were expelled from school after they refused to salute the flag. As Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed that venerating the flag violated God’s prohibition against bowing to graven images, the Gobitas family argued that the flag salute infringed the children’s First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court eventually heard the case Minersville School District v. Gobitis – a misspelling of the respondent’s surname – and decided for the school district. “We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote for the court’s 8-1 majority, as France was overrun by Hitler’s army: “National unity is the basis of national security.”

Court declares rights

Controversy ensued. Throughout the country, newspapers reported on debates over the flag salute.

Acts of violence were committed against the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These included beatings acts of arson and even a case of tar and feathering.

At least partly because of the public’s reaction to the decision, the court agreed to hear another case that involved the flag salute just three years later. This time the case was brought by the families of seven Jehovah’s Witness children expelled in Charleston, West Virginia. Surprising many, the justices decided 6-3 in favor of the families and overruled Gobitis.

On Flag Day, 1943, Justice Robert Jackson delivered the majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” Jackson declared. “If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”

Although the Barnette decision held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the pledge has remained a mainstay of U.S. public education. Meanwhile, parents continue to oppose the pledgeas a violation of their children’s constitutional rights.

Consequently, legal challenges persist. One of the most recent cases challenged inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the pledge. In this case – Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow – the court did not rule in the matter because the plaintiff who brought the suit lacked standing. Since the case did not address the underlying issue of religious freedom, future challenges are likely.

Similarly, Barnette did not address other pledge-related questions, such as whether students need parental permission to opt out of the flag salute. Cases that address this question, among others, continue to be pursued.

Whatever unresolved issues may remain, Barnette established as a matter of constitutional law and fundamental principle of American public life that participation in rituals of national loyalty cannot be compelled.The Supreme Court that rendered that decision clearly understood that non-participation can be well-motivated and should not be construed as a sign of disloyalty or lack of patriotism. The court was also clearly troubled by the vicious attacks on Americans who exercised their constitutional right not to participate.

We should be equally troubled now when we see public school leaders harshly condemn Colin Kaepernick – or any protester, for that matter – for how they choose to exercise their constitutional right to demand equal liberty and justice for all. Kaepernick decided to take a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality against African-Americans. The question we would pose to Kaepernick’s critics is this: How is taking a knee to affirm our country’s highest ideals anti-American?

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13092018/science-teachers-climate-change-denial-nsta-national-association-position-statement-state-standards-heartland

In response to what it sees as increasing efforts to undermine the teaching of climate science, the nation's largest science teachers association took the unusual step Thursday of issuing a formal position statement in support of climate science education.

In its position statement, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) calls on science teachers from kindergarten through high school to emphasize to students that "no scientific controversy exists regarding the basic facts of climate change."

"Given the solid scientific foundation on which climate change science rests, any controversies regarding climate change and human-caused contributions to climate change that are based on social, economic, or political arguments—rather than scientific arguments—should not be part of a science curriculum," it says.

It also urges teachers to "reject pressures to eliminate or de-emphasize" climate science in their curriculum. And it urges school administrators to provide science teachers with professional development opportunities to strengthen their understanding of climate science.

...

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/idaho-climate-change-language-2532203717.html

no linx

Idaho Lawmakers Strike Climate Change Language From New Science Standards

The Idaho House Education Committee voted 12-4 Wednesday on a motion to strip references to human-caused climate change in the state's proposed new science education standards.

The motion, proposed by Rep. Scott Syme, R-Caldwell, strikes a section* from the Idaho Content Standards that includes the language: "energy and fuels are derived from natural resources and their uses affect the environment." Several paragraphs of "Supporting Content"** that delves further into climate science were deleted as well.

Boise Republican Rep. Patrick McDonald, the committee's vice chairman, joined the panel's three Democrats that opposed the motion to scrub climate-related passages from the standards.

"I want to support these standards as written," McDonald said, referring to the work that local teachers put in developing the standards. "What I don't want to do is not support them. There has been a lot work involved in putting these things together."

Idaho is the only state in the nation where legislators have removed references to the established science of climate change and the impact of human activity on the environment from the K-12 science curricula. That decision sparked an ardent effort from teachers, parents and students across Idaho who want to revise public school education standards to include climate science.

At a two-day hearing before the Idaho House Education Committee last week, 29 people testified in favor of revisions. Roughly 1,000 public comments were also submitted in favor of the revisions.

"We're here today not just for those students in classrooms across our state but for tomorrow's nurses, farmers, lawmakers, bankers and citizens who deserve the very best science and science education—not some water-downed censored version," said Dick Jordan, a retired high school science teacher at the hearing. "We cannot ignore science even if it makes us uncomfortable."

But many Republican lawmakers contend that the science on climate change is not settled. As the New York Times pointed out, only 24 percent of Idaho Republicans agree in human-caused climate change, the lowest percentage in the country.

Rep. Julie VanOrden (R-Pingree), who chairs the Idaho House Education Committee, dismissed arguments about the topic during the hearings last week.

"We are not having a hearing on climate change," VanOrden said continually. "We're here to address the changes made in the standards, not climate change."

Rep. Syme also argued that the revised standards would force students to come to a particular conclusion rather than draw their own, ThinkProgress reported.

"When we heard all the testimony, it was clear that all the students want to do inquiry and all the teachers want to move to this inquiry based type of learning and I think that is just spectacular," he said Wednesday. "My problem with the one paragraph was that it lead to conclusions. When you have conclusions in standards, it stifles inquiry."

(Syme has even said previously that he does not care if students think the Earth is flat as long as it was the student's own conclusion.)

Of course, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say that burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases that drives the rise in global temperatures.

The new science education standards do not force Idaho's teachers to omit climate science from their lesson plans. However, as the Times noted, "science educators said they were concerned for teachers in districts where climate change was considered more controversial."

The vote now goes to the Senate Education Committee, where members can undo the House panel's decision.

*Here's the section that House Ed. members removed:

ESS3-4-1 Obtain and combine information to describe that energy and fuels are derived from natural resources and their uses affect the environment. Further explanation: Examples of renewable energy resources could include wind energy, water behind dams, and sunlight; non-renewable energy resources are fossil fuels and atomic energy. Examples of environmental effects could include negative biological impacts of wind turbines, erosion due to deforestation, loss of habitat due to dams, loss of habitat due to surface mining, and air pollution from burning of fossil fuels."

**And here is some of the "Supporting Content" that the committee also voted to remove:

"ESS3.A: Natural Resources: Energy and fuels that humans use are derived from natural sources, and their use affects the environment in multiple ways. Some resources are renewable over time, and others are not. (ESS3-4-1)

ESS3.B: Natural Hazards: A variety of hazards result from natural processes (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions). Humans cannot eliminate the hazards but can take steps to reduce their impacts. (ESS3-4-2)

ETS1.B: Designing Solutions to Engineering Problems: Testing a solution involves investigating how well it performs under a range of likely conditions. (ESS3-4-2)"

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Here's how the Mercer family's climate denial funding influenced ... ›

---

===

Introductory College Textbooks Shortchange Climate Science

Despite a widespread scientific consensus that it is taking place, K-12 education about climate change has been a surprisingly contentious issue in the U.S.

National Center for Science Education deputy director Glenn Branch told Business Insider in 2017 that it, along with evolution, was one of the topics that "arouse[d] the most discontent and controversy" when it came to determining state science standards.

But less attention has been paid to climate education at the university level, until now.

In a paper published Sunday in Environment Communications, Arizona State University (ASU) graduate student Rachel Yoho scanned through 1500 pages of undergraduate introductory science textbooks and found that less than four percent of them focused on climate change, global warming, related environmental problems or renewable energy, an Arizona State University press release published in ScienceDaily reported.

Less than two percent of the pages focused on just climate change, she found.

"It's a difficult balance in an introductory course," Yoho said in the press release. "There's so much information to cover in a short time. However, our students are facing these issues inside and outside of the classrooms. Our communities feel the impacts of our energy decisions and climate."

The textbooks selected for the study were the current editions of the primary 16 biology, chemistry and physics textbooks published from 2013 to 2015. Yoho and her co-author, ASU Biodesign Center for Environmental Biotechnology director Bruce Rittmann, did notice variations between the three disciplines in terms of what climate or energy related topics they did cover.

Biology textbooks spent the most page space discussing climate change and its impacts, but that discussion still only took up less than two percent of those pages. They spent the least amount of page space on renewable energy.

Physics and chemistry textbooks, on the other hand, included more information about renewable energy, alternative fuels and other clean transportation technologies.

Nuclear energy was discussed separately from other alternative sources on less than one percent of the pages and was painted in a negative light.

Further, none of the topics they searched for were likely to have units devoted to them, and the climate- and energy-related content was usually not a factor in why certain textbooks were selected.

==

==

https://www.alternet.org/education/silicon-valley-takes-over-american-classrooms-personalized-learning-technology

==

our Democratic senators are sharply criticizing a conservative think tank’s efforts to bring climate change skepticism into the nation’s public schools as “industry funded” and “possibly fraudulent” and demanding to know whether federal education officials have been in contact with the group.

The Heartland Institute has been sending books, DVDs and pamphlets to science teachers across the country promoting its stance that climate change is caused by natural phenomena rather than human activities — a view rejected by nearly all climate scientists. Heartland’s campaign to influence how climate science is taught in public schools was first reported by FRONTLINE and The GroundTruth Project in March.

The Illinois-based non-profit vows to continue its efforts, saying it has already sent more than 300,000 packages to K-12 and college-level science teachers since the launch of the campaign earlier this year. Mailings have wrapped up for the summer break, according to Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely. He added, however, “This is not the end of Heartland’s efforts to bring balance to the climate debate in our schools, but just the beginning.”

In a letter sent to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Wednesday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — all of whom have been outspoken on climate change issues — described the campaign as an effort “to disseminate fossil-fuel industry talking points as curriculum for science teachers.”

The senators asked DeVos whether any Education Department officials have had contact with individuals associated with the Heartland Institute “on climate, science, or science education issues,” and whether any informational resources put out by the department have been created in collaboration with Heartland.

The senators also asked DeVos whether she was aware of any discussions between the White House staff and Heartland. In March, the group’s president and CEO, Joseph Bast, told FRONTLINE and GroundTruth, “We’re getting a lot of requests for expert opinion from the White House … That’s very new.”

Heartland was founded in 1984 and has a history of promoting causes that align with the interests of industry. In the 1990s, for instance, the organization lobbied against smoking bans, for which it was rewardedwith donations from tobacco company Philip Morris. Today, the group promotes a bevy of libertarian and conservative causes, including oneDeVos has spent years advocating for: The school choice movement, which would allow students to spend public dollars to attend private and religious schools.

But Heartland is perhaps best known for its position as a leader in the movement to reject the scientific consensus on global warming. Among the group’s arguments is that curbing greenhouse gases would damage the economy — the primary reason given by President Donald Trumplast week for pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

DeVos has, until recently, been relatively quiet on her personal view about climate change. During her nomination process in January, she was asked by Whitehouse whether she believed that humans cause climate change. DeVos answered that because the Education Department has no jurisdiction over climate change, “I would respectfully defer to my colleagues in other agencies” on the issue, and noted that the department “is prohibited from dictating curricula in our nation’s schools.” States and school districts, rather than the Education Department, direct curricula and science standards.

However, last week DeVos issued a statement praising President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. “The announcement made today by the President is one more example of his commitment to rolling back the unrealistic and overreaching regulatory actions by the previous Administration,” the statement read.

It was that statement that prompted Whitehouse and his colleagues to write the letter, he said. “It raises at least a suggestion that there may be more mischief going on between the fossil fuel industry and its denial front groups and the administration through Secretary DeVos,” the senator said in an interview.

DeVos did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Heartland declined to comment on whether anyone at the organization has corresponded or met with staff at the Education Department, but in a written statement Bast said that his organization stands by the materials it has sent to teachers, and will continue to send out copies as it sees fit. Bast said the senators’ letter consisted of “purely partisan rhetoric apparently aimed at undermining the presidency of Donald Trump,” and said that Whitehouse is guilty of the very thing Heartland has frequently been accused of: bringing “politics into high school classrooms.”

The senators’ letter isn’t the first Democratic condemnation of the mailing campaign: In April, three ranking Democrats in the House publicly urged Heartland to stop the mailing campaign

Whitehouse also sent letters to a dozen scientific and educational organizations to “alert” them to “factually inaccurate and scientifically unsound materials on climate change.” He said he worries that the Heartland materials will successfully sway some teachers’ opinions of climate change.

“It takes a bit of sincere effort to do the research and find how fraudulent many of their assertions are, and that’s an effort that busy teachers may not undertake,” he said. “So it leaves at least a passing impression in an innocent teacher’s mind that there may actually be something to this.”

---

OMG

http://www.ecowatch.com/heartland-institute-climate-science-2334892782.html

Koch-Funded Group Tries to Persuade 200,000 Science Teachers That Climate Change Is Debatable

The Heartland Institute is trying to nurture the next generation of climate change deniers.

The conservative and libertarian think tank has sent out 25,000 copies of the organization's book, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,and an accompanying 10-minute DVD to 25,000 science teachers this month, according to a Frontline report. The book argues that climate change is not settled science.

Katie Worth, who authored the Frontline report, called the effort a "massive propaganda campaign by the nation's leading climate change skeptical think tank."

The Heartland Institute, which has received funding from polluting industries such as Exxon and the Koch family, rejectsthe scientific community's widespread consensus that human activity causes climate change.

The organization plans to send the materials to another 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said.

This means the book and DVD could end up in the mailboxes of more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers in the country. The campaign began in mid-March.

Frontline also published a cover letter of the materials from Lennie Jarratt, project manager of Heartland's Center for Transforming Education, who asks that the teacher "consider the possibility" that climate science is not settled.

img

The 2015 book is coauthored by Drs. Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter and S. Fred Singer, who have been heavily involved in the "debate" over global warming.

Here are some tidbits about the authors:

The letter directs teachers to visit Izzit.org to access an online guide to using the DVD. Izzit.org is a "right-wing advocacy organization" that provides free educational videos to U.S. educators and homeschoolers.

The National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, California nonprofit that monitors climate change education in classrooms criticized the mailing campaign.

"It's not science, but it's dressed up to look like science," NCSE executive director Ann Reid told Frontline. "It's clearly intended to confuse teachers."

Climatologist Michael Mann also tweeted that the Heartland Institute is trying to "indoctrinate children with climate denial propaganda."

Bast, Heartland's president, said that some teachers have appreciated the information and even asked for a Heartland speaker to visit a class.

However, many science teachers have not welcomed the campaign.

As Frontline wrote:

Lori Baker, a sixth-grade science teacher at North Putnam Middle School in Roachdale, Indiana, found the package in her school mailbox and was dismayed by its contents. "I read quite a bit of the book, actually, and it was extremely frustrating. It's an attempt to sound science literate, but there's very little actual data," she said.

Baker pointed to the first paragraph of the foreword, written by Marita Noon, executive director of Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy, a nonprofit and lobbying group that advocates for the use of fossil fuels. In it, Noon writes that Obama's description of climate change as the greatest threat facing mankind is "laughable" at a time when "ISIS is beheading innocent people."

"That as a foreword to something claiming to be scientific is pretty shocking," said Baker.

==

==

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/arizona-mexican-american-studies_n_7748102.html

==

A Republican Arkansas lawmaker has introduced legislation to ban the works of the late historian, activist, and writer Howard Zinn from publicly funded schools.

The bill from Rep. Kim Hendren, just noted by the Arkansas Times, was introduced on Thursday and referred to the House Committee on Education.

It states(pdf) that any "public school district or an open-enrollment public charter school shall not include in its curriculum or course materials for a class or program of study any book or other material" authored by Zinn from 1959 until 2010, the year in which he died.

The Zinn Education Project, which aims to "to introduce students to a more accurate, complex, and engaging understanding of United States history than is found in traditional textbooks and curricula," noted Thursday that educators in the state may have a very different take from Hendren: "To date, there are more than 250 teachers in Arkansas who have signed up to access people's history lessons from the Zinn Education Project website."

Arkansas Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Howard Zinn From ...

This post may be updated.A Republican Arkansas lawmaker has introduced legislation to ban the works of the late historian, activist, and writer Howard Zinn ...

[](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=zinn%20bill%20ban+site:www.commondreams.org&atb=v31-5__ "Search domain www.commondreams.org")https://commondreams.org/news/2017/03/03/arkansas-lawmaker-introdu...

=== 

https://www.propublica.org/article/childs-play-team-trump-rewrites-a-department-of-energy-website-for-kids

Almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration had an idea: Make an educational website for children about energy sources and the science behind them. 

In short order, the EIA created “Energy Kids,” which now features energy-themed sudoku and crossword puzzles, colorful pie charts and a know-it-all mascot called Energy Ant. Images of a school bus parked between a coal plant and an oil rig adorn the bottom of the web page, along with drawings of wind turbines, solar panels and an energy-efficient lightbulb During the Obama administration, Energy Kids even won multiple international awards for its content and design, as well as one from a digital publishing company that hailed it as “the best of the best in open and engaging government.”

The Trump administration, it seems, wasn’t altogether impressed with the site or its awards. In recent weeks, language on the website describing the environmental impacts of energy sources has been reworked, and two pie charts concerning the link between coal and greenhouse gas emissions have been removed altogethe

==

The biotech industry has failed to deliver on its promises for GMO crops. The NYT article followed less than a month after thebiotech industry asked congressional leaders for $3 million in taxpayer-provided funding to “educate” the public about biotechnologyand agricultural production. 11/16

==

Stossel sideline

friedman chitester

==

nat rev

---

ANDREW STUTTAFORD May 21, 2016 5:45 PM From the Portland Tribune: In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools. “Eliminating doubt”.   Unanimously, naturally. To teach the science of climate change is, of course, fine. To teach the cult of climate change is not. To quote Richard Feynman, a man who knew a bit about what being a scientist involved:  “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt”. Back to the Portland Tribune: The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools. Get rid of the wrong books.  Teach “climate justice”. Sounds like the spirit of free inquiry and open debate is alive and well in Portland.    Bill Bigelow, a former PPS teacher and current curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools, a magazine devoted to education issues, worked with 350PDX and other environmental groups to present the resolution. Rethinking Schools looks to me like a magazine of the hard left (but perhaps that’s just me, check out its website and judge for yourself). Its curriculum editor is not, I would think, the most convincing advocate of objectivity in the classroom… Bigelow is also the co-author of a textbook on environmental education, A People’s Curriculum for the Earth. Asked if this resolution will cause the district to buy new textbooks, such as his book, Bigelow said Rethinking Schools is a nonprofit, not a money-maker. OK. Bigelow said the district already has climate-change literacy curriculum, such as at Sunnyside Environmental School, and he wants that knowledge to spread. Set the controls for the heart of Sunnyside’s website, and discover this: Our school community and students are taught to critically examine dominant culture norms, seek multiple perspectives and counter stories… Some doubts are more equal than others, it seem

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435701/climate-change-heating-fahrenheit-451

==

==

grnpeace

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/center-for-independent-thought-stossel-in-the-classroom/

$155,000 received from Koch foundations 2005-2013[Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2013: $155,000]

The Center for Independent Thought (CIT) owns and operates Stossel in the Classroom, the teaching series for middle and high school teachers based on the punditry of John Stossel, a FOX Business host who consistently denies the scientific evidence of global warming. CIT also serves as a pass-through organization for grants to Koch-affiliated organizations, according to CIT’s tax filings.

:{:{}:

}:

The 2009 edition of ABC News’ Stossel in the Classroom featured a segment explicitly telling students there is still debate “about whether or not human activity is the cause” of climate change (14 years prior to the Stossel lesson, even ‘conservative’ scientific authorities like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considered climate change proven beyond reasonable doubt by 1995).

The Stossel in the Classroom segment included numerous debunked arguments, such as atmospheric CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes or that global warming is caused by the Sun. Stossel featured several scientists with direct or indirect ties to fossil fuel companies and front groups, including John Christy, Tim Ball and Roy Spencer, who famously labeled those who recognize climate science to be “Global Warming Nazi’s.” Stossel mocks the notion of a “denial machine,” or a network of groups and people paid by fossil fuel interests to create doubt over climate science.

Teachers using the Stossel lesson plan were encouraged to ask questions such as, “If there is overwhelming evidence that global warming is a trend that will worsen and that we are causing it, why are people such as John Stossel questioning it?” The Stossel lesson plan encourages students to discuss quotes from people like Fred L Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and instructs students to use the Internet to find the “Oregon Petition,” a misleading petition co-published by the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute.

Complimenting its misleading portrayal of climate science, Stossel in the Classroom has promoted fossil fuel use. The program hosted  energy industry consultant Alex Epstein, who is paid by energy companies to claim that “fossil fuels improve the planet,” gave a platform for author Jason Mattera that hollywood celebrities promote the “scam” of climate science, and hosted a discussion on “energy independence” with pundits from fossil-fuel funded think tanks (Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute).

Through its funding and management, CIT and John Stossel are woven into Charles Koch’s political influence network. CIT past and present board members include longtime friends and fellow donors within the Koch network, such as Wisconsin Club for Growth director  Eric O’Keefe, and Cato Institute executive David Boaz, and New Year real estate mogel Howie Rich, married to CIT president Andrea Rich.

Even the content of Stossel in the Classroom is a direct product of Koch political institutions. According to Counterpunch, professors in the Koch-funded economics department at George Mason University, as well as the Koch-controlled organizations hosted by GMU–the Mercatus Center and the Institute for Humane Studies–are involved in creating material for Stossel and staffing his program.

Organizations founded and controlled by Charles Koch work closely with John Stossel, including the Cato Institute and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. These organizations provide material and pundits that promote anti-regulatory, pro-corporate policies that mirror Koch’s preferences. CIT acts as a pass-through for grants to the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. CIT itself increasingly hides its own funding through dark money funnels like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, according to Media Matters.

John Stossel himself has participated in conferences put on by top climate denial organizations, such asThe Heartland Institute and Americans for Prosperity.

==

----

Monsanto will donate $50,000 to the Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC) Consortium. AITC is a "grassroots program coordinated by the United States Department of Agriculture," designed "to help students gain a greater awareness of the role of agriculture ... so that they may become citizens who support wise agricultural policies," according to AITC's website. Monsanto said their donation will support "science education and grassroots efforts that improve the understanding and acceptance of biotechnology."

Other AITC "Partners," who are encouraged to make annual contributions, include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Mining Association, National Pork Producers Council, CropLife America and Dole Food Company. SOURCE: Monsanto Company press release, June 23, 2004 More web links related to this story are available at: http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087963200 http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4014

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/23/how-fox-news-climate-change-denial-finds-its-wa/207037

New Study Connects Conservative Misinformation On Climate Change To California Textbook Inaccuracies

New research from Southern Methodist University (SMU) found that some children's textbooks that depict the reality of human-caused climate change with uncertainty are influenced by a climate science knowledge gap that finds its roots partly in conservative media misinformation.

In a language analysis of four major California science textbooks, the SMU researchers found that the books delivered a message "that climate change is possibly happening, that humans may or may not be causing it, and that we do not need to take immediate mitigating action."

The study concluded that the four 6th grade textbooks -- including books from major national publishing companies McGraw-Hill Education and Pearson -- used language and writing techniques that "more closely match the public discourse of doubt about climate change rather than the scientific discourse" one might expect from academic texts. The books used language that misleadingly amplified uncertainty about the causes of climate change, undermined the expertise of climate scientists, and implied a false balance narrative around the realities of climate change within the scientific community.

For example, the authors found that only 21 percent of the instances discussing the cause-effect factors in climate change identified the effects of human activity, and that in the texts, "Scientists were often said to think or believe but rarely were scientists said to be inferring from evidence or data."

The SMU study explained that conservative media falsehoods about climate change contribute to a shift in public discourse, which eventually influences textbook language by creating competing interests within the textbook market. Publishers' attempts to cater to the largest market -- which includes textbook buyers who ascribe to the "public discourse of doubt" around climate change -- ultimately result in misleading textbook language and factual inaccuracies. Although the study focused on California textbooks, such a large textbook market often "set[s] standards for the rest of the country" according to the study's authors -- an effect that may already be seen in Texas.

How does this "public discourse of doubt" on climate change first develop? The researchers at SMU cited Fox News' coverage of climate science as one factor in shaping misinformation, pointing to previous research that showed Fox has disproportionately interviewed climate science deniers and that its viewers are more likely to be climate science deniers themselves (emphasis added):

[I]n discussing the topic of climate change, some segments of the media use the journalistic norm of 'balance' -- giving equal weight to all positions about this phenomenon -- when building frames to present to the public (Boykoff 2007). When frame setting, segments of the media adhere to this norm to give equal time to a climate scientist and a climate denier when addressing climate change. For example, Fox News presents climate change as uncertain by interviewing a greater proportion of climate deniers (Feldman et al. 2012). As a result, at the individual-level effects of framing stage, the audience may come to understand human-caused climate change as controversial. And indeed, viewers of Fox News are more likely to be climate skeptics even when taking into account political affiliation (Feldman et al. 2012). The effects of framing go beyond individual positions about specific topics. Frames accumulate into larger discourses, which are 'a shared way of apprehending the world... enabling those who subscribe to it to interpret bits of information and put them together into coherent stories or accounts' (Dryzek 2013, 9). We see two discourses prevalent in climate change communication: a 'scientific discourse' and a 'public discourse.'

The researchers' implication of Fox News in the creation of a misinformed public discourse is well founded. Media figures at Fox have a long record of repeating scientific inaccuracies on air and allowing fringe figures to perpetuate widely debunked claims. The similarities between the doubtful language and inaccurate claims on Fox and in the textbook examples from the study are striking:

Textbook Frame: "Some Scientists" Think Global Warming Is Due In Part To "Natural Variations In Climate"

The SMU study found that the textbooks dedicated substantial portions of their passages on climate change to discussing natural causes rather than human causes, despite that "there is little doubt about the causes of current climate change" within the scientific community that human activities are the driving force behind the phenomenon:

All four textbooks dedicated a substantial portion of the chapters about climate change to describe the natural factors that could be causing this phenomenon. Although all four textbooks indicated that human beings could be having an impact on climate change, they framed this topic as an issue in which not all scientists are in agreement as can be seen in the following example:

  • Not all scientists agree about the causes of global warming. Some scientists think that the 0.7 Celsius degree rise in global temperatures over the past 120 years may be due in part to natural variations in climate. (Prentice Hall 2008)

The study stated in a discussion of its findings: "The causes of climate change were shrouded in uncertainty in the texts we analyzed. Specifically, the human contribution to climate change was presented as a possibility rather than a certainty."

Fox News Frame: "Nobody Knows" What's Causing Global Warming

Fox Host: Is Global Warming Man-Made? "Nobody Knows."In a June 2014 edition of Fox News Radio's Kilmeade & Friends,Fox News' Steve Doocy asserted that "nobody knows" if the causes of global warming are natural or man-made:

STEVE DOOCY: Keep in mind: nobody is saying that the planet isn't getting warmer. Although, you know, we had a story a couple of days ago that the 1930s were much, much warmer than the decade we're in right now. And the globe has not warmed in 17 years. Here's the thing - nobody's saying the globe isn't warming. The question comes down to, if it is, what's making it warm up? Is it just a natural climactic [sic] cycle? Or is it something man-caused? Nobody knows.

Fox News Correspondent: "There Is Not Consensus" On Causes Of Climate Change.On the September 1 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier,Fox News correspondent Dan Springerrejected the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change, stating that "while the Obama administration blames man and the burning of fossil fuels, there is not consensus," before cutting to an economist from the conservative Heritage Foundation to support his claim.

DAN SPRINGER: Scientists say the Arctic has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the nation. Sea ice is arriving later in the fall and melting sooner in the summer. This was one of the worst wildfire seasons on record in the Last Frontier State -- 5 million acres burned, about the size of Massachusetts. But while the Obama administration blames man and the burning of fossil fuels, there is not consensus.

Textbook Frame: Climate Has "Changed Throughout Earth's History"

The SMU study identified language in multiple textbooks that emphasized the historical context of climate change "to support the idea that climate had been changing well before humans were here and, therefore, is a naturally occurring phenomenon," including the following examples:

However, climates have gradually changed throughout Earth's history. (Prentice Hall, 2008)

Scientists have found evidence of many major ice ages throughout Earth's geologic history. (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc. 2007)

Fox News Frame: "Climate Changes. It Always Has And It Always Will"

Media figures often appear on Fox News to suggest that historical shifts in the global climate somehow disprove the notion that human-driven climate change is threatening our way of life.Media Matters compiled several, such as Competitive Enterprise Institute's Chris Horner, saying: "Climate changes. It always has, it always will."

Textbook Frame: Global Warming "Could Have Some Positive Effects"

The SMU study noted that "all four textbooks mentioned the negative effects of climate change, but two of them also discussed the potential positive results of this phenomenon," pointing out the following examples:

Global warming could have some positive effects. Farmers in some areas that are now cool could plant crops two times a year instead of one. Places that are too cold for farming today could become farmland. However, many effects of global warming are likely to be less positive. (Prentice Hall, 2008)

But farther north, such as in Canada, weather conditions for farming would improve. (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc. 2007)

Fox News Frame: Global Warming Is "Good For Human Beings"

Fox's Gutfeld: "Even If There Is Global Warming ... It's Good For Human Beings."On the April 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld asserted : "even if there is global warming ... it's good for human beings. If a polar bear dies, I don't feel bad. Honestly I don't. No, human beings. When temperature goes up, human beings live longer. When you have cold spells across countries, people die."

Fox Turned To Mark Levin And A Coal Miner To Say "CO's What Make Plants Grow."During an hour-long special on the "green agenda" in 2012, Fox News turned to right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who denied that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated, saying: "Carbon dioxide is what we exhale. Carbon dioxide is necessary for plants." Fox later aired video of coal miner Robert "Buz" Hilberry echoing this, saying: "I'm no scientist but CO's what make plants grow and what make you breathe, so they're trying to choke us all out by stopping the burning of coal."

Fox Frequent Marc Morano: Record High Carbon Dioxide "Should Be Welcomed" Because "Plants Are Going To Be Happy." Marc Morano, who was featured on Fox News to discuss climate change 11 times in 2014 alone, said to Bloomberg that Americans "should welcome" a record high in greenhouse gases because "This means that plants are going to be happy, and this means that global-warming fearmongers are going to be proven wrong."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/23/how-fox-news-climate-change-denial-finds-its-wa/207037

==

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/iowa-kids-will-now-be-taught-accurate-climate-science-in-school/

---

UCS dossiers 8/15

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

that these scientists’ financial ties to the fossil fuel industry remained hidden from the public—precisely the arrangement they ultimately made with Dr. Wei-Hock Soon (Dossier #1, p. 6). According to the leaked memo, “These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal” (Walker 1998). While the funding of the hand-selected scientists was to remain secret, their intended mission was clear: Exxon, Chevron, and the other fossil fuel industry representatives needed these scientists to produce “peer-reviewed papers that undercut the ‘conventional wisdom’ on climate science.” They intended to fund and train the scientists to get their crafted message of uncertainty out to print, radio, and TV journalists (Walker 1998)

Targeting Teachers and Students Another section of the API roadmap memo outlines a plan to target the National Science Teachers Association. Exxon, Chevron, and the other Global Climate Science Communications Team members recognized that the tide might turn against fossil fuels unless they could reach the next generation. So, under the guise of “present[ing] a credible, balanced picture of climate science,” they opted to push out materials for teachers and their students that directly countered the scientific evidence. As the memo explains, their assumption was that emphasizing “uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect a barrier against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future” (Walker 1998). The leaked memo also outlines a tactic of working through grassroots organizations to promote debate about climate science on campuses and in communities during the period mid-August through October 1998 (Walker 1998). In the years since this memo, many of the activities outlined in the memo have been carried out, as evidenced by the API’s online curriculum for elementary schools that presents nonrenewable energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and coal, as “more reliable, affordable, and convenient to use than most renewable energy resources” (see, for example, API 2002).

---

===

715

---

A effort to increase kids’ scientific knowledge of climate change failed in the Senate on Wednesday, after one senator expressed concern that the measure would result in a lot of “wasted paper.”

Put forth by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), the measure would have created a competitive grant program for public school districts to “develop or improve” climate change education curricula. It was put forward as an amendment to a bill to reform No Child Left Behind, the controversial federal education policy implemented under former President George W. Bush.

Markey argued that the grant program would help equip the next generation to deal with the effects of human-caused climate change, a burden they are likely to bear.

“The children of our country deserve the best scientific education they can get on this topic,” he said. “They are the future leaders of our country and our world. They must be equipped for this generational science.”

The Republican author of the reform bill, however, opposed the amendment on the grounds that it gave the federal government too much power in guiding what kids are learning.

“If you like Washington, D.C., getting involved in Common Core in your state, you’re going to love this amendment,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN).

If the amendment passed, Alexander argued that kids would be subject to frequently changing curricula regarding climate change depending on the president at the time. If the next president is a Republican, for example, he or she may choose to remove climate education entirely from federal education guidance. That would result in textbooks that are constantly changing, Alexander said — which is, ironically, bad for the environment.

“Just imagine what the curriculum on climate change would be if we shifted from President Obama to President Cruz and then back to President Sanders and then to President Trump,” he said. “There would be a lot of wasted paper, writing and rewriting textbooks.”

Markey’s amendment failed by a vote of 44-53. The vote fell mostly on party lines, but two Republicans — Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk — voted for it, and three Democrats — Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, and Jon Tester — voted against it.

Of course, the amendment’s failure does not mean schools are not allowed to teach the science of climate change — just that the federal government won’t provide incentives for schools that do. What public schools can and can’t teach is most often the decision of states, many of which have policies regarding climate education. So far, 13 states have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as guidance, and those standards recommend climate change education begin in middle school.

Other states have resisted efforts to include climate science in public school curricula. Last year, Wyomingrejected the NGSS after the state’s Board of Education chariman said he did not “accept, personally, that [climate change] is a fact.” That rejection was reversed earlier this year, and the state now is free to adopt those standards if it wants.

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/senate-rejects-effort-to-teach-kids-about-climate-change-in-schools/

==

==

6/15

...

current favorite in this category comes courtesy of one Scott Weber, a member of the Park County School District #6 Board of Trustees in Cody, Wyoming. Two weeks ago, when he and his fellow board members were supposed to be voting on whether to purchase new textbooks and reading materials for the district, Weber put a stop to the vote by taking a bold stand in defense of climate denial, political cronyism, and intellectual closed-mindedness.

Here’s what he said about one of the reading materials the board was considering for purchase, as reported by the Casper Star-Tribune:

As a board member, I will not authorize any of the $300,000 allocated for this purchase to include supplemental booklets about "global whining." … Our Wyoming schools are largely funded by coal, oil, natural gas, mining, ranching, etc. This junk science is against community and state standards.

This junk science is against community and state standards. Stop for a moment and give that sentence the attention it deserves. For thousands of years, going back to Aristotle, humanity’s greatest minds have sought to safeguard the precepts of the scientific method by keeping them away from the corrupting influence of political culture. Defending the integrity of science from powerful people is what got Galileo imprisoned. And yet, 400 years later, here we are: watching a public official tasked with guiding the educational trajectories of his community’s children rail against the accepted science on climate change — because its conclusions threaten to undermine the local political culture.

RELATED: Climate Denial Is Immoral, Says Head of U.S. Episcopal Church

What I find most remarkable about Weber’s statement, though, is its refreshing forthrightness. Note how he just comes right out and admits what everyone already suspects to be the case: that his slurring of climate science as “junk science” is rooted in nothing more scientific than his understanding of which side his bread — and Cody’s — is buttered on.

While oil and natural gas operations may have taken something of a downturn in the state over the last five years, Wyoming is still, incontestably, coal country. It’s by far the top coal-producing state in the United States, responsible for nearly 40 percent of our domestic yield. Wyoming, in fact, produces more coal than the next five coal-producing states combined.And according to a recent study published by the University of Wyoming’s Center for Energy Economics & Public Policy, coal-mining operations directly account for more than 11 percent of Wyoming’s gross state product and a nearly identical percentage of state revenues.

Weber may be channeling some of the nervous frustration that Wyoming is experiencing as a result of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be finalized this summer. The plan requires states to design individual programs to dramatically cut carbon pollution from their power plants. Wyoming will have to reduce its emissions from coal-based plants by nearly one-fifth. According to the authors of the University of Wyoming study, complying with these new regulations could end up slashing coal production in the state by one-third. This might then — gasp— force state officials to rethink their investments in renewable energy. Despite its sizeable potential for wind power production, Wyoming is one of only two states west of the Rockies to have no Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Interestingly, there’s another coal-dependent state that’s never gotten around to adopting an RPS where schoolchildren are also being used as pawns in the battle between science and the status quo. Last December members of the West Virginia Board of Education convened to vote on the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards. Among other things, the standards offer an accurate representation of the scientific consensus on the causes and effects of climate change. (No surprise there, given that the standards were drafted and vetted by science educators.) One board member, however, refused to accept the standards as written, citing his own personal belief that human influence on climate change was not “a foregone conclusion.” He persuaded his colleagues to subject the standards to a 30-day comment period, during which 7,000 people shared their opinions — 6,500 of them expressing a desire to keep the standards just as they were.

Despite this clear display of community support, when the Board of Education reconvened in April to vote once more on the science standards, the aggrieved board member was allowed to insert into them the kind of equivocating language that has become climate deniers’ preferred rhetorical weapon of late. Let that sink in: Over the objections of the science educators who drafted the standards and the overwhelming majority of public commenters, language specifically designed to sow doubt about the truth of global warming has been built into West Virginia’s state-approved science curriculum.

RELATED: Louisiana Teachers Are Literally Using the Bible as Science Textbooks in Public Schools

In Wyoming, where Scott Weber so passionately stood up for the antiscience cause recently, conservative lawmakers are pushing to revise the wording of that state’s Next Generation Science Standards along similarly specious lines. The standards are currently stuck in legislative limbo. There are similar battles being waged over climate education right now in Texas and Oklahoma. In those states the energy economies may be based on different hydrocarbons, but the political and cultural pressure to sustain the myth of sustainable fossil-fuel extraction is every bit as great.... alternet

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-deniers-are-deliberately-trying-misinform-children-about-climate-change

==

AlterNet [1] / By Zaid Jilani [2]

How the Koch Brothers Are Trying to Brainwash America's Kids

December 9, 2014  |

You've heard a lot about how the Koch brothers spend big in our elections. Indeed, in 2014, the network of Koch groups spent $100 million [3], making them the largest juggernaut of the election.

But in addition to direct spending to impact elections, the Kochs are waging an ideological war for the minds of Americans, hoping to convince them of the merits of far-right-wing ideology. In North Carolina, that war is now being waged for the youngest recruits: children.

Rewriting North Carolina's Curriculum, Koch-Style

The Kochs have come under intense scrutiny in recent years as their names have become synonymous with far-right, pro-corporate ideology. One way to get around this brand problem is to finance front groups that allow the Kochs to promote their worldview while the oil billionaires themselves remain in the background.

One prominent example is the Virginia-based Bill of Rights Institute, which the Kochs finance [4]. BRI promotes itself chiefly as a civic-minded organization offering basic education about America's founding principles; its mission statement [5] says it simply seeks to “educate young people about the words and ideas of America’s Founders, the liberties guaranteed in our Founding documents, and how our Founding principles continue to affect and shape a free society.”

Perhaps it was just such an innocuous introduction to the organization that convinced the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction to grant [4] BRI a $100,000 contract to help it develop a new civics curriculum for its students. Yet as Media Matters' Daniel Angster points out [6], there's a deeper right-wing scheme at work here. In 2011, the state's legislature passed the “Founding Principles Act,” which was a bill from the corporate front group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which also happens to be funded by the Kochs [7]. BRI's board of directors includes [6] a senior vice president at Koch Industries, Mark Humphrey. Also on the board are Ryan Stoweres, who works at the Charles G, Koch Charitable Foundation, Rob Testwuide of the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research, and Todd Zywicki of the Koch-backed Mercatus Center.

BRI is, as Angster notes, also financed by Art Pope, North Carolina's resident billionaire conservative. So why are the Kochs and other right-wing billionaires financing BRI? What does it have to offer?

Teaching Kids Civics Means Being Conservative

In 2013, IndyWeek's Billy Ball dug [8] into some of the educational materials promoted by BRI. What he found was that the organization was promoting a far-right agenda masked as nonpartisan civics education. One of its lesson plans encourages students to question whether the 2010 Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Another lesson plan took aim at gun control, reading, “Some regulations have been criticized as criminalizing the behavior of millions of law-abiding Americans because of the criminal acts of others. Should laws be based on harm/intended harm, or also on the potential to do harm?”

Online, the institute has published a series of YouTube videos explaining core American concepts.One of them [9], on representative government, sounds like a litany of conservative talking points. “Though many refer to the United States as a democracy, this is not accurate. The United States is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic,” it lectures. “A constitutional republic would be a republican bounded government, a limited government,” one of the featured academics then says.

In its online “Americapedia,” the institute labels [10] “industry” as a civic value, quoting James Madison that “private industry...is the basis of public happiness.” Under the section on paying taxes [11], Americapedia warns that the Founding Fathers believed “the power of taxation was prone to abuse,” in an entry replete with quotations about not taking too much from the citizenry.

Ignoring The Story

Media Matters' Angster cataloged this week [6] how most North Carolina newspapers have ignored the story of the BRI contract altogether. Only one of the four major newspapers in the state wrote an original report linking the Kochs to BRI and the civics education overhaul. "It’s not allowing teachers to be professionals. I would love to look at the lesson plans, but I would not want that to be dictated,” said Paige Meszaros, a Raleigh teacher, to the paper [12].

Perhaps that reaction is exactly what the Kochs fear happening. When a Denver-area school board earlier this year moved to install a right-wing history curriculum, students revolted [13], forcing them to abandon the plans. North Carolina has been the site of intense protests [14] led by the Moral Monday movement, which seeks to throw off the far-right's hold on the state. If news of the Koch takeover of civics education spreads, those protests could soon turn to the educational system.

See more stories tagged with:

education [16],

koch brothers [17],

funding [18],

schools [19]

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/education/how-koch-brothers-are-trying-brainwash-americas-kids

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/zaid-jilani-0

[3] http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-koch-network-spent-100-million-this-election-cycle-20141104

[4] http://www.wwaytv3.com/2014/12/04/nc-might-encourage-history-material-funded-koch-brothers

[5] http://billofrightsinstitute.org/about-us/

[6] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/08/north-carolina-newspapers-mostly-silent-as-alec/201793

[7] http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection

[8] http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/us-history-according-to-charles-koch-the-conservative-billionaire-could-be-teaching-your-kids/Content?oid=3344870

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVD0bZ5H4MY

[10] http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/civic-values/industry/

[11] http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/civic-values/paying-taxes/

[12] http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/12/03/4374397/state-education-department-used.html

[13] http://www.alternet.org/education/hundreds-high-schoolers-walk-out-protest-conservative-takeover-history-standards

[14] http://www.thenation.com/article/180491/how-moral-mondays-fusion-coalition-taking-north-carolina-back

[15] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on How the Koch Brothers Are Trying to Brainwash America's Kids

[16] http://www.alternet.org/tags/education-0

[17] http://www.alternet.org/tags/koch-brothers-0

[18] http://www.alternet.org/tags/funding

[19] http://www.alternet.org/tags/schools

[20] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

==

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/texas-textbooks-promote-climate-change-denial-downplay-segregation

textbooks 9/14:

Tuesday's hearing comes on the heels of several reports claiming the proposed social-science textbooks, which span grades K-12, are rife with bias and factual errors. One analysis commissioned by the Texas Freedom Network, a nonprofit watchdog that advocates church-state separation, found that some materials downplayed the hardships blacks faced under segregation and "gave nods to neo-Confederate arguments" that states' rights rather than slavery was the driving issue behind the Civil War. The group also maintains that some books take a tea party line on issues such as taxation. As an example, TFN cites a passage in the high school American government text submitted by Pearson, the world's largest textbook publisher:

In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. taxes are "what we pay for civilized society." Society does not appear to be much more civilized today than it was when Justice Holmes made that observation in 1927. However, "what we pay" has certainly gone up.

The book makes no mention of the potential benefits of taxation, including safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare, that have been adopted since 1927 and have slashed poverty, especially among the elderly. In another chapter, the Pearson text takes aim at affirmative action with a cartoon showing two aliens in a space ship landing on Earth. Pointing toward a man in a suit and tie, one of them exclaims: "This planet is great!—He says we qualify for affirmative action!" The only context is a caption asking readers to parse the cartoon's meaning.

Another report, released Monday by the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, which has previously clashed with the Board of Education over its dubious treatment of evolution, highlights a handful of "deeply concerning" passages in those social-science texts that deal with climate change. The report cites a passage in the teacher's edition of the sixth grade World Cultures & Geography text issued by McGraw-Hill, the nation's second largest textbook publisher:

Scientists agree that Earth's climate is changing. They do not agree on what is causing the change. Is it just another natural warming cycle like so many cycles that have occurred in the past? Scientists who support this position cite thousands of years' worth of natural climatic change as evidence. Or is climate change anthropogenic—caused by human activity? Scientists who support this position cite the warming effect of rapidly increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The book goes on to quote two reports on global warming. One is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global outfit comprised of climate scientists who have assembled a vast body of evidence that human beings are to blame; the other is from the Heartland Institute, a conservative think thank, which has a long history of shilling for dirty industries (including Big Oil) and has tried to undermine the science linking human activity to climate change. "Scientists who study the issue say it is impossible to tell if the recent small warming trend is  natural," reads the Heartland passage quoted in the book. "Thousands of peer-reviewed articles point to natural sources of climate variability that could explain some or even all of the warming in the second half of the twentieth century."

Pearson's fifth-grade social-studies book contains a similarly skewed description of climate change:

Burning oil to run cars also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some scientists believe that this carbon dioxide could lead to a slow heating of Earth's overall climate. This temperature change is known as global warming or climate change. Scientists disagree about what is causing climate change.

In reality, as NCSE points out, there's no indication that climate change is a passing phase, and 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human activity is the primary driver.

Besides distorting the underlying science, NCSE's programs and policy director Josh Rosenau says many of the 104 social-studies textbooks up from review give climate change short shrift. "In this day, social-studies education ought to include an in-depth discussion of climate change," he told Mother Jones. "There are serious policy implications. There are cultural, geographic, and economic consequences. But if you include the topic, it becomes a flash point with conservatives on the Board of Education."

The current crop of textbooks were written to comply with a set of standards that the Texas State Board of Education, then controlled by a group of ultra-conservatives, crafted in 2010 with input from a cadre of hand-picked "experts." Among them were conservative culture warriors such as David Barton, a self-styled historian with deep ties to the Republican Party who argues that the principle of church-state separation is a myth. As a result, the books are required to glorify free-market capitalism, promote America's Christian heritage, and pay tribute to conservative icons, such as Newt Gingrich and Phyllis Schlafly.

Comments from Tuesday's hearing will be forwarded to publishers, who are allowed to make changes but tend to be wary of doing anything that will put them at odds with the board. The final vote on which books to adopt will be held November. Under a new Texas law, board members can only vote to reject books that have blatant factual errors or fail to meet at least half of the state's requirements, meaning it may be too late to address some of the concerns raised by Texas citizens. As Republican board member Thomas Ratliff put it last week, "If there's a complaint about the standards, that ship has sailed."

Ratliff struck a more diplomatic note during Tuesday's meeting. "....

==

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/parents-blast-climate-denial-in-schools-you-have-to-teach-real-science/

==

wu teach clan: koch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/koch-brothers-education_n_5587577.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

...The official mission of Youth Entrepreneurs is to provide kids with "business and entrepreneurial education and experiences that help them prosper and become contributing members of society." The underlying goal of the program, however, is to impart Koch's radical free-market ideology to teenagers. In the last school year, the class reached more than 1,000 students across Kansas and Missouri.

Lesson plans and class materials obtained by The Huffington Post make the course's message clear: The minimum wage hurts workers and slows economic growth. Low taxes and less regulation allow people to prosper. Public assistance harms the poor. Government, in short, is the enemy of liberty.

Though YE has avoided the public spotlight, the current structure of the program began to take shape in November 2009, documents show, when a team of associates at the Charles G. Koch Foundation launched an important project with Charles Koch's blessing: They would design and test what they called "a high school free market and liberty-based course" with support from members of the Koch family's vast nonprofit and political network. A pilot version of the class would be offered the following spring to students at the Wichita Collegiate School, an elite private prep school in Kansas where Koch was a top donor.

First, the Koch team chose its mascot: a golden eagle holding a knife in its beak. They also assigned each other nicknames: Ol' Mucky Terrahawk, Mighty Killer, Big Gay Mule, Midnight Bandit and the Erratic Assassin. The group dubbed itself the "Wu-Teach Clan."

Over the next six months, members of the Wu-Teach Clan exchanged hundreds of emails with one another and with Koch lieutenants. Theyhashed out a strategy to infiltrate public schools after surveys showed that the wealthy prep school students largely failed to absorb their libertarian message. We know all this because the Wu-Teach Clan used a Google groupthat it had left open to the public.

The emails show that Charles Koch had a hands-on role in the design of the high school curriculum, directly reviewing the work of those responsible for setting up the course. The goal, the group said flatly, was to turn young people into "liberty-advancing agents" before they went to college, where they might learn "harmful" liberal ideas.

The Koch Foundation did not respond to requests for comment.

Charles Koch founded Youth Entrepreneurs in 1991 with his wife, Elizabeth Koch, who serves as chairman of the group's board. For much of the past two decades, YE offered little more than a pilot program teaching basic business skills -- and seemed an afterthought compared to the Kochs' massive investments in the political sphere. But the Kochs have renewed their focus on YE in recent years, pumping millions of dollars into it, expanding it considerably and molding it to project their worldview.

In 2007, YE reported assets of just over $450,000. In 2012, its assets topped$1.45 million. The lion's share of this growth was fueled by Koch family foundations.

During the 2012-2013 school year, YE's credit-bearing class reached more than 1,000 students in 29 schools in Kansas and Missouri, according to the group's annual report. Vernon Birmingham, YE's director of curriculum and teacher support, told HuffPost that the course will be in 42 schools in the coming school year. An offshoot in Atlanta, YE Georgia, reported being in 10 schools in the 2011-2012 school year. Since 2012, YE has also launched three major new initiatives: an online version of its course, an affiliate program to help rural schools access the class, and an after-school program, YE Academy, which served more than 500 students in its first year.

With spending on public education under heavy assault -- in large part by Koch-funded organizations and politicians they support -- the nation's poorest school districts are in desperate need of resources, making the free Koch curriculum an attractive alternative to nothing.....

---

Wyoming has become the first state to reject new national science education standards, a decision based in part on some Wyoming lawmakers’ concerns that the standards teach climate change as a scientifically-accepted phenomenon.

Wyoming’s rejection of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) came in the form of a footnote to the state’s budget, which stipulated that “neither the state board of education nor the department shall expend any amount appropriated under this section for any review or adoption of the next generation science standards.”

The footnote was co-authored by Wyoming Rep. Matt Teeters (R), who clarified that it was the standards’ inclusion of climate change in curriculums that worried him most.

“[The standards] handle global warming as settled science,” he told the Casper Star Tribune. “There’s all kind of social implications involved in that that I don’t think would be good for Wyoming.”

State Board of Education Chariman Ron Micheli agreed.

“I don’t accept, personally, that [climate change] is a fact,” Micheli said. “[The standards are] very prejudiced in my opinion against fossil-fuel development.”

The standards were developed by 26 states and multiple science and education organizations and provide guidelines for science education that include the teaching of climate science and evolution. These topics are sometimes only taught in specialized classes like Earth Science that aren’t required of all students — the NGSS recommends they beincorporated into general curricula, with climate change education starting in middle school. Proponents of the standards are pushing back against Wyoming’s budget footnote, which became law when Gov. Matt Mead — who has proudly referred to himself as a climate skeptic — signed the budget into law earlier this month. Climate Parents, a group that’s fought for the adoption of the standards in several states, is planning a campaign in Wyoming urging Gov. Mead to adopt science standards that are as thorough as the NGSS and that include climate change in the curriculum.

“Rep. Teeter is clearly willing to prevent Wyoming students from getting a 21st century science education because he’s concerned that kids learning climate science would be harmful to the fossil fuel industry,” Lisa Hoyos, director and co-founder of Climate Parents told ThinkProgress in an email. “It’s clear that his priorities are out of sync with ensuring kids get a strong foundation in science, including the climate science they’ll need to navigate their fut

ure.”

The standards, which represent the first major overhaul of science education in the U.S. in more than a decade, have been adopted in 10 states so far, as well as D.C. The standards ran into some opposition in Kentucky, where a review committee in September voted down the state’s plan to incorporate them into its curriculum. But Gov. Steve Beshear intervened, saying he would implement the standards, which were approved by the state last June, “under his own authority.” Texas has also voiced its disapproval of the standards — in 2012, Texas Board of Education Chair Barbara Cargill said there was a “zero percent chance” Texas would approve the guidelines.

Tags:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/17/3412131/wyoming-rejects-ngss/

---

===

gmo sewage sludge muppet: This video is being promoted on Twitter by CropLife International, a trade association containing all of the "Big 6" pesticide and GMO corporations -- Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, and Syngenta -- some of the biggest companies in the world. CropLife America is an activemember of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force.  http://www.prwatch.org/node/12426

===

AlterNet [1] / By Alex Kane [2]

Book Censorship on the Rise in American Schools

December 23, 2013 |

Censorship of books is increasing across the United States.  A new report by the Kids’ Right to Read Project (KRRP), an initiative of the National Coalition Against Censorship, shows that an increasing number of books dealing with race and sexuality or written by authors of color are being withdrawn from classrooms, The Guardian notes. [3]

In November, the project, which fights against such censorship, dealt with three times their normal caseload.  In 2013, the Kids’ Right to Read Project looked into 49 book bannings or removals from the classroom.  That was a 53 percent increase in bannings from last year.  Many of the challenges to books came from parents, though some also came from local government officials.

The banned books include classics like Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man; Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye; and Alice Walker’s The Color Purple.

“Whether or not patterns like this are the result of co-ordination between would-be censors across the country is impossible to say,” KRRP’s Acacia O'Connor told The Guardian.  “But there are moments, when a half-dozen or so challenges regarding race or LGBT content hit within a couple weeks, where you just have to ask 'what is going on out there?'"

On the other hand, KRRP can count some success stories.  For instance, this months,  Rudolfo Anaya's Bless Me, Ultima was unbanned from classrooms in Driggs, Idaho. Isabel Allende’s The House of the Spirits was also unbanned from schools in Boone, North Carolina.

See more stories tagged with:

books [4],

schools [5],

education [6]

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/book-censorship-rise-america

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/alex-kane

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/dec/23/book-bannings-rise-us-censorship

[4] http://www.alternet.org/tags/books-0

[5] http://www.alternet.org/tags/schools

[6] http://www.alternet.org/tags/education-0

[7] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

==

stssel:

Scared Green: How John Stossel, ABC, Rightwing Think Tanks and the Chemical Industry Are Colluding to Trash Environmental Education

INTRODUCTION

by Cheryl Seal

This Spring, Oregon environmental science teacher John F. Borowski found himself in the unexpected and unpleasant position of eyewitness to an unfolding episode of journalistic fraud and corporate collusion with the media. Not long ago, John bravely brought his story to Democrats.com. Why Democrats.com? Because his story is about the mainstream media, which publishes only those stories that pose the least potential harm to the interests of the corporations that own them. John is not only courageous, he is clever. Once he found himself a party to deception, he began to delve deeper and he kept copies of all correspondence documenting the story detailed below.

MARCH 27: John receives an action "alert" e-mail from James Allen, a member of a corporate front group called Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE). RISE, whose sole purpose for being is to protect and promote pesticide use, is funded by Monsanto and Dupont.This e-mail stated: "Mr. Sanera (referring to Michael Sanera) has been contacted by ABC News. A producer for John Stossel is working on a program on environmental education. He needs examples of kids who have been "scared green" by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism." Michael Sanera, who is the author of a book debunking environmental education, "Facts Not Fear," has a degree in political science and no science or education credentials. He works for the Claremont Institute,a rightwing political think tank that is pro-gun, pro-Bush, and anti-environmentalist. Cleverly, Borowski's wife posed as a "disgruntled parent" and sent back a note to Allen expressing interest.

APRIL 9: ABC News calls John Borowksi. In this conversation, Ted Balaker and Debbie Colloton tell him they read a piece he wrote in the "Forest Voice" on environmental education and that they are working on a piece on environmental issues. When asked, they deny being connected with a Mr. Sanera or with a RISE PR person.

APRIL 10: John calls Angela Bendorf Jamison of RISE. When he says he is a "disgruntled parent," Jamison directs him to Sanera, whom, she says, is working withStossel's producer, Ted Balaker.Jamison reassures John that Stossel treats industry right and does not side with environmental activists. Jamison follows up the conversation by sending John's wife an e-mail. This e-mail includes Sanera's phone number and a message to Sanera referring to Mrs. Borowski as a "frustrated mother" interested in "your 'Scared Green' inquiry for Stossel."

APRIL 12: John calls Balaker back and asks if he is working with Stossel. Balaker denies this, but hedges and says "I have worked with him on other issues, but not this one." Balaker claims his story will focus on tampering with nature and environmental problems. John calls Sanera the same day, pretending to be Mrs. Borowski's "disgruntled husband" whose kids have been "scared green" at school. Sanera is ecstatic and tells John he will have an ABC producer contact him. John asks politiely if he can have the producer's name. Sanera tell him "the person working on the piece is Ted Balaker, a producer for John Stossel and he will call."

It became very clear that Stossel, Balaker, RISE, and Sanera were all working together to create what would, to the public, appear to be a "Scared Green" expose but what would, in reality, be a contrived, blatantly pro-industry piece. This deceitful team wasn't creating a news story, it was creating a "staged play," complete with nationwide casting calls for "scared green" kids and their "disgruntled parents." They were willing to lie to John to entrap him and to cover up, through a network of deceptions, the connection between Stossel, ABC, rightwing groups, and corporate front outfits.

But this isn't the first time industry - or John Stossel - have lied to create a bogus "expose" focused on green issues. Stossel presented phoney "test results" to prove that organically grown produce was no better than that grown with pesticides. We're sure his friends at RISE, Monsanto and Dupont made sure he was well compensated for his efforts. even though he got caught lying that time. (For more on Stossel, see sidebar after the main article below)

John Borowski, though disgusted and dismayed by witnessing this arrogant deception, was not surprised by it. Like many environmental/science educators, he has for some time been under seige by the misinformation campaigns pushed at kids by corporate interests. Here is John's take on the growing threat posed to environmental education by corporations.

Scared Green! How John Stossel, ABC, Rightwing Think Tanks and the Chemical Industry are Colluding to Trash Environmental Education

by John F. Borowski

Who would have believed that Michael Sanera, avowed enemy of environmental education, would be given a forum for his snake oil diatribes by a company that bills itself as "friends of children"? Yes, the Wonderful World of Disney, power brokers for ABC News and their industry puppet, telejournalist John Stossel, have environmental education in their "cross-hairs."

An urgent e-mail from RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) beckons their members to support Mr. Stossel and Mr. Sanera's Jihad on eco-education. RISE, affiliated with the American Crop Protection Association, a trade group founded to defend "urban usage of pesticides," apparently believes that a frontal assault on environmental education could be beneficial. The last line of their alert is most revealing: "Let's try to help Mr. Stossel. He treats industry fairly in his programs." So, the search for disgruntled parents and their "scared green" children to parade in front of a camera is in full swing.

While in St. Louis at a National Science Teachers' Convention last week, I stumbled uponMichael Sanera, who was peddling a book entitled "Facts Not Fear." His booth, sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a rightwing think tank generously funded by the likes of Dow Chemical, General Motors, Texaco, and Philip Morris,was a strange sight. In the midst of all these science teachers, Mr. Sanera was akin to a carnival huckster, alerting the unsuspecting educators to the "evils" of environmental education. The main problem with his manifesto, "Facts not Fear," was that, on closer inspection, it proved to be light on scientific facts, while downplaying ozone loss and species extinction, and making misleading statements about forest issues. This transparent attack on ecological studies leaves little to the imagination. Yet, Mr. Sanera is apparently the "point person" and a favorite son of many think tanks troubled by the scientific enlightenment offered by environmental education.

Even more telling is that on the webpage for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there is a "Save John Stossel.org" section. Apparently, the folks at CEI were dismayed by the tongue-lashing Mr. Stossel took for stating that organic food is no safer than agricutural products sprayed with pesticides. As it turns out, the tests that Stossel reported supposedly proving his thesis were - strangely -never done. CEI states in their webpage that Stossel should not be open to criticism because he has the "right to free speech." They warn their supporters that "politically correct causes and special interests" are prepared to place that freedom in "jeopardy." But aren't investigative reports supposed to be held to the same standards of accountability as scientific research?

With the current occupant of the White House downplaying everything from global warming to the dangers of arsenic in water, the timing of this environmental witchhunt could be invaluable to him in debunking environmental education programs in schools nationwide. The flood of corporate-generated "environmental education materials" pouring into schools is reaching a fever pitch:forest lessons from Weyerhauser, coloring books from the coal industry, and teacher less manuals from the biotech folks. Carefully coordinated with a well-financed attack on environmental education, the swamp of misinformation being created could numb our youngest citizens to the environmental challenges that will face them in the future.

So, here they are - environmental education and corporations - strange bedfellows, indeed - , but a coalition that possesses the weapons the arsenal it needs for a winning campaign: access to the media, a large cash flow from a consortium of powerful corporations and a "Madison Avenue" public relations plan "word-smithed" by topnotch professionals.

If Stossel's "Scared Green" spot succeeds in being aired (and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't), will there be equal time for the defenders of environmental education? Will educators such as myself, who have seen the power and enlightment of environmental science classes have the time, access, and money to combat this onslaught of formidable critics? The apparent Sanera, Stossel, and RISE connection only seems to reinforce that money and power guarantee access to a large public audience. And maybe even more apparent, are the nails that are sealing the coffin of the "liberal media," thereby further tilting the power of the media to the few and mighty. And in the end, somewhere between the commercials and the spin, the truth will shrink to an all-time low at the height of the age of information. But alas, I don't lose hope, because in classrooms around the country, some dedicated teacher will enlighten their charges with credible and sound data, providing the skills to make rational and sound decisions on ecological issues. And maybe that is what the foes of environnmental education fear the most.

Disturbing Revelations about JOHN STOSSEL

an afterthought by Cheryl Seal

America sees him on 20/20 nearly every week. He has won 19 Emmy awards. He's perceived as a top-notch journalist. But, is John Stossel really a top-notch journalist, or is he just a top-notch corporate propagandist using his public forum to push the corporate (and thus rightwing) agenda? In just a short Internet search on Stossel, the following came to light: Stossel is connected to various rightwing outfits, including theCato Institute, a propaganda organ funded heavily by corporate interests, which include the tobacco industry.

He is also in a strange collaboration with the obscure Palmer R. Chitester Fund, whose sole purpose for being appears to be pushing Stossel "educational materials" in classrooms. The shows that are available for teachers to push off on kids (for $40 a piece) are interesting, indeed. Out of all of Stossel's 20/20 segments, the Fund has chosen: "Greed," in which Stossel shows how self-interest and materialism are good (he reiterates the same concept in an interview in the "International Objectivist," a conservative, atheistic outfit that worships Ayn Rand, whose big thrust was that selfishness equals power); "Is America Number One?", in which he "proves" how superior America is to the rest of the world (the same type of arrogance that just got us kicked out of the UN Human Rights Commission), "Freeloaders," in which he proves how everyone wants to get something for nothing - even himself (perhaps a feeble effort at rationalizing his self-aggrandizement at the expense of honest journalism), and "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" in which he "proves" that we have no reason to fear the growing presence of pollutants in our environments - in fact, the array of toxics that surround us are good for us! The site asks teachers to let them know how they are "promoting John Stossel in the classroom." Our question would be more to the point - how is John Stossel promoting John Stossel in the classroom - and why?

It is obvious that Stossel is collecting industry friends quickly. In his feature that "proved" organic food was no better for consumers than pesticide-sprayed crops, he referred to phoney tests that had never been performed. Later he was forced to apologize for this fraud. But not to worry, Stossel! Your industry friends are rallying round. There are now industry-related websites dedicated to protecting your dubious honor.

In summary, if this glaring iceberg tip were not enough to set buzzers and bells vibrating when the name Stossel is mentioned, consider the following: In the article in "The International Objectivist," Stossel actually praises Rush Limbaugh as "witty and wise!" 'Nuff said!

==

In a race to the bottom, the Kansas House Education Committee has joined Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Oklahoma by introducing a bill mandating teachers to question the science on climate change. The bill is based on the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEX) “model bill”, the purpose of which is to call into question the scientific evidence that climate change is here and it is real

 ===

YES! Magazine [1] / By Jeff Biggers [2]

Pro-Coal Kids' Pages Pulled from Government Site as Public Pressure Increases

October 18, 2013 |

The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity has removed coal-related educational sections from its website, less than two weeks after the launch of a grassroots campaign demanding that the pages be taken down.

The website sections were supposed to educate children about energy, but had been widely denounced [3] because they focused on misleading pro-coal messages.

It wasn't just environmentalists who objected to the way Illinois was talking about coal to kids. Last month, a state-commissioned evaluation of the Illinois coal education program determined [4] that the curriculum, including the website, was "biased towards a positive image of coal."

As pressure increased on the department to take action, staff members initially claimed that they were too broke to fix the problem [5]. Then the pages disappeared from the site on Monday. Earlier screen shots show sections called "Education" and "Kid's Site," neither of which was visible when YES! checked the DCEO site [this week].

"This is a victory for our children and schools," said Sam Stearns, a former coal miner who helped to organize for the site to be changed, "and a first step toward refashioning an energy education program that tells the truth about the health and environmental impacts of coal mining and burning."

In the CREDO petition [6] Stearns launched, along with former country music singer and environmentalist Mark Donham, the two criticized the website's downplay of environmental impacts and safety issues among miners, especially black lung disease.

They also singled out the use of a cartoon figure that told children that land reclamation efforts after strip-mining return the land "the way it was or better than before mining."

Along with CREDO, Stearns was joined by national children's groups such as Rethinking Schools, the Zinn Education Project, and the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which led a successful campaign two years ago to expose the "United States of Energy [7]," a curriculum published by Scholastic but bankrolled by the American Coal Foundation.

"It's not surprising that a desperate industry would try and win children's hearts and minds," said Josh Golin, the campaign's associate director. "But it's beyond disappointing that state education officials would help dirty coal with this dirty mission."

Bill Bigelow, curriculum editor at Rethinking Schools magazine and co-director of the Zinn Education Project, found the outcome encouraging.

"They can only get away with this because people haven't demanded that it stop," he said. "Now, they have."

See more stories tagged with:

education [8],

environment [9],

coal [10],

rethinking schools [11],

illinois [12],

Amrican Coal Foundation [13]

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/education/pro-coal-kids-pages-pulled-government-site-public-pressure-increases

Links:

[1] http://www.yesmagazine.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/jeff-biggers

[3] http://www.salon.com/2013/09/28/time_to_come_clean_about_coal_quinn_partner/

[4] http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/09/04/pro-coal-school-curriculum-on-the-rocks-in-illinois/

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/when-will-illinois-stop-p_b_3833998.html

[6] http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/gov-quinn-stop-lying-to-kids-about-coal

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/education/12coal.html

[8] http://www.alternet.org/tags/education-0

[9] http://www.alternet.org/tags/environment-0

[10] http://www.alternet.org/tags/coal

[11] http://www.alternet.org/tags/rethinking-schools

[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/illinois-0

[13] http://www.alternet.org/tags/amrican-coal-foundation

[14] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

==

alec: cmd

Section 1. {Title}:

This act shall be known as the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act

Section 2. {Purpose}:

The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring

that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall:

A. be specifically designed to enhance acquisition of knowledge.

B. be based on current scientific and economic principles, concepts, and facts.

C. provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner.

D. provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific and economic

controversies.

E. be presented in language appropriate for education rather than for propagandizing.

F. provide clear references and citations to all sources of factual information.

G. encourage students to explore different perspectives and form their own opinions.

H. encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas.

I. not be designed to change student behavior, attitudes or values.

J. not include instruction in political action skills nor encourage political action activities.

Section 3. {Environmental Education Council Duties and Powers}:

A. The Council is established to facilitate the planning, coordination, and implementation of the purpose of this act.

B. The Council shall advise the schools, universities, and agencies who are conducting environmental education programs and

activities.

C. The Council shall establish a resource center that lists only those environmental education materials (textbooks, curricula,

:{state programs, and activities) that conform to the purpose of this act.:{ The Council will actively seek countervailing scientific}:

and economic views on environmental issues and make materials that contain these views available to schools, universities,}:

and agencies, which are conducting environmental education programs and activities.

D. The Council is authorized to issue reports of the findings of its work to the general public.

=== 

An amendment to prohibit funding the "Yucca Mountain Youth Zone" website. Voting YES indicates opposition to using Yucca Mountain as the national nuclear waste repository. The amendment's sponsor says:

Reference: Energy and water development appropriations bill; Bill HR 5427 Amendment 919 ; vote number 2006-200 on May 24, 2006

---

[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/coal-marketing_b_882383.html

Heartland Coal Crisis: Illinois Bankrolls Big Coal School Program? Interview With Eco-Justice Leader Lan Richart

Posted: 06/22/11 05:42 PM ET

==

AlterNet [1] / By Rob Boston [2]

5 Sneaky Ways Fundamentalists Are Trying To Slip Christian Creationism Into America’s Public Schools

July 3, 2013 |

Evolution is the linchpin of modern biology. Young people who don’t understand it are missing out on an entire range of educational and career opportunities. Certain professional fields can be closed off to them.

Despite this, some public schools in America do all they can to avoid teaching evolution. Thanks to constant pressure from the Religious Right, many public schools are battlegrounds in a culture war that does great damage to our nation’s scientific credibility as creationists work overtime to slip their ideas into the curriculum.

Federal courts have been clear: Creationism is theology grounded in a literal reading of the Bible, not science. It has no place in public school science classes, and inserting it into the schools is unconstitutional.

But despite a string of courtroom defeats, the creationists will not be stopped. They keep repackaging their ideas and trying again. Ironically, their strategies seem to evolve.

Here is a roundup of the latest ploys creationists are using to replace sound science with biblical fundamentalism.

1. Pretending to teach kids “critical thinking” skills: A spate of bills appeared in states this year that purported to help guide public school teachers in helping students apply “critical thinking” to select “controversies.” Not surprisingly, the controversies singled out always included evolution.

Legislation in Colorado would have directed teachers to “create an environment that encourages students to intelligently and respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning.”

An Indiana bill would have compelled teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.”

In Montana, a bill mandated that schools to encourage “critical thinking regarding controversial scientific theories” such as “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, random mutation, natural selection, DNA, and fossil discoveries.”

Oklahoma legislation would have required Sooner State teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.” Covered topics included “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

The similar language of these bills (which all failed, thankfully) is strong evidence that they come from a central source. The National Center for Science Education, a California-based group that supports good science instruction in public schools, has traced them to the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that promotes “intelligent design.”

Critical thinking is great. We’re all for it. But that’s not what these bills are about. They are about warping the concept of critical thinking and using it as vehicle to introduce religious concepts into the classroom.

2. Lumping it in with other controversies: Arizona lawmakers this year deliberated a bill that identified a series of “controversial” subjects and signaled them out for special classroom treatment. These included “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

Louisiana already has a law on the books permitting public school teachers to use “supplemental” material when discussing certain controversial issues, evolution among them. No one knows for sure what these supplemental materials are, but given that state’s constant efforts to undermine evolution, it’s safe bet On the Origin of Species is not on the list.

A school board in Springboro, Ohio, is considering a similar ruse, only its list is even longer. Once again, the idea here is to attempt to seize some type of moral high ground as proponents claim they are only trying to teach “both sides.”

Unfortunately for the board, that only works when there are two sides of equal validity.

The “teach the controversy” movement gives the far right an additional bonus: They can use it as a vehicle to undermine climate change, which they also reject.

3. Calling it academic freedom:Academic freedom is an important concept at colleges and universities. It has not been extended to public secondary schools because those institutions teach impressionable youngsters. Thus, school officials and democratically elected boards have the power to rein in teachers who start acting like preachers or who stray too far from the accepted curriculum.

A common creationist ruse is to assert that teachers have the right, under academic freedom, to introduce material that undercuts evolution. They do not. Over the years, several public school teachers have made this argument in court. All have failed.

Imagine if this argument were taken to its logical extent. What’s to stop a teacher from espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, claims that we never landed on the moon, etc.?

4. Urging teachers to “go rogue”: Even though there is no academic freedom right to teach creationism, some public school teachers behave as if there is. They simply don’t teach evolution or teach it in such a way as to instill doubts in students’ minds.

A recent survey of public school high school science teachers in Pennsylvania found 19 percent backing some variant of creationism. One biology teacher in Altoona said he believes Earth is 10,000 years old and that the methods used to date it at 5 billion years are faulty.

“Sometimes students honestly look me in the eye and ask what do I think?” wrote this teacher in response to a newspaper survey. “I tell them that I personally hold the Bible as the source of truth. I tell them that I don’t think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method. Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that’s one I don't shy away from. It doesn’t in any way disrupt the educational process. I’m entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is.”

An anonymous teacher in Indiana County, Pa., reported, “Most parents and officials do not want evolution ‘crammed’ into their children. They have serious philosophical/religious issues with public schools dictating to their students how to interpret the origin of life.”

Courts can strike down creationism repeatedly. That won’t matter if teachers refuse to offer proper instruction about evolution or are afraid to do so due to pressure from their superiors or the community.

5. Calling creationism something else. Back in the 1980s, “creation science” was all the rage among fundamentalists. They seemed to believe that all you had to do was tack the word “science” onto something and presto, it was science. (“Flat Earth Science,” anyone?)

That stunt failed when the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law mandating “balanced treatment” between evolution and creation science in 1987. The term “creationism” became more popular, even though it was the same old thing. When courts failed to fall for it, some advocates began using the term “the theory of abrupt appearance.”

Still others glommed on to “evidence against evolution.” Again, these name changes failed to fool anyone. It was the same old creationism in a new dress.

Most recently, “intelligent design” has become all the rage. Sometimes known by the acronym ID, intelligent design tries to cover up some of the more outlandish claims of standard creationism (6,000-year-old Earth, dinosaurs and humans living at the same time, Noah’s Ark was real, etc.) and instead posits that humans and other life forms are so complex that they must have been designed by some intelligent force. If this force just happens to be the Christian god, then so be it.

But at the end of the day, ID proponents are left to fall back on religious explanations. Just exactly who is this designer? Other than space aliens – and they aren’t really serious about that – ID backers have no candidates other than the god of their choice.

***

Evolution is no longer considered controversial by the scientific community. To biologists, it is as well established as the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease. When Religious Right activists succeed in removing it from the classroom or watering down the instruction to the point of uselessness, they don’t just violate the separation of church and state, they undermine our nation’s leadership in science.

See more stories tagged with:

christian [3],

fundamentalist [4]

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/belief/public-schools

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/rob-boston

[3] http://www.alternet.org/tags/christian-0

[4] http://www.alternet.org/tags/fundamentalist-0

[5] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

---

ALEC and Heartland: Classroom Climate Denial Peddlers

PolluterWatch: Greenpeace Investigates Heartland Institute Leaked Documents -- click to see investigation and ongoing updates.

UPDATE: After dropping support for ALEC, Pepsi distances itself from the Heartland Institute’s climate denial.

Perhaps the most outrageous revelation of "Denialgate," the leak of internal Heartland Institute budget and fundraising documents detailing their 2012 work plan to obstruct global warming policy, is a project to develop school curricula to teach K-12 students that there is doubt over the causes and implications of global warming.

:{:{}:

What hasn't been reported is the complementary role of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has peddled laws written by corporate lobbyists through state legislatures that make it easy for its dirty energy members, such as Exxon, Koch Industries and Peabody coal, to influence how climate science is presented to students. The so-called "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act," which has been introduced in seven states and became law in at least three, would establish a state-level council to oversee all scientific material presented to students, allowing companies to smother classroom science with K street politics. This council would notably exclude anyone with environmental science credentials, instead composing itself in the following proportions:}:

Environmental science experts excluded from Council (p. 1)

The exclusion of experts in "environmental science" is an indicator that ALEC wants the members of this council to appear to have more relevant expertise than they actually do.

Basically, it ensures that climatology will be underrepresented. Note that environmental science is interdisciplinary, open to a variety of natural science expertise in order to study complex natural systems that cannot be confined to a single topic of study. See our annotated version of the ALEC bill showing how ALEC's language can be used to peddle global warming denial in schools.

So where did this bill come from? We know that ALEC members include not only the Heartland Institute, but a who's who of dirty energy interests that stand to make money by denying climate change. More specifically, there appears to be a key industry operative who oversaw development of the ALEC bill. Her name is Sandy Liddy Bourne, the daughter of convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy.

Alexandra "Sandy" Liddy Bourne runs an oil industry front group called the American Energy Freedom Center with former ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol. Bourne is a longtime affiliate of both the Heartland Institute and ALEC, currently formerly a Heartland senior fellow for environmental issues and formerly Heartland's vice president for policy and strategy.  Prior to joining the Heartland Institute, Sandy Liddy Bourne was ALEC's Director of the Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Task Force for the from 1999-2004, before being promoted to Director of Legislation and Policy, where she oversaw all of ALEC's task forces and helped boost state enactment of ALEC's corporate bills from 11 percent to 20 percent. In Bourne's time directing ALEC's environmental task force, the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act" was created and approved by ALEC's board in June, 2000.

While this ALEC bill was finalized, ALEC's Private Enterprise board chairman was Mike Morgan of Koch Industries. The Heartland Institute still promotes ALEC's "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act" on its website to this day.

Confused? Check out all the key players in this interactive ExxonSecrets map!

Heartland Payments to Federal Employee for Unscientific Climate Lesson Plan

The Heartland Institute repeatedly has shown it doesn't hold the scientific method in particularly high regard, even if their climate denial conferences are run under the banner "Restoring the Scientific Method." According to its 2012 fundraising document, Heartland is paying a US Department of Energy (DOE) official named David Wojick $5,000 a pop for modules teaching high school students that "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy."

It's not. Regardless of whether David Wojick simply denies this reality or if he drank the Koch Industries Kool Aid, his climate credibility is zero.

The National Academy of Sciences found that 97% of actual climate researchers understand that global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, most K-12 students don't read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I certainly didn't--I relied upon my teachers to teach science with unbiased integrity.

Craig Idso ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council benefits CO2 annual meeting New Orleans

Wojick has expertise not in climate science, but the philosophy of science. He has done contract work for the coal industry through the "Greening Earth Society," a fairy tale organization established to promote the absurd idea that more CO2 in our atmosphere, such as from burning coal and other fossil fuels, is unconditionally good for our planet. This fallacy is promoted by other notable non-experts, such as oil billionaire David Koch and junk scientist Craig Idso, who produced propaganda films for the Greening Earth Society (a coal industry front group). Idso presented "The Many Atmospheric Benefits of CO2" to ALEC's Energy and Environment task force at their August, 2011 meeting in New Orleans, where he told ALEC insiders that we “should let CO2 rise unrestricted, without government intervention” since “CO2 is definitely not a pollutant.”

The coal industry clearly wishes this were true, Mr. Idso.

In addition to accepting fossil fuel propaganda money alongside Mr. Wojick at the Greening Earth Society, Craig Idso also consults for the Heartland Institute. Idso's $140,000 contract with Heartland this year is to coordinate the anti-scientific "Climate Change Reconsidered" reports, an admittedly "political" project that includes contracts to two federal workers and multiple university faculty members. These payments US Interior Department (DOI) contractor Indur Goklany, who is under investigation by the Interior Department's Inspector General's office at the request of US Representative Raul Grijalva of New Mexico.

While the Heartland Institute is doing its best to make this unraveling scandal disappear, mainly by vilifying scientist Peter Gleick for embarrassing the Institute, Greenpeace is pushing for more. We continue to seek answers from federal bodies and universities whose employees are taking money from the Heartland Institute to attack science and disrupt the democratic process on behalf of tobacco companies, industrial giants and billionaire ideologues like the Koch brothers. Visit PolluterWatch for ongoing results of Greenpeace's investigation of the Heartland Institute leaked documents.

Key References:

    Steve Horn, "ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools," DeSmogBlog, Jan. 26, 2012.

    Brad Johnson, "INTERNAL DOCUMENTS: The Secret, Corporate-Funded Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change Is A Hoax" ThinkProgress Green, Feb. 14, 2012.

    Brad Plumer, "Will your kids be taught that climate change is a hoax?" Washington Post Wonkblog, Feb. 23, 2012.

    Katherine Bagley, "Science Educators Troubled by Heartland's Climate Curriculum and Author's Credentials," InsideClimate News, Mar. 15, 2012.

    Evan Lehmann, "Heartland Institute is looking at 'every place' in grades K-12 for climate debate," ClimateWire, E&E Publishing, Mar. 15, 2012.

---

ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools

cgibson | 26 January 2012 | 11:20 AM

ALEC Exposed website

Written by Steve Horn, crossposted from DeSmogBlog.

On January 16, the Los Angeles Times revealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came.

The L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee explained,

    "Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom."

What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all eminated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

ALEC Exposed: No, Not Alec Baldwin*

In summer 2011, "ALEC Exposed," a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)**, taught those alarmed about the power that corporations wield in the American political sphere an important lesson: when bills with a similar DNA pop up in various statehouses nationwide, it's no coincidence.

Explaining the nature and origins of the project, CMD wrote, "[CMD] unveiled a trove of over 800 'model' bills and resolutions secretly voted on by corporations and politicians through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These bills reveal the corporate collaboration reshaping our democracy, state by state."

CMD continued, "Before our publication of this trove of bills, it has been difficult to trace the numerous controversial and extreme provisions popping up in legislatures across the country directly to ALEC and its corporate underwriters."

CMD explained that ALEC conducts its operations in the most shadowy of manners (emphases mine):

    "Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve 'model' bills…Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills."

So, what is the name of the "model bill" this time around?

The Trojan Horse: The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act"

The Trojan Horse in this case is an Orwellian titled model bill, the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act."[PDF]

The bill was adopted by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, today known as the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, at ALEC's Spring Task Force Summit on May 5, 2000 — it was then approved by the full ALEC Board of Directors in June of 2000.

The bill's opening clause reads [PDF], "The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall…"

Among other things, the bill stipulates that schools, universities and agencies should,

    "Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

    "Provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific and economic controversies."

    "Be presented in language appropriate for education rather than for propagandizing."

    "Encourage students to explore different perspectives and form their own opinions."

    "Encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."

    "Not be designed to change student behavior, attitudes or values."

    "Not include instruction in political action skills nor encourage political action activities."

How does this language compare with legislation passed or proposed in various states? A review is in order.

ALEC Bills: From Model to Reality

The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act," or at minimum, the crucial language found within it, has been proposed in seven states, and passed in three states, Louisiana in 2008, Texas in 2009 and South Dakota in 2010.

Louisiana

In 2008, the Louisiana state legislature introduced and eventually passed S.B. 733, the Louisiana Science and Education Act. The bill was originally sponsored by four members of the Senate, three of whom are current dues paying members of ALEC: Sen. Ben Wayne Nevers, Sr. (D-12); Sen. Neil Riser (R-32); and Sen. Francis Thompson (D-34).

The three ALEC members received a total of $9,514 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles in campaign money combined, and the four of them together received $13,814 in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' FollowTheMoney.org.

ALEC Model vs. S.B. 733

The Louisiana bill calls for, "an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including…global warming…" The bill also calls for "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC bill which say that teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will…be used."

South Dakota

In 2010, the South Dakota Legislative Assembly passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009, a non-binding resolution introduced by 33 members of the House of Representatives and 6 members of the Senate, 39 in total, and 12 of whom are current members of ALEC. The bill calls for "balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota."

The 12 members of ALEC who sponsored HCR 1009 received $1,900 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

The bill mirrors the provision of the ALEC bill that call for the providing of "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

Kentucky

In 2010, the Kentucky state legislature proposed H.B. 397, the Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act, a bill that eventually failed to pass.

The bill was co-sponsored by two members of the Kentucky House of Representatives who were not members of ALEC, but one of whom, Tim Moore (R-26), took $3,000 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

ALEC Model vs. HB 397

Two key provisions of the H.B. 397 "encourage local district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories" and "allow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including…global warming…"

This bill mirrors major provisions of the ALEC model bill that say teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will…be used."

New Mexico

In 2011, ALEC member, Rep. Thomas A. Anderson, introduced H.B. 302. In the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, he raised $2,650, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' campaign finance database.

ALEC Model vs. H.B. 302

H.B. 302 says that schools shall "not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic." One "controversial scientific topic" listed is the "causes of climate change."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC model bill which call for teaching "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner," teaching "different perspectives" to allow for students to "form their own opinions," and creating an "atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."

Tennessee

Tennessee's House bill, H.B. 368, essentially a replica of the ALEC model bill, overwhelmly passed the House in April 2011, but its Senate-version cousin, S.B. 893, failed to pass. As the Los Angeles Times article makes clear, efforts to push the bill through are far from over.

Key clauses of that bill read,

    "[T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

    "[P]ublic elementary and secondary schools…[should]…respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."

These excerpts match, almost to a "T," bullet points one, three and four of the ALEC model bill. 

Nine of the 24 co-sponsors of the H.B. 368 are ALEC members, according to CMD's ALEC Members database.

In addition, these nine ALEC member co-sponsors received $8,695 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry combined in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, according to FollowTheMoney.org. The other 15 sponsors of the bill, while not members of ALEC, received $10,400 in their campaign cofffers in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined.

S.B. 893, on the other hand, was sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson (R-11), a recipient of $1,800 in oil and gas industry money in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined.

Translation: between the 25 of them, on top of a model bill handed to them by corporate oil and gas industry lobbyists, they were also furnished with $20,895 in campaign cash by these industries with the expectation to do their legislative bidding.

Oklahoma

Titled, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,” H.B. 1551 is also essentially a copycat of Tennessee's version of the ALEC model bill — it failed to pass. A Senate version of that bill, S.B. 320, was also proposed in 2009, but failed to pass through committee.

Key clauses of that bill read (emphases mine),

    "[T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught."

    "[N]o student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories."

Notice how the first bullet is exactly the same in both the Tennessee and Oklahoma bills — also notice how similar bullet number two is in both language and substance in both states' bills.

Rep. Sally Kern (R-84), sponsor of H.B. 1551, is a member of ALEC, according to CMD. She received $12,335 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, in total, according to FollowTheMoney.org. Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-34), sponsor of S.B. 320, while not a member of ALEC, received $22,967 from the oil and gas industry while running and losing for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

On the whole, sponsors and co-sponsors from the six states in which the ALEC bill was proposed were recipients of $44,409 in campaign money from the oil and gas industry, a miniscule down payment for some of the most lucrative corporations known in the history of mankind.

Texas

Texas, in this case, is a bit of a wild card. Rather than a bill proposed by a state legislature, in 2009, the Texas School Board passed an amendent calling for the "balanced" teaching of climate change, meaning both science and "skepticism."

The Austin Statesman explained,

    "The State Board of Education…adopted standards on the teaching of global warming that appear to both question its existence and prod students to explore its implications.

    Standards are used to guide textbook makers and teachers.

    Language…instructed students to 'analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming,'"…

This provision mirrors and is likely inspired by the ALEC model bill provision on global warming, which suggested science teachers should "Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

A Bill In the Corporate Polluter's Interest

The money paper trail for this ALEC model bill runs deep, to put it bluntly.

When the ALEC model bill was adopted in 2000 by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, the head of that committee was Sandy Liddy Bourne, who after that stint, became Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC. She is now with the Heartland Institute as vice-president for policy strategy. In Sandy Liddy Bourne's bio on the Heartland website, she boasts that "Under her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11 percent."

SourceWatch states that Liddy Bourne "…is the daughter of former Nixon aide and convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy, who spent more than 52 months in prison for his part in the Watergate burglary…[and her] speech at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was titled, 'The Kyoto Legacy; The Progeny of a Carbon Cartel in the States."

The Heartland Institute was formerly heavily funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, just like ALEC was at the time that Liddy Bourne's committee devised the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act." These two corporations are infamous for their funding of climate change "skeptic" think tanks and front groups. 

Today, the corporate polluter members of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force include representatives from American Electric Power, the Fraser Institute, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Heartland Institute, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, to name several.

Getting Them While They're Young: A Cynical Maneuver

In the United States, the politics of big-money backed disinformation campaigns have trumped climate science, and serves as the raison d'être for DeSmogBlog. Polluters with a financial interest in continuing to conduct business without any accountability for their global warming pollution have purposely sowed the seeds of confusion on an issue seen as completely uncontroversial among scientists.

Maneuvering to dupe schoolchildren is about as cynical as it gets. Neuroscience explains that young brains are like sponges, ready to soak in knowledge (and disinformation, for that matter), and thus, youth are an ideal target for the "merchants of doubt."

The corporations behind the writing and dissemination of this ALEC model bill, who are among the largest polluters in the world, would benefit handsomly from a legislative mandate to sow the seeds of confusion on climate science among schoolchildren.

Alas, at the very least, the identity of the Trojan Horse has been revealed: it's name is ALEC.

*Sorry Alec Baldwin, this isn't about you, please resume your Words With Friends. This ALEC is far more scandalous.

**Full Disclosure: At the time of the ALEC Exposed project's public release in mid-2011, Steve Horn was an employee of Center for Media and Democracy.

---

can't find recent 4/13 story on how energy key to annual event (in Utah?)

It is time for the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators(AIPN) annual Student Writing Competition and Student Scholarship Program.

The prize for the winners of the AIPN Student Writing Competition includes registration, travel and accommodations for the AIPN International Conference, which will be held this year at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel, Banff, Alberta, Canada, on September 13-16, 2011.

For the AIPN Scholarship Program, AIPN will be underwriting eight scholarships in the amount of US $5,000 each, which will be awarded to up to eight students for the academic semester beginning in Fall 2011. Applicants must apply by June 1, 2011. The scholarships will be disbursed over the Fall Semester 2011 and Spring semester 2012 ($2,500 each semester). The funds will be paid directly to the recipient’s college or university to offset tuition. Previous AIPN Scholarship winners are not eligible to participate.

These are just two examples of the AIPN’s efforts to encouage student interest in the international energy industry. Students can join the AIPN for only $25 per year. The on-line application for membership in the AIPN can be found at https://www.aipn.org/StudentMembershipInfo.aspx.

---

Let’s keep to the most critical immediate problem that civilization faces: environmental catastrophe. Policies and public attitudes diverge sharply, as is often the case under RECD. The nature of the gap is examined in several articles in the current issue of Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Researcher Kelly Sims Gallagher finds that “One hundred and nine countries have enacted some form of policy regarding renewable power, and 118 countries have set targets for renewable energy. In contrast, the United States has not adopted any consistent and stable set of policies at the national level to foster the use of renewable energy.”

It is not public opinion that drives American policy off the international spectrum. Quite the opposite. Opinion is much closer to the global norm than the U.S. government’s policies reflect, and much more supportive of actions needed to confront the likely environmental disaster predicted by an overwhelming scientific consensus – and one that’s not too far off; affecting the lives of our grandchildren, very likely.

As Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis report in Daedalus: “Huge majorities have favored steps by the federal government to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated when utilities produce electricity. In 2006, 86 percent of respondents favored requiring utilities, or encouraging them with tax breaks, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Also in that year, 87 percent favored tax breaks for utilities that produce more electricity from water, wind or sunlight  [ These majorities were maintained between 2006 and 2010 and shrank somewhat after that.

The fact that the public is influenced by science is deeply troubling to those who dominate the economy and state policy.

One current illustration of their concern is the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” proposed to state legislatures by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded lobby that designs legislation to serve the needs of the corporate sector and extreme wealth.

The ALEC Act mandates “balanced teaching” of climate science in K-12 classrooms. “Balanced teaching” is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to “balance” mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the “balanced teaching” advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states.

Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking – a fine idea, no doubt, but it’s easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits.

Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change.

===

Need That ‘A’ Grade? Try Denying Climate And Evolution

It’s happening in Oklahoma – again.

A bill that would prevent teachers from marking down students who turn in papers that dispute ideas like climate change and evolution was approved by the Oklahoma Common Education committeeon Tuesday by a 9-8 vote.

HB1674 states that students in science classes would be able to make totally unscientific and unfounded faith-based claims, and not be penalized for it. This is a horrible travesty of education, one that I’m sure most teachers would protest vigorously.

From Mother Jones:

Gus Blackwell, the Republican state representative who introduced the bill, insists that his legislation has nothing to do with religion; it simply encourages scientific exploration. “I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks,” says Blackwell, who previously spent 20 years working for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. “A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”

Really? So I can declare that God created the world around six thousand years ago, even though my textbook says something quite different, and get an ‘A’ in science class? Whatever happened to the inquiry method, in which students are required to develop a solid argument based on proven facts?

Of course, this is Oklahoma, the same state that has brought us Senator James Inhofe who famously stated, “Climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Twenty-five years after the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that mandated religious instruction in science classes, lawmakers in many states are still trying to water down the teaching of science and push creationism into the public schools.

It’s not just Oklahoma. Just a few weeks into the 2013 legislative session, there are already anti-evolution bills circulating in Missouri, Montana, Colorado, Indiana, in addition to Oklahoma. And in some cases, like this one, climate change has taken a prominent place, along with evolution, as a target for creationists.

:{These lawmakers have also changed their tactics. Take the bill proposed by:{Missouri :(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:State Representative Rick Brattin: HB291 would require that intelligent design and “destiny” get the same amount of textbook coverage in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill is not influenced by religion. After all, the legislator has declared: “I’m a huge science buff.”}:

Again from Mother Jones:

Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California, says Oklahoma has proposed more anti-evolution legislation than any other state, introducing eight bills with academic freedom language since 2004. (None has passed.) “The problem with these bills is that they’re so open-ended; it’s a kind of code for people who are opposed to teaching climate change and evolution,” Meikle says.

“An extremely high percentage of scientists will tell you that evolution doesn’t have scientific weaknesses,” says the NCSE’s Meikle.

As Bill Nye the Science Guy puts it, denial of evolution is unique to the United States. The fundamental ideas behind the theory of evolution have been scientific gospel for decades — and yet, defying Darwin, creationists refuse to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Let’s hope this egregious bill never passes.

Related Care2 Coverage

Louisiana Uses Public Funds To Teach Creationism

And On The Seventh Day, God Created A Museum

My Senator Denies Climate Change And Oklahoma Pays The Price

http://www.care2.com/causes/need-that-a-grade-try-denying-climate-and-evolution.html

---

Inserting positive wording about plastic bags into California schoolbooks

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a lobbying group representing plastic bag manufacturers, successfully convinced the California Department of Education to rewrite its environmental textbooks and teachers' guides to include positive statements about plastic grocery bags. ACC wrote a letter to education department officials that said in part, "To counteract what is perceived as an exclusively negative positioning of plastic bag issues, we recommend adding a section here entitled 'Benefits of Plastic Shopping Bags.'" The state's final document was, in fact, edited to contain a new section titled "Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags." The title and some of the newly-inserted textbook language were lifted almost verbatim from letters written by the ACC. A private consultant hired by California school officials inserted a question into an environmental workbook quiz asking students to list some advantages of plastic bags. The correct answer to the question (which is worth five points) is: "Plastic bags are very convenient to use. They take less energy to manufacture than paper bags, cost less to transport and can be reused." The changes were made in 2009, and coincided with ACC's nationwide PR and lobbying push to beat back efforts across the U.S. to enact laws and ordinances banning plastic grocery bags. The changes in the environmental curriculum were discovered by the investigative reporting team California Watch, a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting.[2][3][4]

==

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11706  GMO monsanto curriculum, bioslodis sludge and nano

==

astroturf wars : API CoC send movies to schools: freedom = biz

--

Chamber distributes books on energy to children

In 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined with Scholastic Books to distribute roughly 100,000 books about the potential perils of government fossil fuel regulation to classrooms across the country, as part of its “Shedding Light on Energy" campaign. The book asks, “What do you think could happen if one of our energy sources was suddenly unavailable (e.g., power plant maintenance, government curb on production, etc.)?” Chamber officials maintain that there is no “hidden agenda” behind the question or the educational outreach effort in general, although the book is notably being distributed at a time when the Environmental Protection Agency is set to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.[39]

The energy industry has a long history of working to get its perspective into classrooms. In the 1970s, for example, nuclear power officials distributed comic books in schools as it dealt with the PR fallout from the near meltdown at Three Mile Island. And BP helped develop environmental lesson plans in California, the Sacramento Bee reported last month. The posters and worksheets that the Chamber will be sending out to schools aross the country is based on statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the assignments are mostly aimed at teaching students how to use charts and graphs to convey where U.S. energy comes from and how it is used.[39] ^sourcewatch

==

14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools

Slave masters were nice, the KKK is A-OK, and the Great Depression is a liberal fantasy. Thanks, Gov. Jindal!

By Deanna Pan | Tue Aug. 7, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Thanks to a new law [1] privatizing public education in Louisiana, Bible-based curriculum can now indoctrinate young, pliant minds with the good news of the Lord—all on the state taxpayers' dime.

Under Gov. Bobby Jindal's voucher program, considered the most sweeping [2] in the country, Louisiana is poised to spend tens of millions of dollars to help poor and middle-class students from the state's notoriously terrible public schools [3] receive a private education. While the governor's plan sounds great in the glittery parlance [4] of the state's PR machine, the program is rife with accountability problems [5] that actually haven't been solved [6] by the new standards [7] the Louisiana Department of Education adopted two weeks ago.

For one, of the 119 (mostly Christian) participating schools, Zack Kopplin, a gutsy college sophomore who's taken to Change.org [8] to stonewall the program, has identified at least 19 [9] that teach or champion creationist nonscience and will rake in nearly $4 million in public funding [10] from the initial round of voucher designations.

Read about Bobby Jindal's exorcism problem [11].

Many of these schools, Kopplin notes, rely on Pensacola-based A Beka Book [12] curriculum or Bob Jones University Press [13] textbooks to teach their pupils Bible-based "facts," such as the existence of Nessie the Loch Ness Monster [14] and all sorts of pseudoscience that researcher Rachel Tabachnick and writer Thomas Vinciguerra have thankfully pored [15] over [16] so the rest of world doesn't have to.

Here are some of my favorite lessons:

  1. Dinosaurs and humans probably hung out: "Bible-believing Christians cannot accept any evolutionary interpretation. Dinosaurs and humans were definitely on the earth at the same time and may have even lived side by side within the past few thousand years."—Life Science [17], 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2007

Much like Whoopi and Teddy in the cinematic classic Theodore Rex. Screenshot: YouTubeMuch like tough cop Katie Coltrane and Teddy the T-rex in the direct-to-video hit Theodore Rex [18] Screenshot: YouTube

  1. Dragons were totally real: "[Is] it possible that a fire-breathing animal really existed? Today some scientists are saying yes. They have found large chambers in certain dinosaur skulls…The large skull chambers could have contained special chemical-producing glands. When the animal forced the chemicals out of its mouth or nose, these substances may have combined and produced fire and smoke."—Life Science [17], 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2007
  1. "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."—America: Land That I Love [19], Teacher ed., A Beka Book, 1994
  1. Africa needs religion: "Africa is a continent with many needs. It is still in need of the gospel…Only about ten percent of Africans can read and write. In some areas the mission schools have been shut down by Communists who have taken over the government."—Old World History and Geography in Christian Perspective [20], 3rd ed., A Beka Book, 2004

The literacy rate in Africa is "only about 10 percent"--give or take a few dozen percentage points. residentevil_stars2001/FlickrThe literacy rate in Africa is "only about 10 percent"…give or take a few dozen percentage points [21]. residentevil_stars2001 [22]/Flickr

  1. Slave masters were nice guys: "A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well."—United States History for Christian Schools [23], 2nd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 1991

Slaves and their masters: BFF 4lyfe! Edward Williams Clay/Library of CongressDoesn't everyone look happy?! Edward Williams Clay/Library of Congress

  1. The KKK was A-OK: "[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians."—United States History for Christian Schools [24], 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001

Just your friendly neighborhood Imperial Wizard! Unknown/Library of CongressJust your friendly neighborhood Imperial Wizard Unknown/Library of Congress

  1. The Great Depression wasn't as bad as the liberals made it sound: "Perhaps the best known work of propaganda to come from the Depression was John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath…Other forms of propaganda included rumors of mortgage foreclosures, mass evictions, and hunger riots and exaggerated statistics representing the number of unemployed and homeless people in America."—United States History: Heritage of Freedom [25], 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1996

Definitely Photoshopped. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration/WikipediaDefinitely Photoshopped. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration/Wikipedia

  1. SCOTUS enslaved fetuses: "Ignoring 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian civilization, religion, morality, and law, the Burger Court held that an unborn child was not a living person but rather the "property" of the mother (much like slaves were considered property in the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford)."—American Government in Christian Perspective [26], 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1997
  1. The Red Scare isn't over yet: "It is no wonder that Satan hates the family and has hurled his venom against it in the form of Communism."— American Government in Christian Perspective [26], 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1997

Meanwhile, God sneezes glitter snot in the form of Capitalism. Catechetical Guild/Wikipedia Catechetical Guild/Wikipedia

  1. Mark Twain and Emily Dickinson were a couple of hacks: "[Mark] Twain's outlook was both self-centered and ultimately hopeless…Twain's skepticism was clearly not the honest questioning of a seeker of truth but the deliberate defiance of a confessed rebel."—Elements of Literature for Christian Schools [27], Bob Jones University, 2001

"Several of [Emily Dickinson's] poems show a presumptuous attitude concerning her eternal destiny and a veiled disrespect for authority in general. Throughout her life she viewed salvation as a gamble, not a certainty. Although she did view the Bible as a source of poetic inspiration, she never accepted it as an inerrant guide to life."—Elements of Literature for Christian Schools [27], Bob Jones University, 2001

And her grammar was just despicable! Ugh! Todd-Bingham picture collection, 1837-1966 (inclusive)/ Manuscripts & Archives, Yale UniversityTo say nothing of her poetry's Syntax and Punctuation—how odious it is.Todd-Bingham picture collection, 1837-1966 (inclusive)/ Manuscripts & Archives, Yale University

  1. Abstract algebra is too dang complicated: "Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."—ABeka.com [28]

Maths is hard! Screenshot: MittRomney.comMATHS: Y U SO HARD? Screenshot: MittRomney.com [29]

  1. Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."—Teacher's Resource Guide to Current Events for Christian Schools, 1998-1999, Bob Jones University Press, 1998
  1. "Global environmentalists have said and written enough to leave no doubt that their goal is to destroy the prosperous economies of the world's richest nations."—Economics: Work and Prosperity in Christian Perspective [30], 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1999

Plotting world destruction, BRB. Lynn Freeny, Department of Energy/FlickrPlotting economic apocalypse, BRB Lynn Freeny, Department of Energy [31]/Flickr

  1. Globalization is a precursor to rapture: "But instead of this world unification ushering in an age of prosperity and peace, as most globalists believe it will, it will be a time of unimaginable human suffering as recorded in God's Word. The Anti-christ will tightly regulate who may buy and sell."—Economics: Work and Prosperity in Christian Perspective [30], 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1999

He'll probably be in cahoots with the global environmentalists. Luca Signorelli/WikipediaSwapping insider-trading secrets is the devil's favorite pastime. Luca Signorelli/WikipediaWhew! Seems extreme. But perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised. Gov. Jindal, you remember, once tried to perform an exorcism on a college gal pal. [11]

Source URL: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars

Links:

[1] http://www.louisianaschools.net/topics/act2_choice_law.html

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601

[3] http://www.wafb.com/story/15623744/new-scores-44-of-louisiana-public-schools-failing

[4] http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&catID=2&articleID=3377&navID=12

[5] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/louisiana-gives-us-taste-mitt-romneys-education-policy

[6] http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/lousiana_school_voucher_standards_criticized.php

[7] http://www.louisianaschools.net/offices/publicaffairs/press_release.aspx?PR=1664

[8] http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-la-halt-the-implementation-of-louisiana-s-creationist-voucher-program

[9] http://www.repealcreationism.com/697/stop-governor-jindals-creationist-voucher-program-before-governor-romney-takes-it-nationwide/

[10] http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20120731/NEWS01/207310330/Some-voucher-schools-teaching-creationism

[11] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/bobby-jindal-exorcised-his-college-girlfriend

[12] http://www.abeka.com/

[13] http://www.bjupress.com/page/Home

[14] http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-26/news/32412766_1_voucher-plan-voucher-students-voucher-program

[15] http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/5/25/84149/9275

[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/weekinreview/27vinciguerra.ART.html?pagewanted=all

[17] http://www.bjupress.com/product/228163?path=94384&spot=1

[18] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7gsUL9Xkk

[19] http://www.abeka.com/ABekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=109088

[20] http://www.abeka.com/ABekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=135275

[21] http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=201

[22] http://www.flickr.com/photos/23360760@N04/2231862471/

[23] http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Schools-Timothy-Keesee/dp/0890845794/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

[24] http://www.bjupress.com/product/222141

[25] http://www.abeka.com/ABekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=103462

[26] http://www.abeka.com/ABekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=38733

[27] http://www.amazon.com/ELEMENTS-LITERATURE-FOR-CHRISTIAN-SCHOOLS/dp/1579246362

[28] http://www.abeka.com/Distinctives.aspx

[29] http://www.mittromney.com/forms/middle-class-promise-gap-health-care-petition?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=20120702_lb_healthcare_facebook

[30] http://www.abeka.com/ABekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=61263

[31] http://www.flickr.com/photos/doe-oakridge/6945040384/

---

Chamber distributes books on energy to children

In 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined with Scholastic Books to distribute roughly 100,000 books about the potential perils of government fossil fuel regulation to classrooms across the country, as part of its “Shedding Light on Energy" campaign. The book asks, “What do you think could happen if one of our energy sources was suddenly unavailable (e.g., power plant maintenance, government curb on production, etc.)?” Chamber officials maintain that there is no “hidden agenda” behind the question or the educational outreach effort in general, although the book is notably being distributed at a time when the Environmental Protection Agency is set to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.[39]

heartland kid propaganda; http://www.republicreport.org/2012/education-pollution-k12/

see also coal:

Friends of Coal (FOC) is a front group created by the West Virginia Coal Association. Its mission is to “inform and educate West Virginia citizens about the coal industry” and “provide a united voice” for the industry. To make dirty coal seem appealing, FOC has sponsored or initiated license plates, football games, basketball practices, plane jumps, fishing events, and scholarships.

FOC is now selling coal to children. ThinkProgress obtained the “Let’s Learn About Coal” coloring book, which asks children to unscramble statements about the “advantages” of coal, such as “Than coal other cheaper is fuels” (“Coal is cheaper than other fuels”). Kids also learn that coal is “important” and “provides jobs for lots of people!”:

[cartoon eg]

TheFOC Ladies Auxiliary has been handing the coloring bookout to children around West Virginia as part of a “Coal in the Classroom” campaign. Coal officials go into schools and give presentations about the importance of coal. “We’d really like this to be statewide, that it bemandatory :(style="background-color:#ed1c24ff"):}::{in the schools that they learn about coal,” said FOC ladies auxiliary president Regina Fairchild in January. The ladies auxiliary is also recruiting members for its “junior” FOC group, open to “girls and boys ages 8 to 16.”

Additionally, FOC ladies auxiliary members have visited children in West Virginia hospitals to give them a “special present“:Mr. Coal, “a small, black Labrador stuffed puppy meant to bring a smile to kids’ faces during hospital stays.” (Coal pollution kills 24,000 Americans each year}:

Last year, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), another industry front group, also tried to make coal seem warm and fuzzy by creating the “coal carolers” — illustrated lumps of coal singing Christmas carols whose altered lyrics praised coal power. After widespread scorn, ACCCE took down the carolers. Find out more on what coal is really doing to Appalachia at Appalachian Voices.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/11/05/67854/coal-coloring-book/

---

big pict

How the Conservative Worldview Quashes Critical Thinking -- and What That Means For Our Kids' Future

By Sara Robinson, AlterNet

Posted on May 18, 2012, Printed on May 26, 2012

http://www.alternet.org/story/155469/how_the_conservative_worldview_quashes_critical_thinking_--_and_what_that_means_for_our_kids%27_future

The Conservative War On Education continues apace, with charters blooming everywhere, high-stakes testing cementing its grip on classrooms, and legislators and pundits wondering what we need those stupid liberal arts colleges for anyway. (Isn't college about job prep? Who needs to know anything about art history, anthropology or ancient Greek?)

Amid the din, there's a worrisome trend: liberals keep affirming right-wing talking points, usually without realizing that they're even right wing. Or saying things like, "The education of our children is a non-partisan issue that should exist outside of any ideological debate."

The hell it is. People who say stuff like this have no idea what they're talking about. The education of our children is a core cultural and political choice that reflects the deepest differences between liberals and conservatives -- because every educational conversation must start with the fundamental philosophical question: What is an education for?

Our answers to that question could not be more diametrically opposed.

A Question of Human Nature

Our beliefs about the purpose of education are rooted in even deeper beliefs about the basic nature of humanity.

All conservative politics springs from one central premise: they believe that human beings are essentially fallen and deeply flawed. Human beings are swayed by uncontrollable passions, we make consistently bad choices, and we are incapable of governing ourselves. Given our basic depravity, civilization can only work if we submit ourselves to the external guidance of society's appointed authorities; and stay on the straight and narrow path our betters have clearly marked out with rules, oversight and punishments. Without those constraints, we cannot be trusted: our own perverse natures will inevitably lure us into ruin.

George Lakoff pointed out that in this worldview, children are born evil, and it's the duty of the Strict Father to beat it out of them. For their own good, kids must learn to accept the boundaries and order imposed by the authorities who've magnanimously consented to take on the responsibility for their wretched and unworthy souls. The main imperative of education is to break the child's will, force him to conform to society's expectations, make him an obedient and compliant employee, and prepare him to survive in a hostile and competitive world that will cut him no breaks. Nobody's going to protect you; for good or bad, you'll only be given what you earn. What kids need most from school are hard skills and marketable credentials that will enable them to find a stable place in the hierarchy, thus securing their futures.

Libertarian education critic John Taylor Gatto has pointed out that the "hidden curriculum" of public schools is designed from the ground up to reinforce these deeply authoritarian lessons. According to Gatto, the student is trained to eat, sleep, excrete, and think by the bells -- no daydreaming about history during math class! She also learns to accept the judgment of the teachers, peers and other worthies who are entitled to evaluate her worth; it's beyond her pay grade to assess her own performance or value. This lesson fosters a lifelong dependence on external authority, and further quashes self-assessment and critical thinking. High-stakes testing is an artifact of the conservative belief that education is about acquiring a required body of knowledge that's been determined by experts. If it's not in the book, you don't need to know it. And the ultimate outcome -- the purpose of this whole process -- is to graduate with a credential that will certify your acceptability to the established hierarchies of the economic world.

In the conservative model, critical thinking is horrifically dangerous, because it teaches kids to reject the assessment of external authorities in favor of their own judgment -- a habit of mind that invites opposition and rebellion. This is why, for much of Western history, critical thinking skills have only been taught to the elite students -- the ones headed for the professions, who will be entrusted with managing society on behalf of the aristocracy. (The aristocrats, of course, are sending their kids to private schools, where they will receive a classical education that teaches them everything they'll need to know to remain in charge.) Our public schools, unfortunately, have replicated a class stratification on this front that's been in place since the Renaissance.

Gatto argues that this kind of regimented education is profoundly inappropriate in a democracy. If you teach a child that he is incapable (and intrinsically unworthy) of governing himself -- a central assumption of conservatism -- then how on earth can he participate in governing his country?

The answer, of course, is that he can't. And indeed: that is the whole point.

A Democratic Education

Democracy begins with the premise that most people are intrinsically decent and good, and that they can usually be trusted to make the right choices for themselves. Without this humanist belief in people's essential moral and intellectual competence, a system of universal citizenship and collective governance would be philosophically unthinkable -- and functionally impossible. This assumption also has profound implications for education.

Among liberals, the ultimate purpose of both education and parenting is to bring forward the best that lies within us, with the ultimate goal of maximizing the unique potential of each child. The stronger each of us is individually, the stronger civilization is as a whole. Education should, above all, foster self-knowledge and self-discipline, equipping us to make the best possible contributions to the collective -- and to pursue life, liberty and happiness wherever those pursuits may take us. It's hoped that they will take us on many unforseeable adventures -- adventures for which we will need to be ready.

Central to this preparation is the development of our own internal authority and judgment, which we rely on to guide us through life and make us thoughtful, moral citizens. It's assumed that people who are accustomed to this kind of personal freedom will also fiercely resist authoritarian leaders, whom we know we can never trust as thoroughly as we trust ourselves.

Our system relies on citizens who can think critically and clearly about any new situation they're facing, and reason out solutions to problems without input from others when it's necessary. And in today's economy, it will often be necessary. We've known for 25 years that the old paternalistic workplaces -- the ones with rigid hierarchies, where people could spend 40 years at the same plant -- are gone. Most workers these days can expect to change careers two, three or four times over the course of what may well be a 50-year working life.

Given this reality, the college-as-job-training model the conservatives are promoting looks patently insane. Subjects like logic and philosophy, anthropology and rhetoric, foreign languages and history provide the mental flexibility, deep perspective, and sharp critical thinking skills that allow one to make one's own way on unfamiliar landscapes, a skill that's useful when the world keeps changing around you. People with rich liberal arts backgrounds are also far better prepared for leadership roles, and better positioned to recognize and seize on whatever opportunities fate throws their way. And survival in the economy of the future is going to depend far more heavily on our ability to create and maintain strong, broad social networks -- to make and maintain supportive relationships with people who understand your value.

It's obvious that stripping these mind-expanding fripperies out of the curriculum -- as conservatives are proposing, often with no push-back at all from liberals -- serves the narrow, functional conservative view of education and citizenship very well. But we let them win this point at our peril. It's not exactly accurate -- but nonetheless true -- to say that the reason we call it "liberal education" is that the more of it you have, the more liberal you're likely to be. If we buy into the idea that critical thinking is somehow non-essential, we're not only betraying the entire future of the liberal tradition in America; we're also depriving future generations of the basic skills and knowledge they'll need to defend their democracy from the plutocrats who are always standing in the shadows, determined to wrest it from them.

Getting Back to a Liberal Education

Once you understand how very different our underlying worldviews are, the things we need to do to preserve our idea of a progressive, empowering education become far more clear. And once we've gotten a firmer grasp on what our own values demand on this issue, the easier it will be to talk about our vision of what American education should be.

Some examples:

Tests are valuable. They give teachers useful feedback about where each kid is, and what can be done to improve his or her progress. But they are only a means to an end – and the end should be a comprehensive, appropriate education. Only totalitarians who reject our democratic goals and values can possibly believe that tests are ends in themselves. There is no such thing as one-size-fits-all education, and no student's potential can ever be described by a single number.

The same applies to teachers. In a democracy, we find competent people, and then we trust them to do the right thing until they've shown us they can't. Teachers deserve at least this much from us. The grinding, constant oversight is an authoritarian response that de-professionalizes and demoralizes smart people. The metrics used to reward and promote them should reflect the full range of skills they bring to their work, and the actual difference they make in the lives of their students. Let's make it easy for really talented people to love this job -- and then let them do it.

The arts, crafts and humanities matter. From kindergarten through college, we've seen 25 years of deep cuts in music, art, lab science, foreign language, school papers, drama departments, sports programs, home economics, and shop class. All these classes have one thing in common: they're the hands-on subjects where kids spend the most time thinking independently, exploring their own creativity, experiencing themselves as productive and competent, and gaining confidence in useful real-world life skills.

What they learn in these classes doesn't show up in test scores. But these lessons yield adults who can take care of themselves in a wide range of situations. You may never use a quadratic equation again for the rest of your days, but no matter where you're headed, your life will be forever richer if you know how to informally test an idea, play on a team, make a satisfying dinner, speak some basic Spanish, handle a wrench and a drill, and write an engaging narrative on a subject you care about.

Teamwork matters. The cooperative skills we learn while playing sports, making music, or doing a class project with friends are essential to economic survival in an increasingly interdependent world. High-stakes testing reinforces the conservative message that you're on your own -- and will rise or fall on your own merit, as defined by external authorities who grade the tests. But a truly progressive education focuses on teaching kids to work together, build relationships, and draw their sense of self-worth from their ability to make strong contributions to the group. In the years ahead, which one of these people would you rather be sitting across the table from at a city planning meeting?

College isn't just about job prep. It's about developing the leaders who will set the standards for our entire culture. When we short-change students on the liberal arts curriculum, we are dooming the next generation to be led by people whose perspective, vision, flexibility, insight, and compassion aren't up to the highest standards. If we want our nation to be better, we need to train better minds -- and for thousands of years, a firm grounding in the arts and humanities have been the main way civilizations around the world have always developed this talent.

Discipline is not about control or retribution. It's about encouraging students to make better decisions, exercise some foresight, take responsibility, and recognize the effects their actions have on the larger group. If a disciplinary intervention doesn't meet those goals, then it's not effective, and shouldn't be used.

Vocational ed is not for losers. Our country is a far better place when it's well-stocked with tradespeople, factory workers, technicians, small business owners, and service providers who have mastered their fields, and take pride in their work. These people are the foundation of our economy, and the real wealth and job creators. When we short-change their training, we're undermining our own future competitiveness -- and cutting the knees out from under the next generation of the American middle class.

And finally: critical thinking is the birthright of every American. We should not aspire to become a feudal society where only the elites are taught to think independently, evaluate evidence, weigh complex factors, and make informed decisions. But it will become one -- in just a generation or two -- if we stop making this the foundational competence delivered by our educational system. A democracy in which a majority of people are no longer capable of basic critical thinking skills cannot remain a democracy very long.

Our educational system is a product of our deepest values. And the battles we're having now are, very directly, battles over what we believe is possible in America, and what kind of country we want to be 20 years from now. The conservatives are not wrong: for 150 years, the schools have been the leading promoter and disseminator of progressive values. It's precisely because they understand the power of education to preserve democracy that they're now doing their best to dismantle that system, and replace it with one that produces followers, subjects and serfs.

What is education for? We won't even be a contender in this fight until we're committed to our own clear, coherent, values-based answer to that question. How we answer it will shape the country's future.

Sara Robinson, MS, APF is a social futurist and the editor of AlterNet's Vision page. Follow her on Twitter, or subscribe to AlterNet's Vision newsletter for weekly updates.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/155469

---

bill mck

That's because the gap between our climate emergency and the attention paid to climate change in the school curriculum is immense. Individual teachers around the country are doing outstanding work, but the educational establishment is not. Look at our textbooks. The widely used Pearson/Prentice Hall text, Physical Science: Concepts in Action, waits until page 782 to tell high school students about climate change, but then only in four oh-by-the-way paragraphs. A photo of a bustling city includes the caption: "Carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, and other sources may contribute to global warming." Or they may not, the book seems to suggest.

IAT's Coordinated Science: Physical, Earth and Space Science devotes several pages late in the book to climate change, and concludes with this doubt-soaked passage:

Some people take the position that the increase in carbon dioxide should be reversed. They believe this is necessary even though the size of the contribution to global warming is not certain. It is their belief that the consequences would be very difficult to handle. Other people take a different position. They consider that it would be unwise to disrupt the world's present economy. They consider the future danger to be questionable. The big problem is that no one is certain that rapid global warming will take place. If it does, it may be too late to do anything about it!

The danger of climate change as "questionable"? ExxonMobil itself could not have produced a more skeptical approach.

These textbooks are not mere egregious outliers; they are typical of commercially produced science and social studies teaching materials. In fact, a partnership between the American Coal Foundation and Scholastic to create a propagandistic 4th grade curriculum was ended only last year, when educators and environmentalists exposed the lessons' absurd pro-industry biases. Scholastic's curriculum, The United States of Energy, was distributed free to tens of thousands of elementary teachers. It showed gleaming piles of coal, along with many of its alleged benefits. Students didn't learn of a single problem, including coal's huge contribution to climate change.

---

http://schoolingintheownershipsociety.blogspot.com/

---

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/01/11259/alec-model-bill-behind-push-require-climate-denial-instruction-schools

ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools

by Steve Horn — January 26, 2012 - 12:09pm

On January 16, the Los Angeles Times revealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came.

---

This story was originally broken by DeSmogBlog and originally published there. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is cross-posting this article as part of our ongoing effort to expose the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

---

The L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee explained:

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all emanated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

ALEC Exposed

In summer 2011, "ALEC Exposed," a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), taught those alarmed about the power that corporations wield in the American political sphere an important lesson: when bills with a similar DNA pop up in various statehouses nationwide, it's no coincidence.

Explaining the nature and origins of the project, CMD wrote, "[CMD] unveiled a trove of over 800 'model' bills and resolutions secretly voted on by corporations and politicians through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These bills reveal the corporate collaboration reshaping our democracy, state by state."

CMD continued, "Before our publication of this trove of bills, it has been difficult to trace the numerous controversial and extreme provisions popping up in legislatures across the country directly to ALEC and its corporate underwriters."

CMD explained that ALEC conducts its operations in the most shadowy of manners (emphases mine):

Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve 'model' bills. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations -- without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.

So, what is the name of the "model bill" this time around?

The Trojan Horse: The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act"

TheTrojan Horse in this case is an Orwellian titled model bill, the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act."

The bill was adopted by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, today known as the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, at ALEC's Spring Task Force Summit on May 5, 2000; it was then approved by the full ALEC Board of Directors in June of 2000.

The bill's opening clause reads, "The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall..."

Among other things, the bill stipulates that schools, universities and agencies should,

How does this language compare with legislation passed or proposed in various states? A review is in order.

ALEC Bills: From Model to Reality

The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act," or at minimum, the crucial language found within it, has been proposed in seven states, and passed in three states, Louisiana in 2008, Texas in 2009 and South Dakota in 2010.

Louisiana

In 2008, the Louisiana state legislature introduced and eventually passed S.B. 733, the Louisiana Science and Education Act. The bill was originally sponsored by four members of the Senate, three of whom are current [[ALEC Politicians#Senate 16|dues paying members of ALEC]: Sen. Ben Wayne Nevers, Sr. (D-12); Sen. Neil Riser (R-32); and Sen. Francis Thompson (D-34).

The three ALEC members received a total of $9,514 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles in campaign money combined, and the four of them together received $13,814 in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' FollowTheMoney.org.

ALEC Model vs. S.B. 733

The Louisiana bill calls for, "an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including ... global warming ... " The bill also calls for "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC bill which say that teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific ... controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will ... be used."

South Dakota

In 2010, the South Dakota Legislative Assembly passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009, a non-binding resolution introduced by 33 members of the House of Representatives and 6 members of the Senate, 39 in total, and 12 of whom are current members of ALEC. The bill calls for "balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota."

The [[ALEC Politicians#South Dakota Legislators with ALEC Ties|12 members of ALEC] who sponsored HCR 1009 received $1,900 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

The bill mirrors the provision of the ALEC bill that call for the providing of "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

Kentucky

In 2010, the Kentucky state legislature proposed H.B. 397, the Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act, a bill that eventually failed to pass.

The bill was co-sponsored by two members of the Kentucky House of Representatives who were not members of ALEC, but one of whom, Tim Moore (R-26), took $3,000 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

ALEC Model vs. HB 397

Two key provisions of theH.B. 397 "encourage local district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories" and "allow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including ... global warming ..."

This bill mirrors major provisions of the ALEC model bill that say teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific ... controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will ... be used."

New Mexico

In 2011, [[ALEC_Politicians#South Dakota Legislators with ALEC Ties|ALEC member], Rep. Thomas A. Anderson, introduced H.B. 302. In the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, he raised $2,650, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' campaign finance database.

ALEC Model vs. H.B. 302

H.B. 302 says that schools shall "not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic." One "controversial scientific topic" listed is the "causes of climate change."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC model bill which call for teaching "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner," teaching "different perspectives" to allow for students to "form their own opinions," and creating an "atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."

Tennessee

Tennessee's House bill, H.B. 368, essentially a replica of the ALEC model bill, [overwhelmly [sic] passed the House](http://scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/2011/04/tennessee_house_bill_368_-_ant.php) in April 2011, but its Senate-version cousin, S.B. 893, failed to pass. As the Los Angeles Times article makes clear, efforts to push the bill through are far from over.

Key clauses of that bill read:

These excerpts match, almost to a "T," bullet points one, three and four of the ALEC model bill.

Nine of the 24 co-sponsors of the H.B. 368 are ALEC members, according to CMD's [[ALEC Politicians#Tennessee Legislators with ALEC Ties|ALEC Members database].

In addition, these nine ALEC member co-sponsors received $8,695 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry combined in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, according to FollowTheMoney.org. The other 15 sponsors of the bill, while not members of ALEC, received $10,400 in their campaign coffers in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined.

S.B. 893, on the other hand, was sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson (R-11), a recipient of $1,800 in oil and gas industry money in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined.

Translation: between the 25 of them, on top of a model bill handed to them by corporate oil and gas industry lobbyists, they were also furnished with $20,895 in campaign cash by these industries with the expectation to do their legislative bidding.

Oklahoma

Titled, the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act," H.B. 1551 is also essentially a copycat of Tennessee's version of the ALEC model bill -- it failed to pass. A Senate version of that bill, S.B. 320, was also proposed in 2009, but failed to pass through committee.

Key clauses of that bill read (emphases mine):

Notice how the first bullet is exactly the same in both the Tennessee and Oklahoma bills -- also notice how similar bullet number two is in both language and substance in both states' bills.

Rep. Sally Kern (R-84), sponsor of H.B. 1551, is a [[ALEC Politicians#Oklahoma Legislators with ALEC Ties|member of ALEC], according to CMD. She received $12,335 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, in total, according to FollowTheMoney.org. Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-34), sponsor of S.B. 320, while not a member of ALEC, received $22,967 from the oil and gas industry while running and losing for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

On the whole, sponsors and co-sponsors from the six states in which the ALEC bill was proposed were recipients of $44,409 in campaign money from the oil and gas industry, a miniscule down payment for some of the most lucrative corporations known in the history of mankind.

Texas

Texas, in this case, is a bit of a wild card. Rather than a bill proposed by a state legislature, in 2009, the Texas School Board passed an amendent [sic] calling for the "balanced" teaching of climate change, meaning both science and "skepticism."

The Austin Statesman explained:

"The State Board of Education ... adopted standards on the teaching of global warming that appear to both question its existence and prod students to explore its implications.

Standards are used to guide textbook makers and teachers.

Language ... instructed students to 'analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming,'" ...

This provision mirrors and is likely inspired by theALEC model bill provision on global warming, which suggested science teachers should " Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

A Bill In the Corporate Polluter's Interest

The money paper trail for this ALEC model bill runs deep, to put it bluntly.

When the ALEC model bill was adopted in 2000 by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, the head of that committee was Sandy Liddy Bourne, who after that stint, became Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC. She is now with the Heartland Institute as vice-president for policy strategy. In Sandy Liddy Bourne's bio on the Heartland website, she boasts that, "under her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11 percent."

SourceWatch states that Liddy Bourne " ... is the daughter of former Nixon aide and convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy, who spent more than 52 months in prison for his part in the Watergate burglary ... [and her] speech at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was titled, 'The Kyoto Legacy; The Progeny of a Carbon Cartel in the States."

The Heartland Institute was formerly heavily funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, just like ALEC was at the time that Liddy Bourne's committee devised the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act." These two corporations are infamous for their funding of climate change "skeptic" think tanks and front groups.

Today, the corporate polluter members of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force include representatives from American Electric Power, the Fraser Institute, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Heartland Institute, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, to name several.

Getting Them While They're Young: A Cynical Maneuver

In the United States, the politics of big-money backed disinformation campaigns have trumped climate science, and serves as the raison d'être for DeSmogBlog. Polluters with a financial interest in continuing to conduct business without any accountability for their global warming pollution have purposely sowed the seeds of confusion on an issue seen as completely uncontroversial among scientists.

Maneuvering to dupe schoolchildren is about as cynical as it gets. Neuroscience explains that young brains are like sponges , ready to soak in knowledge (and disinformation, for that matter), and thus, youth are an ideal target for the "merchants of doubt."

The corporations behind the writing and dissemination of this ALEC model bill, who are among the largest polluters in the world, would benefit handsomely from a legislative mandate to sow the seeds of confusion on climate science among schoolchildren.

Alas, at the very least, the identity of the Trojan Horse has been revealed: it's name is ALEC.

---

This story was originally broken by DeSmogBlog and originally published there.

---

Santorum: Higher Education a Plot to Secularize America

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/santorum-higher-education-plot-secularize-america

==

Years have been spent developing and promoting schemes to privatize public education. The report "Voucher Veneer: the Deeper Agenda to Privatize Public Education" by People For the American Way (PFAW), quotes Joseph Bast, President and CEO of the Koch/Scaife/Walton-funded Heartland Institute,

"The complete privatization of schooling might be desirable, but this objective is politically impossible for the time being. Vouchers are a type of reform that is possible now, and would put us on the path to further privatization."

(Contributions from the DeVos, Scaife and Koch foundations are noted throughout this article, however, other family foundations including Olin, Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Walton - the Walmart heirs, also fund these same think tanks.)

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/4/20/232844/831

==

The Koch brothers have more than $42 billion to make public policy out of their anti-government ideology, andtheir assault against public education epitomizes their tactics to remake our nation.

The Koch brothers founded Americans for Prosperity and have contributed more than $5 million to its political coffers. Americans for Prosperity, in turn, contributed to organizations that financially influenced a community school board election.

That's right: the Koch brothers are involving themselves, through their wealth-backed political apparatus, in local schools

Americans for Prosperity allied with groups in North Carolina with the sole purpose of building a new majority on the school board in and around Raleigh. The Koch apparatus was trying to rewrite the social contract that made the Wake County school system a magnet for teachers and families and the surrounding communities prosper.

Each campus was its own melting pot where students could build meaningful relationships and find their niche. Advanced courses and after school activities gave tens of thousands of children a path to higher education and a shot at success.

Many families in the community attributed local prosperity and harmony to the way the school district assigned students to schools.

That policy came under siege from the Koch brothers who, through Americans for Prosperity, indirectly supported school board candidates who campaigned on reversing the busing for diversity program. The outside involvement made a school board election into the most divisive race since the 1970s.

The Koch brothers and outside influence provided the script for the Koch-supported candidates. They campaigned to end "forced busing" and promise to enact a "neighborhood schools" mandate.

Do those phrases ring a bell? Using the same language Gov. George Wallace used in the 60s,Koch-supported candidates in North Carolina are pushing to make public policy based on Wallace's "segregation always" pledge. And they had the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity's full support.

This is a new example of the Koch brothers' so-called extreme free market ideology. It's an incredible window into the brothers' disdain for public service and government protection in general.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/want-to-see-how-the-kochs_b_926829.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

---

---

Prior to taking Mr. Visco's high school science class, Keith Hogan did not believe humans had had any hand in climate change.

"I thought the media had just picked that up and blown it out of proportion," he said.

Hogan remembers the day the "lightbulb went off," about four years ago. He'd always been into cars and would get defensive if someone tried to pin climate change on vehicle emissions. But when Mr. Visco pointed out that the methane spewing from livestock was actually a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, Hogan opened up and began to reconsider, and then accept, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

"Keith was like George Bush in disguise," recalled Chris Visco, who is now retired. "It's funny how things progressed with him."

Imparting the science of climate change is not always so easy. Many of Hogan's conservative classmates at Sachem High School in Long Island, N.Y. avoided taking Mr. Visco's class, aware that they'd hear views that conflicted with their own. And around the country -- from Washington State to Oklahoma -- pressure and pushback from skeptical students, teachers and administrators pose challenges.

In 2008, Louisiana voted to allow public school teachers to teach both creationism and the views of climate change skeptics. Last May, a school board in Las Alamitos, Calif., voted unanimously to require environmental science teachers cover "multiple perspectives" on climate change. That decision was later rescinded.

"For every [conflict] you hear about there are probably 10 you don't, and probably 100 teachers that will just not teach it because that is the easiest way out," said Mike Town, an environmental science teacher at Redmond High School in Washington and a participant in a National Academy of Sciences workshop on climate change education.

The National Center for Science Education, long-touted for its efforts to help teachers address evolution in the classroom, has recognized the predicament and announced this week that it would add climate change to its repertoire, offering teachers a range of tools and legal support.

"It's a bit daunting to tell you the truth," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE. "It's not like we were bored. There's still plenty to do in the evolution realm."

THE FACTS: NOT ENOUGH

About a quarter of teachers recently polled by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) reported facing skepticism about climate change and climate change education from their administrators; more than half faced the same from parents. Further, 82 percent noted that they had dealt with skepticism from their students.

This pressure can have consequences, warns other data. Despite the estimated 89 percent of teachers who believe climate change is happening, a survey by the National Earth Sciences Teachers Association also found that 36 percent had been influenced to teach "both sides" of the debate.

A case in point: After Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown in a Portola Valley, Calif., middle school class, a parent requested that the teacher hold a debate between a climate change-denier and a climate scientist to provide "balance." John Davenport, the union representative who spoke for the teacher in the controversy, consulted with the NCSE.

"They made it clear that this was virgin ground for them," Davenport said, adding that the center told the district that the policy issue belonged in a social studies class, not a science class.

Overall, 63 percent of the U.S. general public agrees that global warming is happening and 35 percent attribute it to natural changes, according to a new Yale report which found similar rates for teenagers' knowledge of the subject.

Most politicians, meanwhile, lack a science background. "We need an informed citizenry to help the politicians make the best decisions," said Scott. "In the case of climate change, the reality is there and the consequences for society are profound."

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and lead researcher of the report, added that an understanding of climate change is "necessary but not sufficient" for making such decisions. Facts also need to be interpreted through the lenses of values.

He calls climate change the "policy problem from hell," partly because of the long lag time between actions and results on the issue.

Religious and political beliefs also come into play.

Last Friday, in a conversation with Arianna Huffington, public television icon Bill Moyers highlighted other recent findings: "Even if you, a modern American, are presented with a fact you know to be false, you nonetheless reject it if it offends or undermines your belief system," he said.

In his new book, "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America," Shawn Lawrence Otto suggests that the same conflict between science and beliefs has played out through much of history. He quotes a letter that Albert Einstein wrote to a friend. "This world is a strange madhouse," Einstein said. "Currently every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation."

Town suggests little has changed today. "If you come from a Republican household and your parents are watching Fox News and trying to pick a candidate, and your science teacher is telling you that climate change is one of the most important things that could impact your life," added Town, "then it's easy to have to find a way to discredit" the latter.

THE NEXT EVOLUTION

Visco first taught climate change in 1977, at a Catholic high school. Since then, he said he's noticed public perception of the topic go from "nothing to awareness to negativity."

That last turning point, Visco said, came around the release of "An Inconvenient Truth." He said the film brought climate change into the public's consciousness, but it also sparked a build-up of denialist propaganda, which then flooded teachers' mailboxes and students' minds.

"In many ways, climate change is where evolution education was about 20 yeas ago," said Scott, noting NCSE's constant struggle with anti-evolution propaganda.

There are many parallels between the two battles, as well as some important differences.

"In the case of evolution, the objection to teaching it is based in religious ideology," said Scott. "In climate change, the objection is based in political and economic ideology."

While both cases are unscientific, only the former has the backing of the First Amendment: "Climate change is going to be a much harder battle to fight," Scott said.

Another key difference is that evolution fits into a core high school course: biology. Climate change, on the other hand, may only come up in an elective course or during middle school -- before most kids have the background to comprehend the complex concepts.

A revision to the science education standards is currently underway, in which climate change will be "explicitly noted," said Francis Eberle, executive director of the NSTA.

Mark McCaffrey, the new programs and policy director for climate change at the NCSE, also emphasized that it was important for the subject to be taught in a "relevant" and "practical" manner.

During his time with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, McCaffrey helped spearhead the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network, which offers resources for teachers to connect the dots between climate and energy consumption.

For Visco's class, that meant teaching his students that small changes could have a large impact on the planet. "I had lots of students who would come in and say, 'My parents hate you. I'm driving them nuts, making them recycle and turn heat down and change lightbulbs,'" he recalled.

In many cases, by teaching his students he was also teaching their parents, something that Yale's Leiserowitz has also found. "Do parents influence kids, or do kids influence parents? Evidence suggests that it works both ways."

"I definitely saw changes in my students, and I definitely saw parents that softened," said Visco.

teaching AGW: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/climate-change-skeptics-science-teachers_n_1214049.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

see also npr

----

http://www.truth-out.org/how-online-learning-companies-bought-americas-schools/1321627144

In Florida, only fourteen months after Crist handed a major victory to teachers unions, a new governor, Rick Scott, signed a radical bill that could have the effect of replacing hundreds of teachers with computer avatars. Scott, a favorite of the Tea Party, appointed Levesque as one of his education advisers. His education law expanded the Florida Virtual School to grades K-5, authorized the spending of public funds on new for-profit virtual schools and created a requirement that all high school students take at least one online course before graduation.

----

Guest blogger Ron Packard is CEO of K12 Inc., the country’s largest online learning company. In this post, he responds to criticisms of the effectiveness and cost of K12′s schools raised in aNew York Timesreport last week.

po'd by 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/online-schools-score-better-on-wall-street-than-in-classrooms.html?_r=1&ref=charterschools

---

bs 

Ronald J Packard is the CEO and Founder of K¹². Mr. Packard was previously a vice president of Knowledge Universe, and CEO of Knowledge Schools, which provides high-quality childhood education in community and employer-sponsored centers, and invests in, incubates, and operates several charter school companies. Previously, Mr. Packard worked for McKinsey & Company, as well as for Goldman Sachs in mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Packard holds a BA in economics and mechanical engineering with honors from the University of California, Berkeley. As a Hughes Scholar, he spent his undergraduate summers writing an image-processing language. He holds an MBA with honors from The University of Chicago, and he is a chartered financial analyst.

Mr. Packard was the 2007 recipient of the Education Industry Association’s James P. Boyle Entrepreneurial Leadership Award, bestowed to individuals whose achievements in the for-profit education industry serve as a guidepost for others starting and building entrepreneurial education endeavors. In 2008, he won the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award in the IT Services & Solutions category in Greater Washington for his outstanding leadership in building and leading a dynamic and growing business. He was also the recipient of the Distinguished Entrepreneurial Award from Chicago Booth in 2009 for his achievements in public service, entrepreneurship, finance, and corporate leadership. In 2010, he won the USDLA Award for demonstrating Outstanding Leadership in the field of Distance Learning.

He previously served on the Department of Defense Educational Advisory Committee, and is currently Chairman of the Board of Middlebury Interactive Languages, LLC, and is a member of the Digital Learning Council.

Mr. Packard has been profiled in many media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, FOX News Business Channel, Forbes Magazine, Investors Business Daily, Washington Business Journal, and SmartCEO Magazine.

----

pol: Ronald C. Packard, D.M.D. (born January 19, 1931) mormon

---

see Diane Ravich critique

...

When it comes to public education in America, however, we don’t have the luxury of decades to build the case against 1% billionaire interests that view the nation’s schools as filled by a giant market of helpless, powerless, politically unconnected children, and not the bright, funny, quirky, amazing kids who’ll solve the problems of tomorrow and invent wondrous things we can only guess at today. We need to get up to speed NOW, because the hustle is on NOW, and very soon public education won’t be the gem of our democratic society any more, and neither will we recognize our wonderful republic. For example, in November of 2010, after purchasing an education technology company, Rupert Murdoch of News Corp announced that “When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the US alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching.” (Mind you, Murdoch’s FOX News is the only infotainment network that leaves its viewers demonstrably less informed — negatively intelligent — about current events than if they’d watched no tv at all.)

So I’m borrowing “Big Ed” to describe those moneyed interests and point out how we parents, educators, and students of all ages through college can fight back. Because the promise of an excellent, free public education through high school (or an affordable and very good public university education) is something that’s essential as DNA to our country in order for it to work the way it’s supposed to. We need people who can understand and solve complex problems, and come up with intelligent, creative solutions. We need to treasure — and nurture — the incredibly varied humanity  in our country, and grasp that similar to a healthy eco-system that’s biodiverse, our society and our economy flourish best when everyone is given the opportunity to shoot for the highest reaches of his or her own unique potential. And education is an essential part of that energetic, people-powered abundance...

http://www.k12newsnetwork.com/2011/12/occupybiged/

---

Fox in the Schoolhouse: Rupert Murdoch Wants to Teach Your Kids!

News Corp.'s major move into the education business.

By Stephanie Mencimer | Fri Sep. 23, 2011 2:00 AM PDT

---

Rupert Murdoch's reputation precedes him—but one thing he's not well known for is his education reform advocacy. But that could soon change. Next month, Murdoch will make an unusual public appearance in San Francisco, delivering the keynote address at an education summit hosted by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush [1], who has lately been crisscrossing the country promoting his own version of education reform.

The high-profile speech to a collection of conservative ed reformers, state legislators, and educators is just the latest step in Murdoch's quiet march into the business of education, which has been somewhat eclipsed by the phone-hacking scandal besieging his media empire. (On Tuesday, word of Murdoch's appearance at Bush's conference came just hours after reports that News Corp. had agreed to pay more than $4 million[2]to the family of a 13-year-old British murder victim, Milly Dowler, whose voicemail was hacked [3] by reporters for Murdoch's News of the World. ) But Murdoch has made it very clear that he views America's public schools as a potential gold mine.

"In every other part of life, someone who woke up after a 50-year nap would not recognize the world around him…But not in education," he remarked in May during a speech at the "e-G8 forum" that preceded the G8 summit in France. "Our schools remain the last holdout from the digital revolution."

Last November, News Corp. dropped $360 million to buy Wireless Generation, [4] a Brooklyn-based education technology company that provides software, assessment tools, and data services. "When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the US alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching," Murdoch said at the time.

A few weeks before the deal, News Corp. had hired one of the nation's most prominent education figures, Joel Klein, away from his job as New York City schools chancellor. As it happens, Klein was already familiar with Wireless Generation, which began working with the New York City school system during his tenure.

While Murdoch's arrival to the education business is being cheered by Jeb Bush and other conservatives, the idea of the parent company of News of the World and Fox getting into the school biz hasn't gone over well with the education establishment. Murdoch's new venture has stirred controversy in New York, where this summer the state sought to enter into a $27 million contract with Wireless Generation to track student performance. Given Klein's hiring, the deal prompted an outcry by teachers' unions and other critics who saw the public school system becoming just another example of revolving-door politics and crony capitalism. ("They chose us because we're good," and not due to any connection to Klein, says Wireless Generation's spokeswoman, Joan Lebow.)

In early August, New York teachers' unions demanded the state rescind its plans to contract with Wireless Generation. "It is especially troubling that Wireless Generation will be tasked with creating a centralized database for personal student information even as its parent company, News Corporation, stands accused of engaging in illegal news-gathering tactics," representatives from the state and New York City teachers' unions wrote.

Wireless Generation had caused controversy even before Murdoch purchased the company. Last year, when New Jersey lost out on millions of federal education funding due to a screw-up on its grant application, the company landed at the center of the debacle [5]. The state, after all, had reportedly paid the firm $500,000 to ensure the accuracy of its application, among other things.

News Corp.'s entrance into the education sector raises broader education policy questions, says University of Arizona education professor Kenneth Goodman. Having a multinational corporation in charge of assessing kids' reading skills, he notes, shows that "decision making in education is so far removed from people who have anything to do with kids." And like many educators, he is suspicious that Murdoch will bring his conservative ideology to his education ventures: "They'd like everything to be privatized."

Already, Murdoch's phone-hacking baggage is hurting his bottom line. In late August, New York rejected its plans to contract with Wireless Generation [6]. The reason, according to the state's comptroller: "vendor responsibility issues involving the parent company of Wireless Generation."

---

Source URL: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-wireless-generation-education

Links:

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/rupert-murdoch-giving-keynote-at-jeb-bushs-ed-reform-summit/2011/09/20/gIQAry9cjK_blog.html

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/19/phone-hacking-milly-dowler-family

[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011182/News-World-phone-hacking-Rebekah-Brooks-linked-Milly-Dowler-private-eye.html

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/nyregion/24newscorp.html

[5] http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_attorney_general_to_review.html

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/education/30wireless.html

-----

texas school textbook censoring

cse and eagle forum

http://www.tfn.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5629

timeline:

2001 -The Texas Public Policy Foundation and other pressure groups successfully lobby to ban an environmental science textbook they called “anti-free enterprise” and “anti- Christian.” Among the criticisms are those regarding textbook information on global warming and the U.S. role in creating pollution. The textbook had been used at the college level for several years. Publishers make changes to other books that significantly curtail the talk of endangered species and discussions of Native American cultures.

http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_public_schools_censorship_timeline

---

big report on tx

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbeepdf.com%2Fdata%2Fswf%2F2010.10.01%2F56877.swf&rct=j&q=%20christian%20conservative%20environment%20global%20warming%20%20climate%20%22justice%20at%20the%20gate%22&ei=xR88TobME_HViALqpsSIDA&usg=AFQjCNH1lUVM00A-QHPGAGYEQZKamy-WWA&cad=rja

------

WealthyFamilies,Corporate-Backed Foundations Behind Push for School Vouchers

Submitted by Anne Landman on May 27, 2011 - 1:57pm

... >The sudden, rapid push for school voucher programs nationwide is not due to any public outcry or grassroots uprising for these programs. For decades these programs have been a hard-sell with the American public. Instead, a small group of wealthy individuals and corporate-backed, private foundations have been behind these efforts to divert public taxpayer dollars to private and religious schools. Among them is the son of the billionaire co-founder of Amway, Richard "Dick" DeVos, Sr., who advocates dropping the term "public schools" in favor of the term "government schools" and who has poured millions of dollars into groups that advocate "school choice," the term often used to refer to voucher programs. Dick DeVos's wife, Betsy DeVos, who is also the sister of Erik Prince of Xe, the private mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater, has been even more aggressive than her husband at promoting voucher programs. She launched the pro-voucher group "All Children Matter" in 2003, which spent $7.6 million in its first year alone to promote the adoption of state voucher programs. Betsy DeVos also founded The American Federation for Children in 2010. A PAC of the same name spent $820,000 on Wisconsin state legislative races to elect pro-voucher candidates. The Alliance for School Choice is another DeVos-funded group that promotes vouchers. The Walton Family Foundation (of Wal-Mart fame) has also given millions to push school voucher programs. These are just a small sample of the private, corporate-backed forces working to undermine public schools.

Main Source:

ThinkProgress.org, May 21, 2011

---

        Research: Researching the Researchers [110], Debra Viadero, Education Week, February 20, 2002

        Articles, reports and resources focusing on school vouchers and the right-wing attack on public schools

        AFT Center on Privatization [111], American Federation of Teachers

        Voucher Tricksters: The Hard Right Enters Through the Schoolhouse Door [112], Black Commentator, July 11, 2002

        Institutes, Foundations, & Think Tanks:Conservative Influence on U.S. Public Schools [113], Philip E. Kovacs & Deron R. Boyles, Public Resistance, May 1, 2005

            "While education is only one area where neoconservative think tanks seek to influence public policy, it has become the issue for many neoconservatives. In this paper we focus on four think tanks—The Manhattan Institute, The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation—and what they are doing to reshape public schools in ways more suitable to neoconservative and corporate ends. Our goal is to problematize and critique the assertions of these think tanks, with the hope of generating a counter-narrative to their bold and influential proclamations."

        Anatomy of a Movement [65], Jeffrey Leverich, Research Coordinator, Wisconson Education Association Council, October 3, 1998

        [114]

        Commercially Correct Talking Heads [115], Craig McGrath, The Populist, January, 1997

        Keeping Public Schools Public [116], Barbara Miner, Rethinking Schools, September, 2003

            "Many conservatives oppose affirmative action while supporting school vouchers. Let’s take a look at the ideology behind both issues."

        Vouchers: Who's Behind It All? [117], Nicholas J. Penning, Senior Legislative Analyst, American Association of School Administrators, updated October 10, 2002

        Voucher Veneer: The Deeper Agenda to Privatize Public Education [118], People for The American Way Foundation, July, 2003

        PFAWF press release and description of this report: PFAWF Report Exposes Disturbing Agenda Behind Attacks On Public Education [119]

        Attacks On Public Education [120] and related links, People For the American Way Foundation, undated

        False Choices: Vouchers, Public Schools, and our Children's Future, Lessons from Milwaukee [121], Rethinking Schools, Fall, 2001