IN some Australian schools science teachers are being asked to tell about the dangers of global warming and show Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth in order to prepare the students for the big vote at http://youthdecide.com.au/ .
The vote is sponsored by World Vision; Australia’s largest charitable organisation with a history of working with schools.
When I was about 13, in about 1976, my school promoted World Vision’s 40 Hour Famine to raise money to feed children in poor countries. I only raised a small amount through the sponsorship program but it made me feel like I had participated in something good – something worthwhile.
Now World Vision is involved in not only humanitarian work but also the politics of climate change: ‘Youth Decide ’09’ is a national youth vote on climate change sponsored by World Vision and no doubt results from the poll will be used leading up to the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to tell the Rudd Government how Australian Students want cuts in emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020.
Indeed according to ‘Youth Decide ’09’ only by Australia signing up to drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emission can the worst impacts of climate change be avoided, the Great Barrier Reef be saved, less people around the world face water and food shortages and the list goes on… http://www.youthdecide.com.au/home.aspx
In reality it will make no difference to any of these things, or global temperatures, if the Australian government agrees to reduce emissions or not. So World Vision is not only involving itself in politics, but also spreading misinformation.
There is no science, not even Ross Garnaut science, indicating Australia makes a significant contribution to global emissions.
Indeed the ‘Youth Decide ‘09’ website is full of misinformation and yet it includes Monash University as a partner.
While the rhetoric is little changed from 1976 when I raised money for World Vision, the difference is that back then no one was involving science. It is one thing for teacher to tell kids about poverty and encourage them to raise some money to be charitable, but it is an entirely different matter to involve science teachers in politics and morality – which is exactly what ‘Youth Decide 09’ is all about.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
I disagree with World Vision’s voting format on the issue of the Flying CCO2 Monster. An essay contest would be more appropriate. The winner gets a free lobotomy!
I’ve inserted an historical note on lobotomized science in another thread.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/understanding-ice-sheets-and-collapse/
Scroll nearly halfway down to August 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm.
No Place for Morality in School Science
ethics in science is the big movement in basically every developed country. it is a lesson learned, from those who built weapons of mass destruction, without thinking about the consequences of their research.
In reality it will make no difference to any of these things, or global temperatures, if the Australian government agrees to reduce emissions or not. So World Vision is not only involving itself in politics, but also spreading misinformation.
i am glad, that young people in Australia understand the world, better than you folks do:
A united youth voice will help compel the Australian government to lead the way in securing a strong global agreement.
Showing ‘Inconveninet Truth’ as a way of educating Australian children about ‘climate change’ is to show a proven fraud and yet claim to desire rational decisions.
Showing ‘Inconveninet Truth’ as a way of educating Australian children about ‘climate change’ is to show a proven fraud and yet claim to desire rational decisions.
you are confusing the film with “the great global warming swindle”.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uploads/7/boj9ccV9htk
the film that is showing completely faked graphs and had to mislead scientists.
Hi Sod,
Wonder why Gore chose not to go back beyond 1985 in his fictional film.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Illecillewaetglacier.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/glacierretreatSINCE1850.jpg
To Sod,
Glacier retreat started around 1860 not 1980 as shown in the Gore fiction.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/glacierretreatSINCE1850.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Illecillewaetglacier.jpg
Below print is taken from the Gore fiction film showing glacier melt starting in 1980.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/goresfilm.jpg
Ah, the socialists have finally broken cover – the Australian version of the Hitler Jugend no less.
Quoting George Bernard Shaw
“On the last page of Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism, Bernard Shaw declares:
I also made it quite clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.(34)”
Apparently the basic difference between Bolshevik and Fabian totalitarianism is that under Fabianism, opponents of socialism would be “executed” in an amiable manner.”
And here is the tolerance at our Australian Universities
“www.smh.com.au/national/loneliness-of-the-university-liberal-20090911-fkqc.html”
The Fabians have the bureaucracy, local, state and federal, they are in political power and true to type are concentrating on the children.
Welcome to another Dark Age folks.
sod,
I am not sure why you would point to a well known AGW propaganda site to attempt to put down skeptics.
Unless you are finally admitting that AGW hype sites like that are full of lies and misleading people?
Gore lies, and lines his pockets, but it is a cause you apporve of, so that is OK.
Gore’s movie literally uses special effects shots from that other great AGW science movie, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, as if they were photos of antarctica, and that is OK with the true believers.
Gore literally lies about sea level rises, but that is OK.
The logo of Gore’s movie, showing a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack, shows the hurricane blowing backwards, but that is OK for true tools.
And Gore’s reliance of the Manniac hockeystick, which has been shown to be phony, sort of undermines his whole effort…except to true believers, of course.
But a kook on the Youtube can make a stupid false claim in a video, and that is gospel, for the AGW true believer.
And, as every AGW believer does whenever an issue is raised about what his faith leaders are doing, you simply pretend the problem is with the skeptics.
World Vision has become a propaganda partner with AYCC, KPMG and blind Kevvie.
Dr Brett Harris, a Research Fellow at Curtin University, is World Vision’s ‘climate policy expert’. His background is in ‘theoretical development and practical application of geophysical methods in hydrology, environmental engineering, mineral exploration, oil/gas exploration and coal exploration.’
It may seem like a conflict of interest, but the good doctor knows which side his bread’s buttered on. He also works for the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, a partnership between CSIRO and BoM. If it looks like a gravy train, then it probably is a gravy train.
All of the above are going to lose their reputations in the coming decade, because of global cooling.
By all means show the AIT…but also show them TGGWS…then let the student decide what they think. I have done it a number of times and each time the students say at the end that AIT is propoganda and TGGWS far more believable.
El Gordo
Now that is an interesting bio – but geophysics has always been short of a mathematically based science, so I don’t the conflict is all that real – more like a convergence of one imaginable area with another.
I am not sure if anyone realises this but the tax dollars pouring into climate research and everything else associated with it, is pure capital consumption – and if you are killing the goose that’s laying the golden eggs, then funding this gravy train becomes a problem.
Hence you need to convert the next generation, which is what they are doing with World Vision.
Except I don’t think they are evil, just stupid.
It is a slippery road when people start using ethics and morals….whose morals and ethics? Al Gore’s??!!! politicians?? industry groups likely to make a motza?? Banks/ finance houses that will trade the carbon credits?? Universities who are funded for climate change?? Govt departments devoted to the issue??!!
Ethics and morals are far too corruptible and too easily driven by our own biases.
Louis, point taken, and as a professional exploration geologist yourself I think you may be correct.
It is not moral to prompt young students to commit to one side of a complex debate. It is moral to try to get them interested in following the debate. But when you are a young student you will probably find it difficult to sift out enough dispassionate information to make a meaningful decision at that point in your life.
World Vision, under Tim Costello, advertised for two ‘Climate Change’ types some months ago. Is this their first handiwork?
When the positions were advertised, many Australians decided to abandon World Vision as Tim’s outfit went into bat for global warming instead. I’m one of those.
Costello should be condemned for not only turning away donors from needy recipients, but also for this insidious attempt to politicise students with rubbish ‘science’.
AGW increasingly looks like the repository for Left eco-loons and those with a much broader political agenda. World Vision has lost its integrity.
I have a small quibble with this thread’s title: No Place for Morality in School Science. There is a place for morality in science: the morality OF science.
It’s ironic that students are often taught a dumbed-down rendering of THE Scientific Method. Yet this cartoon version leaves out the most important point: Tell the bloody truth! To illustrate this point, let’s consider two well-known scientists.
Stephen H. Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change, at Stanford University, is an opinion leader in the Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist camp. His earlier research conclusions suggested that human activities may contribute to an Ice Age in the near future. Some Global Warming indifferentists have jumped on Schneider’s about-face. I don’t see anything wrong with changing one’s opinion, in the light of new evidence.
However I do take issue with another of Schneider’s pronouncements.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(Discover magazine, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989)
Yes, Schneider is saying that it’s OK to dumb down for the benefit of the Great Unwashed. But he’s also saying that it’s OK to be dishonest, in the sense of sexing up the information, and cherry-picking data that supports your pet ideology. Sexing up science news is nothing new; it happens all the time, with or without Schneider. This is one of several reasons why so much popularized science reporting is garbage. I have a problem with this kind of scientific dishonesty, and with Schneider’s endorsement of it.
In sharp contrast to Schneider’s approach, here’s a link to an essay by the late Nobel laureate (physics) Richard Feynman on what he calls Cargo Cult Science.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
I’m mentioning this article, because the ethics advocated by Feynman–basically bending over backwards to be honest with oneself and with others about one’s scientific investigations–are the exact opposite of what we see going on in much of Climate Change ‘research’ today, and in the presentation of that ‘research’ to the public.
It’s still possible to do honest Climate-Change-related research. For example, assume that there’s significant climate warming at some unspecified time in the future, and then use computer modeling to see how that would affect agricultural in your region.
But at the moment, the Climate Change ‘research’ field is dominated by True Believers and scientific prostitutes. It’s worse than pharmaceutical research, and even worse than economics. Most Climate Change ‘research’ is classic Cargo Cult Science, at its worst.
Here is as good place as any for me to pose a dilemma I have pondered over ever since claims that the Great Barrier Reef would die off with global warning :
Approximately 400,000 years ago there was a particularly warm interglacial period with higher sea levels and a 4 degree Celsius (7.2 degree Fahrenheit) change in water temperature.
So how come next in the next warm cycle the GBR is going to die off, when patently it brushed off the last spell without breaking stride ?
Mick In The Hills,
It isn’t but the predictions are all based on computer modeling of a system no one actually knows much about. That’s being polite.
What seems to be the real reason is that the AGW crowd actually believe this stuff, and I suspect it comes from being ignorant of the scientific method. This was bound to happen when the riff-raff from the humanities schools started to appear in the physical science courses as a result of University Policy of getting a broad education. When I was an undergrad I had to attend social science courses and as a hard line empiricist, the crap taught in those courses was blatant. Mind you they social science types thought we were neanderthals, which is fair enough if that means being a practitioner of the scientific method, the cross one must bear.
The rot in the softer physical sciences started a little earlier when the geographers were put with the geology schools, and for administrative purposes, head of school of earth sciences rotated between the various sub schools.
The riff raff then started to populate the geography area and the rest is history.
So the GBR will be there in the future, but not in the post modernist computed future. The actual problem is that the AGW supporters actually believe that the modeling is a real facsimile of the physical world. (Same goes for economics and the modeling in that discipline).
And they outnumber us now in any case, so whether we like it or not, we are going to be made to enjoy being an ecologically responsible citizenry, and if we don’t we have history to base our interpretion on to work out what will happen to us.
El Gordo
The similarities between the two dsicplines are eerie at times.
This sinister form of climate child molestation got its start at the Rio Climate Conference when just one child was handed the priviledge of speaking on behalf of every single member of future generations. There was not the slightest attempt to develop a “consensus” view of children from all the nations of the world. There were no prior workshops, break-out groups, or even a general congress of child representatives from every UN member nation. And there had obviously been no democratic process in each of the UN nations to either elect a child delegate or to determine what position they would take to this supposedly “global” forum.
No. The nascent IPCC and assorted UN spivs handed the right to give a single view of the future on behalf of all humanity yet to be born to the 13 year old daughter of an environmental entertainer and celebrity, David Suzuki. And not surprisingly, her father’s views permeated her address which, apparently, was critical in swaying opinion amongst the delegates.
The problem is that her statements to the conference were such an admixture of ignorance and emotive naievity that delegates would never have taken them seriously if they had been delivered by an adult. They would have correctly identified them as the rantings of an extreme minority and totally unrepresentative swill. And people like then Australian Environment Minister Ros Kelly, and her Senior Advisor, Alan Cummine, must face the judgement of history for their part in the creation of the monster that has grown from this brief period when their brains turned to complete pus.
As Mark Anthony said, “The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones”.
To Mick in the Hills
I would like an answer to this as well. Over the past 400,000 years there has been at least 4 periods where temps have been warmer and far cooler than today yet the Great Barrier Reef seems to have bounced back each time. Sea levels also have risen and fallen by today’s levels. Any takers – sod, Luke et al?
Larry,
Well said.
Stephen Schneider also once said, in 1971, that we could increase CO2 by 8 times the present level and it would raise the temps by less than 2C.
So it would appear that he can say anything he likes because ‘the means justify the ends’, regardless of which side of the fence he is on.
I think this is the guy behind it all:
Youth Decide has worked with Professor David Griggs to develop the worlds you can vote for.
In September 2007, Dave moved to Australia to become Director of the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) which aims to deliver solutions to key sustainability challenges. In November 2008, he also became CEO of the newly created organisation ClimateWorks Australia (CWA), which focuses on action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Previous positions he has held include UK Met Office Deputy Chief Scientist and Director of the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, and Head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific assessment unit.
Dave is currently the vice-chair of the World Climate Research Programme and is a member of the Victorian Ministerial Reference Council on Climate Change Adaptation, the Australian Council of Environmental Deans and Directors and the Climate Institute Strategic Council. Dave was awarded the Vilho Vaisala award (World Meteorological Organization) in 1992.
After reading all the posts i feel most of you have missed the point, our children are not educated but rather indoctrinated. Louis Hissink came close with qiouting Shaw, shant be too long now before the Brown shirts will be out in force and we see a new and improved version of Hitlers youth.
The world is made of two types of people, the gullible and the not so gullible and the gullible need something to believe in. After debating people like SOD on other sites i have come to the conclusion that scientific fact means nothing to these poeple. They simply have a need to believe in a cause and any cause will do.
The fat cats and movers ‘n’ shakers of this world understand this all too well and they will use the gullible to push through world changing laws via the UN, laws that will enable them to control the worlds markets.
You see this is just the begining current CO2 levels are 385ppm everytime you exhale you exhale 40,000ppm so there is a tax to be had there. Then human population growth must be curbed, meat is a source of methane so we must now ration this, power blackouts between the hours of midnight and 4AM will be introduced and we will all have our own personal CO2 footprint we must not exceed.
You will be told what type of car you can drive, when to eat, what to eat, how much power you can use and when you can use it. The list goes on, and yet we have people like SOD (nothing personal) lapping all this up because “we can save the planet” save the planet from what i ask?
The proof is in the pudding of what i say, Wong and Rudd went into hysterics recently when the senate refused to pass the incorrectly named Carbon Polution Reduction Scheme, this scheme would essentially increase the tax revenue of the government and nothing more all in the name of “saving the planet”. At the same time the government has completed the following:
1, Authorised the commencement of the GUNNS wood chip mill to cut down old growth forests in Tasmania.
Q. Why would you chop down our best defence against rising CO2 levels.
A. Makes money for the government
2, Authorised the third Uranium mine at Beverly.
Q.Why would you allow a mine whos tailings will polute the environment for thousands of years?
Q. Why would you allow another mine to pump the great artesian basin dry?
Q. Why would you mine a mineral that would be used to generate a greenhouse gas the very same GHG that is causing the global warming we are all supposedly trying to stop!!!!!
A. Makes money for the government
3. Authorised the commencement of the Gorgon gas field
Q. Why would you allow a mine to produce a gas which will be used to produce CO2? and not only that it will be shipped to all parts of the world by ship which will also produce CO2.
Does any of this make sense?
By the way i should add that while Wong and Rudd were being Hysterical in the Senate they were also handing out a 5 billion thats 5,000,000,000,000 dollars in subsidies to the coal industry. This money was to be used to do two things, firstly to shield them from the CPRS and secondly to allow them to expand their operations. You can add to that the already generous sibsidies (over 2,000,000,000,000 dollars) they hand out to the mining industry for the amount of fuel they use.
So i ask the simple question, are we really trying to save the planet or just implement a tax and control mechanism?
Mick…by picking on an icon such as the GBR it helps to raise the profile and stir up action. That I think is the answer to your question. Politics and propaganda is dominating the issue and it is our duty I think to be sceptical and try and call their bluff. Sadly the media does not care about truth, only what sells. .
A quick look at the following link demonstrates exactly why I think “sceptics” are struggling to make leeway…we don t play the politics or propaganda nearly as well.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/511133/Propaganda-Techniques-of-WW2
Of course the truth ( either way) will eventually come out, I just hope we havent stuffed up our economies too much on the way!…One of the arguments the link makes is making issues black and white. Particularly with AGW there is an enormous amount of grey, but too many act as if the issue was simply black or white.
this is the last straw in my opinion for world vision. i will be cancelling my contribution.
Crackar14 wrote:
The list goes on, and yet we have people like SOD (nothing personal) lapping all this up because “we can save the planet” save the planet from what i ask?
But we really do need to save the planet–from His Goreness!
‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.’ Karl Marx.
This was a favourite theme of one of my many ultra-left professors many years ago as he sought to goad and cajole his gullible young things out onto the ‘barricades’. Substitute ‘scientist’ for ‘philosopher’ and you have the prevailing mindset. It has been a staple of the social sciences for decades for teachers and researchers to be ‘engaged’, committed’, etc. Nowadays the activist mentality is considered normal within the mutant animal that goes by the name of ‘climate science’.
A Reply to Poster #2
“i am glad, that young people in Australia understand the world, better than you folks do:”
( not so sure you do understand young folk, the world or anything much more than the tribe at Green Left Weekly based on the following, Dude )
“A united youth voice”
( Dude – they aren’t lining up for a plebiscite as in the piccie at the top. They only have to click a button after surfing to the website. Could perhaps be you 150 times over. That isn’t ‘united’, that’s just a click farm )
“will help compel the Australian government”
( right – a click farm is going to compel Ruddie and Julia to do – what ?? Starting to drift into realms of fantasy here. )
” to lead the way in securing a strong global agreement.”
( Uh –right. Dude – 20 million Aussies doing anything are going to ‘lead’ the World to do – what ??
Tell you what – actions speak louder than words. Stop all mining exports – metals, minerals, energy. Go for it. See how the World-in-Our-Region takes that little expression of commitment on board as the ships stop arriving with the lifeblood of their economies. Should be an interesting experiment on whose world-view is more realisticaly focussed ? )
Keep smokin’ Dude
Jimmock
P.C. is C.P backwards – Political correctness is cultural Marxism.
🙂
That adervtisement is nothing but a trawling excercise to see what the young really think about it. I suspect it will be used to support the Fabians in their attempt to complete their agenda – the socialisation of the world under the UN.
Fabians are the termites of the political world – at least with the commies you could recognise a clear and present danger – with this lot you get converted to socialism by stealth.
Workplace regulations already have in place the necessary controls to limit behaviour – it only needs to be helped with a regulation of energy use.
But if that is the way the mob want it, so be it.
As a high school science teacher, I showed “An inconvenient truth” to my year 10 class when it first came out and used it as a critical literacy tool. I then showed a series of paleoclimate slides and let them make up their own minds(mostly, after I ranted a bit). Since then I haven’t used it because I don’t think that it is fair to inflict Al’s smugness on impressionable school students. We only have one bed in the sick room.
I have to strongly disagree with a number of people on this blog concerning World Vision. People are reacting as if Tim Costello should know better. Why should he know better? Like most others without a PHD, he relies on accepted scientific wisdom to inform his decisions and like it or not, the IPCC is recognized rightly or wrongly as the world authority on climate change.
Now I think that I am an intelligent, educated person but in the end, when the whole AGW thing came to my attention, I made a choice. Some things didn’t seem to make sense on one side of the debate so I chose a side, basically went with my gut instincts.
I’ve been reading all of the comments on this site for a while now and so far, nobody on either side has changed the minds of anyone from the other side, let alone convert anyone. How do you think someone like Tim Costello, with everything he has on his plate is going to have time to “look at all the evidence” and come to the “obviously” correct conclusion?
Generally speaking, politicians are in the same boat. It’s no wonder that the debate in Canberra is split down roughly party lines, most peoples science seems to be determined by their ideology.
So don’t be so rough on the common people. They are usually doing the best that they can with their limited understanding.
Hardly a fair vote anyhow….let’s see, we will give you an option of voting for a world that we have portrayed as really horrible and nasty (without giving you any evidence to support our claim about why it would be horrible or nasty) or one that is ‘nice’ where we all skip around hugging each other and living off fresh air (because we have got rid of all those nasty food producing cow and sheep farmers and other businesses that produce things because we have taxed them out of existence and/or exported all our jobs overseas…but we didn’t tell you that either). Hopefully the kids of today can smell a rat and a stacked vote when they see one…let’s hope….
The immorality is having compulsory state education in the first place.
Louis what an earth do you mean by “The immorality is having compulsory state education in the first place.” Surely you don t advocate making school voluntary/ or not providing education at all?
Let’s hear from the Voice-of-Authority boys at the Luke Collective. What do you think about Defender-of-the-Faith Stephen Schneider’s scientific ‘ethics’? To find my exhumation of Schneider’s infamous quote, type 9:58 into your Find box, and then click on Next.
In the interest of the Holy Crusade against the Flying CO2 Monster, is it OK for publicly-funded ‘scientists’ to deliberately mislead the people who pay their salaries? Do the ends justify the means? Do you agree with the linked Feynman essay, which advocates that scientists, when wearing their scientific hats, should always tell the whole truth as they know it, warts and all?
janama,
With all those impressingly named hats old mate Dave is wearing , think off all the propaganda money he is soaking up and neutralising . Every cloud has a silver lining.
I was taught and have taught my children to listen to the news and think about it . Wonder how a thing came to happen .
My parents also told us of Tokyo Rose and Mr Goebels and what propaganda is. I hope enough people do this to save the world from overfunded nutters.
In the meantime does God know that Rev Tim has found a new religion ,all complete with its own false prophet ? And we thought Father Bob had problems.
Toby
Exactly what I meant – why do you think society continues to be so divided – leties inculcating their beliefs, religions theirs into the children, and the State, well, that’s called brainwashing.
Compulsory eductation was instituted by the UN as a “human right” after WWII but the UN was set up by the socialists and for them education is simply brainwashing, of the most amiable type of course.
Any inidividual only needs to be taught how to write, read and count to be able to cooperate in society – the rest is indoctrination and should be left until the younf adult has reached physical maturity, ie post teens, so that their brains are not so susceptible to ideology.
Why do you think political and religious organisations are so interested in “educating” the young. What was the Jesuit creed, Give me them at 6 years old and I will have them for life.
Toby, compulsory education is the hallmark of the totalitarian state.
Louis I disagree completely and believe your opinion to be disgraceful. Not educating people allows them to be treated like sheep. Indoctrination is not education and vice versa. As a teacher who started teaching at age 40 because I want to help people become critical thinkers, I am shocked that anybody could have an opinion like yours. crakar14 who posted above on this thread, appears to be trying to do the same thing…so are many many teachers. Of course our own bias is incorporated in how teach, but a good teacher should always try and be as unbiased as possible and provide a variety of perspectives…how else can they become critical thinkers? I openly state my opinion on issues and topics, but I always premise it with the opinion being mine and that many at the school would disagree ( AGW for one). The kids love it and thrive on it.
I disagree with many teachers and their views, doesn t make me right or them wrong. I teach in the public system despite being offered 30% more to teach in some of the top private schools in the country. I am politically incorrect and I do not agree with many things that go on in education. The reporting system is a joke, but there are ways around it and I am yet to find a parent who does not want to hear the truth…as harsh as it may be, so long as it is constructive in nature. There are many great teachers around, and many bad ones. BUT surely everybody has a right to be taught the process of how to think?
Surely you do not think the only people who should be educated are the rich who can afford it??
Or those with religious parents who who will send them to a religious school that is more likely to follow your statement of “Jesuit creed, Give me them at 6 years old and I will have them for life. ”
How do you propose they learn basic numeracy and literacy?
You state ;”why do you think society continues to be so divided”…could it because we are all different, with different values cultures and morals? How boring would it be if we were all the same! Could you imagine how dull this blog would be if we all agreed with each other?
Critical thinking is what is needed and you don t get that without learning basic logic which should be developed for everybody.
I appreciate people who think outside the box and challenge the status quo, but I have to say the thought that anybody could be against educating children absolutely disgusts me.
Below is a letter I once had published in a Australian newspaper. It is not so much about morality per se but certainly against the wrong kind of morality as inspired or imposed by religion:
“The task of a government is to administer a country and in doing so ensure independent judiciary, security, infrastructure, healthcare, education and to create the right conditions for economic prosperity.
Since Australia is not a theocracy but a secular democracy any of the above basic rights/responsibilities should be devoid of any
religious leaning and certainly not be trusted into the hands of religious institutions. The latest commotion over Catholic hospitals refusing to perform legal abortions has revived the debate whether religion or religious beliefs can interfere with the above basic needs or rights of people.
I strongly believe that we have allowed religion too much latitude already. The influence of religion in society should be limited to non-essential voluntary or personal activities.
Having Islamic and Christian secondary schools or Catholic hospitals is as ridiculous as having Anglican roads, a Methodist sewage system or a Protestant police force.”
Chris, I can t stand religion, infact I would go even further, BUT I will defend the right of people to gather in churches, provide education, and healthcare etc.
To prevent it, is too prevent freedom of choice.
The more educated we become the less religious we become, in my opinion, and i believe the data would back me up.
You state ;“The task of a government is to administer a country and in doing so ensure independent judiciary, security, infrastructure, healthcare, education and to create the right conditions for economic prosperity.
Since Australia is not a theocracy but a secular democracy any of the above basic rights/responsibilities should be devoid of any religious leaning and certainly not be trusted into the hands of religious institutions.”
I agree…the govt should do as you say, but anybody else should have the right to set up a hospital, school, build a road, become a lawyer etc, if they so desire.
O
To prevent religious groups doing what they want
Sorry Chris i did not mean to send!
I think the real danger is when anybody thinks their values, ethics and morals are better than somebody else’s. This becomes a very slippery slope and is why AGW so concerns me. I see it as inevitably being a path to global governance and control.
If you want an abortion, don t go to a catholic hospital!..that is if they openly have a policy of not providing abortions.
I can’t believe you think that Louis, if people had the right to chose whether to get educated or not they would do so as children and as a teacher I know how many children would actually want to go to school, virtually none! Think back, I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t be who you are today if you were given that choice when you were 6 years old.
The possibility of indoctrination is a risk that we have to take in a free and democratic society and I believe that the best defense against it is a quality education. One where critical thinking is promoted and valued, which I think happens more in the state system than in the private one.
The trouble is that the govt provides the funding for the schools.
The govt. provides funding for the scientists.
The govt provides funding for half the media.
The govt is hooked on the AGW religon swearing on the IPCC bible.
But it is very gladdening to hear Toby show both AIT and TGGWS to his class.
I’m wondering how closely you have to follow the curriculum set by the govt. Toby.
Toby,
I suppose it’s difficult for those who don’t know how to think, to teach others, and then, those who know what to think, seem quite adept at teaching others what to think.
I am opposed to forcing individuals to to go to school, or forcing them to work, or forcing them to do anything.
Learning basic numeracy and literacy, assuming initially that the parents were numerate and literate, would happen in the family environment – they don’t need to go to school to learn that. Learning a language at home, and I am bi lingual, is natural – I never formally learnt Dutch but speak it without accent, and been accused of speaking English like an Englishman despite being totally educated in Australia.
As for the divisions in society, to which you offer the explanation that we might have different customs and morals, and hence the differences, are divisions fundamentally based on an acquired intellectual superstructures and not then inherently organic. Apart from superficial visual differences, all humans are the same and have the same needs.
You also seem to confuse erudition/education with intelligence – some of the most erudite academics are also some of the most stupid individuals one could come across. Intelligence is the ability to perceive the essential from the inessential.
Let me recount an anecdote from one of Lyall Watson’ books. Watson recounted the recollections of a Western Christian missionary in Papua New Guinea last century. That missionary goal was to convert a particular highlands tribe to his faith and among the many ways of introducing Western ideas to this them, used a soccer match as a means of introducing competition to them. So weekly soccer matches were organised and all went well until the missionary realised that the final score was always a draw. Flustered, he reproached the village headman and stressed that the whole idea of this ball game was to have a winner and a loser. Not so, said the headman, while we like playing soccer, we always make sure we have a draw, so that at the end of the game no one wins, and no one loses.
That, Toby, is the hallmark of intelligence uneducated people possess.
Intelligence comes from experience and the memory of that experience, and I commend an excellent Peter Ryan column published in Quadrant a couple of years ago in which he discussed the role of memory as crucial in forming the basis of civilisation.
While you might think my position to be disgraceful, perhaps your position of forcing malleable minds to do what you think they ought to be doing, might be considered even more. I now rue the day I opted not to continue Latin classes at school, and instead science! I now realise what I lost from not having a classical education, but then if I had one of those, I would not have then ended up as a geologist.
Your final sentence, then, says it all.
Derek Smith
The ability to chose, or not, comes from experience based on biological maturation. A child is not a mature human, both in mind and body, and therefore (has) not the intellectual development to recognise choices apart from organic ones based on physics and chemistry. (Hence the predisposition for ideologues, and commercial advertisers, to focus on the Youf market).
When I was six years old I went to a Matraville school. I don’t remember it, and we lived in a small house, near the Prince Henry Hospital, near Long Bay Gaol, and on the other side, the cemetary, and we were poor.
I do remember going to Narrabeen Primary School and remember my teacher Mr. Ball, who came home to help me with my schooling during the time I was infected with hepatitus during the late 1950’s. I will never forget that kindness because in those days PC had not infected society.
And then my mother discovered that the principal of Narrabeen Primary School was a communist. That discovery caused an immediate change in her children’s educational directions. I and my, deceased, younger brother were sent to Knox Grammar, while my sisters to Queenwood.
So then, Derek, migrants spotted the political nature of the education system in Australia, and acted in response to it.
Interesting both you and Toby have appeared here as commentators at about the same time.
Know what area u came from Louis. I used to drive from Coogee to Matraville to work (past the cemetary) for a couple of months back in 1972.
Toby:
“Chris, I can t stand religion, infact I would go even further, BUT I will defend the right of people to gather in churches, provide education, and healthcare etc.
To prevent it, is too prevent freedom of choice.”
As long as the church is not subsidized by the state I , of course would not deprive people the rights of these gatherings. With basic health care and education that is a different cattle of fish. For me they are in the same league as our roads and sewage system etc. which should not be organized or owned by religiously motivated groups of people.
Louis, I dont force students to think anything! I try and give them a variety of perspectives, ideas, skills, etc in order for them to hopefully lead happy lives. What the hell are you on about forcing malleable minds.
Mack, in answer to your question, the curriculum has a broad outline in which teachers are pretty much able to teach what they want up until the 2 senior years. I have never had anybody try and interfere with how I teach or what I teach. The course at VCE level ( that is the last 2 years of school) is regimented in that there are very specific outcomes students are expected to understand ( for instance the governments key economic objectives and methods to achieve them- for a look at what I feel to be a brilliantly put together teaching tool for economics students have a look at http://www.mrwood.com.au ).
In year 10 economics I wrote my schools program, but other teachers are free to use it, or teach their own way so long as it meets the outcomes expected ( these outcomes are very broad such as-
Economic knowledge and understanding
• identification of possible direct economic consequences of proposed government policies on the economy, society and environment; consideration of alternative proposals; and basic judgments on the extent of the influence
• basic understanding of how demand and supply set prices, and the possible influences of changing prices on consumers and producers
• justification of strategies selected for managing personal finances in given contexts
• understanding of the relationship between possible career paths and opportunities and other factors affecting employment choices
• adaptation of generic job-seeking skills and job interview techniques for specific contexts
taken from- http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/assessment/ppoint/humanities/economics/index.html#level6
on this site you can link to all the standards and outcomes and “prescriptors” for the curriculum in all subject areas
based on the expected economic knowledge and understanding expected above I teach them- goal setting, resume writing, interview techniques, how to manage their money; a basic understanding of how markets work including investing in the stock market, currency market, gold market, how to buy a house and borrow money including concepts such as length of loan, total interest repayments, playing with home loan calculators, the role of the government and a variety of perspectives on how it can achieve its key objectives, how to do a cost benefit analysis, the benefits of globalisation and trade and even dare i say it graphing and charting skills, basic numeracy such as budgetting and percentages, I get students to imagine they were PM and ask them what their key objectives would be and why).- does that sound like indoctrination?
I also teach year 12 business management where the course is very prescriptive. When you have students sitting an external exam you need to have specifics to teach, other wise the exam is very likely to be unfair…how can you test people on what they havent been taught?
I teach year 10 history—basically the course says students should develop their understanding of twentieth century history, but is not specific in what is taught, just that they study a topic in detail and get an overview of the major events that took place ( I allow the students to basically select the main topic- usually WW1 or 2, and they all do a survey at home on what the major events are from the C20th, the 20-25 most common events are then used by students to create a power point which they present to the class- if a student has a keen interest in a topic or issue, they can do that instead) – does that sound like indoctrination Louis?
The education system is far from perfect, but anybody with a slightly above average IQ can become a teacher ( ITS A FREE MARKET!), whatever biases there are in teachers, I would suggest are merely a reflection of society in general. That said with the salaries paid to teachers there is no doubt that it has the potential to miss out on the best because the salaries are not attractive. After 5 years of teaching I am only on 57,000 pa, in my last job I paid twice that in tax!
I work with a very eclectic group of teachers ( 160 of us!), we have many debates and discussions and even arguments, but nobody has ever told me what to teach, or how to teach.
I get invited into other teachers classes to discuss issues and I have the opportunity to give talks to teachers at the school about things that I think are important, so that they can offer different perspectives to their students. Telling students there is only black and white is indoctrination/ propaganda, good teachers do not do that. Anybody can become a teacher….don t like what you see happening, go and teach. I did….and so are many, many, other mature aged teachers.
Louis says; “Interesting both you and Toby have appeared here as commentators at about the same time.”
Ive no idea when Derek started posting, Ive been around for 3 years.
Ive also no idea what you are insinuating…another conspiracy theory?!
I m sure I don t fit your expected teacher profile Louis; lived and worked all over the world, born in switzerland, managed the foreign exchange desk for one of the largest banks in the world (where i learnt to type 2 fingered very quickly and very badly..so apologies all for my frequent typos). I usually vote liberal although i couldnt vote for turnbull or the current rabble, I am sceptical of AGW whilst conceding it may be anthropogenic and in particular I am sceptical of how attempts to “control” climate will impact on society and my family, I am number 13 in the climate sceptic party, I hate big government but I believe in government ( the prospect of AGW leading to big brother genuinely concerns me, whilst I also recognise that I may also be guilty of seeing conspiracy theories where none exist- I do however see that if co2 really is going to be controlled it will inevitably require our liberties to be curtailed and this worries me!!), I believe in free markets (within reason and with controls), I am sceptical of many alternative energies but hopeful and expecting that we will find a viable alternative to fossil fuels which will naturally reduce our co2 emissions if that is indeed required- I don t like governments trying to pick winners.
I think the ability to think and have your own justifiable opinions is important and I think learning numeracy and literacy should be everybodies right so that they can develop the thought processes to do this, its seems bizarre to me that anybody would think otherwise.
sorry if i have bored you all with my thoughts on education
Toby, you and I aren’t exactly peas in a pod if that’s what Louis is suggesting. There a a few things about me that you would probably find disagreeable (being a christian for one)but there is some commonality.
I have always voted Liberal except for the last election where I voted for Rudd. I believed that the “apology” was necessary and well done and that it was also important, for purely political reasons, for Australia to sign Kyoto. I have never believed that Kyoto was worth the paper that it was written on but it was an obstacle to the national psyche. I don’t believe I will ever vote Labor again but like you, I have no confidence in anyone except Nick X.
I think that AGW is total rubbish and would be happy for people to believe whatever they wished except that governments heeding the “science” are in the process of royally stuffing everything up and it will cost us dearly for no real benefit.
I’m disappointed that the GFC hasn’t caused a complete rethink of our capitalist, consumerist society and I’m afraid that the only thing that will make a real difference is the approaching next glacial period.
As a teacher, I try to get my students to think but it’s not easy. Modern technology is surprisingly the biggest obstacle and I will never forget when an aboriginal teacher at a conference showed us how to light a fire the traditional way and then said to us that when we get stuck in the bush with no matches we are stuffed but they will always be able to make a fire.
Toby,
Thank you for your thoughtful insights above, but the lag between your posts here, and my reactions, are simply due to mundane matters like time differences, work and internet connections.
I should not have put you in the same category as Derek, and for this I apologise, and no, you have not bored me either. Au Contraire, your thoughts are appreciated.
But trust your gut instincts, not your mind.
Mack,
Then, along Bunnerong Road as it might still be named, was our small home separated from Long Bay Gaol by a vast expanse of “bush”. I do remember walking to school, hand in hand with younger brother, down Bunnerong Road to school. The Prince Henry Hospital was a little further, I remember, down that road.
I spent a short period in the hospital when I contracted hepatitus B, and can still recall the time when my father, a GP and surgeon, entered the ward and chatted all the other inmates before me.
In those days hospitals had wheeled table-like things with long legs that were wheeled over your bed towards you as a sort of mobile table. They made excellent “skate boards” down the wards, and I still remember falling on my bum when I went too fast sailing down between the beds in my ward.
You can’t do that now, and probably called “inappropriate” by the thought gestapo.
Derek,
Capitalism isn’t a dogma but a way of living which individuals do when not coerced.
Louis, perhaps “capitalism” isn’t the right word. I was thinking about the ridiculous bonuses paid to bank chiefs and CEO’s and all of the people who lost their homes because of shonky lending practices at the time. I certainly don’t disagree with making an honest profit.
How would you have phrased it?
Derek,
You raise one important question – how would I have phrased it?
Easy.
Legalised theft.
Or, the modern version of feudalism.