There is a great deal of 'green' propaganda in schools these days. It is concentrated in geography classes but also reaches into science lessons, school assemblies and even drama classes.
My younger daughter, prior to being home-educated, had a drama class in which she was told to hug a tree. She understood that this was because trees were precious and in danger.
My other daughter, on one occasion, had a school assembly in which there was a presentation on renewable energy and then she went into her first lesson of the day, a science class, in which the subject was, lo and behold, renewable energy again.
Of course, you can teach children about renewable energy in a wholly scientific way. But it would be naive of us, surely, to think that this subject is being taught without there being a 'sub-text'. The sub-text is either that our non-renewable energy is running out in a way that should give us considerable concern or else that burning non-renewable energy is a danger to the planet through global warming.
Again, of course it would be possible to examine the merits of these concerns. But that is not what actually happens in schools. In my experience, children are only given one side of the story. They are told that the non-renewable energy is running out quickly. They are told that burning fossil fuels is causing a present danger to the planet. They are told that forests are vital to the survival of the planet and that they are being quickly depleted (by ruthless capitalists, if the propaganda is really running hot).
This is not education. This is propaganda.
A vital part of education is learning to assess opposing sides of a argument. But when it comes to green issues, the children are not even told that there is an argument at all. That is why it should be termed 'propaganda'.
I recently have started using the well-known book, The Skeptical Evironmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg as the basis for countering some of the propaganda my younger daughter has already received. In doing this, I hasten to add, I emphasise to my daughter that there is considerable disagreement about these matters.
In the section on forests, Lomborg states that in the previous 50 years before publication (in 2001), contrary to the assertions of various people and organisations, the total area of land covered by woods and forests barely changed at all. He cites figures produced by the United Nations.
When it comes, specifically, to tropical forests, he states that the best estimate is that the area covered by them decreased at a rate of 0.46 per cent a year in the previous 15 years. Again, he cites United Nations figures in his analysis.
I don't say that Mr Lomborg's analysis is right. I am not an expert in the area at all and do not pretend to be. But he is a man with considerable credibility on the subject. I tell my daughter that his view is clearly not shared by others. We write down in our summaries that these facts are claimed by him and we describe the source of his information. It is a beginning, I hope, of an a true sense of enquiry after truth. It gives her, I hope, some notion that one needs to compare evidence. These things, I suggest, are quite different from what many schools are now teaching when the subject has any connection with the environment.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education
Comments (8)
TrackBack (3)
Comments
There are serious questions over Lomberg's understanding of scientific issues. See the web.
His general stance - that resources should be focused on "achievable" goals (esp HIV prevention etc) are laudable. But they have little to do with a considered understanding of Ecology. If you are using his book as a means of countering what you preceive as the "propaganda" being taught to your daughter, you are not doing her a favour.
Posted by: one_man_republic at October 7, 2006 04:21 PM
Dr Peter Raven, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2002 said of Lomborg: "...he's not an environmental scientist and he doesn't understand the fields that he's talking about so in that case, if you have a point to make and you want to get to that point, which is: everything's fine, everybody's wrong, there is no environmental problem, you just keep making that point. It's like a school exercise or a debating society, which really doesn't take into account the facts".
As for Forests, you don't miss what you don't know.
I would suggest you read (together) 'A Sand County Almanac' by Aldo Leopold. But for pity's sake, let her find out about the Natural Sciences herself, thru a growing curiosity and enthusiasm. Not because you want to act as an apologist for mercantile capitalism.
Posted by: sobonty at October 7, 2006 04:37 PM
There's also a great deal of vegetarian and animal liberation propaganda in schools - from, among others, PETA... All producing lovely **FREE** "National Curriculum" packs for teachers... Next thing, your kids start calling pets "companion animals"...
Posted by: raw carrot at October 8, 2006 08:40 PM
You are correct James. What is being missed by some posts on this thread is that just because you agree with the propoganda doesn't mean that it's not propoganda. School's use of propoganda is growing, not just in environmental studies, but in politics, and economics.
We've seen in the media last week that schools are struggling to teach civics. I suspect that this is not because it's difficult to teach, but because the syllabus conflicts with the beliefs of a significant part of the teaching profession.
Posted by: John East at October 9, 2006 08:57 PM
teachers see themselves as propagandists these days. it's inculcated in them at teacher training college, as frank chalk would confirm (i review his book on my humble little semi-blog - follow the link to read if interested).
none of this is surprising, james, but you do a valuable service
Of couruse it would be entirely different from the fact that thirty years ago I was taught in school that we only had about thirty years' oil left and had to find different energy sources!
Posted by: Jock Coats at October 6, 2006 07:09 PM