What Are They Teaching Your Kids About Global Warming?

Pupils attend a class at 'les Vignes', a girls preparatory school in Courbevoie, outside Paris, on May 9, 2014. 
National Journal
Clare Foran
June 26, 2014, 1:10 a.m.

It starts with Al Gore.

When it comes time to teach his high school sopho­mores about glob­al warm­ing, Wyom­ing sci­ence teach­er Jim Stith shows An In­con­veni­ent Truth. The green doc­u­ment­ary de­liv­ers an un­am­bigu­ous mes­sage: Hu­man activ­ity is driv­ing dan­ger­ous cli­mate change.

But the third-year teach­er is no de­votee of the former vice pres­id­ent. “I make sure they watch it on a day I’m gone be­cause I can’t stand to listen to him talk,” Stith said.

And he doesn’t teach Gore’s con­clu­sions as settled sci­ence. After the film, his class watches a movie called The Great Glob­al Warm­ing Swindle. It trots out an ar­ray of sci­ent­ists, politi­cians, and eco­nom­ists who dis­pute the idea that cli­mate change is man-made.

Then Stith asks his stu­dents to take a po­s­i­tion. They can ar­gue whatever they want as long as they back their claims with evid­ence. In the end, the class is left to draw its own con­clu­sions. “We’re put­ting stuff in­to our at­mo­sphere that isn’t great. And it’s un­deni­able that the cli­mate is chan­ging,” Stith said. “But wheth­er hu­mans are the cause, that’s a bit more open to in­ter­pret­a­tion.”

It’s a con­clu­sion that drives cli­mate sci­ent­ists crazy, es­pe­cially when it’s passed on to stu­dents. Here’s why: Ninety-sev­en per­cent of cli­mate sci­ent­ists agree that glob­al warm­ing is un­der­way and hu­man activ­ity is the primary cause.

The sci­entif­ic con­sensus, however, has no equi­val­ent polit­ic­al agree­ment. In­stead, re­jec­tion of the link between hu­man activ­ity and cli­mate change has be­come a near-uni­ver­sal stance in the Re­pub­lic­an Party.

All this puts sci­ence teach­ers in an awk­ward po­s­i­tion: Sci­ent­ists in­sist that teach­ing the con­tro­versy — and not the con­sensus — is a derel­ic­tion of duty and a propaga­tion of false­hood. But a power­ful con­ser­vat­ive co­ali­tion op­poses any ef­fort to stand­ard­ize a con­sensus cur­riculum, and they’ve had suc­cess in block­ing such a stand­ard from tak­ing ef­fect.

The end res­ult: a patch­work of cli­mate in­struc­tion guidelines that largely leaves teach­ers to their own devices, fa­cil­it­at­ing massive dis­par­it­ies in glob­al-warm­ing edu­ca­tion from school to school and state to state.

“There’s a lot of vari­ab­il­ity in how this is taught right now,” said Minda Ber­be­co, the Na­tion­al Cen­ter for Sci­ence Edu­ca­tion’s pro­grams and policy dir­ect­or. “What’s really troub­ling is a lot of stu­dents are not re­ceiv­ing ac­cur­ate sci­entif­ic in­form­a­tion.”

An ef­fort to change that is un­der way, but has so far faced sig­ni­fic­ant head­winds in a hand­ful of red states. Last year, a co­ali­tion of sci­ent­ists and edu­cat­ors re­leased a set of aca­dem­ic stand­ards for kinder­garten through 12th grade that re­quire schools to teach the sci­entif­ic con­sensus on man-made glob­al warm­ing.

That aca­dem­ic frame­work — known as the Next Gen­er­a­tion Sci­ence Stand­ards — has won praise from high-pro­file sci­entif­ic or­gan­iz­a­tions like the Amer­ic­an As­so­ci­ation for the Ad­vance­ment of Sci­ence and the Amer­ic­an Met­eor­o­lo­gic­al So­ci­ety. They say teach­ing the con­sensus is cru­cial, es­pe­cially as glob­al warm­ing be­gins to in­tensi­fy.

Con­ser­vat­ive or­gan­iz­a­tions with tea-party ties, however, op­pose the stand­ards, par­tic­u­larly the part that deals with glob­al warm­ing. Truth in Amer­ic­an Edu­ca­tion, a net­work of tea-party and con­ser­vat­ive groups, has come out against them. A re­search­er with Heart­land In­sti­tute, a think tank that pro­motes glob­al-warm­ing skep­ti­cism, said the guidelines “im­pose alarm­ist glob­al-warm­ing ideas on chil­dren,” and con­ser­vat­ive ad­vocacy or­gan­iz­a­tion the Wyom­ing Liberty Group said they “drive an eco-agenda.”

The stand­ards have so far been ad­op­ted in 11 states: Cali­for­nia, Delaware, Kan­sas, Ken­tucky, Illinois, Mary­land, Nevada, Ore­gon, Rhode Is­land, Ver­mont, and Wash­ing­ton, along with the Dis­trict of Columbia.

But else­where, the aca­dem­ic frame­work has been re­jec­ted. In March, Wyom­ing law­makers blocked its ad­op­tion. Two months later, an Ok­lahoma House com­mit­tee voted to pre­vent it from tak­ing ef­fect. And South Car­o­lina’s Le­gis­lature passed a meas­ure to pro­hib­it the guidelines in the state be­fore they had even been made fi­nal.

While the fight drags on, most of the ex­ist­ing stand­ards that men­tion glob­al warm­ing provide little to no dir­ec­tion as to how it should be taught. And some make it ex­ceed­ingly easy for edu­cat­ors to teach the con­tro­versy. 

Geor­gia’s state sci­ence stand­ards ask stu­dents to “judge the cur­rent the­or­ies ex­plain­ing glob­al warm­ing.” West Vir­gin­ia com­pels high school sci­ence classes to “de­bate cli­mate changes.” Louisi­ana and Ten­ness­ee, mean­while, have laws on the books pro­tect­ing teach­ers who pro­mote cli­mate deni­al. 

The con­sequence of this is that cli­mate skep­tics of­ten get equal air­ing in the classroom. 

Geor­gia teach­er Vir­gin­ia Kirima asks her 11th-grade en­vir­on­ment­al-sci­ence stu­dents to de­bate wheth­er cli­mate change is nat­ur­al or man-made. Ac­cord­ing to Kirima, there is no right or wrong an­swer. The team that of­fers up the most com­pel­ling sci­entif­ic evid­ence wins. “It’s up to them to ac­cept wheth­er cli­mate change is nat­ur­al or caused by hu­mans,” Kirima said.

Mean­while, sev­er­al thou­sand miles away in sunny Cali­for­nia, high school teach­er Heath­er Wyg­ant en­sures her stu­dents un­der­stand the con­sensus. “We talk about the fact that most sci­ent­ists agree on this and we look at the evid­ence. I also spend a lot of time talk­ing about mis­con­cep­tions and why people don’t be­lieve things be­cause I don’t want there to be any con­fu­sion,” she ex­plained. 

In West Vir­gin­ia, where the coal in­dustry wields con­sid­er­able clout, high school sci­ence teach­er Kathy Jac­quez’s stu­dents leave the classroom with a firm grasp on the glob­al warm­ing con­sensus. And, she says, that lets them think crit­ic­ally about the polit­ic­al battles cur­rently un­fold­ing in the state. “If you look at the head­lines, they talk about cut­ting air pol­lu­tion and say it’s the death of the coal in­dustry,” Jac­quez said. “But when I talk to my kids it’s really amaz­ing. None of them think this is up for de­bate. They know cli­mate change is real, and it’s something we have to deal with.”

Oth­er teach­ers stop short of spelling out facts, in part, be­cause they’re afraid of what might hap­pen if they do. “I stay out of the pro­cess be­cause when I first star­ted teach­ing this I was labeled an evan­gel­ist. I have a kid of my own, and I have a job to keep,” said Col­or­ado sci­ence teach­er Cheryl Man­ning. “I want my stu­dents to come away un­der­stand­ing that hu­man activ­ity has caused glob­al warm­ing. But I don’t tell them that ex­pli­citly.”

What We're Following See More »
HEADED TO PRESIDENT’S DESK
Trade Bill Would Ban Imports Made with Slave Labor
28 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

“A bill headed for President Barack Obama this week includes a provision that would ban U.S. imports of fish caught by slaves in Southeast Asia, gold mined by children in Africa and garments sewn by abused women in Bangladesh, closing a loophole in an 85-year-old tariff law.” The Senate approved the bill, which would also ban Internet taxes and overhaul trade laws, by a vote of 75-20. It now goes to President Obama.

Source:
TRUMP UP TO 44%
Sanders Closes to Within Seven Nationally in New Poll
41 minutes ago
THE LATEST

Bernie Sanders has closed to within seven points of Hillary Clinton in a new Morning Consult survey. Clinton leads 46%-39%. Consistent with the New Hampshire voting results, Clinton does best with retirees, while Sanders leads by 20 percentage points among those under 30. On the Republican side, Donald Trump is far ahead with 44% support. Trailing by a huge margin are Ted Cruz (17%), Ben Carson (10%) and Marco Rubio (10%).

Source:
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
12 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
13 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
14 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

×