How will Common Core/National Science Standards Address Climate Change?

A recent post by MEW reported on a parent's delight about the forthcoming national science standards and her belief they would teach climate change is primarily due to humans.  She wrote:


Federal science standards coming later this month will recommend that public schools educate students about climate change. Once students understand, they may just educate their parents. 


 Oops. From HotAir and The Economist's findings on climate change:

The Economist has been pretty reliable about beating the climate-alarmist drum for years on end now, often peddling the urgent need for an overarching global climate treaty to combat the threat. In a piece this week, however, the British publication took a much more moderate approach and hashed out some of the different studies suggesting that the planet actually might not be quite as sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide levels as the global-warming scaremongers have long been insisting.

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years. …

If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. …

  How will climate change be addressed in nationalized science standards? Do you think once we have a nationalized set of standards in education, will it matter when/if research/data proves Al Gore incorrect?

Maybe 12 year old children don't know everything after all.

 

The Regulation (not Education) of Food "Choices"

A Scottish student gives this public school meal a low rating.  It meets nutritional standards...but will students eat it?

The political elites in Scotland and the United States have a common goal.  It's the quest for and maintaining governmental control.  Governmental authorities publish talking points of healthy eating and the problems of obesity, but when it comes down to it, the underlying belief from these elites (and bureaucrats) is a centralized governmental authority should handle all decisions about food consumption and production for its citizens.

The first story from BBC News details findings on food nutrition on outside of school food purchases:

School pupils in Glasgow who buy lunch outside school are likely to be consuming too much energy, fat and salt, a survey has found.

The Glasgow Centre for Population Health study bought 45 lunch items around five secondary school areas.

It found 37 samples did not comply with one or more of the nutrient standards for fat, saturated fat and salt.

The study concluded that more needed to be done to encourage healthier "stay-on-site" lunchtime eating among pupils. 

What "encouragement" (or "nudge") does a government provide to encourage healthier "stay-on-site" lunchtime eating?

This study concluded that several factors needed to be addressed if healthy eating was to be increased amongst secondary school pupils.

These included the use of licensing and planning powers to control the number and concentration of take-away food outlets near schools and the possible introduction of taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidisation of healthy foods. 

Glasgow City Council, which commissioned the research, said it was further evidence that its stay-on-site healthy eating initiative - The Big Eat In - was a better option for pupils.

One option entertained is to penalize the take away food outlets by restricting what they can cook and/or institute a tax on "unhealthy foods" near the school because these private businesses don't support the governmental nutritional standards.  A private business can be told what/how to cook food and/or suffer financial penalties if these standards aren't followed. 

What do these Scottish "food fixes" have to do with America?  A governmental board can't penalize a private business for food choices and service in America....right?  It seems as New York City is toying with the same mandate ideas as Scotland:...except this mandate would include adults.  From Hot Air:

Like I said a few weeks ago, this was always the goal of the otherwise dumb soda regs. A restriction on portion sizes makes no sense when it’s limited to one kind of beverage and a select few types of vendors except as a way to inure the public to more draconian regulations down the line. Ban big sodas now, let people get used to it, and then if/when the city’s obesity rate dips — for whatever reason(s) — flog the hell out of those statistics as proof that dietary nannyism works and should be pursued more aggressively. No surprise, then, that the city health board might be thinking about bold new frontiers in keeping you from stuffing your face.

What is surprising is that they’re doing it so soon. This strategy depends on going very slowly at first so that initial worries about a slippery slope will ease. Instead, sounds like they’re ready to turn this into a slippery water slide. Bad move:

“The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” said Bruce Vladeck, a senior adviser at Nexera Consulting and one of the mayor’s appointees to the 11-member board.
The board yesterday agreed to put Bloomberg’s big-soda ban up for a public hearing July 24, but also talked about the merits of limiting other high-calorie treats.
A large tub of movie-theater popcorn has up to 1,650 calories.
“There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories . . . and I’m not so sure what the rationale is not to include those,” said member Dr. Joel Forman, a pediatrics professor at Mount Sinai.

The rationale for skipping milkshakes — for now — is, I guess, that there’s some nutritional benefit to milk-based drinks whereas soda is pure crapola. But of course, it’s not the milk that’s doing the heavy caloric lifting in the average latte syrup bomb, it’s the sugar. Why not drop a portion-size restriction on Starbucks too and let customers supplement their lost milk with a cup out of the carton at home? (Why not just ban the sugar and syrup altogether?) Answer: Because the well-educated diet-minded liberals who sneer at soda consumption kind of enjoy their morning mochaccinos, and if the state starts coming after that now, then Bloomberg might have a real backlash on his hands. Paternalism’s for the rubes, not for the overclass. 

 Paternalism’s for the rubes, not for the overclass.  There you have it in a nutshell.  The mandates coming from Scotland to control children's consumption of food outside of school or NYC controlling sodas, milkshakes and popcorn for adults as well as children has more to do with governmental control than teaching and allowing personal responsibility and freedom for individuals.   Regardless of what the authorities claim about food choices, the fact is, the choice is taken away and we are mandated to certain items.  It's not OUR choice, it is what we are being "allowed".  (That's the same premise school "choice" operates under as well).

What happened to a Scottish girl who blogged about cafeteria food at a public school paid for by taxpayers, while the Scottish government explores mandates to penalize private restaurants?  Her blogs (started by her and her dad as a writing exercise) were eventually banned by the local council but then overturned after public outcry:

Martha began publishing photographs of her Lochgilphead Primary School lunches on 30 April.

She gives each meal a 'food-o-meter' and health rating, and counts the number of mouthfuls it takes her to eat it.

As well as improving her writing, Martha revealed: "The good thing about this blog is dad understands why I am hungry when I get home." 

An Argyll and Bute Council spokesperson said: "Our school meal provision is fully compliant with nationally agreed nutritional standards.

"Young people make a choice from at least two meals and salad, vegetable, yoghurt and cheese options are available each day."

This is the international food playbook:

A culture that redefines food choices as moral issues will demonize the people who don’t share the tastes of the priest class. A culture that elevates eating to some holistic act of ethical self-definition - localvore, low-carbon-impact food, fair trade, artisanal cheese - will find the casual carefree choices of the less-enlightened as an affront to their belief system. Leave it to Americans to invent a Puritan strain of Epicurianism.

It will tell you what and how much to eat and it is following legal standards.  It's not concerned if you are still hungry or what you are hungry for that day and individuals shouldn't be concerned about making personal choices.  It is controlling your choices and telling you its choices are good for you.  

 






 

Brainwashing Youth via Education is More Effective than Bombs. Is that why Bill Ayers went into Education?

What ARE your children learning in public school (and perhaps some private schools) about OWS? Are they talking about the sentiment behind the photo above from a Zucotti Park protestor?  Are they learning this is a movement that can be summed up: "Everything for Everybody and Everything for Free"?

Are they learning about the violence that occurred in several cities including rape, stabbings, overdoses, and theft?  Not if your student has access to Scholastic material about the OWS movement.  From Hotair:

A Michelle Malkin reader was understandably concerned when his child brought home the December edition of Scholastic News, one of many offerings from the venerable publishing company. The issue tackled the Occupy Wall Street movement — with notable finesse. Read the article and you’d come away with the impression that the 99 percent are a pretty peaceable plugged-in bunch.

It’s not necessarily that what the author of the article wrote was wrong so much as it was incomplete. Nowhere, for example, does the article mention the rampant misbehavior of the Occupiers, even though the tally of the various incidents of violence and vandalism has reached 417. The closest to a mention was the final paragraph of the article: “All Americans have the right to speak out. But as these protests continue, mayors in some cities are worried about the strain on their cities’ resources. For example, extra police officers and cleanup crews are needed to make sure the gatherings remain peaceful and orderly.”

HillBuzz weighed in on this portrayal about the one-sided reporting on OWS and followed up on a suggestion of Malkin's:

Malkin has asked readers to call Scholastic and complain about this Leftist indoctrination in the classroom (since Scholastic has chosen to heap praise on the Occupoopers, while repeatedly showing scorn for Tea Party Americans):  the email and number she gave for Scholastic is: bookclubs@scholastic.com or toll-free at 1-800-SCHOLASTIC (800-724-6527). They are available Monday – Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Central Time, and on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m

However, I called Scholastic and went through their Customer Service and found a better way to voice complaint about this indoctrination in Scholastic News.

What you really need to do is to ask to speak to a Customer Service Supervisor and have that person write an internal “Editorial” to Scholastic management in their customer complaint computer system.

I spoke with Supervisor Nicole Whittington on the phone, who was very courteous and professional to deal with — her direct line is 417-455-8421.  She has the ability to create an “Editorial” in the Scholastic system that would register your complaint about this matter.

It's time to call Scholastic and state your viewpoint.  It's indoctrination not to report on the facts of a situation.  That's one action you can take.  Hotair readers have other actions available to you and your children:

I love to use incidents like this to show my daughter and her friends how bad journalism and reporting has gotten.

When they ask me about these issues and refer to reading material like this…it is easy to take them to several different news sites to show them what is being left out of the reports.

My daughter had several friends over recently and OWS was brought up.

I took them to Hot Air….Verum Serum…Instapundit….Big Government…and showed them videos of the violence,racism,and attacks against the police.

The looks of astonishment and comments of “we’re being lied to” coming from young kids (democrat and Republican) concerning the MSM show just how badly the media is hurting itself with their bias.

Not only did the kids get a better understanding of the issue….they see just how pathetic and agenda driven news reporting has become.

I don’t make the mistake of pushing my conservative views on them…I merely tell them to research for themselves today’s issues because the MSM will leave you woefully uninformed.

and

This isn’t an example of the primary reason we homeschool but avoiding this type of propaganda is a great benefit. My decision to homeschool was made easier when my son became insistent, almost to the point of tears, to pray for the Earth after a day of preschool that included curriculum about “caring” for the Earth.

The lessons learned from the Scholastic dustup?  Don't leave it up to the schools to educate your children with the facts.  Parents must review what information their children are being presented...and how.   Otherwise, your child might just might be holding up a sign similar to the OWS protestor demanding entitlements the country can't possibly afford.

(Thanks to a Hotair reader for the title!)
 



 
 

The Death of Exceptionalism in our Culture and Education. We are Now to Strive for the "Common".

I keep my eyes open for the word "common" today in education articles as the Common Core standards are hotly debated in education circles. Proponents believe states should be studying the same subjects with the same assessments and as the plan is unfolding, with a common curriculum. Proponents believe this will equalize opportunities for students nationwide to learn and be tested on the same assessments which will result in a level "playing field" for students.

Opponents of the standards believe they will not make American students more globally competitive, nor will they increase test scores. Some opponents argue states have given up their state sovereignty and signed onto unfunded debt for an unproven system. These opponents have argued if standards are too low in a community, the state and local levels have the constitutional authority to adjust these standards. Conversely, some states are arguing their standards were higher than the new mandated standards set by the consortia.

The word "common" was also used recently by David Brooks in describing a culture in which immigrants could assimilate into and Hotair picked up the interview:

“Here’s the case: You know we have a common culture,” Brooks said. “If we’re going to assimilate people, if we’re going to be one nation – it helps to have a common culture. There’s some things that do join us. And government has some role in help creating those things, in funding the things that join us.”


Hotair takes exception to Brooks' argument:

Here’s the rebuttal case: the government’s role isn’t to create a “common culture.”

I would further that comment and add it's not the government's role to create a "common education" either.

Remember this administration's goal for education? From Arne Duncan:

The 2020 goal is the North Star guiding all our efforts to improve education. Roughly 60% of Americans will have to earn college degrees and certificates by 2020 to regain our international lead, compared with about 40% today. And the truth is that America can only have the best-educated, most competitive workforce if parents, students, educators and entire communities begin to rethink and remake the educational status quo. **(One issue with Mr. Duncan's statement: parents, students and communities were not invited to "rethink" and "remake" the educational status quo. This task was left to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the National Governor's Association and the Department of Education).

The Common Core standards will allegedly be the first piece in the puzzle of remaking the educational status quo. We will make all states teach the same subjects with the same standards with the same assessments and that will make our education experience common. Will it make it exceptional? I don't believe that's the goal of common core standards. Look at this document from Achieve, a partner in the crafting of the Common Core standards and how it addresses the issue of states being allowed to set additional standards for their state up to 15% (how's that for giving away sovereignty in education):

...a central driver in the creation of the CCSS was to develop standards that were
common across states lines – and clear and focused – the opposite of the “mile wide, inch deep” standards so prevalent in many current state standards. A literal interpretation by states of the 15% guideline (that is 15% added at every grade level and in each subject) would undermine the very reason the states developed the Common Core State Standards in the first place.

What's the definition of exceptional? Exceptional: Better than average: SUPERIOR. What's the definition of common? There are many definitions but one particularly caught my attention: Common: falling below ordinary standards: SECOND-RATE.

Just like David Brooks thinking the government should provide a common culture, there is the belief from the DOE that we should also have a common education (reference the above mentioned Achieve document). Think of that: a common culture and a common education. We truly are becoming a non exceptional country. We now have to depend on entities as NPR and the Department of Education to set our standards? My goodness. How did the immigrants 100 years ago and the states ever survive without Federal governmental funded entities nudging them in their lives?

The BEST ABC Primer for Students on the Market Today. It's not "A" for Apple, "B" for Boy...

If our states are going to force Common Core curriculum in the schools, I would suggest this (via Hot Air) primer be taught in kindergarten so children can learn their ABCs. The name of the study material is entitled "A Child's First Book of Government Regulations".

They will also get an idea of how America is ruled (not governed) today. You might as well start the children at an early age to learn how government is control of their decisions...not their parents or themselves.

Do the people have any voice at all or have we been reduced to a nation of mandates set forth by Congress?