3rd Grade 'Science'

Illinois public schools | 3-8-06 | BSD

[BlueStateDepression]

Ok, so, I am looking at my son's 'study guide' from his 3rd grade 'science' class and I was really rubbed the wrong the way by some of its contents. I decided to ask my fellow FReepers for your take on this 'study guide' and what it contains.

Maybe I am making something out of nothing or maybe I have cause to be struck the way I am by the body of this thing, I hope you folks can help me decide.

1. Yes or No - People harm the environment when they build large buildings.

2. Yes or No - People harm the environment when they plant trees.

3. Yes or No - People harm the environment when they drain wetlands.

4. Yes or No - People harm the environment when they build skyscrapers.

5. How do beavers change the environment?

6. People ____________ or sweat to help them survive in a desert environment.

7.Circle the animal that hibernates: Black bear, Kangaroo rat, Beave, Arctic tern.

8. __________ is an area of grasses and home of the Buffalo.

9. _________ is land soaked with water.

10. __________________ is deep sleep.

11. ____________ is an environment with little water.

12. _________________ means to move to a new area as the seasons change.

13. Think about what a rain forest is like. Draw a picture of the rain forest.

14. How does cutting down trees in the rain forest change the environment?

15. How do these animals deal with the environment? Goose ________________________________________ Kangaroo rat _________________________________ ground squirrel ______________________________

Now, this is written here as it is printed on the 'study guide. The kids 'answered' these questions together in class and will be tested on the answers at the end of this week.

Why do beavers CHANGE the environment when they cut down trees but humans HARM the environment when they do the very same thing? Four questions leading off with "people harm the environment" and the fifth questions says beavers 'CHANGE' it!

A question about large buildings and then another about skyscrapers......can you say indoctrination anyone?

I teach my children that all animals shape their environments to better suit their lives. A survival of the fittest kind of thing. Some animals build dens and some build skyscrapers!

This 'study guide' screams "PEOPLE BAD", construction is harmful, people are different (bad) than animals, blah blah blah.

I told my son to ask his teacher if the buildings the EPA occupies are bad for the environment. ;)~ I also told him that I disagree with some of the answers that he is being taught. I also told him why.

I think that where this guide says "harm", it Should say "change". Funny how it does when referring to beavers but not when describing humans.

[conservativebabe]

No question that the first 4 are evident of a left-wing environmentalist mentality. I think I would have a little conversation with said Science teacher and inform him/her that you child will be taught at home, the TRUTH about those statements. Sickening.

[BlueStateDepression]

Well that is the very thing I am trying to balance out by keeping an eye on the things he is being taught. I feel that this way I can spot some things like this example and offer him a realistic view about what it means.

Sometimes it is best to keep enemies close so you can keep an eye on them, that is kind of how I treat public schools today. I moved to a small village outside of the capitol in attempt to head off things like this. For the most part it has been a good decision. This is really the first time I have had a conflict with them of this magnatude.

[BlueStateDepression]

I agree, the more I think about it and listen to other freepers and their take on it, a meeting with the teacher is in order.

[ahayes]

Do you honestly think a city can approach the biodiversity of a wetlands, rain forest, or barrier island?

Most of the organisms in cities will fall into just a handful of species. By contrast, normal habitats have high biodiversity with significant numbers of many different species represented.

Let's see, in West Virginia in relatively undisturbed mixed forests and meadows you can find the following mammals plus one marsupial (a by no means exhaustive list, and completely ignoring birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish):

white-tailed deer
coyote
black bear
eastern gray squirrel
fox squirrel
flying squirrel
eastern cottontail
snowshoe hare (some places in the mountains)
mink
fisher (rare)
several species of moles
several species of voles
several species of mice
raccoon
red fox
gray fox
bobcat
opossum
striped skunk
spotted skunk (less common)
beaver
muskrat
otter (recovering populations)
several species of weasel

In downtown Charleston, WV, you might find scrounging in the dumpster:

coyote
raccoon
opossum (occasional)
red fox (occasional)
eastern gray squirrel (yes, they're dumpster divers!)

You honestly think the biodiversity of downtown Charleston compares to the surrounding mountains?

[ahayes]

Does Unity and harmony come when total diversity is accomplished?

No, that only happens when we succeed in our mission to eradicate every other species but us and handful of nuisance species. Spotted owl's yummy, you know.

[SoothingDave]

Do you honestly think a city can approach the biodiversity of a wetlands, rain forest, or barrier island?

I never said that, just questioned your claim that only a handful of species exist in the typical urban environment.

I still do.

I suppose you would find it idyllic if there were no humans to muck up "nature." Unfortunately, we exist and deserve out own habitats as well.

We need not be callous or cruel, but neither must we devolve to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Cities only "harm" the environment if you consider humans to not be part of the environment. And if you discount the right to habitat for those other species capable of thriving among human activity.

SD

[ahayes]

We need not be callous or cruel, but neither must we devolve to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Cities only "harm" the environment if you consider humans to not be part of the environment. And if you discount the right to habitat for those other species capable of thriving among human activity.

Now you're seeming more sensible. You should have started out with this instead.

I am not in favor of judicious development because I feel sorry for the poor little animals; it is a purely selfish, speciesist thing. I think high biodiversity/low pollution is good for people by improving physical and mental health and providing aesthetic and recreational pleasure. Additionally, I'm in chemistry and habitats like rainforests and coral reefs are under heavy scrutiny by chemists searching for new lead compounds for drug development.

The fact is that if you think evolution is true, if we eradicate a wide range of species now, new species will not evolve to replace them for perhaps millions of years. If you believe in a one-time creation event, this will never happen. It's just stupid to cut off our nose to spite our face by squandering our natural resources just because we don't want to seem to yield to those darn tree-huggers.

Oh, and I don't think that any species has any more "right" to exist than any other (no, we should not build more cities because the rats have a right to flourish!) My position is that I may not have a "right" to exist, but since I do I'm certainly going to look after my wellbeing. I just realize that my wellbeing may be tied to the wellbeing of other species as well.

[BlueStateDepression]

Well I do not subscribe to the idea that we have a goal or a mission to destroy other species. I am steadfast in my belief that the USA has the most developed system in the world pointed at monitoring our actions towards our environment and acting accordingly to things found.

If it is wrong for humans to shape the environment to suit their lives then it is equally as wrong for animals to do so. I offer that it is wrong in neither case.

P.S. can you hook me up with an omlette before you roast the bird?

[ahayes]

See my post 26 and perhaps you will understand my point of view better.

[SoothingDave]

I don't think we're do far apart on the principles. I believe we are to be wise stewards of what we have been given. This is neither an anti-development nor a pro-development position. The answer is in the middle.

SD

[BlueStateDepression]

The fact is that if you think evolution is true, if we eradicate a wide range of species now, new species will not evolve to replace them for perhaps millions of years.

I think that if something in 'nature' goes extinct for any reason that 'nature' will handle it. Yes all things add up together to form the ecosystem and that changes, sometimes for the worse, when some are removed from the fold. I understand that human action can impact the earth environment in a negative way, but I also see that we impact it in proper ways also. I simply rest on the idea that if humans push to far, 'mother nature' will put us in our place. SARS, HIV and bird flu come to mind. Global warming?? Is this humans driving SUV's or building skyscrapers and using natural gas or coal for energy? Or is this the regular order of things in the universal environment? I stick with the sun over human action causing the changes. Humans are but one spec of life on this planet and we hold no designs on controlling it the way some would like to see it controlled.

[BlueStateDepression]

The answer is in the middle.

I can agree with that and really that is why I posted this to begin with. I don't feel like my kid is getting a middle of the road lesson at school the way this paper was set up.

[nuke rocketeer]

Fire ant cities (nests) are amenable only to fire ants. These critters are a bigger threat to wildlife diversity than humans any day. Does this also disqualify them as not "natural". Think of all the other ant species, ground nesting birds, ground insects, newborn fawns, calves, lambs, and reptiles they push out of a place they invade.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Have your son ask the teacher for the scientific definition of "harm", and for the reproducible, experimental evidence to support her scientific definition. Have him explain that he can't answer the question without the definition.

[GreenFreeper]

I take it that your point would be something along the lines of "harm" being relative? I think I could agree with that if that is your point.

Exactly. Its all relative to what your primary concern is. You can essentially apply economics principals to the discussion- cost-benefit analysis. Building a bridge is not a unviersally bad thing..nor is planting a tree universally good. It all depends on priorites.

[happymom]

When my oldest son was in 3rd grade, his class did a Earth Day unit on overpopulation. His teacher told the class that "normal" families now only have 1 child and that large families are like having a toxic waste dump in your neighborhood. I had to tell him, "No, your sisters aren't pollution". He had been asking me to homeschool him, and after that I was very happy to. I'm still homeschooling my three younger kids.

[jigsaw]

When my son was about your son's age, we watched NBC many
nights and I very slowly, patiently, politely used Brokaw and
his buddies to show my son how the press in particular and
people in general lie.

When he reached high school and had a liberal history teacher,
my son spotted the same tricks and saw through him. He felt
sorry for the rest of the kids in the class as he felt they were
buying everything this teacher said as gospel truth.

Teaching him this stuff when he was young was one of the
best things I ever did for him.

[freedomlover]

SCIENCE!!!

[BlueStateDepression]

I like that, yes a defenition of harm....very good, thanks!

[BlueStateDepression]

Wow, I thought I had a rough situation. I think I might find myself in trouble in a situation like that. I can understand why you homeschool.