Posted on 12/01/2005 11:27:55 AM PST by Spiff
I know that this may be a long read, there's a lot of content here, but I think that many FReepers will find the information here interesting and disturbing. I will appreciate any help I can get with this situation.
My wife and I have been homeschooling our children since they started schooling. We have 5th, 6th, and 8th graders. Recently, we made the tough decision to enroll them in a local Charter School. In Arizona, a Charter School is a privately run, smaller, more focused public school. It provides parents with school choice and some competition between the schools. Although, right now, the Charter Schools are the red-headed step children and are regularly passed over in funding, resources, etc. in favor of the megaschools. We favored the small school environment and found a Charter School that we thought met our minimum standards. We went into this with our eyes open and met with the Principal and the School Director and asked many specific questions related to policies, teachers, environment, curriculum, underlying philosophy, discipline, etc. We knew that we were going to have to unteach our children some of the garbage that they would inherently be taught in any sort of public school and we were prepared to do that.
They've been in the school less than a month and we've already run into problems with what is being taught and what we were told they would be taught. We've dealt with some, but the biggest one came up last night.
My 8th grader is not allowed to bring her Science textbook home. The reason is that the Science teacher purchased the textbooks with his own money and doesn't want any to be lost or defaced. In fact, there's not enough books to go around so some students must double up on a textbook. I understand this, to some extent, and actually see a benefit with my daughter having to take copious notes to keep up. That note-taking skill will serve her well later on.
We help our children every night with their homework. At this time, if you look at raw man hours, we probably spend more time helping them with their homework now than we spent teaching them and helping them with their homework when we were homeschooling, but I digress. Anyway, my 8th grader had some questions about an essay that she was assigned to write for her science class. She started reading off some things that were supposed to be about human ecology and said that she was supposed to write why she agreed or disagreed with each statement. Now, in what science class do you write why you agree or disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics? In the 8th grade?!
The book is called "Global Science" and it is the 3rd Edition published by Kendall/Hunt in 1991 and authored by John W. Christensen." I can find no other science books authored by this person.
Many of those "laws and principles" had little to do with science, were value statements, and some were plainly offensive. But, whether one agrees or disagrees with the philosophy behind some of these statements, many don't belong in a science book. This piqued my interest and I read through the "laws and principles" thoroughly and then Googled them.
These are the "laws and principles" that are printed in this textbook. I quote them here so that you can read them and I enthusiastically invite comment about them:
THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
- Law of Interrelatedness: We interact with each other, and relate to everyting around us; everything is connected to everything else. You can't do just one thing.
- The Law of Equity All humans are created with an equal right to live in dignity and peace and to work out a meaningful existence. Everyone is entitled to a fair share of the world's resources--provided one is carrying one's own share of the responsibilities.
- Law of Conservation of Matter Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It can be rearranged. Everything must go somewhere - there is no away.
- First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. However, it can be transformed from one from to another.
- Second Law of Thermodynamics: As energy and other resources are used, there is an overall decrease in the amount of usefulness.
- Continuous Change: Everything is becoming something else.
- Brontosaurus Principle: Up to a point, the bigger the better; beyond that point, benefits could be reduced. Or, to everything there is an optimum size.
- Rights of Future Generations: Our environment does not belong to us alone. It was used by our forefathers, passed on to us, and we are charged with the responsibility of passing it in the best condition possible to future generations.
- Responsibility of the Born: All persons must be held responsible for their own pollution.
- Nature Knows Best: Nature frequently, but not always knows best. We use antibiotics to counter nature.)
- Your Environment is You: "We shape our buildings (environment) and afterwards our building (environment) shapes us." - Winston Churchill
- Goal of Society: Society's goal should be to live in comfort, and in harmony with nature.
- The Principle of Diversity: The greater the diversity of a system, the greater its stability.
- Give Earth a Chance:No national purpose however urgent, no political or economic necessity however pressing, can possibly justify the risk of bringing all human history to an end.
- Technology-Part of the Problem, Part of the Solution: Corollary: God science proceeds into the unknown with caution; and in ignorance, refrains.
- Ideas Unlimited: The creativity of the collective human mind seems almost limitless. If humans, as a whole, understand the laws that govern our ecosphere and live within the limits imposed by nature, human creativity should enable us to enjoy a comfortable living on our planet for an indefinite period of time.
There is no reference in the book to where this crap came from. Disturbing is the fact that bizarre value statements are mingled with scientific principles like the Laws of Thermodynamics. When I Googled, I could not find any legitimate science sites, papers, or articles which contained this set of principles or anything close to them. What I did find was that every site that had this set or a slightly reworded set were Pagan and Witchcraft sites. No, really. I'm not looking for Satanists under every bed or in every closet, but this is what I found and it surprised me.
Here's a list of some of the websites which contain this set of principles or slightly reworded versions:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos144.htm
http://www.paganlibrary.com/reference/fundamental_laws_human_ecology.php
http://textfiles.group.lt/occult/echolgyl.txt
http://www.darkwitches.co.uk/haven/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=20
http://www.ladyoftheearth.com/thelaws/laws-01.txt
http://www.paganality.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=11577
http://www.junos-horizon.com/documents/247.html (Wicca site)
http://paganrealm.tripod.com/misc/hum-eco-laws.html
http://groups.msn.com/AlbanysMysticCircle/listmagicktopics.msnw
http://crypt.eldritchs.com/tome/0617.html (Witchy Crypt)
http://www.esotericdotcom.com/categoria.asp?categoria=Human (Directory of articles about magic, divination, alchemy... )
http://www.witcheswell.com/text/thelaws/laws-01.txt
http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/occult/BoS/0601-700.txt
The only reference I could find, and I found it on several of the sites, was to something called "Ecomagic - Book of shadows" and it showed that this set of principles was on Page 616 of that book. What does "Ecomagic" have to do with science? When I compare what was printed in the science book with the reworded versions found on the websites, it appeared to me that what was in the science book was simply a cleaned up version, with some grammatical fixes, of what was published in Pagan literature and published online. Now, of course, I need to know which was published first. The book was published in 1991 and had earlier editions. Did the Pagan sites get the statements from this "science" book, or did the "science" book AND the Pagan sites get the list of principles from some other source that I can't find? Maybe (probably) this is a distraction, but I think it is noteworthy and disturbing.
These principles are not just included in a sidebar or appendix. No, instead they are at the end of Chapter 1 and they are prefaced with this comment:
The Earth we live on has its problems, but basically it is a world of opportunity. To achieve a life of comfort and happiness, it is important to understand the "laws and principles" discussed in this text. They will be emphasized throughout the course. Upon completion, you should know them well.
The author makes it clear right here that these so-called "principles" are going to pervade the "science" text and that the goal of the text is not to teach science, but to ensure that the students accepts these "principles".
The author reinforces this in his comments at the beginning of the textbook:
You are living at an exciting time. In the next several years extremely important decisions are going to be made, and you will play a role in making them. These decisions will affect: the position of your country in the world of nations; your feeling of who you are and how you relate to others and the environment around you; the standard of living you will have; and , the amount of personal freedom you will enjoy. Many of these deicions are related to energy, resources, and environment.
How well we make these decisions in large part depends upon how well we understand the issues. It is the purpose of this course to build basic background for understanding energy/resource/environment benefits and problems. This is not just another science course. The problems we will be dealing with are in the here and the now. You will find that the road you travel as you work through these pages can be an exciting journey--if you have the proper attitude.
Science is a tool at our disposal. It is a powerful tool, and it will play an important role at this turning point in time. What is exponential growth? How bad is the energy/resource/environmental problem? Does the Earth have a carrying capacity? Can we live better with less? What are our alternatives? How do we get there from here?
Studying these materials won't provide all the answers, but you will be much better prepared to face many issues because of your experiences in this course.
This makes it abundantly clear what the goals of the "science" text are. By mingling science (a "tool at our disposal") with a collection of socialistic, radical environmentalist, and zero-population growth garbage, as long as student has the "proper attitude", will mold them to have the mindset that the author intends. The goal is not to provide the student with an understanding of a specific science because, as the author states, "this is not just another science course."
It gets worse.
Chapter 3 is all about Growth and Population. In fact, population problems appear throughout the entire text. The references used are typically the Ehrlich's disproven zero-population junk science philosophy. References also come from the Club of Rome's 1971 "Limits to Growth" study which is more zero-population, one-worlder garbage. Chapter 3 is quite offensive as it compares humans to bacteria, discusses abortion as an acceptable form of population control, and even includes diagrams of several birth control methods and devices. So offensive was this chapter that the original school who used this book removed the most offensive 10 pages. I found out about that content while using Google and reading a fairly positive review of the book and that content. I spoke to the Director of my children's school and he knew nothing about the book, its contents, and the excised portion.
Throughout the book are several political cartoons. One shows an Earth covered with people, so many so that they are hanging on the bottom and some are tumbling off the bottom into space. Others depict a cowboy, an indian, and a dead buffalo and it mocks the evil and stupid cowboy for wanting to slaughter more buffalo. Another shows a baby with a globe for a head labeled "population" with a big mouth and a farmer bringing food to the baby. Each progressive frame shows the baby's head and mouth growing larger, the farmer's bushel of food also growing larger, then finally the farmer has aged, the bushel is empty, and it appears the huge mouth is going to swallow the farmer who has stumbled to the ground. Another cartoon shows factories with stacks belching smoke, denuded trees, clouded skies, pipes spewing pollution into a waterway, and dead animals around it. The evil suit-wearing capitalist has his arm around his son and is captioned as saying, "Someday, my boy, this will all be yours." Pure propaganda.
Further propaganda found in the book includes NASA images of the so-called "ozone hole" over the South Pole. The images are displayed to make the student believe that the "hole", which is in fact just a natural period thinning, is there at all times. It makes no mention of the natural processes (volcanic activity, cold season weather differentials, solar cycles) that actually cause the thinning. Another example, in the chapter called "Food, Agriculture, and Population Interactions" shows a shrouded women with an emaciated dead-looking naked infant in her lap. The caption says, "Ten million children around the world live like this." This is science?
In the same chapter that contained the starved baby photo, is the section on "Global Cooperation." And I quote:
Surviving children are the parents' only hope for care in their old age. But how do you enable their children to live longer? How do you guarantee care for the elderly? This probably can't be accomplished without some redistribution of wealth, either within a country or between countries. China did it, but with violent revolution. Can redistribution take place without a revolution? Some say it can...
At present we have enough food, and we have the means to deliver it to those that are starving. What we lack is the ability to communicate with others who have different beliefs, attitudes, and world views. Skill in conflict resolution seems to be our real lack. We must pledge to keep working at improving it.
This is science!!? I don't think so.
This stuff is not just hidden in the text of the chapters, but is included in the exercises at the end of each chapter and likely will be on the tests. The students are still in chapter 1 and the teacher has already assigned an essay on one of the most offense portions of the book.
The teacher of this class is an outspoken atheist. The essay assignment for students to write how they agree or disagree with the principles and laws in the 1st chapter appears to be an attempt for the students to expose their immature (they're 8th graders) disagreements with the statements so that the teacher can categorize the students, soften them up by openly or subtly attacking their disagreements or beliefs, and/or by opening then up to criticism from their peers.
I have made an appointment with the school's director to discuss these matters. I'm looking for further information from those who would like to comment on the book and its content. As you can see, I've already formed a strong basis for my arguments that I will use with the school's director and the science teacher. I would appreciate further input to help strengthen those arguments or to develop new ones to ensure that this problem is promptly corrected.
Notice the way this point tries to bolster credibility by using historical (and conservative) figures such as Churchill to make a point. I just don't think the environment (as defined by The Sierra Club) is what Churchill had in mind by this quote.
It appears clear that this book--should the students buy into these principles--lays the groundwork for everything anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-conservative (as a polical ideology, not as an environmental one.)
I don't blame you one bit for your concerns. Question is, what are you going to do about them?
Guess I'm just cynical. Did you read it cover to cover?
This is brainwashing plain and simple.
Keep in mind your kid has to memorize this and will be tested on it, getting the wrong "opinion" will result in being penalized.
I.E. Follow the teachers beliefs and make them your own, and pass, think differently, and fail.
The long term damage will harm the kids critical thinking skills along with harming the childs ability to engage in systematic reasoning.
At least with a "normal" public school, the books and teaching agenda are approved by a school board.
And my teenagers keep argueing with me because they want to go to public school!
Even the scant amount of real science presented here is wrong or modified, and I would think 8th graders could learn the lavws of thermodynamics in equation form, but I digress.
Good luck with your fight, I hope you get this text retracted (or better yet the teacher fired).
Not yet. This is just what I found by doing some skimming of the book. This stuff pops right out at you.
You have presented an excellent description of a textbook that is being used to indoctrinate our children. My own son is a senior in a public high school, and is required to spend time reading Newsweak and Time in one of his classes. This is the only real news most of his classmates receive. He has gotten into some heated debates with some of the other kids regarding the "facts" and has used Free Republic to back up his arguments.
So, my advice to any and all parents is start re-educating them young, which I am sure you (and most other Freepers) have already done. I just wish some of my relatives would get wise to the public (and some private) schools. The forces of leftist mis-education are strong, and must be confronted directly, before they destroy this great country.
I'm not a physics' major, but I'm pretty sure that Einstein's equation doesn't prove that matter can be created, but merely that a lot of energy exists in a small amount of matter (mass).
Out of date. Should read "Apatosaurus Principle."
"I wouldn't let my children by taught by an atheist. This is what you get."
The problem with the book isn't that it advocates an atheistic view. The problem with the book is that it is non-scientific and nutty. There are plenty of nuts in the world and not all of them are atheists.
Explain to the principal that this statement cannot be either proved or disproved by application of the scientific method. If he/she disagrees, ask where you may find ANY peer-reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates this conclusion as a reproducable empiracle fact.
If he/she does agree, ask whether it is scientific to present non-scientific statements as scientific principles in a science text book.
Even better, have your daughter write an essay on why this "principle" is not scientific and why it renders the whole list of "fundamental laws of human ecology" a work of political philosophy with not one iota of scientific value.
Brilliant. 'Nuff said.
Ping for a later read and response.
Not right though. It's not simply an equivalency equation.
Matter can actually be turned into energy via particle decay. And once it is turned into energy, it's no longer matter.
Actually, it might be a little misleading to say that it can be "turned into" energy, because matter is considered to be a form of energy. But not all forms of energy are matter, so if a particle turns for example into a photon (light), then it's no longer matter.
And the reverse can also happen. You can turn two photons into a positron and an electron, i.e. matter.
I wonder if the principal had looked at this book. I would be very interested in the outcome of your meeting.
I'd also be interested in whether the principal can justify why the kids should have any idea what the teacher's religous beliefs, or lack thereof, are. The teacher should not be talking about religion at all in his class.
"Now, in what science class do you write why you agree or disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics? In the 8th grade?!"
It's my recollection that this particular 'law' is old and time tested ammunition for the anti-faith crowd. It's been a long time since I read it but I remember it was especially pat and tidy broadside against religion. (Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I hope)
However, if your child has been exposed to the 'pat and tidy' BS, she is expected to regurgitate the proper answer to this question, without even thinking about it.
You didn't read the whole article, did you? Admit it, we're all FRiends here. If you had read it all, you would have seen that our author found numerous consistencies with pagan and atheist agendas and documented them.
later read/pingout.
Many kids' text books (acutally most that I have seen, but I haven't seen many lately) are rife with leftist crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.