In Many Schools, 'Climate Change Is Playing Catch-Up'

If the world doesn’t make “rapid” and “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” a UN report warned this month, the effects of climate change will be dramatic and far-reaching - and not in some distant future, in the next 20 years. Even now, though, in most schools, climate change is still just starting to make its way into classrooms, and many teachers don’t have the training or the resources they need to teach it.

On a hot, sunny day, right in the middle of August, a couple of teachers from Martha’s Vineyard sat at picnic tables in the shade at the Cape Poge Wildlife Refuge, writing down observations about different shells that have been sitting in sea water or vinegar, and then smashing them with a hammer to see how easily they break.

They were trying out a lesson Shannon Hurley has come up with for middle schoolers, on the connection between climate change and ocean acidification. Hurley runs educational programs for schools across the Vineyard, going into schools and taking classes on field trips, for the Trustees of Reservations, a nonprofit that preserves land across Massachusetts.

Last year was the first year the Trustees ran a climate change specific program, on erosion, for second graders. This is the first year they’re expanding into middle school. They’re able to do that in part because climate change is now officially in the state science standards in Massachusetts, as of 2016.

“Oftentimes what we have to do is hit the standards, to make it valuable, time-wise,” said Hurley, adding that now that climate change is part of what teachers have to address in certain grades, particularly in middle school, the Trustees are able to “expand our offerings a lot more.”

For a lot of teachers, “professional development with organizations like the Trustees is the way to continue to grow your base knowledge that you already have,” said Casey Hayward, who teaches fifth and sixth grade at Martha’s Vineyard Public Charter School. She took a day out of her summer vacation to go to Hurley’s workshop on Chappaquiddick. “If we didn’t have the Trustees doing programs like this, we would have to be doing a lot of this on our own.”

Most of what she knows about climate change she has taught herself, Hayward said, by reading articles, listening to podcasts, and watching documentaries.

That's common, according to Pat Harcourt, who just finished up a study, funded by the National Science Foundation, looking at what works in climate change education. Most teachers, she said, “typically haven’t had specific training in climate change.” One reason for that is that “it’s still new enough that there aren’t programs in place that are analogous to, say, molecular biology training.”

Nationwide, more than half of teachers have had no formal education on climate change, according to a report from the National Center for Science Education. Not even a single lecture. Very few of those teachers have gone on to get professional development on the issue, just one in five.

That lack of training — more than politics and controversy — is the primary reason climate change is not taught more in schools, Harcourt found. Because of that, and the fact that it’s still a relatively new topic, she said, “climate change is playing catch up.”

Kate Skehill, a third grade teacher at East Falmouth Elementary School, finds herself trying to catch up all the time. Even though climate change does not explicitly appear in the third grade standards — “it’s actually spelled out that climate change knowledge and understanding is not really expected at this time,” Skehill said — she and her teaching partners in third grade have found places where they can fit it in to the things they do have to teach, like weather. It’s a huge challenge, though, for her to find resources about climate change that are on a third grade level.

“I have to take whatever the science is and sort of translate it to a third grade point of view,” Skehill said. “So if there were resources out there that already did that, that would be helpful.”

There's that challenge, of finding resources; there’s the fact that climate change is still a relatively new subject; and there’s also the fact that there’s never enough time.

“Especially for a general educator,” Skehill said, “there’s so much to keep us up to date on, that finding time to bring in new things, even new important things, even new important really cool things, is hard to do.”

Still, she thinks it’s critical to fit it in where she can, she said, because “it’s important for these kids to understand that what’s happening with our climate is real, and that they’re going to be the ones in charge of coming up with the ideas and solutions to our very challenging problems.”

For all the obstacles to getting more — and more robust — climate change education into classrooms, Shannon Hurley, of the Trustees, said the teachers and students she works with on the Vineyard have one big thing going for them, when it comes to learning about climate change.

“Our island students have a better background, in a sense, at times, because they don’t even realize that they’re learning about climate change when they are learning about climate change,” she said.

That’s true on the Cape, too. Because it’s visible all around – in the eroding dunes, in the bleached shells. They just have to learn where to look.

Why is there still an NPR? .. or PBS?

There shouldn’t be an Associated Press, either - the very name cries, “conspiracy in restraint of trade in news.” People of the same trade seldom meet together . . . but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices - Adam Smith
The AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all its members - and it’s been in continuous operation for over a century and a half. Don’t you think we should be a little suspicious?
What would “a conspiracy against the public” by journalists look like? Obviously, it would promote the interests of journalists. What do journalists want to do? Attract attention and influence people. How do journalists do it? By promoting bad news, and by having the image of being objective. How do journalists gain the image of being objective? By going along and getting along with each other, claiming that all journalists are objective - and by expelling with prejudice anyone who claims to be a journalist but who does not go along. But nothing like that is happening with journalists today . . .

</sarcasm>

Because Establishment journalism claims to be objective in full knowledge of the fact that they are negative - that “if it bleeds, it leads,” and “no news is good news” (because good news “isn’t news”) - journalism betrays its own cynicism (only a cynic could believe that “negativity is objectivity”). Establishment journalism needs to be brought to book. The wire services are engines of conspiracy against the public, and - given that their only virtue is economy of transmission of news, at at time when that costs bupkis - they aren’t “too big to fail,” but simply “too big.”
We the people have a right to ideologically competitive journalism which is free of governmental favoritism of any kind. And that means that talk radio, which is nothing more than meta journalism - journalism about journalism - must be on equal footing with any other journalism in every respect before the law. In reality, because of the propaganda advantage Establishment journalism has enjoyed, talk radio hosts have had no choice but to be, in classical terms, “philosophers." They cannot claim to superior objectivity or wisdom - that would be arrogance - they have to be candid about their political perspective. And, since Establishment journalism completely fills the niche for socialist propaganda, talk radio hosts have to be conservative (always understanding that “conservatism” is a poor description of advocacy of liberty and of progress of, by, and for the people).
We the people have a right to ideologically competitive journalism which is free of governmental favoritism of any kind. But in fact “campaign finance reform” exists at the behest of the journalism Establishment, and not of the people. The FEC shouldn’t exist at all. The FCC is heavily inclined to promote Establishment journalism by insinuation of governmental imprimatur. Some restraint on that must be imposed. And SCOTUS should put the kibosh on any thought of abolishing talk radio.
In a strict de jure sense, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - which was a 9-0 SCOTUS decision in 1964 - was unexceptionable. It stood four-square for the freedom of the press. It makes it very difficult for Democrat or Republican politicians to sue for libel. The only problem is that Republicans are libeled at the drop of a hat, and Democrats are not libeled at all, ever. And whenever a Republican is libeled by one newspaper, the rest of Establishment journalism piles on. SCOTUS must be brought a case which raises antitrust issues against the AP in particular and wire services in general, which gives SCOTUS a chance to level that playing field. Lowering the standard of “actual malice,” at least incrementally, would be a big step in the right direction.

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.