The Wall Street Journal recently published the editorial "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" claiming that the scientific hysteria surrounding climate change is exaggerated and perhaps misguided. A few days later, a second editorial was published in reply, written by actual climate scientists, who argued that those denying evidence of androcentric climate change don't possess the expertise to comment. Sure, they're all "scientists" in the generic sense. I think reasonable folks would agree that you don't ask a chemist to tutor your teenager in physics, or you don't ask an archaeologist if this mushroom you found in the woods is edible. For that, you consult a mycologist. Look it up.
The climate scientists who wrote the second editorial begin with a great passage:
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
Fantastic, makes perfect sense. So, why doesn't that apply to education policy and reform? Wouldn't it make sense to consult educators or education researchers about teaching methods and curriculum? Might it be prudent to actually rely on those who know about public schools and have a vested interest in them to advocate for public education?
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to consult a lot of economists, statisticians, software engineers, CEO's, politicians, financiers, hip-hop artists, and talk show hosts about education in lieu of a "highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations." And now that I think of it, I can't think of many prominent "education reformers" who at the very least send their own children to public schools. Perhaps we should be concerned that we are leaving their children behind and consider closing those horrid private schools with their unlimited resources, small class sizes, and arts programs.
If you examine the boards of many prevailing education reform organizations -- Boards of Advisors, Directors, Regents, Chieftans, or whatever--you'll see a lot of insurance salesmen and consultants. There are a few educators and former teachers peppered in there. Yet, think of the names we all recognize and those who have the loudest voices in traditional media outlets. I can't think of a single educator among them, other than the occasional tourist who earned their street cred in an alternative certification program.
It seems a reliance on non-experts for consultation is not just a problem for education, as underscored in the editorial by climate scientists. I wonder: is it just coincidence that global warming and education are both socially and politically charged fields? There's a lot at stake for wealthy interests to ensure that global warming remains controversial and contested. Otherwise, we'll finally adjust our lifestyles and that could hurt a bottom line. A similar situation might be true for education. Certain well-heeled entities are very interested in the acquisition of valuable public per-pupil dollars. This might be why the real experts get shut out: they actually know what might be best for students and not someone's bottom line.
Follow Shaun Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thechalkface
He used the people who had a pretty good idea where the economy would be going
In this way the educational system could prepare the population'
What did it do?
In reality it created a generation of feel good do good
Who can hardly read or write
I find looking at the other passions someone has who advocates for educational reform often provides insight into that "education expert's" true motivation.
Katrina Stevens
Cofounder, LessonCast Learning
katrina@lessoncast.org
www.lessoncast.org
I'm sure it's not any kind of coincidence. In the case of climate change, the desire is confuse the public, so that they falsely believe that the AGW argument is controversial. There are those who participate in AGW denial for base financial gain. Others do so, because the reject the entire modern world, and want to prevent the forces of rational evidence based though, and policy making, from influencing how society responds to new challenges. The way to do that, is to deny such challenges exist in the first place.
Children's education is a traditional battleground for backlash ideologs to practice their political propaganda. In the 1960s, big parts of the backlash were over sex education, which the right wing misrepresented to the public as actual instructions on sex, including demonstrations. The same goes for new pedagogically focussed evidence based styles of teaching. In fact, the chief concern they express, is that their children not be exposed to real information about the world.
It is an absolute indictment on our media that they fail to recognise the requirement for a bassis in evidence for commentary on these issues. It is an indictment of Government that a vocal minority of political forces are able to corrupt Government policy making and implementation.
It seems everyone is wrong but you.
The same goes for arguing that using evidence and rational discussion is the right way to determine all forms of policy. I really don't think I'm an outlier for wanting to argue against the hysterical, irrational, and false claims made by people who are solely motivated by ideology, and do not have any kind of real objective understanding of how the world works.