Month: January 2017

There are a couple of things about this past election that trouble me greatly. Perhaps my greatest concern is the way short term and selfish positions were presented to the public as an acceptable position. Valid and ethical positions were presented as open to other interpretations.

With climate change, the position argued by the great majority of reputable scientists was brought into questions. How could this be the case in a well educated nation? Here is one of the first explanations that made sense to me (I do encourage you to read the full article). This is a great post on why scientific findings are disputed and why scientists seem unable to communicate what science says about important issues.

Why is this so? Why did a scientific issue like climate change become so toxic, so caught up in what we call “the culture wars”? It is because the social debate around climate change is no longer about carbon dioxide and climate models. It is about values, culture, worldviews, and ideology. As physical scientists explore the mechanics and implications of anthropogenic climate change and try to convey their results to a skeptical public, they must recognize that their work is being evaluated by a population where upwards of two-thirds do not clearly understand the scientific process and fewer are able to pass even a basic scientific literacy test

Scientist learn to write in a very conservative way. They are typically wary of going beyond their data to make clear pronouncements or recommendations. They write mostly for other scientists who are trained to be eager to criticize and attack should statements that over reach be written. Science is critical and competitive, but this is a good thing. Competition is supposed to bring out the best in science much in the way we assume it brings out the best in athletics.

I don’t know who should be responsible for communicating with voters. This is a task scientists are not well trained or rewarded for. Evidently, the agreement among scientists is not sufficient to convince the public. I cannot help thinking making this connection is what educators should be good at. I understand that taking on controversial issues tends to shut down most educators. However, the climate change issue is politically controversial, it is not scientifically controversial. So, if you signed up to teach science, I think you should teach science. 

I have not added much to this blog recently. I have been writing a lot, but on other topics. The election and the selection of the American people troubled me a great deal and unlike some previous elections I have been unable to shake off the results. We seem to be headed for a very dark place.

I wonder how my commentary has been received by educators who have been followers of what I write. I have decided that addressing political topics is not dwelling on the negative, but trying to explore the direction of the country and how this direction will influence the practice of educators. I believe educators are naive if they cannot consider and discuss such issues. The head in the sand thing will not serve them or their students well.

The nomination of Betsy DeVos is my latest fascination. I have watched the nomination hearing, considered some of the questions posed by the committee, and compare what I have read from other sources (books by Diane Ravitch). Some dispute the role of the Dept. of Education as meaningful. For the long term, I see great relevance in this role. What other service prepares the population for the challenges of the future and competitors? Betsy DeVos has such limited background to take on this role. She knows so little about education issues beyond her interest in vouchers. One thing I have noticed is the political speak of the committee members. The nominee for HHS was praised for his experience as a physician. DeVos has no experience and some of the same politicians fail to recognize the inconsistency in what they believe is important to serve in such roles. It cannot be the case that anyone off the street is prepared to address the variety of issues that are involved no matter how much money they have.

I encourage my fellow educators to consider the role of political decisions that influence the profession. The right to free speech is meaningless unless you are willing to speak up.