Indoctrinating Kids In Ascension Parish Schools (Revisited)

[Emperor]

This is how it's done. Subtly, and inconspicuously (unless you are a parent paying attention).

First picture is the cover page of the study guide for basic science of Energy. Each representative page has quantifiable and indisputable facts about the basic principles of each type of energy. Very innocuous. Science kids should learn.

Second picture is the worksheet at the end of assignment. Read it carefully! It instructs the 5th grader to use the study guide (of facts), but formulate the answer with the text of this last page.

This is Common Core curriculum! This is exactly how phony liberals will turn kids away from guns; unless you stay involved. What a shameless bunch of cowards!

 

[JNieman]

Instead of looking at this politically, why not look at it from a scientific standpoint, since this is about science. Does science agree with this paper?

The answer is firmly: yes.

There's nothing wrong or insidious here.

The worksheet is factual and logical. And I think only /you/ could possibly construe this to be about gun rights.

 

[LACamper]

Jeez...

Yeah, its factually correct. It doesn't present the whole picture though. Solar doesn't produce enough power, the technology just isn't there yet. Wind turbines are great but they're noisy and they are ugly, especially if you put them in beautiful mountain valleys (stick them on the sides of skyscrapers and I'd be cool with it). Plus again they don't develop enough power to matter. They also don't mention nuclear power or dams or even geo.

It may not be about guns but it is about their ability to indoctrinate.

 

[Emperor]

Instead of looking at this politically, why not look at it from a scientific standpoint, since this is about science. Does science agree with this paper?

The answer is firmly: yes.

There's nothing wrong or insidious here.

The worksheet is factual and logical. And I think only /you/ could possibly construe this to be about gun rights.

You believe that steering young children to believe that green energy is the futures only viable option is not an indoctrination? You're smarter than that.

And it's about guns, because schools are already trying to discourage children from embracing guns as part of American heritage.

You may think this is all coincidence, and that's fine. I've seen the changes for far too long.

As for it being factual, show me the science on natural gas emissions. Find out how many endangered birds of prey are dying at the blades of wind farms. Where's the solar companies and cheap solar energy that we bought/they stole for 2 billion dollars.

 

[JNieman]

"Indoctrination" is a word that comes with negative stigma associated with coercion to misleading, wrong, or subjective ideas contrary to truth.

Developing viable solutions to renewable, cleaner, energy production is not indoctrination. It's progress and natural evolution of technology.

I would prefer the science class to be taught based on the principles of peer reviewed scientific consensus, which this falls in line with, rather than having the science class sculpted to comply with the emotional knee-jerk reactions of the politically sensitive.

You know... learning about science in science class.

 

[LACamper]

And public schools do indoctrinate about guns. A couple of years ago Jefferson Parish sent Officer Friendly over to the school to tell kids how evil and dangerous guns were and that I was a bad person for having them. She learned it at school therefore it must be true... It took me weeks to counteract that!

 

[Emperor]

"Indoctrination" is a word that comes with negative stigma associated with coercion to misleading, wrong, or subjective ideas contrary to truth.

Developing viable solutions to renewable, cleaner, energy production is not indoctrination. It's progress and natural evolution of technology.

I would prefer the science class to be taught based on the principles of peer reviewed scientific consensus, which this falls in line with, rather than having the science class sculpted to comply with the emotional knee-jerk reactions of the politically sensitive.

You know... learning about science in science class.

Read the assignment. "Use evidence from the text to support your view point."

What evidence? The evidence by the paper that suggests; Fossil fuels bad, green energy good?

Again, show me the evidence that suggests solar energy and wind energy is the better choice for my kids future. I don't buy the global warming BS.

 

[JWG223]

I don't have a problem in the least with THAT PAPER.

It's a fact: Fossil fuels give the best performance, currently, arguably, but noone will argue that politically, sustainably, and environmentally, they are inferior.

If I could power my house for the same cost over 10 years using solar/wind/hydro-electric vs. fossil fuels, I'd totally avoid the fossil fuels.

I think that paper is spot on. I don't want to run around hugging trees, or screaming about the ozone, but anything I can REASONABLY do to preserve the planet, I will do. Why not?

Further, I hate that we buy oil from the sandbox. I'd rather we didn't.

 

[JNieman]

And public schools do indoctrinate about guns. A couple of years ago Jefferson Parish sent Officer Friendly over to the school to tell kids how evil and dangerous guns were and that I was a bad person for having them. She learned it at school therefore it must be true... It took me weeks to counteract that!

That's funny. My kid gets to talk at school about how his dad used to work at a gun shop making guns and that one of his favorite things to do with grandpa is shooting. When I had a Parent/Teacher conference with his teacher, he brought it up, asking what I do, and I told him about my last job doing that and what I still do a little on the side. He told me how much he likes shooting and that he wished he had more time to get out with his kids and grandkids to do it.

I mean, I'm on my first kid, and he's only 6, but where did y'all get the notion that the world has to agree with you and that your kid should't ever come across conflicting opinions? How sheltered are you, or how sheltered do you expect to be, that you somehow expect that your child shouldn't be put into a situation where someone tells them they think differently than you do?

How unprepared are you as a parent that you can't handle a question from your child about someone telling them a different opinion from what you told them?

 

[JWG223]

Read the assignment. "Use evidence from the text to support your view point."

Again, show me the evidence that suggests solar energy and wind energy is the better choice for my kids future. I don't buy the global warming BS.

What evidence? The evidence by the paper that suggests; Fossil fuels bad, green energy good?

The paper states (correctly) that burning fossil fuels creates pollutants which can be harmful. Solar and wind energy does not.

Seriously? What's the issue?

The paper is not trying to make the child grow up to vote against or for anything, it's simply trying to belabor the point of: If it hurts---don't do it. Maybe that kid will grow up to find more things that "don't hurt" which are more efficient and more cost effective.

Arguing for fossil fuels, against more cost effective and efficient alternative energy source development is like arguing that we should go back to the carburetor and scrap designs for direct-injection engines, the way I see it.

 

[Jack]

"Indoctrination" is a word that comes with negative stigma associated with coercion to misleading, wrong, or subjective ideas contrary to truth.

Developing viable solutions to renewable, cleaner, energy production is not indoctrination. It's progress and natural evolution of technology.

I would prefer the science class to be taught based on the principles of peer reviewed scientific consensus, which this falls in line with, rather than having the science class sculpted to comply with the emotional knee-jerk reactions of the politically sensitive.

You know... learning about science in science class.

Yep.

Jeez...

Yeah, its factually correct. It doesn't present the whole picture though. Solar doesn't produce enough power, the technology just isn't there yet. Wind turbines are great but they're noisy and they are ugly, especially if you put them in beautiful mountain valleys (stick them on the sides of skyscrapers and I'd be cool with it). Plus again they don't develop enough power to matter. They also don't mention nuclear power or dams or even geo.

It may not be about guns but it is about their ability to indoctrinate.

I think the absence of those topics relates more to the audience(11 year olds) than any intention of deception. An in depth analysis of energy production, consumption, costs, etc seems beyond the comprehension of most 5th graders and certainly more time consuming than the basics.

 

[JNieman]

Here's an idea. If education about facts somehow turns your kid away from your opinions; maybe your opinion is what should change.

 

[JWG223]

Here's an idea. If education about facts somehow turns your kid away from your opinions; maybe your opinion is what should change.

I am not who my parents raised me to be, as a thinker, 100%. I challenge anyone who is, that they aren't actually a thinker at all.

 

[JNieman]

Yeah, its factually correct. It doesn't present the whole picture though. Solar doesn't produce enough power, the technology just isn't there yet. Wind turbines are great but they're noisy and they are ugly, especially if you put them in beautiful mountain valleys (stick them on the sides of skyscrapers and I'd be cool with it). Plus again they don't develop enough power to matter. They also don't mention nuclear power or dams or even geo.

It may not be about guns but it is about their ability to indoctrinate.

It doesn't mention any of the technicalities and details about fossil fuels either. It's also teaching to 5 year olds. It'll be a decade and a half before they're at all relevant to the real world, and by then, it's possible that technology has solved many problems. It doesn't purport to speak on political and economical issues - only science. Only the physical properties of the subject. It's a 5th grade worksheet, not a phd dissertation.

 

[Emperor]

I don't have a problem in the least with THAT PAPER.

It's a fact: Fossil fuels give the best performance, currently, arguably, but noone will argue that politically, sustainably, and environmentally, they are inferior.

If I could power my house for the same cost over 10 years using solar/wind/hydro-electric vs. fossil fuels, I'd totally avoid the fossil fuels.

I think that paper is spot on. I don't want to run around hugging trees, or screaming about the ozone, but anything I can REASONABLY do to preserve the planet, I will do. Why not?

Further, I hate that we buy oil from the sandbox. I'd rather we didn't.

But you can't power your house for less, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will be any cheaper any time soon. Your emotions about fossil fuels are not germane to the discussion.

 

[Emperor]

The paper states (correctly) that burning fossil fuels creates pollutants which can be harmful. Solar and wind energy does not.

Seriously? What's the issue?

The paper is not trying to make the child grow up to vote against or for anything, it's simply trying to belabor the point of: If it hurts---don't do it. Maybe that kid will grow up to find more things that "don't hurt" which are more efficient and more cost effective.

Arguing for fossil fuels, against more cost effective and efficient alternative energy source development is like arguing that we should go back to the carburetor and scrap designs for direct-injection engines, the way I see it.

Read the assignment. "Use evidence from the text to support your view point."

They are leading in to the answer with the text! They are deciding for the student! THAT IS INDOCTRINATING THE CHILD INTO A VIEW POINT!

 

[Emperor]

It doesn't mention any of the technicalities and details about fossil fuels either. It's also teaching to 5 year olds. It'll be a decade and a half before they're at all relevant to the real world, and by then, it's possible that technology has solved many problems. It doesn't purport to speak on political and economical issues - only science. Only the physical properties of the subject. It's a 5th grade worksheet, not a phd dissertation.

9 year olds do not need to be convinced that fossil fuels are the end of humanity! They don't need to be sold on windmills, solar panels, or unicorns.

Conveniently leaving out the "natural" in natural gas; that "factually" burns cleaner than all other fossil fuels is not a mistake. Not mentioning nuclear energy is NOT a mistake.

Maybe they should scrap our navy and put sails back on the ships.

 

[JWG223]

But you can't power your house for less, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will be any cheaper any time soon. Your emotions about fossil fuels are not germane to the discussion.

It's never going to be cheaper if no R&D goes into it.
It is currently getting much cheaper.
http://inhabitat.com/solar-pv-cell-cost-has-decreased-an-incredible-99-since-1977/

 

[Emperor]

It's never going to be cheaper if no R&D goes into it.
It is currently getting much cheaper.
http://inhabitat.com/solar-pv-cell-cost-has-decreased-an-incredible-99-since-1977/

It's never going to get cheaper if the companies that are supposed to bring it to us steal 2 billion dollars at the behest of the ideologues that want to change the world for us!

 

[JNieman]

Read the assignment. "Use evidence from the text to support your view point."

They are leading in to the answer with the text! They are deciding for the student! THAT IS INDOCTRINATING THE CHILD INTO A VIEW POINT!

"Use evidence from the text to support your view point."

^that phrase has existed since I can remember ever doing school work. That's not Common Core indoctrination. That's how school works and has for a long time.

Here's a suggestion.

If you don't like the lesson they gave, substitute your own and have a chat with your kid. I talk with my kid all the time about stuff like this, and he's 6. He's on a big space kick, now, and we talk about current and historical space stuff often. When it's not space, it's animal science; especially reptiles.

Nothing about school says you get to stop being their biggest teacher.