Blog post

Are kids being ‘brainwashed’ on climate change? A teacher responds

Apr 16, 2014 by | 3 Comments

This guest post is by Luke Sinnick, a teacher of A-level Biology at Greenhead College, Huddersfield.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s recent report written by Andrew Montford and John Shade is titled ‘Climate Control: Brainwashing in Schools’. The report seeks to show “examples of ser­ious errors, mis­leading claims, and bias through inad­equate treat­ment of cli­mate issues in school teaching mater­ials”. Here, I out­line my thoughts on the report as a teacher of A-level Biology.

As the report is crit­ical of ‘mis­leading claims’ and encour­ages teachers to take a more crit­ical approach to edu­ca­tion I will high­light a few mis­leading claims that I feel Montford & Shade make themselves.

Throughout the report they have select­ively used evid­ence to sup­port their case and are demon­strating exactly the kind of ‘inad­equate treat­ment’ of the issues that is the focus of their cri­ti­cisms of the edu­ca­tion system.

They start with the sug­ges­tion that pro­moting envir­on­mental aware­ness entails “the cor­rup­tion of the cur­riculum in schools in sup­port of a rad­ical world­view that is almost cer­tainly at odds with the majority view in our society”. However, there are repeated polls showing that the ‘majority view’ is that human activity is affecting the cli­mate and that levels of con­cern about the effects of cli­mate change remain high.

In Part 2, Montford and Shade cri­ti­cise the Geography Association’s sug­ges­tion “to encourage chil­dren to think about issues such as the alleged imminent exhaus­tion of fossil fuels”. However, deple­tion of oil reserves in 40 years is a reality sug­gested by groups not nor­mally con­sidered pro­moters of ‘rad­ical world­views’ such as Institute for Mechanical Engineers.

They also dis­cuss prob­lems with the CGP revi­sion guides and their apparent bias.

Firstly, CGP are known for their ‘informal’ style and inclu­sion of (bad) jokes. For example, one guide sug­gests that “methane is a stinky problem but an important one”. We could ana­lyse this state­ment for its fac­tual accuracy (con­sid­ering methane is actu­ally odour­less) but that would not be a fruitful exer­cise when writing a ser­ious policy paper.

Secondly, at the bottom of the page on ‘global warming’ in the CGP guide, it is stated that ‘global warming is still just a theory – lots of sci­ent­ists put­ting together pieces in a jigsaw. The theory has not been com­pletely accepted yet – so be careful when describing what we actu­ally know’.

To present this as a ‘rad­ical world­view’ full of ‘bias’ is again, in their words, highly ‘misleading’.

They cri­ti­cise the inclu­sion of ques­tions such as “explain actions reli­gious people might take to look after the planet” and the marking cri­teria as being biased. However GCSE reli­gious studies papers reg­u­larly include ques­tions such as “Explain briefly why some people have a civil mar­riage cere­mony“. This doesn’t imply a ‘brain­washing’ of chil­dren towards a civil mar­riage cere­mony. Again, the selec­tion of material is itself a biased and mis­leading analysis.

They only use a tiny selec­tion of com­ments at the bottom of a TES survey as an example of ‘what teachers think’ when they could have equally con­trasted these views with an art­icle in The Guardian expressing a very dif­ferent view if they genu­inely sought a bal­anced perspective.

Finally, they con­clude “gone are the days when the edu­ca­tion system hoped to gen­erate young people equipped to form their own opin­ions on com­plex sci­entific, soci­olo­gical and polit­ical issues”.

Although its not clear which days they refer to, I agree this would be an amazing achieve­ment for edu­ca­tion. Teaching chil­dren to crit­ic­ally ana­lyse the polit­ical influ­ence of the data they are given could iron­ic­ally be con­ceived itself as a ‘rad­ical world­view’ due to its fun­da­mental link with effective demo­cracy as excel­lently explained by authors such as Henry Giroux [1].

We teach a huge number of sep­arate sci­entific facts to chil­dren during the AQA A-level Biology course which I am familiar with, some of which we do have time to dis­cuss and cri­ti­cise, some we unfor­tu­nately do not. This would be more apparent to Montford and Shade if they had fur­ther exper­i­ence in edu­ca­tion or engage­ment with the teaching pro­fes­sion when writing such a report.

I do think crit­ical ana­lysis in sci­ence edu­ca­tion should be pro­moted and encour­aged but the choice of which facts to be ana­lysed should be based on the strengths, weak­nesses and com­plexity of the sci­ence involved, not the bias of writers such as Montford and Shade.

They may be inter­ested to know I also taught a lesson this year to a high achieving A2 Biology class where I did actu­ally give equal time to non teacher-led activ­ities looking at argu­ments for and against man made cli­mate change, providing a range of data ‘for’ and ‘against’ (including showing them ‘the great global warming swindle’ they sug­gest in their report), and got them to vote at the end which side they supported.

Their crit­ical ana­lysis led them to unan­im­ously sup­port a human influence.

[1] Giroux, H (2011) On crit­ical ped­agogy. Continuum books

3 Comments + Add Comment

  • Andrew Mountford has pub­lished a response to this post with loads of com­ments too, yet here there is nothing.

    Why ?

  • All I know is, my 7-year-old came home from school telling me we need to stop driving our car because the white rhinos are extinct, and the ice caps will melt, and the chee­tahs will become extinct if we keep driving our cars.

    If that’s not brain­washing, I don’t know what is.

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2015, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website is a project of Climate Outreach

This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.