Nothing our provincial government does surprises me any more, but this form of indoctrination is not acceptable.

Seems both accurate and relevant to me.  Might as well get the kids fired up, because adults don’t care and won’t act.

Even the most skeptical climate deniers are expecting a half-meter rise in the oceans by 2100, simply because that’s how fast oceans are rising today.  That alone will cause major disaster in low-lying areas like South Florida and Louisiana.

Responsible scientists are painting far more frightening scenarios, with much shorter time-frames.

I don’t care either way, I’ll be dead before then.  Global warming should deliver nicer weather in Toronto.  But most of the kids in school today will still be alive in 2100, and they will have to deal with the darker elements of climate change.

Do We Need A Court Case To Clear The Air In Canada?

Anti-indoctrination Law in UK School Act (1996)

Section 406 says that education authorities “shall forbid…the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”. Controversial topics, under Section 407, requires that students “are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views”.

When Gore’s film was shown in 2008 in class without any balance a father took the issue to court. He won, was awarded 2/3 costs against the Government and changed history in that any future showings of the film in UK government schools must follow these guidelines:

GUIDELINES for showing “An Inconvenient Truth”

1. State that the Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 and guilty of political indoctrination.

3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

Error one — A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia.”

Error two — Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.” Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

Error three — The film described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe. Judge: According to IPCC, it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

Error four —Two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”, said Gore. Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

Error five — The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming. Judge: The scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Error six — The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

Error seven — Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans was due to global warming. Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.

Error eight — For the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find ice”. Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.” That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

Error nine — Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

Indoctrination is not the same as being informed.

With so many questions looming about what Global Warming actually means, and the unanswered questions about what it will really do in our children’s and in our grandchildren’s lifetime, it’s irresponsible for a provincial government to be endorsing this type of message.

We are aware that Global Warming is occurring, and this is a hot button political topic in every single public school classroom across North America.  However until world scientists can all agree on what the devastation will actually look like, or even suggest meaningful solutions, why are we putting grown up problems on the shoulders of wee babes?  Innocence and “just allowed to be kids” has been completely eradicated for this generation, by the insistence of grown ups constantly pushing their own agendas and inflicting more stress and anxiety on our children than ever before.

Not okay, in my opinion.

If you are not paying for the product, then you are not the customer.  You are the product. 

You may like that Google and Facebook are free, but you have agreed to their terms and they are selling you as if you were a choice fillet.

It is true on the internet, and it is true in public services.  The state has systematically taken on responsibilities that used to be the domain of families, and they are entitled to deliver them in any way that is consistent with getting re-elected.

If you send your kid to a “free” school, then you have agreed to their terms of service.  If they want to promote values of liberal humanism, describe the effects of climate change, or teach them about evolution, then it is their prerogative.

No schooling is free Tom.  We pay thousands of dollars every year to send our kids to any type of school.  It’s called being a taxpayer, and as such, WE are the customer…not the government.

I think Tunya pretty much spells it out in her post.  Parents have a right to expect our children not be held hostage to bogus documentaries and propaganda in a democratic society under the guise of learning.  The only problem was that the lawsuit only applied to UK schools.  Too bad a parent hasn’t done the same in Canada or the US.

Let’s get back to reality and understand the difference between political rhetoric and facts.

We are paying for the product.  It’s called taxes and it’s automatically taken from what I worked so hard to earn.  Public education costs taxpayers at least $13K per child to send to school. My municipal tax bill for education is at least a third of that amount.  The “state” has has effectively trampled on the rights of the people of Ontario, and with the help of Unions “systematically” eroded the “domain” of “families”.  With our money they have become self-“entitled” and arrogant socialists.

I stand by my assertion.  School is free and you are not a customer.  Your child is the product, a widget being prepared.

Yes, someone pays for school.  Someone pays for Google’s data centers and your free credit card too.  Someone pays for free highways and free parking on your street.  Maybe he’s hiding behind a tree somewhere.

You actually do have some rights, they are laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  For example you can vote.  But your rights are surprisingly limited:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf

Likely you have a right to educate your own child, although it’s not explicit in the Charter.  And if you hand her over to the state, then you still have the right to complain in either official language.  Let us know how it works out.

————-

As an aside, the morphology of ‘educate’ is ‘e+duce+ate’.  The root comes from the Latin verb ‘ducere’ which also gives us produce and product (the ‘e’ prefix means upright, eg: e+rect, e+rupt).  So ‘educate’ literally means to produce an upright man.

Time To Rethink Family Policies In This New Techno/Statist Era

At the same time as technology is being harnessed to enhance the producer side of goods and services, let’s remember that the consumer/client/customer side also has access to empowering tools.

A too-willing state and its agents is offering tax-paid services from cradle to grave and definitely seriously eroding the “domain of families”.  It’s all too easy to fall into this vortex, this rabbit-hole, this slippery slope.

Public education is currently undergoing radical, system-originated transformations that proclaim what they see is needed for the future for our children — without our consultation and consent.  Here is an example of a Grade 1 curriculum, part of common core in the US but also part of 21st Century Learning impetus in other parts of the Western world — Indoctrination in Common Core ELA Texts (English Language Arts for 1st grade, 6 yr olds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGph7QHzmo8

- “the theme . . . students use their voices to advocate solutions to social problems that they care deeply about . . . “

- “how to use emotional words . . . to feel so strongly about the problem that they want to do what is being asked of them . . . “

- “ write a letter to parents about a problem . . . Write anger, fear and joy . . . the parents may be upset or angry by this sentence . . . “

Commentary in this video about some materials in Utah mention that “it marginalizes parents”, “stirs up emotions of parents” . . .

Watching this video more than once will certainly acquaint us with the deep, intended, “transformations” about the social-emotional-learning agenda of changing attitudes, beliefs and dispositions of the young.

Why are basics and academics being slighted in favor of social themes?  Is it even developmentally appropriate for children in the primary school years?

Time to start rethinking family policies anew, and time to examine curriculum in schools.