by Rick Lowe
On Second Thought was a weekly column this blogger wrote for The Bahama Journal from July 7, 1998 through September 7, 1999. Some of them might be dated by now, but I republish them here for what they are worth.
On Second Thought! – October 27, 1998.
Innocence Lost.
Are we frightening our children out of their innocence by either misleading them or allowing them to be frightened or corrupted? Numerous people are beginning to think so, and studies on the content of textbooks in use in the USA are interesting to say the least.
Let’s take a look at what the Center for the New West had to say:
Global Warming
In Concepts and Challenges in Earth Science, Leonard Bernstein, et al., have warned that with global warming sea level will rise some 61 kilometres and only the tops of very tall buildings will be out of water.
In asking what’s wrong with this explanation the author’s opine that while 61 kilometres may be a typographical error “A sea level rise of 61 km’s (37.9 miles) would mean that not only New York City would be under water, but so would Mt. Everest, surpassing both the Biblical flood and the apocalyptic vision portrayed in Kevin Costner’s film, Waterworld.”
“So 61 meters exaggerates even the most severe estimates of rising sea levels by 61 times and 61 kilometres exaggerates scientific estimates by 61,000 times.”
Somewhat misleading I would suggest.
Air Pollution
Mary Bronson Merki in Teen Health: Decisions for Healthy Living among other things suggests the number of ways dirty air affects people.
The rebuttal to this explanation is that “This text gives students only part of the story on air pollution.
“The text fails to inform students that air in most of the US is cleaner now than in the recent past.”
“The text also blames the “large number” of cars that create “great amounts of exhaust.” In fact, fewer than 10 percent of all cars – mostly poorly tuned or older cars – are responsible for 50 percent of total auto pollution. Newer cars emit 96 percent fewer hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions than models of the early 1970’s.”
“Students must learn about both the problems presented by air pollution and the improvements which have occurred.”
Social Action
In Earth Science: The Challenge of Discovery, Robert E. Snyder, et al., suggest that students take action and “Organise an event to raise public awareness about the destruction of tropical rain forests – a school assembly for example. Write to the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), an international organisation that works to preserve rain forests. Ask them for suggestions about organising your event. You might want the event to coincide with World Rain Forest Week, which takes place each fall. RAN will be able to tell you where and when it will be held this year.”
Scott Allen in asking what’s wrong with this take action section suggests that “There is nothing wrong with teaching students about our democratic process.” But “according to NAAEE guidelines, textbooks are to allow students to “explore different perspectives and express their own opinions.” Textbooks are to “encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas.”
“But this ….section is not about students forming and expressing their own opinions or exploring new ideas.”
“This textbook is not suggesting students learn how to analyse all sides of the rain forest issue. It is encouraging students to actively support a group that represents just one side of the issue.”
J.C. Watts a member of the US House of Representatives has recently suggested that “the sorry state of the public schools does not allow the method (of ensuring traditional values and ideas are returned to education) to work properly. This hurts the poor in particular. Right now, the government mandates that poor parents must send their children five days a week to schools that fail them in every way. These institutions do not teach them how to read, write or compute.”
The skills for students to critically analyse the information being provided is a necessity if we are to offer information to frighten them into action rather than ensuring that balanced information is provided to assist them in making up their own impressionable minds.
I would suggest we each review our students textbooks and raise these questions at the next PTA meeting. Together we can ensure our children do not lose their innocence to “textbook trash.”
