SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Climate Science Education in the US is Pretty Crappy, Survey Finds
'At least one in three teachers bring climate change denial into the classroom'
Feb 12, 2016
The results of the first nationally representative survey on climate education in U.S. schools are in, and reveal, according to one noted scientist, that "we are failing students."
The survey of 1,500 middle and high school science teachers in 50 states was conducted by the Penn State Survey Research Center (SRC) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and the paper on the findings was published in the Feb. 12 issue of the journal Science.
It shows that little time was devoted to teaching climate science; while nearly three-quarters of the teachers devoted one or more lessons to recent global warming, the median amount of time they devoted to that was just an hour and a half, an amount, the authors write, that is "inconsistent with guidance from leading science and education bodies."
The messages being taught are problematic as well.
"At least one in three teachers bring climate change denial into the classroom, claiming that many scientists believe climate change is not caused by humans," stated NCSE programs and policy director Josh Rosenau. "Worse, half of the surveyed teachers have allowed students to discuss the supposed 'controversy' over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported conclusion."
Specifically, the survey found that 31% of teachers said they emphasized "both sides"--both the scientific consensus that human activity has driven global warming and the false belief that climate change is due to natural causes. Twelve percent said they didn't emphasize human causes at all.
Why? The authors write that just 4.4% of teachers said they felt pressure from outside actors including parents and administrators to teach "both sides," and said the problem could be because of lack of knowledge of specific evidence. They also found that only 30% of middle school and 45% of high school teachers were aware of the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change.
They add: "combine this with the fact that almost one-sixth (15%) believe that it is mostly driven by natural causes, and another one-sixth thought that human and natural causes are equally important."
"If a majority of science teachers believe that more than 20% of climate scientist disagree that human activities are the primary cause, it is understandable that many would teach 'both sides,' by conveying to students that there is legitimate scientific debate instead of deep consensus," the authors write.
Fixing the situation means looking at the root causes of the problem--which involves addressing the values and political ideologies teachers hold. The paper notes:
A question measuring political ideology was a more powerful predictor of teachers' classroom approach than any measure of education or content knowledge, with those leaning toward "It's not the government's business to protect people from themselves" most willing to teach "both sides."
"Teachers didn't create the polarized culture war around climate change," adds Rosenau. "But they're the key to ending this battle."
Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, writes about the survey's findings at New Scientist Friday, and argues that
[o]ur educational system is a microcosm of wider society. If we are to restore objectivity to how we teach ourchildren about topics like climate change, we must restore objectivity to our broader public discourse. Fortunately, there is a growing willingness among opinion leaders and US media to name and shame those acting in bad faith, like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund groups intent on misleading the public.
Our children will bear the brunt of the climate crisis, battling coastal inundation, the damage done by more extreme weather, increasingly withering droughts and devastating floods. We owe it to them not only to give them the facts, but to help them begin to clean up the mess that we created.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The results of the first nationally representative survey on climate education in U.S. schools are in, and reveal, according to one noted scientist, that "we are failing students."
The survey of 1,500 middle and high school science teachers in 50 states was conducted by the Penn State Survey Research Center (SRC) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and the paper on the findings was published in the Feb. 12 issue of the journal Science.
It shows that little time was devoted to teaching climate science; while nearly three-quarters of the teachers devoted one or more lessons to recent global warming, the median amount of time they devoted to that was just an hour and a half, an amount, the authors write, that is "inconsistent with guidance from leading science and education bodies."
The messages being taught are problematic as well.
"At least one in three teachers bring climate change denial into the classroom, claiming that many scientists believe climate change is not caused by humans," stated NCSE programs and policy director Josh Rosenau. "Worse, half of the surveyed teachers have allowed students to discuss the supposed 'controversy' over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported conclusion."
Specifically, the survey found that 31% of teachers said they emphasized "both sides"--both the scientific consensus that human activity has driven global warming and the false belief that climate change is due to natural causes. Twelve percent said they didn't emphasize human causes at all.
Why? The authors write that just 4.4% of teachers said they felt pressure from outside actors including parents and administrators to teach "both sides," and said the problem could be because of lack of knowledge of specific evidence. They also found that only 30% of middle school and 45% of high school teachers were aware of the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change.
They add: "combine this with the fact that almost one-sixth (15%) believe that it is mostly driven by natural causes, and another one-sixth thought that human and natural causes are equally important."
"If a majority of science teachers believe that more than 20% of climate scientist disagree that human activities are the primary cause, it is understandable that many would teach 'both sides,' by conveying to students that there is legitimate scientific debate instead of deep consensus," the authors write.
Fixing the situation means looking at the root causes of the problem--which involves addressing the values and political ideologies teachers hold. The paper notes:
A question measuring political ideology was a more powerful predictor of teachers' classroom approach than any measure of education or content knowledge, with those leaning toward "It's not the government's business to protect people from themselves" most willing to teach "both sides."
"Teachers didn't create the polarized culture war around climate change," adds Rosenau. "But they're the key to ending this battle."
Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, writes about the survey's findings at New Scientist Friday, and argues that
[o]ur educational system is a microcosm of wider society. If we are to restore objectivity to how we teach ourchildren about topics like climate change, we must restore objectivity to our broader public discourse. Fortunately, there is a growing willingness among opinion leaders and US media to name and shame those acting in bad faith, like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund groups intent on misleading the public.
Our children will bear the brunt of the climate crisis, battling coastal inundation, the damage done by more extreme weather, increasingly withering droughts and devastating floods. We owe it to them not only to give them the facts, but to help them begin to clean up the mess that we created.
The results of the first nationally representative survey on climate education in U.S. schools are in, and reveal, according to one noted scientist, that "we are failing students."
The survey of 1,500 middle and high school science teachers in 50 states was conducted by the Penn State Survey Research Center (SRC) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and the paper on the findings was published in the Feb. 12 issue of the journal Science.
It shows that little time was devoted to teaching climate science; while nearly three-quarters of the teachers devoted one or more lessons to recent global warming, the median amount of time they devoted to that was just an hour and a half, an amount, the authors write, that is "inconsistent with guidance from leading science and education bodies."
The messages being taught are problematic as well.
"At least one in three teachers bring climate change denial into the classroom, claiming that many scientists believe climate change is not caused by humans," stated NCSE programs and policy director Josh Rosenau. "Worse, half of the surveyed teachers have allowed students to discuss the supposed 'controversy' over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported conclusion."
Specifically, the survey found that 31% of teachers said they emphasized "both sides"--both the scientific consensus that human activity has driven global warming and the false belief that climate change is due to natural causes. Twelve percent said they didn't emphasize human causes at all.
Why? The authors write that just 4.4% of teachers said they felt pressure from outside actors including parents and administrators to teach "both sides," and said the problem could be because of lack of knowledge of specific evidence. They also found that only 30% of middle school and 45% of high school teachers were aware of the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change.
They add: "combine this with the fact that almost one-sixth (15%) believe that it is mostly driven by natural causes, and another one-sixth thought that human and natural causes are equally important."
"If a majority of science teachers believe that more than 20% of climate scientist disagree that human activities are the primary cause, it is understandable that many would teach 'both sides,' by conveying to students that there is legitimate scientific debate instead of deep consensus," the authors write.
Fixing the situation means looking at the root causes of the problem--which involves addressing the values and political ideologies teachers hold. The paper notes:
A question measuring political ideology was a more powerful predictor of teachers' classroom approach than any measure of education or content knowledge, with those leaning toward "It's not the government's business to protect people from themselves" most willing to teach "both sides."
"Teachers didn't create the polarized culture war around climate change," adds Rosenau. "But they're the key to ending this battle."
Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, writes about the survey's findings at New Scientist Friday, and argues that
[o]ur educational system is a microcosm of wider society. If we are to restore objectivity to how we teach ourchildren about topics like climate change, we must restore objectivity to our broader public discourse. Fortunately, there is a growing willingness among opinion leaders and US media to name and shame those acting in bad faith, like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund groups intent on misleading the public.
Our children will bear the brunt of the climate crisis, battling coastal inundation, the damage done by more extreme weather, increasingly withering droughts and devastating floods. We owe it to them not only to give them the facts, but to help them begin to clean up the mess that we created.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.