This column was originally published in the, almost, world famous Buffalo Gap Round-Up News, December 2023 issue.
“The lesson was designed to help students think critically about the accuracy and subjectivity of information. After speaking with the curriculum team, they have decided to no longer use PragerU video content,” Leila Walsh, chief communication officer for Houston ISD, wrote in an email which was reported by the Left-leaning not-for-profit Houston Landing media outlet.
So what is the beef that led to this pulling of quality PragerU material a from lesson at Houston ISD as it undergoes a state mandated makeover of its failing schools and management?
You guessed it, I bet!
The press and other leftists were scandalized to learn that students were actually presented a viewpoint that differs from the Democrat-Left orthodoxy that any and all “climate change” is caused, almost solely, by human activity.
The liberal writer at the Houston Landing (think local version of donor funded Texas Tribune) characterized the dissenting viewpoint of the PragerU lesson as one that “mocked the idea of human-caused climate change.”
This is a heterodoxy not to be allowed.
The fact that PragerU pushes what the writer deems “conservative viewpoints,” which he calls “biased,” actually demonstrates the appropriateness of the use of PragerU’s presentation as the course is called the “Art of Thinking.” It is created to, as the opening quote covered, “help students think critically about the accuracy and subjectivity of information.”
It’s probably not a good idea for a government public school to use material created by political activist groups such as PragerU for general lessons. (For this column I’ll set aside the obvious point that much school lesson material is generated by Left-leaning groups.) But in this case it is almost necessary to use such because the point of the lesson was to show students that there are other viewpoints which can be presented with reasonable, strong, evidence-based arguments. How else to you do this honestly if all that is provided is a slanted and weak bulleted list of “opponents say?”
What this story well demonstrates is that liberal and leftist climate change advocates have very little confidence in their positions if they are alarmed at students seeing a differing viewpoint.
The Houston Landing story reported that University of Texas at Austin College of Education Professor David DeMatthews (not a scientist by the way but a College of Education prof) called it a red flag that a school would include any content from PragerU in a lesson.
“A lot of the material that (PragerU) provides is highly controversial, highly biased and is not really aligned with historical, or even, at times, scientific consensus around particular issues,” DeMatthews asserted demonstrating his own Leftist bias and ignorance of the scientific method given that “consensus” has nothing to do with what is, or is not, correct.
It is wrong to even offer up arguments to students, even very sound arguments, that might cause a student to question Left-leaning people’s view of climate change even if the course itself is focused upon the idea of teaching skepticism…
He is not the only one quoted. Texas State Climatologist and Texas A&M Professor John Nielsen-Gammon criticized students hearing a differing point of view by saying: “Some of it was legit and some of it seemed weird or out of place and it was all rather fixated on beating down the idea of climate change.”
Get it?
It is wrong to even offer up arguments to students, even very sound arguments, that might cause a student to question Left-leaning people’s view of climate change even if the course itself is focused upon the idea of teaching skepticism, which is very scientific by the way, by suggesting that there are always differing viewpoints to any issue.
What is most disappointing in this episode is that the Houston ISD people, who are currently in place to reform and improve the district’s schools, folded so quickly when it is easy to explain why, in this instance, the use of an outside and admittedly conservative point of view product, was highly appropriate for a lesson on the “art of thinking.”
This is just another data point suggesting that the people conducting “education” are themselves in need of some serious schooling.
PragerU rejection shows the educators need schooling themselves
This column was originally published in the, almost, world famous Buffalo Gap Round-Up News, December 2023 issue.
So what is the beef that led to this pulling of quality PragerU material a from lesson at Houston ISD as it undergoes a state mandated makeover of its failing schools and management?
You guessed it, I bet!
The press and other leftists were scandalized to learn that students were actually presented a viewpoint that differs from the Democrat-Left orthodoxy that any and all “climate change” is caused, almost solely, by human activity.
The liberal writer at the Houston Landing (think local version of donor funded Texas Tribune) characterized the dissenting viewpoint of the PragerU lesson as one that “mocked the idea of human-caused climate change.”
This is a heterodoxy not to be allowed.
The fact that PragerU pushes what the writer deems “conservative viewpoints,” which he calls “biased,” actually demonstrates the appropriateness of the use of PragerU’s presentation as the course is called the “Art of Thinking.” It is created to, as the opening quote covered, “help students think critically about the accuracy and subjectivity of information.”
What this story well demonstrates is that liberal and leftist climate change advocates have very little confidence in their positions if they are alarmed at students seeing a differing viewpoint.
The Houston Landing story reported that University of Texas at Austin College of Education Professor David DeMatthews (not a scientist by the way but a College of Education prof) called it a red flag that a school would include any content from PragerU in a lesson.
“A lot of the material that (PragerU) provides is highly controversial, highly biased and is not really aligned with historical, or even, at times, scientific consensus around particular issues,” DeMatthews asserted demonstrating his own Leftist bias and ignorance of the scientific method given that “consensus” has nothing to do with what is, or is not, correct.
It is wrong to even offer up arguments to students, even very sound arguments, that might cause a student to question Left-leaning people’s view of climate change even if the course itself is focused upon the idea of teaching skepticism…
He is not the only one quoted. Texas State Climatologist and Texas A&M Professor John Nielsen-Gammon criticized students hearing a differing point of view by saying: “Some of it was legit and some of it seemed weird or out of place and it was all rather fixated on beating down the idea of climate change.”
Get it?
It is wrong to even offer up arguments to students, even very sound arguments, that might cause a student to question Left-leaning people’s view of climate change even if the course itself is focused upon the idea of teaching skepticism, which is very scientific by the way, by suggesting that there are always differing viewpoints to any issue.
What is most disappointing in this episode is that the Houston ISD people, who are currently in place to reform and improve the district’s schools, folded so quickly when it is easy to explain why, in this instance, the use of an outside and admittedly conservative point of view product, was highly appropriate for a lesson on the “art of thinking.”
This is just another data point suggesting that the people conducting “education” are themselves in need of some serious schooling.
See more: Why the government school cartel hates innovation in education.