News » Family Living » Kids
Posted on May 12, 2009
by Jay G.
Source: www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22276068/toxic-teaching-t...
Watch this debate on environmental media in the classroom and watch the movie at www.storyofstuff.com then share your opinion here.
What should we be showing our kids? Annie Leonard tells her side of the story in Story of Stuff and it's now being taught in schools. Admittedly, this is one person's view of the materials stream...and it's ruffling some feathers. What do you think? Watch this debate on environmental media in the classroom and watch the movie at www.storyofstuff.com then share your opinion here.
| Write a Review | Post to SustainLane | Add Green Products & Businesses |
Making funny+inspiring shows that=good green media. Bridging online and offline. Eco Dad. More About Jay »
Share eco-tips, news, how-tos,
or just blog it.
Adam W. says:
crazy people are fun
Ivan S. says:
Class FAUX misinformation "some people say" does not make it true. Guess what, we ARE blowing up mountains to get our power, and that's not good!
James E. says:
It's an interesting debate. I think there is common agreement that textbooks are way out of date for the times, and increasingly people (kids) are getting their information through the web. But what's a poor elementary school teacher to do with no budget? Pull down videos from YouTube to teach her kids? There really isn't much option.
Whether you like this video or not is not the point. The point is who decides what tools will be given to our kids in the learning process? Is it decided at the teacher level? School level? District? City? State? Fed? At some point there needs to be some standards on what information teachers can and cannot bring into a classroom. I understand why the guy on Fox is upset about this video...it espouses a POV that his organization doesn't agree with. But what if a teacher brought in video reel from something that his organization endorsed? Chances are, there would be disagreement there too.
One thing is for sure...we're going to see more debates like this one, as teachers take to the web to create their lesson plans. Any teachers out there have an opinion on this topic?
Cris Bisch says:
Now classroom environmental education is indoctrinating and terrorizing children with toxic teaching tools and fear tactics?! Parents are concerned. Really? Sheesh! Don't get me started. Never mind, I will. Every young person I have shown or know has seen "The Story of Stuff" loves it, gets it and wants to do more to be environmentally responsible. These same kids are our future "change agents", the ones that will the be scrambling to find and implement the solutions that could hold back, perhaps stop a global, environmental holocaust that will strike terror in every heart, both young and old. The Story of Stuff is actually a relatively light-weight overview of the wasteful web of governmental, industrial and consumer greed, foibles and alliances that are propelling us towards impending economic and ecological disaster of epic proportions. I think our kids need to know the real truth, presented in a way they can comprehend for their age level, guided by informed parents and educators to understand it more fully in a way they can comprehend. I think Annie Leonard did just that... using a fun animated style, restraint and wisdom in packaging and presenting The Story of Stuff, the overview. I believe she is gearing up to share much more how-to information as a follow-up, with an action plan and recommendations to help kids learn about what they can do to help saving our planet in peril, by thinking conscientiously about their stuff, all stuff, and making wise choices, even at their young school ages. Kids are watching The Story of Stuff, then going home and challenging their parents to be conscious consumers. Maybe it's too hard an environmental pill for some of them to swallow.... "Hey, Mom and Dad, do we really need so much stuff?!" Scary!
Cliff B. says:
James,
The FOX point-of-view is what we were taught already. Coming out of WW2, the mantra was to consume ! GM had already introduced annual model changes, while the Europeans kept the same design for many years. All of the consumption evolved into throw-away products rather than repairable products. The Story of Stuff is the remedy for consumption insanity. The consuming society was taught that the resources would never end. Benjamin Franklin and "Waste not, want not" was obsolete.
My school movies as a child, taught the wonders of new hydo-electric dams, the unlimited potential of nuclear power, the potential of plastic products to serve all needs, and of course, how to duck and cover in the event of a nuclear attack. Our neighbors had bomb shelters. We could not afford one.
The themes of Story of Stuff can be found in Poor Richard's Almanac and the Bible. The FOX view can be found in Mein Kampf.
The cause of most wars can be found in one principle: One country's supply line is crossed by that of another country.
What we teach our children is what we will get when they grow up. If Annie's video takes hold with our children, will they be too considerate of others, and the planet?
Cliff B. says:
ex•ploi•ta•tion
1.unfair treatment or use: the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain.
2.development of something for benefit: the use or development of something in order to gain a benefit.
By definition, extraction is exploitation. It seems that the connotation that someone is being unfair or selfish is what could be offensive. By the use of "scare tactics", "misinformation", "overzealous", and "respect for intelligence", I get the sincere impression that Greg thinks that Environmental Impact Statement legislation is over-reaching. If we go back to The Story of Stuff, we are freed from the burden of impact statements and only need to consider whether we are "selfish or unfair" when
we take all the oil or mineral wealth from a country and feed cubic $$$ to the local despot.
I would challenge Greg to produce one example on this planet where an American company has extracted materials from another nation and this has not been exploitation in the worse sense.
Should we start in South America? Asia? Indonesia? Middle East? Africa?
Do we consider overthowing democratic governments to accomplish our ends? How about destruction of rain forests? How about watersheds? Go ahead, Greg, correct the misinformation with the truth of our national benevolence and unselfish aims, and that our "extractions" benefitted the people and nations as a result.
Jay G. says:
Part of the reason I really like the piece on Fox is because this it's not really a black and white issue. I would agree partially with Greg in that the environmental movement has to stop using scare tactics...it kept me away for a long time...casting negative visions and using fear and guilt doesn't drive us where we want to go. The fact is, however, that today's textbooks really don't tell this story at all. So what we have here is really two extremes, neither of which tell the whole story, but both of which play a key role.
Cliff B. says:
OK, I give. What scary part of The Story of Stuff is not true?
Don Bosch says:
Good thoughts! Few more:
"The Story of Stuff is actually a relatively light-weight overview of the wasteful web of governmental, industrial and consumer greed, foibles and alliances... I think our kids need to know the real truth, presented in a way they can comprehend for their age level, guided by informed parents and educators..." I see where you're coming from Cris, but if government is a wasteful web why put it in charge of the solution? Paul admonished us in Romans that creation was groaning for the sons of God to be revealed, not for the Roman government to take over. The clip is OK, right up to the point where government becomes the solution.
The Church, not government or schools, spreads the Gospel. Neither should we defer to them to act as an agent of change in the moral issue of creation-care. We should be in the lead.
Schools long ago abandoned focus on the 3 R's to delve into social programs. Parents should not be 'guiding' - they should be in the lead, presenting and emulating the behavior we want in our kids, and driving change in our communities. We've pawned the hard work off to very diligent but ill-equipped educators. Their best tools are YouTube vids?
By the way, bring a faith-based creation care message into a public school setting and see how long that lasts. Respond by saying these ecology lessons aren't faith-based. I'd gently (but firmly) ask why a Christian would think that men/women in their own strength are capable of redeeming creation when "we've done such a great job in the past." Not very intuitive. If it's just a scientific analysis, the drop the moral expletives.
Greg's description of the anti-business environmental left is pretty close and signficant reason why support for ecology is dropping rapidly. As long as extraction is exploitation "by definition" for ex., we can't agree to move forward in a way that sustains the planet both economically and ecologically. Not helpful.
James E. says:
Cliff, Story of Stuff: good. Consumerism videos: bad. So, who decides this? My concern is that in a world where media is plentiful, and every POV is represented on YouTube, and many opposing views are represented by qualified scientists, we all have access to believable stories from every angle. So, who gets to show what to the kids? I have a great teacher friend who does not believe in global warming (she considers herself an environmentalist). She has shown me credible evidence that global warming is being largely caused by solar flares, and the current cycle of the sun. The fact that polar ice caps are melting on OTHER planets in our solar system right now, presumably not from auto exhaust, makes her case even more compelling. Ok to show this video to the kids? Even if it disagrees with Big Al? See the problem? If any teacher can bring any media into the classroom for a captive audience, then doesn't it make sense that that particular teacher's religious, political, and social views will influence what is taught in that classroom? Is that ok? Does there need to be some sort of impartial board? Some sort of state/fed guidelines? Then there's the reality that all kids have access to all media...maybe it's more important to focus on critical thinking skills, rather than show any media at all?
Also, this "The FOX view can be found in Mein Kampf" stuff you write, just serves to continue the "otherness" theory that is hate based, which perpetuates the separateness that is part of the problem on this planet. One planet, one people. It's more than a bumper sticker. I enjoy watching Fox news when I can, because it helps me understand the perspectives of the 80 million people in this country that feel our media and schools are too liberal. I don't have to endorse their views, but I find it helps me in navigating change by participating in POVs from all people, regardless of their affiliations.
Cliff B. says:
So, FOX presents a viewpoint that appeals to a lot of listeners. That is true.
Maybe global warming is caused by solar flares...that's a possibility.
If the discussion is strictly what belongs in school, then leaving Annie out is like banning books. Then the discussion should be "at what age would it be appropriate to present her viewpoint".
Analyze what is true and what is opinion, and choose an opinion. If Annie is too controversial, what do you censor? How do you limit it? Is there a portion of her message that all can agree upon?
No, there is not.
Is consumerism, by itself, too hot of a topic, and needs to be left to adults?
The Story of Stuff is a big, big issue. It will not be an happy discussion for all involved, but without strong, differing opinions not much action will take place.
Cliff B. says:
Don, the involvement of govenrment is essential. In Singapore, it is illegal to chew gum on a bus, for fear that it will end up stuck to a seat. Faith based solutions can only goes as far as the labors of active believers.
When I grew up, littering was common. It became illegal and conditions improved.
Remember that slavery had to first become unprofitable, then illegal in England to slow down the trade. It was not a free will choice of the ordinary man to stop slavery.
Likewise, environmental responsibility will not dominate until it is unprofitable and illegal to do otherwise.
Don Bosch says:
Cliff - these guys would be right up your alley, I think. :-) http://www.livingwatersfortheworld.org/
Don Bosch says:
By the way my friend, Christians were opposing the slave trade well before it became either unprofitable or illegal. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_124/ai_n27451764/
Cliff B. says:
Yep..Amazing Grace (the movie) chronicles that story well. Nowadays, there seems to be a disconnect, however. The immediacy is absent. Not many people wake up an wonder how their actions, consumption, and activites affect the rest of the world. Even if we did, we look at the activities of large corporations and say, "what's the use".
Florista, planting one tree at a time, in Haiti is a wonder to me.
Coleen O. says:
When we are on a fast paced run toward the cliff, I am unclear how we can, as educators, not scare people. It is really, really difficult to expose the facts, to talk about the real threats to our planet and our species survival, without deep despair that sets in. We are in a mess - whether we want to explore the big ones - water, global warming, food security, population explosion, toxic contamination, body burden figures, extinction of species - it is huge. We can teach children that all will be fine when they get older and if they just keep buying the latest Ipod or Iphone and get good grades and get the high paying job, they will be fine. This is a lie and we as educators have to figure out a way to be truthful with our students. It isn't about scaring them into changing their behavior, I have no intention as an educator into scaring anyone, it is instead about imbedding my students into the web of life and seeing that what we do to the planet we do to ourselves. I work at creating a gratefulness to be alive in these trying times, a sense of wonder at this amazing creation we have been allowed to participate in, and a larger time frame then the one we live in which last usually about five minutes to two hours. To think in generations, to think ahead and learn from the past is the real challenge for teachers - to extend our imaginations to dream about and visualize the world they want to live in when they are older - this is what I do with students. What becomes clear really quickly when they explore this, is that they conclude that they must consume less and find ways to be happy that aren't accumulating stuff. Kids are smart - they get it and they are empowered - not scared. Stop putting your fear on children - they are the real heroes of their future. But we as adults have a responsibility to them... we can't leave it for them to do. We have to start educating ourselves and becoming ecologically literate. Trust me it IS scary.
Michelle N. says:
It's not necessarily what she says that is appalling, but how she says it. This is wrong on so many levels. If you could present some of what she is saying in a well thought out and unbiased way, who would argue, but this is definitely a video with an agenda and that is not acceptable.
Coleen O. says:
I need to hear Michelle what is wrong on so many levels about how Annie presents this. I can't imagine a more well thought out message. You live in some kind of bubble that truly believes that there is an unbiased statement - there is nothing objective about anything in our world... everything is contextual so get into this century. That is old paradigm thinking you are relying on when you say something can be said in an unbiased way... even when said smoothly without too much spin. Our language and thinking comes out of our worldview. So what you really need to say is that you don't share Annie's worldview and you are unwilling to examine how you might expand yours.