So a judge has found some scientific flaws in Al Gore's 'An inconvenient truth', casting doubt on how it's used in UK schools. The school governor and parent who brought the case is allegedly delighted. It made main headline news on the BBC's main evening news on Wednesday.
Whose purpose does it serve to take this through the courts? Surely good teachers and schools would use any film material critically and include discussion of values not just facts? What does this governor have to gain? Is he just making a point of principle about our Government dictating what's shown in schools? Or is he trying to suggest that science is somehow value free and that alternative ways of teaching about climate change would be so much better?
As an ex-teacher I think I'd have found Gore's film a very useful resource but it wouldn't be the only one I'd use. Doesn't this line of attack on such a film instead send out a message of reassurance to pupils that it's not as bad as was made out so it's OK for them to do nothing? Just about all resources used in school advocate one particular line or other and echo the values of those who've produced them. There's such an inertia in our society about taking action to positive effect rather than sitting on the fence and defending the status quo. There seems to me a good case for using material that provokes, which is what the Gore film seemed to me to do. Important that pupils learn about 'good science' but not at the expense of everything else and as if it's value free.
And why did this make headline news on the BBC?
No comments:
Post a Comment