This is one part of a running series entitled “Indoctrination Fridays,” a weekly review of leftist propaganda incorporated into public school curriculum and geared towards elementary students. For more of the series, please visit PublicSchoolSpending.com.
The real targets of the Green Movement are free markets and capitalism, not theoretical global warming. There is always another agenda.
Back in 2008, Detroit News columnist and WJR talk radio personality Frack Beckmann brought to light a series of lessons produced by Creative Change Educational Solutions, a non-profit outfit producing plans for teachers that want to instruct their students on environmental issues.
Beckmann decried the fact that the curriculum developed by Creative Change focuses on criticizing capitalism by having students compare “wages and working conditions in factories in China and Vietnam (to) corporate profits…and compensation for chief executive officers.” In other words, the distribution of wealth is unacceptable and must be changed. That will save the whales!
- Green curriculum: Kudos to you, sir.
This curriculum is much worse than Beckmann lets on, however. The lessons have spread throughout southeast Michigan. One school district, Bloomfield Hills – which ironically serves one of the wealthiest communities in the state – purchased the curriculum for $750. Ann Arbor Public Schools paid $4,900 for a day-long seminar. Similarly, Eastern Michigan University paid Creative Change $19,133.67 between 2007 and 2008 to “identify community groups and schools, help to develop, plan for, and facilitate Stakeholders Meetings, and collaborate writing the implementation proposal.”
Eastern Michigan University and Ann Arbor Public Schools, spent our tax dollars to spread this poison around the region.
There’s nothing wrong with teaching kids to turn off the lights and if it’s yellow to let it mellow. But Creative Change goes beyond common sense reforms and pushes a socio/political agenda.
One sample lesson plan – “Economics for the Common Good” – focuses on the Gross Domestic Product and how it is supposedly a misleading indicator of economic “progress.” You see, if there is an oil spill, millions if not billions are spent cleaning it up. That looks good for the GDP but not so good for the environment, according to their theory. So the progressives sought to compensate for that by devising the “Genuine Progress Indicator.” This measurement would take into account the “bad things” that grow the GDP to reflect the progress society is making.
“There is a growing acknowledgement that the GDP does not reflect sustainability’s aim to balance economic concerns with environmental and social goals.” Nevertheless, “…the GPI measures our combined economic, social, and environmental progress.”
Even nuttier, the writers suggest this as a novel idea because for once, bees will be able to get long-overdue credit for their contribution to society. “The GDP also ignores the many life-sustaining services performed by nature, such as pollination by bees and water purification by wetlands. Scientists conservatively estimate that these services are worth about $33 trillion per year, almost twice the total world GDP of $18 trillion.”
How a scientist can calculate the value of chemical-capturing mud is beyond me, but that must be why I’m not writing the curriculum and these very smart eggheads are. Alas, the lesson acknowledges that a GPI “can never be 100% accurate.”
But how do we make this understandable to the pimply faced teens? Cartoons!
“…Create a comic strip featuring the adventures of a GDP superhero and super-villain. The superhero, for example, would drive a gas-guzzling SUV, crash it into a lake (causing an expensive clean-up), rack up huge hospital bills, and file a lawsuit. The villain, on the other hand, wouldn’t even have a car, would walk to work, and resolve conflict through discussion and mediation.”
It’s no wonder America’s future is looking more bleak, when this is the type of garbage filling our students’ minds. Instead of belittling free markets and economic success with unrealistic characatures, perhaps it would behoove teachers to reflect on the real progress, innovation and high standard of living that capitalism has brought to America.
But that, of course, would not be consistent with the agenda. This propaganda is brown and should be flushed down.