I am a science teacher and a leaseholder. Part of my school year consists of teaching about both energy resources and the environment. I was a bit taken aback when I received an email from our assistant superintendent that suggested we talk to our students about fracking and then gave us a lesson plan with a resource. The resource was from 2001 and completely bias against the gas companies. There was only one side of the issue presented. Then I did a little research to find out how we are teaching our children about this resource and I came across http://mrwynne.blogspot.com/2011/01/very-informative-video-on-hydra.... While I applaud the teacher's use of technology in the classroom and his innovative approach, I also found that his blog was one sided. Another site I found was http://www.thinkbeforeyoufrack.org/ that was made by teenagers in NY.
I believe that this one-sided approach hurts students by not allowing them to think critically about a complex subject such as fracking. There are so many variables that need to be considered when deciding whether one agrees with drilling or not. Although I have no doubt that these educators are well intentioned, I fear that they have only shown one aspect of the discussion. It is not until we look at an issue from all perspectives that we can intelligently determine our position. What a missed opportunity for these students.
Tags:
Good job Pam S!!
You have stopped the process of brainwashing in your own way!
It's too bad there's only one of you as there are many more students needing correct information in order to make up their own minds. Enough of this slanted bias.
The smarter kids usually figure out the truth eventually for themselves, regardless the nearly toxic quantities of bias they receive in school.
The loonies have been pretty quiet about "global warming" recently, for example. I expect all the asinine chatter to pick up in July. (LMAO)
gotta admit - I believe that global warming is occurring however I tell my students to look at evidence for and against and make up their own minds. Same with evolution.
Pam,
I agree that High School students are mature enough to hear 'both sides' (or, more than two) of an issue. They should *also* be mature enough to learn some basics of rhetoric, so that they can assess how arguments are being presented.
For example:
(1) reductio ad absurdum: (claiming that, if you believe thus-and-such, you must also believe something else which is 'obviously' ridiculous). "If you're against high-volume, slick-water hydrofracturing of Marcellus Shale in populated areas, then - obviously - you must be against all forms of chemistry, and you must want us all to eat cold food, in the dark, in our overcoats."
(2) ad hominem attack: (or, in familiar terms, 'name-calling'). "All people who have misgivings about Marcellus extraction are 'environmental loonies'."
I would encourage you to follow through with your administrators -- if you can get their attention, when they're focused on test scores -- and try to give your students the most rigorous experience that they can absorb.
Thanks for your efforts with our kids!
Pam,
It is a shame that our schools are not helping to teach critical thinking skills any more and I applaud you in your efforts to present all sides of the issue to your students.
Perhaps if the students who wrote the 'think before you frack' website were aware that without the technology of hydraulic fracturing they would have not eaten breakfast that morning (NG being the major feedstock for fertilizer), texted their friends on their cell phones (again, NG and oil-feedstocks for plastics) nor had electricity in their classrooms for 5 hrs each day (20% of electricity from gas generation), they would have been driven not to write an anti-fracing website but rather towards becoming scientists and engineers who would work to improve the processes of extraction of something we all have come to need.
Once again, I thank you for your efforts to instill critical thinking skills in our young people, I can only hope that my daughter is blessed with teachers such as yourself that will help reinforce a skill I constantly try and encourage in our home.
Pam,
Thanks for the post. I am a lease owner as well. I'd like to explore this topic and understand it better.
I'm afraid labeling the ideas presented as "Brainwashing,Toxic, Biased" etc. does nothing to refute the claims made in the videos. The stories are compelling and are definitely not all from 2001.
One video features an ex- gas worker who seems to raise some serious concerns about fracing.
I would like to see Pennsylvania develop it's gas resources in a safe way ...(fine by me if they drill on my land, as long as it's safe )
Right Mark,
Evil "Teachers and Scientists" LOL
Back to my question though.....what's the real answers to the concerns raised about Fracing.
that she referred to.
Dear Mark,
I can definitely understand why you are so upset with teachers and their unions. Apparently they never taught you to spell. I would be angry too.
Sincerely,
Pam
As a science teacher are you saying that the Council of Scientific study Prresidents are all wrong!!
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas please read the following.
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/CCSP%20letter%20on%20energy%20&%20environment.pdf
Council of scientific Society Presidents
http://tinyurl.com/3gt8pop
Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Foot print of Natural Gas from Shale Formations
Obtained by High-Volume,Slick-Water Hydraulic Fracturing
EPA confirms high Natural Gas leakage rates
http://theenergycollective.com/all/11465
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher). Powered by
h2 | h2 | h2 |
---|---|---|
AboutWhat makes this site so great? Well, I think it's the fact that, quite frankly, we all have a lot at stake in this thing they call shale. But beyond that, this site is made up of individuals who have worked hard for that little yard we call home. Or, that farm on which blood, sweat and tears have fallen. [ Read More ] |
Links |
Copyright © 2017 GoMarcellusShale.com