Re: NEA Environmental Education (Stoops)

First I want to say that, with regards to Terry’s last line I think he is lying. He is not wondering anything of the sort. He knows that these folks will not entertain points of view that are inconsistent with their left wing environmentalist agenda. Now to my more substantive point. I notice that in this laundry list of things that students should learn about the environment and “sustainability” there is no recognition that to have any understanding of these issues at all, that goes beyond pure propaganda, a student would have to have more than rudimentary knowledge  of a whole array of sub-fields in both the natural and social sciences. This would include, but not limited to chemistry, biology, climatology, physics, economics, anthropology, sociology and history. Yet, there is no call for students to study any of these disciplines as a prerequisite to diving into the course of study that the NEA recommends. My guess is that the people who conjured up this “curriculum” are completely ignorant of the fact that what they propose would first require actual training in real  academic disciplines. On other hand they  full well understand this but also understand that it is easiest to write on a blank slate.

Roy Cordato / Senior Economist and Resident Scholar

Roy Cordato is Senior Economist and Resident Scholar at the John Locke Foundation. From January 2001 to March 2017, he held the position of Vice President for Research at the ...

Reader Comments

  • Roy Cordato

    Sorry about calling Terry a liar. I didn’t notice the “Ha” and the end of his sentence. He was quick to tell me that in this instance he wasn’t lying but being sarcastic.