Recently I ran across a post from a UK physics teacher. His open letter shows what happens when the PC-mindset invades the physics curriculum. The entire post is well worth the read, but here is sample:
Lastly, I present the final question on the January physics exam in its entirety:
Electricity can also be generated using renewable energy sources. Look at this information from a newspaper report.
Suggest why, apart from the declining reserves of fossil fuels, power companies should use more bio-fuels and less fossil fuels to generate electricity.
- The energy from burning bio-fuels, such as woodchip and straw, can be used to generate electricity.
- Plants for bio-fuels use up carbon dioxide as they grow.
- Farmers get grants to grow plants for bio-fuels.
- Electricity generated from bio-fuels can be sold at a higher price than electricity generated from burning fossil fuels.
- Growing plants for bio-fuels offers new opportunities for rural communities.
The only marks that a pupil can get are for saying:
None of this material is in the specification, nor can a pupil reliably deduce the answers from the given information. Physics isn’t a pedestrian subject about power companies and increasing their profits, or jobs in a rural community, it’s is about far grander and broader ideas.
- Overall add no carbon dioxide to the environment
- Power companies make more profit
- Opportunity to grow new type of crop (growing plants in swamps)
- More Jobs
My pupils complained that the exam did not test the material they were given to study, and they are largely correct. The information tested was not in the specification given to the teachers, nor in the approved resources suggested by the AQA board. When I asked AQA about the issues with their exam they told me to write a letter of complaint, and this I have done. But, rather than mail it to AQA to sit ignored on a desk, I am making it public in the hope that more attention can be brought to this problem.
At the high school level, science classes should lay a strong foundation so that the future student will be able to reason and research topics of importance. The Social Justice curriculum is much less concerned with laying a strong foundation in science then it is in co-opting the classroom discussion so that students come to the “right” conclusions NOW. In the case above, the process was so poorly thought out that the real agenda became obvious, but that may not always be the case. Educators should be wary of the intrusion of politics disguised as science (or religion disguised as science) into the classroom.