Apparently, Springfield Democrats aren’t satisfied with indoctrinating Illinois school children with leftist ideas about sexuality, cross-sex impersonation, race, and “misinformation.” They’ve hatched a new plan for mainlining propaganda into other people’s children using public money, this time via a school code amendment. But this is no lefty slacker amendment. Oh, no, this is the kind of go-for-broke, enviro-activist amendment that would bring a smile to Greta Thunberg’s gwumpy face.
State Representatives Janet Yang Rohr and Kimberly Du Buclet have co-sponsored “Climate Change Education,” a humdinger of a bill (HB 4895) that if passed will mandate that “every public high school shall require a unit of instruction addressing climate change in either a required science class or a required social studies class” beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.
But that’s just a steppingstone. The ideological grip of leftists will tighten in 2026-2027 when “every public high school” must “include instruction on climate change and the impacts and causes of climate change in grades 9 through 12 in specified courses” (emphasis added).
The amendment defines “climate change” for the deplorables and rubes that walk among our elites:
“climate change” means the negative impact of human activities on the Earth’s environment, contributing to issues such as warming temperatures, rising sea levels, and an increase in extreme weather events.” (emphasis added)
Among the topics that must be included are the following:
- “The relationship between rapid industrialization, carbon emissions, rapid temperature increases, and the increasing frequency of environmental and ecological impacts.”
- “The role of and relationships between specific governments, corporations, and people in worsening or attempting to mitigate climate change.”
- “The historical patterns of emissions by specific countries.”
- “Current and proposed climate treaties and agreements.”
- “Showing sectoral emissions worldwide, nationwide, and statewide.”
- “Identifying and addressing the … Daily habits a person is able to change in order to reduce that person’s contribution to climate change, such as choosing to recycle or support local businesses.”
- “Identifying and addressing the … Actions a community or organization is able to take to reduce its overall contribution to climate change.”
- “Identifying and addressing the … Institutional barriers to an individual, community, or organization in reducing the individual’s, community’s, or organization’s contribution to climate change.”
Schools must also require “students to create an action plan that … address[es] climate change for the students’ community.” In other words, this amendment mandates student activism in the service of a leftist political cause.
Rohr and Du Buclet didn’t neglect to address the need of leftists for a stealth infrastructure undergirding their project. Before propagandists are able to squish the malleable minds of children into a shape leftists favor, they must first indoctrinate the indoctrinators. So, the amendment addresses both “professional development,”—that is, indoctrination of teachers—and a “working group,” which is the most stealth element of the infrastructure.
The amendment requires that the State Board of Education—which is run by leftists—to “convene a working group of students, educators, and experts in the area of climate change.” How likely is it that this working group will be ideologically balanced? And why are students included in a government group tasked with “modifying State learning standards that address or relate to climate change” and “Developing additional learning standards for climate change”? Are students experts in climate change or learning standards?
Here are other topics the amendment urges the working group to address:
- “The basic foundation and definition of human-caused climate change.”
- “The disproportionate contribution to climate change that Global North countries have had historically and continue to have in the present.”
- “The disproportionate impact climate change has had and will have on traditionally marginalized people in local communities and communities across the world.”
- “The disproportionate challenges vulnerable and traditionally marginalized people face in relation to climate change. These challenges shall include, but are not limited to, extreme events, health effects, food, water, and livelihood security, migration and forced displacement, and the loss of cultural identity.”
In the list of “issues or themes” that the amendment recommends the working group address is this:
The absence of scientific controversy regarding the basic facts of climate change despite political, economic, or social disagreements about climate change.”
Are they saying that the working group should address the theme of the absence of controversy regarding the basic facts of climate change? If so, weird. If there exists no controversy on the basic facts of climate change, why have a working group spend time addressing it?
If there is universal agreement on the basic facts of climate change, why not amend the amendment to require the teaching of only the basic undisputed facts of climate change? Then, a working group (sans minors) could be created, equally balanced in number between those on both sides of the disputed contentions regarding climate change, to establish what the undisputed facts are.
Some Illinoisans may read this amendment and become beguiled by the seemingly benign and ideologically neutral rhetoric. After all, who objects to students learning facts about climate change and treaties? As always, however, the devil is in the details hidden behind the rhetoric.
Who will select the organizations and materials used? Will these materials emphasize disputed claims from climate Chicken Littles? Will the unelected bureaucrats who will be choosing the organizations and materials used to “train” faculty and indoctrinate students include material on the devastating economic, environmental, and human costs of wind and solar energy boondoggles? Will both faculty and students be exposed to the ideas of Bjorn Lomborg or Michael Shellenberger?
As voters look more closely at the amendment—and they should—they should bear in mind that if this amendment passes, local communities lose more of what little remaining control they have over what their children are taught on the public dime.
Maybe, just maybe, Springfield leftists could lay off the ideologically driven mandates and let public schools work on mastering the art of successfully teaching kids the basics.
The good news is that if this amendment passes, more families will exit Illinois’ rotting public schools.