Legal Mandates vs. Taxpayer Consent With Climate Change Education

Democratic Illinois State Representative Janet Yang Rohr of Naperville has introduced a bill into the legislature requiring every public high school to teach a unit on climate change as part of their science or social studies curriculum. House Bill 4895 would also provide professional development resources for teachers to be more prepared to teach this subject. 

The bill's language instructs the State Superintendent of Education, in coordination with the Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, to put together a set of instructional materials that can be used as a guideline for school boards to develop their own versions of the curriculum. The impacts and causes, as well as the history and future of climate change, will be required learning starting in 2025.   

Bill Appropriation 

HB4895 would allow the Illinois State Board of Education to implement its directives and would be subject to appropriation. The proposed legislation's cost has been estimated at $300,000. Representative Yang Rohr has stated that this would be a one-time cost.  

The Illinois State Comptroller defines appropriations as the process of codifying the state's spending plan so it can be enforced once the governor has signed a budget bill into law. It is essentially how any laws dealing with the state budget are permitted to be implemented. Any bill requiring the government to spend money is technically a budget bill, even if the subject of that bill is not about the budget. When a bill is subject to appropriation, the state government has to authorize the expenditure of government funds.   

Opposition 

Though climate change is a subject based on science and fact, it continues to be debated as a political issue. In opposition to the proposed legislation, Republican Illinois State Representatives such as Dan Ugaste of Geneva and Steve Reick of Woodstock believe this is not an appropriate subject for required study. They have stated that the legislature should leave it up to school boards and educators to decide what students learn in school and that what they consider to be dogma around the causes of climate change should not become required learning. 

These members of the state legislature and their Republican colleagues are more concerned with Illinois students' alarmingly low achievement levels in math and reading. A report from Wirepoints shows that no children tested at a proficient level in math in 67 Illinois schools, and the same was true for reading in 32 schools. While this is undoubtedly troubling, resources would not be diverted from these subjects in favor of climate education. Rather, additional funds would be appropriated.  

Taxpayer Money 

Opponents have also pointed out that climate change is constantly evolving as new information and research come to light, so this bill is insufficient in its contemplation of only a one-time fee of $300,000. Emerging new information will necessitate new professional development materials for educators as well as new instructional materials for students. This will end up costing taxpayers more money over the long term. However, the fee would not be exorbitantly high as the materials would not necessarily have to be updated with too much frequency. The science of climate change is well established and has held firm for quite some time.  

Ultimately, It May Be Worth It 

It can be argued that in a cost-benefit analysis, it would cost the state less money to educate students on climate change so that they can make better decisions as they relate to the environment going forward, and this could save the state money in terms of climate change mitigation in the long run. As Representative Yang Rohr points out, most young people know that climate change will affect them well into the future, whatever their personal beliefs about it may be. So, it stands to reason that they may as well be equipped with the necessary knowledge to adapt and maybe even work to reverse those effects in the future.