The school board in California decided an advanced class in environmental science and proposed to study climate change as controversial topic in a balanced fashion; Some teachers think that science courses should reflect the best scientific knowledge of the day, offer opposing views amounts to teaching "poor science", and deliver a value-free education and only scientific facts. Politics have no place in science classroom.

About this proposition, Gray and Brice (2006) write :

because beliefs play a central role in organizing knowledge and defining behaviour [...] because beliefs and knowledge are closely interwoven [...] because they provide a filter through which knowledge are interpreted and subsequently integrated into the conceptual frame-works [...] We can no longer accept that science education is treated as if it is only a body of facts or formulae to be delivered, or even artificially discovered through laboratory-based practical experiments and experiences. This awareness […] requires greater emphasis on discussion and appreciation of values, risks and uncertainties in relation to those aspects of science which have the greatest potential impact on society, culture and environment. School science must reflect modern thinking about nature of science and it should give young people confidence to engage in political debate about SSI and related ethical reasoning. (Gray and Bryce, 2006, p. 186).

Others teachers consider that opposing views should be presented with equal weight, in a balanced fashion regarding climate change and evolution. For the director of National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) in Boulder (Colorado), this science educators accuse liberal teachers of forcing their beliefs upon a captive audience of impressionable children. That's why In 2008, in Louisana, it was enacted a law that CC and evolution as controversial subjects can challenge in the classroom with the fear of reprisal.

Attitudes teachnig socioscientific issues : the disclosure question is the controversial question !

The disclosure of personal beliefs is a controversial question when teaching controversial issue among teachers and profesionnal development educators. These controversies about the democratic education are related to views on activism (Hess, 2004) and purposes of democratic education.

For Cotton (2006, p. 230-231), This combination of beliefs provided something of a dilemma for the teachers: how could they provide students with access to a diversity of views, whilst avoiding stating opinions themselves or becoming actively involved in argument and debate ? This dilemna for teachers appears when you analyze teachers classroom strategies related to three postures : elicitation, enabling and challenging.

In this paper, each of these strategies is illustrated by Cotton, using examples from a single lesson in case study (a discussion about the governance of Antarctica in a topic on ‘Wilderness regions’. This lesson was selected because of its potential for illustrating all three strategies. The analysis of classroom observation data identiied three main teaching strategies that the teachers used in order to enact their key beliefs, namely:

1. Strategy 1: Open or closed eliciting students’ personal views: this might be via ‘open elicitation’ (a question directed at the whole class), or ‘closed elicitation’ (in which the teacher elicits a specific view, either by nominating a specific student or requesting an alternative view). Teacher causes students’ personal views to express by saying or doing something, here by questions directed at the whole class (open elicitation) or by nominating a specific student or requesting an alternative view (closed elicitation).
2. Strategy 2: Enabling students to discuss their own views: this strategy refers to occasions when the teacher allows students to discuss their own views about issues in a whole-class situation but with limited input from the teacher.
   Teacher gives students the opportunity of expressing and discussing their own views in a whole-class situation.
3. Strategy 3: Challenging students’ views: this strategy refers to occasions when the teacher challenges views of one or more students. The teacher may use questions or statements, but in either case the intent is to express a contrary view.

Around classroom debates regarding Al Gore’s movie “An inconvnienth truth (2006), we have tried to test classification of teachers’ strategies identified by Cotton (2006) during classroom observation of three geography teachers. We elaborate the same analysis around a discussion about the climate change issue proposed around the movie An inconvenient truth, a teaching situation organised by three tecachers (Philo-Lyon, Ang-Lyon and SES-Lyon) during the scholastic year 2006-2007. Why this choice? Because of the situation very frequently organised by several teachers, all around the country, and particularly sustained by media and educational politics in order to promote positive attitudes towards the environment, according to Al Gore movie and political project.

The Philo-Lyon’s commitment impartialy (Kelly, 1986) declared during interviews, the Ang-Lyon’s exclusive partiality declared in teaching support and SES-Lyon’s beliefs about teaching influence and ecological conviction will be analysed in comparison with classroom attitudes and strategies identified by Cotton (2006).

Declarative and effective strategies and attitudes

Paradoxes and hermeneutic contradiction (Bolstanki, 2009) will be pointed and are probably revelent of an internal dilemma linked to the process of teaching socioiscientific issue :

• - Philo-Lyon who declared important to give his own position fronting controversial issues, in order to help students making responsible decisions (commitment impartiality). But his position and questioning strategies during the classroom discussion he organized in 2007 avoid stating his own position (neutrality and balance), even if he give it anyway.
• - SES-Lyon make the same strategies during classroom discussion according to his balanced and neutrality position, especially around an article discussing Gore and Bush argumentations (neutral impartiality) (in order to avoid indoctrination ? see interview…). But she expressed explicitly or implicitly her own ecological attitudes and beliefs in her teaching practices and management of classroom discussion, especially because she made a partial choice in selecting this movie, qualified by her colleague HG-Lyon as a propaganda movie (exclusivie partiality).
• - Ang-Lyon is particulary involved in promoting positive attitudes towards environment and in her questioning strategies, she minored or ignored alternative viewpoints (like she called junk science). Her strategy could be qualified of exclusive partiality (Kelly, 1986), or commitment partiality.

According to Urgelli (2009), all this strategies are depending on teachers representations of both scholar audience, education purposes and nature of science.

Use of controversies in school : wich social risks and advantages ? (see Astolfi, 2006)

Results of the informal NESTA survey (Colorado, 2011) showing a cloud of socioscientific issues

Educational use of controversies suppose first to agree on what we consider as controversial issue.... And that triggers the first controversy ! For many teachers, what classroom science concepts trigger out-side concerns are summurized on this cloud of socioscientific issues.

When controversies are used in school, it reveals a social order, hierarchy and adults dynamic arrangements among different sets of actors like scientists, educators, teachers and parents (Lemieux, 2007, Chateauraynaud, 2007). For some authors and mediators, It could affect the authority of science and science/public boundary (Zehr, 2000).

Moreover, it could affect the empowerment of youngth on science and political action : if uncertainties and controversies on science are not published in school, young was given a limited or non-existing role in discussion and action related to socioscientific issue... with a risk of inaction (Zehr, 2000). Scientists' role was privileged in expertise, with a confiscation and monopolization of expertise (Roqueplo, 1974) and exclusion of public considered as misinformed (Irwin et Wynne, 1996), rashed, emotive and careless in its opinions, in contrast to scientists balanced perspectives and respects of uncertainties in the knowledge.

1. First strategy in educative arena : "Arming for battle"

CIRES (Cooperation Institute for Reserach in Environmental Sciences), NESTA and NOAAS proposed to solve this problem by an up-to-date communication, producing science materials and supplementing textbooks in the hands of teachers and students. Training program on knowledge and strategies for teachers uses in creationnism or climate change (see in France, Armand de Ricqlès (2007, Le Monde) or Belin, Guide critique de l'évolution (2009)) were proposed. Education was considered as a central key arena for socioscientific and politic discussions and mobilizations.

2. "Handle scientific topic in class in a balanced fashion ?" : conditions and risks

If science is unsettled on any topic, of course you should present all points of view. But doing so, some educators and mediators suppose that you becam a mercant of doubt, especially if you supposed that your audience is a captive and impressionable group !

This representation of public is a central question and must be consider with great attention. Aren't we so arogant to consider children opinions as directly related to teachers one ? The risk of considering children directly impressionable and undoctrinable by teachers is to take no reverence for uncertainty and complexity of scientific topics and to communicate science on a dogmatic and scientist fashion.

Again, we can agree that the teacher strategy facing socioscientific issue is depending on his representation of scholar public (and lay public more generally...), but also his representation of education and his representation of science in society. Hess (2009) consider that his personal beliefs on politic and ideology shlould also influenced his representation of controversies and his use of controversial topics in classroom.

An other management of controversies in education is possible if we develop different representations of sciences and publics in society, taking in account the role of our personal beliefs in our educational choices (Gray and Brice, 2006). If you suppose that we need to construct an active public identity at school, in order to empower our youngth on socioscientific issues, we must probably propose a mixed lay and scientific knowledge, developping a sociodidactic framework (Sadler and Zeider, 2005) using the teacher expertise for such an democratic educational project.

3. Empowerment : a civic mission of school for democracy education

It corresponds to the hope of a political participation out of school, discussing public affairs like socioscientific issues, using critical thinking abilities. For Hess (2005), it supposes the development of communication skills like argumentations based on inquiry on evidences and doubts, complexity and ethical considerations, caracterising socioscientific issues (Sadler, 2006). Empowerment also suppose the construction of objectivity related to intersubjective-evaluation of mediated ressources and own values.