Can You Teach the Bible in Public Schools?

The short answer is yes, you can and should teach the Bible in public schools.

The long answer is more nuanced.

There are three subjects that benefit from the inclusion of the Bible: English, Social Studies, Political Science, Western Law, Art, Music and yes, even Science.

English:

We expect students to recognize and understand literary allusions. The vast majority of literary allusions come from four sources: the Bible, Shakespeare (who often alludes to the Bible), Greek mythology and popular culture. There is no good reason to deny students understanding of certain literary allusions, merely because they come from the Bible. The Bible is also a literary classic in its own right. Belief is not a prerequisite to an intellectually honest presentation of the Bible as literature.

Avoiding the Bible also leads to miseducation, such as the case of a fifth grade teacher who defended reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis, by saying she intended to read it as a fairy tale. C. S. Lewis intended the story to be Biblical allegory, not a fairy tale. To teach otherwise is educational malpractice. Either the teacher should teach literature such as this honestly, or avoid the book entirely. The middle ground simply will not do.

Social Studies:

History education prefers primary sources whenever available. The Old Testament is the major primary source for the ancient history of the Jewish people. The history of the church had a huge impact on the history of Europe over the last 2000 years, and an understanding of the Bible informs our understanding of European history. The Boers drew their rationale from the Bible (although I would argue that deliberately or not, the Boers improperly applied the Bible to their situation). In fact, an understanding of the Bible is essential to an understanding of the motivations behind many historical events.

Political Science and Western Law:

Our public discourse constantly refers to the Bible, and yet most of the people who think they are quoting the Bible (both Christians and non-Christians alike) have near zero understanding of the Bible context itself or the Bronze Age time when most of it was written. Christians especially have a weak understanding of what a “literal” interpretation means. When I was much younger, I met a man who had been an Air Force pilot during WWII. After the war, he went to Papua New Guinea or Irian Java (I forget which) to be a missionary. The island people had a noun which meant airplane. Literally, the word meant “a bird with the skin of a machete.” We would be foolish to think that the island people really thought the airplane was a bird, yet Biblical “literalists” make this type of mistake all the time. Another example comes from Chinese. Their word for computer means “electric brain,” but clearly the word is not figurative, spiritual or symbolic. It is simply the word for computer. In English, we still say the sun rises and sets, but no one supposes that we literally mean the sun moves up and down. Many people who say they believe in taking the Bible literally fail to distinguish these types of expressions, leading to some of the ridiculous arguments we hear everyday.

As Christopher Gunter wrote :

So what are young people to think when they hear biblical passages taken out of context to both support and refute gay rights, or the Iraq war, or any highly charged issue? They must not be afraid to question and challenge biblically based sound bites. They must have the courage and the foundational knowledge to understand for themselves the source and context of biblical passages. Our reluctance to teach the Bible perpetuates its mysteriousness, which has grave consequences in our intellectual lives and in the wider world in which we live.

Art and Music:

Anyone who study art or music appreciation will not get very far before they run into cultural works illustrating, or inspired by the Bible. If we want to understand the cultural work, we need to understand the source material.

Mr. Gunter again:

... the Bible’s influence spreads beyond the literary realm into the artistic and the cultural. Any student of art or music will deal extensively with religious material. Moreover, biblical allusions in culture persist into the 21st century: in movie titles, song lyrics, newspaper headlines, billboards, and so forth—even television’s “The Simpsons” draws extensively from the Bible. In short, biblical knowledge enriches our understanding of both high art and popular culture.

Science:

The acrimonious debate between “creationists” and “evolutionists” would evaporate if both camps actually understood what the Bible says.

As Mr. Gunter concludes:

It is a sensitive endeavor, to be sure. But we first must recognize the value of undertaking that task. The Bible is a remarkable document, parts of which can stand with Plato in their philosophical depth, with Tolstoy in their political complexities, and with Shakespeare in their poetic beauty. The religious sphere does not have exclusive ownership over those important words. We should give our young people the tools to understand the Bible, both for their own enlightenment and to better inform their decisionmaking as citizens.

Rote Does A Lot of People A Lot of Good

Recently I read a forum comment somewhere to the effect that “rote does not do anyone much good.” Ironically, this comment was part of a comment whose main idea was that educators should question buzzwords and dubious tenets of pop-education. In spite of the current popularity of this sentiment, rote actually does a lot of people a lot of good. I agree that sometimes educators have abused rote. I remember a fourth grade science book from around thirty years ago that included a whole unit on state birds and flowers as if such information had even the remotest relevance to science. Naturally, since most schools consider the textbook to be THE curriculum, many teachers felt compelled to “teach” children the state birds and flowers. Inquiry or constructed learning will not work for this kind of arbitrary knowledge. Rote is really the only way. State birds and flowers should never have been part of the science book in the first place.

Today we have Common Core. Just as in the past, of course publishers are scrambling to roll out new textbooks that reflect Common Core. Thus yet again, the textbook will become the default curriculum. Yet, even within Common Core and even within a commitment to teaching concepts over rote, there are still a number of topics for which rote is still the best method. The order of the alphabet, sight words, broad overviews of history, and arithmetic facts are just a few. People forget the intense amount of repetition and memorization involved learning a first language, let alone subsequent languages. Churchgoers know memorizing the books of the Bible greatly aids in finding the preacher's text. If you want to pass your first driver's license test, it would behoove you to memorize the rules of the road. Rote memorization of poems provides an avenue of future pleasure. If you live in a character-based literary system such as Chinese, you will need to memorize several thousand characters to simply be a literate person.

Another related canard holds that the purpose of education is not knowledge itself, but the ability to find knowledge. However, students who lack a substantial reserve of memorized knowledge have a great of difficulty even figuring out what search terms to use. Personally, as much as I hated memorization when I was young, I have come to appreciate the easy access to information, internet or no internet.

Finally, there is an important reason to refuse an ideological stance against rote learning. Sometimes it is all a student has left. Math is a subject area well-suited to discovery methods. All mathematical procedures are based on the real and predictable behavior of numbers. Very little math knowledge is actually arbitrary. The best math teachers who consistently use the best discovery methods to help students acquire mathematical concepts still sometimes encounter students who simply cannot get it. If they cannot acquire the concept, and we also also deny them rote learning, we leave them with nothing. Although rote should never be the first resort in a non-arbitrary domain such as mathematics, rote still remains the best last resort to ensure that all students acquire the basic skills they need for their adult lives. As educators, we need be at the forefront of confronting ideological statements wherever found

Preconceived Bias Always Trumps Critical Thinking

In the last article, I discussed the strange phenomenon that whenever critical thinking and preconceived bias go head to head, dollars to donuts, preconceived bias will win. A big part of the problem is too often our self worth and identity is tied up with our opinions. If we could learn to separate our opinions from ourselves as persons, perhaps we could make progress discussing and solving the pressing issues that surround us. In this article, I will examine an extremely common current example of preconceived bias trumping critical thinking. In so doing, I expect UI am sure to offend anyone who overly identifies themselves with their opinions. Finally, I will present one professors explanation of why bias is so powerful and his suggestion for overcoming bias.

Yahoo! Forums, (unsurprisingly), is a great repository of examples of confirmation bias. “Bob” says illegal aliens go to our schools and use all other taxpayer funded infrastructure. They use fraudulent ID to get tax refunds they're not entitled to. They use our emergency rooms and never pay a dime. “Ken” says if the government went after illegal aliens using SSNs fraudulently they could eliminate SSN tax fraud. “Rick” says someone files a tax return for 30 years at the same address and then some illegal files using the number a thousand miles away. “Whatever” says a job that used to pay 40K is now paying 25K and illegals are doing it without paying income tax “Patrick” says a drive through “illegals town” shows you exactly who is filing fake returns. “Tickle” says illegal aliens can file taxes claiming only $10,000 of income and get $24,000 in tax refunds. “SuperBaby” says the government released 35,000 illegals who committed crimes (rapes, murders) on the street.

Looking over the threads these comments appeared in, I was struck by the lack of counter response. Very few people challenged these statements; however, there were a few and here is a sampling:

Bob, you are dead wrong. They do not use fraudulent IDs to get tax refunds they are not entitled to. They apply for, and after much scrutiny by the IRS, may or may not receive a number, called an ITIN, solely for paying taxes. Because they do not have SSNs, they do not qualify for tax credits including EIC. Usually their withholding is too low, so most of them end up paying balance due. They also pay into Social Security and Medicare. Their payments are passed through to Social Security beneficiaries with valid SSNs. Therefore, they help fund your SS benefits. Is there some fraud by a small minority? Yes. However, the vast majority of refund fraud is perpetuated by citizens with valid SSNs. ... “They go to our schools and use all other taxpayer funded infrastructure.” True, and they pay taxes, just like you. They pay income tax, sales tax, and even property tax (which funds schools) as a component of their rent. Now with drivers licenses, they also get to pay gas tax. ... “They use our emergency rooms” sometimes and pay for them. Generally they utilize neighborhood clinics for medical care. Do a few go to the emergency room and never pay? Sure, but again the vast majority of people who do that are actually US citizens. ... Apart from the misdemeanor of being in the country illegally, they are generally law-abiding taxpayers who keep their heads down. They are not "criminals" in the sense you mean. The criminals most of us have to worry about are actually white-collar citizens. It amazes me how people persist in believing untruths in the face of facts. If you oppose illegal immigrants, you need to find some actual valid reasons. ... The vast majority of tax fraud is committed by citizens, not illegal aliens. Sorry. ... An illegal cannot use a SSN to file a tax return. The IRS computers WILL reject those instantly as name and number will not match. So you do not have to worry about that part. ... Illegal immigrants do pay income tax. they also pay the social security and medicare tax, but will never draw benefits because they do not have a valid SSN. The invalid one on their W-2 was put there by the employer. … No Patrick, illegals are not the ones filing fake returns. They do not have access to the personal info they would need to pull it off. However, they do pay taxes using and IRS-ssued tax account number called an ITIN because they do not have SSNs. They generally pay a significant balance due because their employers think they are doing them a favor by withholding nearly nothing. … If illegal aliens "say" on their tax return that they made $10,000, either there will be a w-2 or a Schedule C. If there is a schedule C, there will be a balance due, not a refund, because of the required Schedule SE. … Even if all 35,000 who were released committed violent crimes, that would be only 0.3% of all illegal immigrants, the remainder of whom who, apart from their entrance into the country, are otherwise law-abiding. They keep their heads down to avoid unwanted government attention. ...Illegal aliens do NOT submit phony SSNs for their children. The tax return would be rejected for name-number mismatch. If the children have an SSN, then no birth certificate is necessary. By the way, it is citizens with proper SSNs that commit nearly all the EIC fraud, not the illegal aliens.

I have no intention of debating illegal immigration. The point is not to defend any particular opinion, but to examine the logic. Faulty logic does not necessarily mean an opinion is wrong. However, valid logic naturally lends better support to an opinion.

I just made an allusion to the possibility that an opinion could be wrong, thus implying that an opinion can also be right. One of the most unfortunate principles of the fake critical thinking lessons in our schools is the idea that there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion. The principle is true as far as it goes. The thing is some opinions have higher quality than others. The main determinate is the quality of logical support for the opinion.

Let us put aside for a moment the hot partisan arguments over the issue of illegal immigration, and examine the original comment and the responses using the tools of logic. Surely the first prerequisite of logic is to determine the facts of the matter. Intriguingly, a perusal of the thread these comments appeared in show that apparently that no one fact-checked the responses. For some strange reason, these challenges also reliably garnered a collection of thumbs-down, even though a bit of research supports the factual basis of each challenge. Preconceived notions and confirmation bias certainly at work.

Alan Jay Levinovitz explains that throwing facts at preconceived biases will not work because these biases “... are based on really powerful narratives, stories about how we construct our identities..You have to deconstruct the narrative (first).

Why Critical Thinking Lessons Do Not Work

Daniel Kahneman studies thinking. Although the interview* is discussing bias, not critical thinking, the implication is inescapable.

Daniel Kahneman: So ...students were asked to evaluate whether an argument is logically consistent – that is, whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. The argument runs as follows: ‘All roses are flowers. Some flowers fade quickly. Therefore some roses fade quickly.’ And people are asked ‘Is this a valid argument or not?’

Quick. Ask yourself. Is this a valid argument? Don't peek at the answer. Have you decided? OK, if you said no, it is not a valid argument, why did you decide so? If you said yes, it is a valid argument, why did you decide so? If you said yes, you agree with the majority of the students. They said it was a valid argument because they have observed with their own eyes that the conclusion is true. Some roses certainly do fade quickly. Do you agree with the students' reasoning?

Daniel Kahneman: It is not a valid argument. But a very large majority of students believe it is because what comes to their mind automatically is that the conclusion is true, and that comes to mind first. And from there they naturally move from the conclusion being true to the argument being valid. And people are not really aware that this is how they did it: they just feel the argument is valid, and this is what they say.

I have bolded the important words. People do not really think; they feel. Then they draw their conclusions on the basis of feeling. Perhaps you agree with the interviewer who suggests that direct teaching of logic will solve this problem.

Nigel Warburton: Now in that example I know that the confusion between truth and falsehood of premises and the validity of the structure of an argument that’s the kind of thing which you can teach undergraduates in a philosophy class to recognise, and they get better at avoiding the basic fallacious style of reasoning. Is that true of the kinds of biases that you’ve analysed?

It is quite reasonable to expect that with a few lessons, we can teach people to at least pay attention to the question. The question asked if the conclusion follows from the premise. That means start with the premise, NOT start with the conclusion.

Daniel Kahneman: Well, actually I don’t think that that’s true even of this bias.

I read that and thought, well, why not. It seems pretty obvious that if students learn how to evaluate an argument in terms of logic, they will certainly be able to apply that valuable skill in their daily life. After all, the whole point of education, and especially critical thinking skills is to apply the lessons in daily life. Students expect education to be thus applicable. Otherwise they would not continually ask, “When are we ever going to use (fill in the blank)?”

Daniel Kahneman: The thinking of people does not increase radically by being taught the logic course at the university level. What I had in mind when I produced that example is that we find reasons for our political conclusions or political beliefs, and we find those reasons compelling, because we hold the beliefs. It works the opposite of the way that it should work, and that is very similar to believing that an argument is valid because we believe that the conclusion is true. This is true in politics, it is true in religion, and it is true in many other domains where we think that we have reasons but in fact we first have the belief and then we accept the reasons.

So according to Kahneman, we so cherish our preconceived biases that no amount of logic, facts, or reality will dislodge them. And in fact, this stubbornness is exactly what we perceive everywhere in our society, within our political parties, in online forums, and on our neighbor’s porch over lemonade. However, even though critical thinking lessons do not work, I say we need to not only continue to teach critical thinking skills, and do so in an even higher quality way. Better to give students access to the tools and hope some students will actually use them, than to deny the tools to all students.

*If the pdf link to the interview does not work for you, try this non-pdf link.

Infographics: Sometimes Too Good to be True

There are some really intriguing infographics on the visual.ly website. However, teachers need to be careful about considering them as teaching tools. Many purported explanations are actually summaries, incomprehensible unless the students have already learned the information being presented. A great example is this infographic entitled “DNA Explained.” Take a look.

 

Explore more infographics like this one on the web's largest information design community - Visually.

 

 

 

 

It truly is a great summary of DNA and would make a wonderful final activity of a DNA unit.

Teachers should not be surprised. How could a video that lasts less than five minutes possibly “teach” a complicated topic like DNA? Believing it could is wishful thinking. Nevertheless, you may be able to find actual teaching tools you can use among the collection.

The Relationship Between Memorized Facts and Online Research

In China, many people believe that the Tiananmen incident is a fabrication perpetrated by Western governments in order to discredit the Chinese government. Exhibit A: Last year the people of Hong Kong objected to the new history booklet, The China Model, for among other offenses, failing to mention either Tiananmen or the Cultural Revolution. The people suffer from a lack of access to information, so they do not know anything.

Those with free access to information suffer from inundation. It can be difficult to separate the valid from the specious, so they also end up knowing nothing. A case in point is the issue of illegal immigrants. Hardly anyone knows anything about it, and they will not sit still for real information. They would rather cherish their misinformation because it feeds their own political beliefs.*

Meanwhile, educators lament the tendency of students to conduct “research” using the internet, and draw completely erroneous conclusions because they lack online research skills.

The problem I see is that education often swings to extremes. In the past, there was an emphasis on memorizing facts: math facts, historical dates, science info, etc. The backlash maintained that students do not need to learn facts, that a proper education means teaching students how and where to find the facts the need. Facts-No Facts is yet another example of a polarizing false dichotomy that has resulted in the lamentable situation where many students are not learning facts, nor how to find facts. The most useful approach amalgamates the poles. Students need a treasury of pre-learned facts they can sift through to find relevant search terms for online research.

*For example, many people are certain that illegal immigrants can receive Social Security benefits even though they have paid nothing into the program and pay no income tax. Let's break that down into three parts:
1. Illegal immigrants can receive Social Security benefits---False. Anyone without a valid social security number cannot receive benefits. Such people do not even have a record on file with the Social Security Administration from which benefits could calculated.
2. Illegal immigrants have paid nothing into the US Social Security system---False. Nearly all illegal immigrants have jobs. That was the whole point of coming to the US illegally in the first place. Many work several jobs at a time. Their employers prepare W-2 forms using a false social security number usually provided by OMG, the employer. The employer also withholds the Social Security and Medicare contributions and sends the money to the IRS on a quarterly basis. Since the illegal immigrant can never collect Social Security Benefits, their contribution help fund the benefits of US citizens.
3. Illegal immigrants pay no income tax---False. The IRS uses your social security number as your IRS account number. If you do not have a valid social security number, the IRS will assign you an account number, called an ITIN. (However, be aware there are many reasons besides being illegal why a person might need an ITIN. Do not jump to conclusions). First, the illegal immigrant pays a flat tax of 7% comprised of FICA which they will never collect in the form of benefits. Second, they pay higher income taxes than most US citizens, because without a valid social security number, they do not qualify for many tax credits, the biggest one being the earned income credit (EIC). Third, they usually end up paying the IRS a hefty balance due because the same employer who gave them the false social security number also filled out the W-4 for them, and withheld only the most minimal income tax.

If you do not believe any of the foregoing, print it out, take it to the nearest neighborhood tax preparer, and ask them. Most have received ITIN training and prepared tax returns for illegal immigrants.

Wrong Questions About Spreadsheet Math

Spreadsheets are a ubiquitous and necessary tool these days. Students need to learn spreadsheet math.

"Our children still spend hundreds of hours perfecting their ability to add, subtract, multiply, and divide fractions. And the pinnacle of math for most of our K-12 students remains the ability to solve quadratic equations. When was the last time you used any of these skills? When did you last multiply two three-digit numbers together on paper, add two improper fractions with unlike denominators, or solve a quadratic equation?"

These are the questions people asked when it came to calculator use, and they are still the wrong questions. Spreadsheet math will not replace the ability to actually understand math any more than calculators did.

When the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) recommended calculators for even the youngest students, they rhapsodized about about how calculators would revolutionize math teaching, using the same sort of language that idealizes the potential of spreadsheet math.

"By teaching our children spreadsheet math we enable them to solve ...fascinating problems, problems without a single right answer, problems that can be explored, problems that get our children thinking "out of the box."

And that was exactly the wrong-headed pie-in-the-sky rationale for recommending calculators. It sounds great but does not work in practice. The problem with math instruction is not whether we should be using calculators or spreadsheets. The problem is the lack of skilled math teachers. The problem is the continued reliance on teaching tricks and shortcuts instead of math. Like calculators, spreadsheets have a similar tendency to replace thinking.

Beginning in 2001, I researched the calculator fallacy extensively culminating in a 78-page report in 2010. Briefly, I found that the research NCTM insisted supported the use of calculator in the early grades did not exist.

I agree that students need to learn spreadsheets, but not as a substitute for learning math. Since our elementary teachers lack an ability to teach math for understanding, abundant experience with mechanical processes, though far from ideal, is pretty much the only way kids learn to tell an unreasonable answer from a reasonable one, and even then they are not very good at it.

Just last week, a friend's eighth grade daughter (A+ in math per last progress report) was sure that if $27.50 could buy 10 lbs of hamburger, then $55.00 would buy over 150 lbs because "I followed all the steps correctly." When I told her that obviously she had not, she argued that even the calculator agreed with her, so I must be the wrong one. Just yesterday she insisted that -3 + ½ = -3½ (by analogy to 2 + ½ = 2½). In her mind, all you have to do is get rid of the plus sign and shove the fraction up against the whole number. When these kinds of misconceptions plague even good students, no wonder students who are not as “good” have math anxiety. Deep down, the anxiety is related to an unspoken and unspeakable suspicion that math makes no sense. They are right. When math is turned into a system of tricks and shortcuts, it makes no sense.

Surprise! Kids Value Rote Learning...

Surprise! Kids Value Rote Learning...

...just not when they are the one expected to memorize knowledge. Have you ever had a child ask you a question that require a memorized fact to answer? It happened to me recently. We were listening to a CD of classical music that had no printed table of contents. With nearly every piece, the (junior high) child asked, “Who wrote that?” Luckily, I can google the answer. She became exasperated with my lack of certainty and my need to look up so many of the composers. She asked impatiently, “Didn't you have to study music history when you were in school?”

Me: Yes, I did.

Her: Then how come you don't know who wrote all these songs?

Me: Do you like history class?

Her: NO, I hate it.

Me: Why?

Her: Because we have to memorize so many dates and other trivia.

Me: I guess you will start applying more gusto to your memorization.

Her: Why would I do that?

Me: Because clearly you think that memorizing facts is an important part of your education.

Her: Nooo. Whatever gave you that idea?

Me: Because you think it was an important part of my education.

Her: I never said that!

Me: But you clearly expect me to remember music composers off the top of my head better than I do. How would I have learned that information in the first place, except by memorizing it as facts? And you expect me to still remember it? Don't you think you should hold yourself to the same expectation?

Her: Well, of course.

Me: So I guess you won't groan anymore when teachers expect you to memorize stuff.

Her: Who said I minded memorizing stuff?

Me: Whatever.

Her: Hey, that's my line.

Unresolvable “Science” Debate?

Will the controversy between evolution and creationism ever end? Is it destined to swing forever on the pendulum of public opinion? The entire controversy is sustained on both sides by too much emotional investment in unexamined assumptions. The latest pretext for acrimony is a Tennessee bill intended to permit teachers “to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” In case that wasn't clear enough, the bill repeats its intention from the other way round. No teacher shall be prohibited from “helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”

I read the bill. It is only two pages of plainly-worded text. It mentions creationism not at all. It does refer to scientific theories, of which there are many, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. However, creationism is not one of those theories because it is not science.

You see, science is all about collecting only evidence that can be perceived with just the five senses. The sense may be amplified as when we use a telescope or other instrument. Science is concerned with explaining data collected only with the five senses. Other data is not considered.

An explanation that tries to account for extra-sensual data is, by definition, not a scientific theory. Nevertheless, due to public confusion and the desire of some that creationism be recognized as a scientific theory, it will be in science class that students ask their questions. Teachers need to be prepared to answer them while respecting deeply held religious beliefs.

The bitter acrimony is really unnecessary. It is easy and reasonable for students to accept that science attempts to explain only sense-based data. Most of the problem stems from a widespread misunderstanding of what science is.

As far as evolution goes, it suffers from historical bar-lowering, as it has weaknesses that do not adequately account for the scientific facts. Even within my lifetime, scientists have weakened the definition so much as to create a near tautology: evolution is change over time. Many science texts state it just like that. Others pretty it up a little, “evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” However, such a definition in non-controversial. Organisms do change over time. The biblical Jacob realized it thousands of years ago when he made a deal to work for Laban, receiving only the spotted sheep as his wage. Laban promptly removed all the spotted sheep from the herd. Nevertheless, by careful breeding, Jacob was able to create a herd of mostly spotted sheep from a herd of un-spotted sheep.

Years ago the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) used a fairly stringent definition: "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments." Unwritten, but understood and unquestioned, was the additional idea that mechanisms of descent were robust enough to account for the change from say, sponge to zebra.

In fact, this unstated implication is the root of the controversy. Pro-evolutionists (as distinguished from scientists) believe the implication; Anti-evolutionists (again, as distinguished from scientists) do not. For many, the implication goes directly to deeply-held belief systems. Later, the NABT deleted the words “unsupervised” and “impersonal.” Today, there is no definition on the website at all. One of the reasons that the definition of evolution has gotten weaker and weaker is that the data, especially as regards speciation, is inconclusive, and fails to support the more robust definition. There are lots of instances where it is not at all clear whether two organisms are members of different species. A high-quality university level biology book addresses the speciation continuum and other issues, but it can be a tough read.

As inconceivable as it may be to some, it is possible to discuss the weaknesses of evolutionary theory without smuggling in creationism. Only ideologues would consider the mere mention of evolution's weaknesses as an attack upon evolution. For critical thinkers, it is the grist of intelligence-making. As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

Kindergarten Academics Is Not Academic Achievement...

...no matter what anyone says otherwise.

Robert Slavin, creator of the reading program Success For All, and before that, creator of the reading program CIRC (Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition), says we know how to make sure every first grader can read.

Imagine that your job were to ensure the reading success of every child in a Title I school by the end of first grade, and you had flexible resources to do it. You'd make sure kids had language-rich preschool and kindergarten experiences,

So far so good, but then he blows it by endorsing the current fad of pushing first grade academics into kindergarten.

learned phonemic awareness and letter sounds in kindergarten, and were taught using proven kindergarten- and first-grade reading programs that emphasized systematic phonics, comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary.

Kindergarten is not the place for academics. Gesell Institute of Human Development Executive Director Marcy Guddemi agrees.

Guddemi said quality early education programs for ages 3 to third grade, the years defined as early education, are essential in providing proper experiences and exploration, rather than to learn more letters earlier.

The extra time in kindergarten spent on so-called academics has come at the expense of schema-building, the foundation for reading comprehension beyond mere decoding. Kindergartners should cut and paste. They should also visit a bakery, the newspaper, the fire station etc., etc. They should plant sunflowers and morning glories, raise butterflies, and experience a whole host of other activities. They should go on field trips every week. When it rains, they should play in the mud.

In Japan, kindergarten teachers are likely to take the kids out into a rain shower and let them model creeks merging into rivulets, and rivulets merging into rivers, flowing into a lake (puddle), as well as the powerful effects of water erosion. On a windy day, the kids will run around with makeshift plastic bag kites, learning how the wind inflates the bag. All these experiences and many more form the treasury of reading comprehension. Children create and refine schemata as they assimilate each new experience.

In other words, schema provides the context for comprehending what we read. Even adults who are excellent readers may decode perfectly but still perceive the result as gibberish if they lack the appropriate schema, as illustrated by the following little piece of actual prose.

The increased flexibility to adopt a divisional basis other than a territorial or field of use basis entails the need for provisions to prevent abuse and facilitate compliance. Capability fluctuations, whether market-driven or strategic, that materially alter the controlled participants’ RAB shares as compared with their respective divisional interests create the equivalent of a controlled transfer of interests and should therefore equally occasion arm’s length compensation. Accordingly, the temporary regulations modify the change of participation provision to classify such a material capability variation, in addition to a controlled transfer of interest, as a change in participation that requires arm’s length consideration by the controlled participant whose RAB share increases, to the controlled participant whose RAB share decreases, as the result of the capability variation.

Young children, more so than adults, need time to build schema. Pushing first grade into kindergarten is a quick and dirty route leading only to the facade of increased academic achievement.

As Guddemi said, “Unfortunately, in an effort to close achievement gaps,” parents and schools have embraced a philosophy that earlier is better. Kindergartens these days burden children not only with “reading,” but also math. More and more schools require kindergarten teachers to teach them to calculate according to algorithms as if they do not know that children can learn an awful lot of math without ever putting pencil to paper. All kinds of activities effectively teach mathematics and number sense, like puzzles.

Furthermore, technology is not the answer. So-called ed tech is not simply a tool like pencils or pens. Ed tech is pointedly very different from a pencil or a pen. First, Pre-K should be doing almost nothing with pencils or pens. For example, they should not be writing numerals and letters. Instead, they should be doing real math with real objects. Math on a technology device is not real; it often strikes the students as magical. For example, they really do not understand how the animation is supposed to convey a idea such as carrying even when they are as old as second or third grade.

Too much modern animation is far too lifelike. Children have enough trouble learning to tell the difference between what is real and not real without having to contend with squirrels who give high fives or dogs doing hip hop. Kids were better off when dancing rabbits were (and looked like) cardboard figures on a stick.

Let the children play. Of course, the best kindergarten teachers plan and guide children's play activities. The worst thing we can do is push first-grade academics into kindergarten and call it advanced academic achievement.

Characteristics of Japanese Textbooks

It is the chicken and egg puzzle. Which came first, the teaching philosophy or the textbook? Do teaching methods and philosophy determine textbook content, or does textbook content drive subject matter teaching? Long ago in a faraway land I taught in an international private school that decided to seek WASC accreditation for the first time in its quarter century plus existence. I was the only teacher who had ever been through the accreditation process before. The school decided to divide us up into committees, not by grade level, but by subject matter. I was a secondary science teacher so naturally I was on the science committee. The primary teachers were asked their committee preference and distributed to subject-matter committees more or less evenly.

The fourth grade teacher was appointed the chair of the science committee. Our first assignment was to write a science curriculum whose scope and sequence encompassed K-12. At the next meeting, we passed around our work. I was aghast. Everyone had simply copied the table of contents from their textbooks and called it "the curriculum."

I said, “Okay, I think we need to make a decision. Do we want to proactively decide what it is important for our students to know and be able to do, or do we want to let a textbook publisher tell us?

They responded, “The publishers are surely the experts. Why shouldn't we just go along with what is already in our textbooks?

I grew more incredulous. “Seriously? “Do we really want to tell the accreditation people that we think our student population, which comes from all over the world, needs to memorize the state birds and flowers of America?”

The room grew silent. Someone said, “I see what you mean.” Someone else said, “What can we do?”

I suggested we go back and do it all over again, this time thinking about what we really want students to know in science.

“You must be kidding,” someone said. “You want us to start over? That'll be a lot of work.”

After some discussion, the group decided to start over.

As we search for factors that contribute to the perennial excellent performance of Japanese students on international studies, we should examine their textbooks.

Japanese students are required to buy their books every year starting in first grade. The material is divided into two volumes, one for each half of the school year, and printed on cheap paper with paperback covers. First and second grade texts are about the size of a Good Housekeeping magazine. From third grade on, the dimensions are smaller, 5 ¾” by 8 ¼” by 3/8”. Students generally carry all their books home every day. Six textbooks altogether weigh less than a Michener paperback. Normally the Ministry of Education approves for adoption about six textbooks per grade, per subject. Each text follows the same sequence of lessons.

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has more information on the Japanese textbook adoption process.


The best part is what is inside the textbooks. Surprisingly, not much text. Here is a page from a third grade, second half mathematics textbook.





Someone had the very smart idea of translating and marketing Japanese textbooks (wish I had thought of it). Here is the English translation of the comparable page.





In a common scenario, a Japanese teacher would have divided the class into groups of four, called “han.” An American teacher might have students designated as Table 1, Table 2, etc. The Japanese teacher would give the students the problem: Figure out how to divide 256 sheets of origami paper evenly among four students. The paper comes in shrink-wrapped packages of 100 sheets, sub-packaged by tens.

Each table would work on the problem with paper, pencil and manipulatives. Every year, each child is required to purchase their own set of manipulatives. Then a spokesperson from each table would come to the front and present the table's solution and method. The class would discuss the pros and cons of each group's solution method. Finally the teacher would demonstrate how the conventional algorithm expresses the class consensus. The algorithm is not the math; it is an expression of the math. The distinction is an important one often lost in American elementary math classes. Concept first, then procedure. The class might take a whole period on one problem.

Science textbooks are similar, characterized in the early grades by an emphasis in hands-on experience the child can perform independently. I have reproduced the page with the most text from the third grade science book.






Take a look what fifth graders are doing in science class.



Children are natural-born scientists, and science, real science, should be part of every American child's school day, beginning in preschool.

Book Review: The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins

Book Review: Francis S. Collins The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. 2006. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.


The science curriculum is the battleground for one clash after another over creation and evolution. Nearly every school board must engage the issue; it is only a matter of when. If they exclude creationism, they risk alienating parents. Most school boards opt for a consider-all-sides approach which pleases no one. Creationists object to what they perceive as an attack on God. Evolutionists object to the inclusion of creationism on any terms because creationism is not science. Declaring, “No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution,” Dr. Collins comes down firmly on the side of evolutionists, and fervently wishes certain Christians had not packed the word “creationist” with so much unnecessary baggage.

While finishing up a doctorate in physics, Dr. Collins changed his major, earning a doctorate in biology and becoming a physician. His ideas incubated in both sterile laboratories and the social messiness of the hospital. He is a committed Christian who believes a “satisfying harmony” is not only possible, but preferable. As an unimpeachable scientist, his views may help peace break out.

When Dr. Francis Collins stood with President Clinton before cameras and microphones, the president said of the Human Genome Project, “today we are learning the language in which God created life.” Dr. Collins seconded, adding, “...we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”

Presidents invoke god all the time for political purposes. But a world-renown scientist? It turns out Dr. Collins is in good company. In a 1997 survey, 40% of his colleagues in biology, physics and mathematics professed belief in a God “who actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer.” It is common knowledge that 40% of Americans consider themselves Christians. Belief in a personal God is as common among scientists as the general population.

Dr. Collins asks, “Is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and the spiritual worldviews?” He wrote this book to explain why he believes the answer is a “resounding yes!”

Very few scientists have the status to address the question. Other scientists have attempted only to be dismissed as intellectually dishonest or worse. Dr. Collins establishes a ground rule, “Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world...”

Dr. Collins was raised with an apathetic attitude toward religion, first identifying himself as agnostic, and then under the influence of university, turned to atheism. He became convinced, along with 60% of his colleagues, that “everything in the universe could be explained on the basis of equations and physical principles,” concluding that “no thinking scientist could seriously entertain the possibility of God without committing some sort of intellectual suicide.”

Eventually, he realized his atheism was based on weak “school boy” constructs. As a scientist, he determined to seriously investigate God. A Methodist minister suggested he read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. The book changed his life. He could not escape the implications of “right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe.” He considered sociobiology's postulate that what we call morality developed to aid biological survival. Yet the theory could not account for sacrificial altruism, someone who willingly gives on behalf of someone else, with no foreseeable benefit to the giver. The argument that altruism provides indirect evolutionary benefit did not stand up to scrutiny. From there he boarded a logic train and, as he stopped at station after station, he arrived at a place where “faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief,” throwing him into a quandary. He paced the landing platform. “It seemed impossible either to go forward or turn back.” Finally, he took a leap of faith and thereby started an inner “war of worldviews.”

His inner war occurs on at least four battlegrounds, the same fields of doubt all of us have crossed at one time or another.
1. Isn't the idea of God just wish fulfillment?
2. What about all the harm done in the name of religion?
3. Why would a loving God allow suffering in the world?
4. Can a rational person believe in miracles?

Dr. Collins struggles as we do, as laymen on the same spiritual path, struggling with the same issues. He does not stand, as theologians and generals are wont to do, on a hill overlooking the battlegrounds. He shares the trenches with us, his readers.

We laymen are awed by the starry night sky, the intricate dance of the honey bee, or the blooming of a rose, and suspect the Psalmist may be right that “creation displays the handiwork of God.” But what awed Dr. Collins was the elegant beauty and simplicity of mathematical representations of physical phenomenon. He wonders, “Are these mathematical descriptions of reality signposts to some greater intelligence? Is mathematics, along with DNA, another language of God's?”

First, Dr. Collins establishes a miracle as a “singular, exceedingly improbable, and profound event in history” that science is incapable of explaining. Then he considers the Big Bang and the question science has been unable to answer, “What came before the Big Bang?” Considering it more than a creationist gotcha question, Dr. Collins agrees with astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world...the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Dr, Collins demonstrates that the big guns, including among others, Stephen Jay Gould, Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein, firmly established “the existence of a universe as we know it rest upon a knife edge of improbability...our universe is uniquely tuned to give rise to humans.” Then he surveys the present state of scientific knowledge in physics, biology, chemistry. He makes a point that bears frequent repeating. If there is a God and “if God is truly Almighty, He will hardly be threatened by our puny efforts to understand the workings of His natural world.” When believers act if they must defend God they make God small indeed.

The corollary of improbability, “the God of the Gaps,” is a dangerous shoal for the ship of faith. If the gap is filled, where does that leave God? One tempting gap is the origin-of-life gap “given that no serious scientist would currently claim that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is at hand.” Another is the “woefully incomplete” timeline of the fossil record. Nevertheless, implications of the Human Genome Project, which he headed, makes a common ancestor a virtually inescapable conclusion.

The book is powerful if not original. Many authors have proposed a similar harmony of science and faith. In fact, Dr. Collins quotes some of them. Critics have a field day with many of these other authors, on the grounds that they are not true scientists, or if they are, they must be bad scientists. Dr. Collins' credentials are impeccable. He is well-armored against the spear of idiocy flung so carelessly at other scientists who have attempted to make many of the same points.

After making the case for evolution, Dr. Collins sympathetically refutes three current options in chapters every parent and school board should read:
1. Atheism and Agnosticism
2. Creationism
3. Intelligent Design

He proposes a fourth option he calls “BioLogos,” science and faith in harmony, concluding, “[God] can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate,and beautiful---and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”

Finally, Dr. Collins bears his heart in an account of his own spiritual journey and personalized messages to believers and nonbelievers. In an appendix, he explores several current ethical dilemmas in science, and again argues that the very existence of these perplexing dilemmas indicates the universality of the moral law. For him, a harmony of science and faith is essential to optimal resolution of these dilemmas and any others that may come later.

Science for Preschoolers?

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.

The change in Mr. Hoff’s room, and in a handful of other classrooms like it around the country, stems from growing interest among academic experts and educators in teaching science to preschoolers.

A handful of other classrooms? Just a handful in 2010? When my kids were in preschool twenty years ago, there was tons of hands-on science. Oh wait, they went to preschool in Japan.

But still, Montessori preschools, even in America, have provided hands-on science for decades. Every preschool has a sand and water table. The Methodist preschool, where I sub occasionally, provides a rich selection of science opportunities for the children. I guess lots of preschools have stuff, but do not use what they have.

“Most teachers will have a science area in their classroom, ... and if you look on plans, you would see something listed as science but, in reality, there would be some shells, some magnets, and maybe a pumpkin, or a book about animals in winter,” said Nancy Clark-Chiarelli, a principal research scientist at the Education Development Center, a research group based in Newton, Mass. “But those items are not conceptually related, and they don’t promote children’s independent exploration of them.”
If preschool teachers had water tables in their classrooms, Ms. Clark-Chiarelli and her EDC research partners found in their work, they were often turned into bathing areas for plastic dolls rather than used as science-teaching tools.

Yeah, come to think of it, I have seen the children bathing dolls.

Ironically, a call for more science in preschool has its critics, those who believe science is just one more academic subject crowding out what little playtime is left.

New efforts to teach more science in preschool come at a time when early-childhood educators worry that a growing emphasis on academics during those years is crowding out the playtime that children need for healthy development.

Is it possible those early-childhood “experts” really do not understand that science IS play, or can be, if handled properly? Science also provides a great context for building language skills and acquiring number sense in a realistic context. Science can be the ultimate content integrator.

American need to abandon the assumption that academics must be work requiring pencil and paper. Think of all that children learn about language and number and the way the world works by observing and testing hypotheses from the day they are born.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems that providing science experiences for young children would be easy. But if it is not, there is help. A new book is out, entitled Preschool Pathways to Science (PrePS): Facilitating Scientific Ways of Thinking, Talking, Doing, and Understanding, that should help.

Discovery Good, Lecture Good, Too

Lecture doesn't have to be a dirty 7-letter word. One of the things we are learning about education is that we do not know what we think we know. See the new research on learning styles. Another surprise: lecture is not necessarily bad. Check out this powerful lecture method.




Sometimes lecture is not only the most effective, but also the preferred medium. Honestly, has anyone else sat through a three-hour “hands-on” professional development workshop, only to walk out wishing the presenter had lectured the material and saved everyone two and a half hours. We could have gotten some serious grading done instead.

TED:Ideas Worth Spreading relies on lectures with a strict twenty-minute limit. Some of the most effective talks last less than five minutes. It stands to reason that direct instruction, a time-honored method, has to work. It is fashionable to deride lecture as the tool of choice for control freaks. However, nobody considers the TED presenters domineering.

Why do people persist in framing every issue as a polar dichotomy? Left-right, phonics-whole language, direct instruction-constructivism. Dichotomies close down possibilities that are more likely to lead to effective strategies. With phonics-whole language, the common sense approach turns out to be the best. Phonics is a powerful tool for decoding the words students need to comprehend in order to derive the maximum benefits of whole language.

Likewise, when researchers compare direct instruction with constructivism, direct instruction generally gets the nod. When adults are the audience, direct instruction usually means old-fashioned lecture. Few classrooms actually exhibit a separation between direct instruction and constructivism. Most teachers blend both approaches every day for maximum effective learning.

For more Power Teaching videos, search "power teaching" in the YouTube search window. Notice how well prepared the teacher is. He has written everything on the board before he began. I tried out the technique this past summer in a "Finance 4 Kids" class with mixed results, probably because I need more practice. The students were receptive and active. Here is a less intense example of Power Teaching, also known as “whole brain teaching.”

Stand and Deliver? No, Sit Down and Shut Up

The movie, Stand and Deliver, told the inspirational story of one teacher's success in using Advanced Placement (AP) calculus with his demoralized students. The students complained, worked hard, fought back, bought in, and eventually passed the AP calculus test. Test administrators thought the students had cheated and canceled their scores. The students retook—and passed---the test. Garfield High in Los Angeles would never be the same. Or would it?

Texas hopes to replicate Jaime Escalante's resounding success. More and more schools are offering more and more AP courses to more and more students. But Texas school officials do not like the results. At least they do not like the statistics. More and more students are failing.

But the latest data show Texas high school students fail more than half of the college-level exams, and their performance trails national averages.

School officials wring their hands and wonder what could be going wrong. The students who are expected to fail are failing, and surprise, students from elite schools, the top tier, are failing in increasing numbers, too.

But high failure rates from some of the Dallas area's elite campuses raise questions about whether our most advantaged high school students are prepared for college work.

What is the problem?

For one, you can not just “helicopter-drop” AP courses into a school and expect instant education reform.

Because, two, the teachers may not be qualified to teach AP courses.

So, three, the teachers tend to fail to cover the material and properly prepare the students.

Besides, four, too many students enroll without adequate academic foundation for the courses.

The problem with looking to a movie for direction in education reform is that Garfield High's AP calculus program was just a bit little different than the movie version. Mr. Escalante spent years preparing the students, requiring them to take summer courses and come to school from 7:00 am- noon on Saturdays.

Even Garfield High did not sustain their own success. Please read that link. Mr. Escalante's experience is emblematic in terms of reform obstructionism, professional jealousy, and society's lack of respect for teachers.

Algebra in 2nd Grade?

In February, 2009 a teacher in Montana made EdWeek headlines because she was teaching algebra to second graders and had been doing so for five years. Why all the oohs and aahs?


Elementary math is supposed to prepare students for high-level math classes in middle and high school. Students should not need a dedicated pre-algebra class. When I was a kid, pre-algebra did not exist. Now it is part of every school's math course line-up.

The author of a pre-algebra text wants students to build math reasoning skills. However math reasoning often does not happen. Many teachers treat pre-algebra as a last chance for students to get those blind elementary math procedures down pat. Problem is, a student can be A+ in procedures and still not understand algebra. In fact, students competent with procedure often believe they are good at math. It is not their fault. Our education system has been telling them for years that grades equal understanding. So if they get a good grade in math, naturally they conclude they are good at math.

Math has been misnamed. What passes for math in schools is often non-math. “Carry the one” is not a mathematical explanation for what happens in addition. It is a blind procedure. Students get good grades in non-math believing it is math. No wonder algebra is such a shock. Math reasoning skills actually matter in algebra.

Still a student with a good memory can get by, at least until they meet a new math monster, calculus. However, since middle and high school math also fail to teach math reasoning, now students take pre-calculus, another relatively recent addition to course offerings. Without a major change of emphasis, pre-calculus prepares students no better for calculus than pre-algebra prepared them for algebra.

By now pre-calculus students have so internalized non-math that they complain to the instructor, “Just tell us how to get the answer. We don't want to know why.” Just give us some more blind procedures.

“Learning Science vs. Doing Science”

In March 2009 Texas adopted new standards for science education. High school students are expected to

In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.

So far, so good. The statement includes all the necessary buzz-words, so no problem, right? Wait, hold the phone, not so fast, says Jonathan Osborne, the chair of science education at Stanford University in this commentary on EdWeek.

As I read what Mr Osborne had to say, I kept getting distracted. Every so often I found myself checking to see if I had not experienced a serious transporter malfunction. Like when I read this statement:

Science education seeks to offer students an understanding and vision of a body of knowledge that is beyond question.

Really? "A body of knowledge that is beyond question"? How did I get from EDWeek to the Onion? But no, I am still on EdWeek. Then I read this:

After all, the stock in trade of the school classroom is knowledge that has been placed beyond doubt.

Huh. I stopped reading and started scrolling. Surely there has to be a snark tag somewhere. No snark tag? This is a serious commentary? So I found my place again and continued reading. Oh, now I get it. He thinks science learning is distinct from science doing. It turns out that Dr. Osborne considers the seemingly innocuous statement "critique scientific explanations" to be code.

Let's look at the statement again.

In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations (my bold) by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.

According to Dr. Osborne, the phrase “scientific explanations” is code for “evolution.”

The political intent is evident. There is only one theory that the supporters of this view wish to see analyzed and critiqued

Is he sure the writers of the standards really have only one theory in mind? Perhaps we can draw some conclusions from definitions of terms repeated throughout the Texas standards document. First, science.

(2) Nature of science. Science, as defined by the National Academy of Sciences, is the "use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process." This vast body of changing and increasing knowledge is described by physical, mathematical, and conceptual models. Students should know that some questions are outside the realm of science because they deal with phenomena that are not scientifically testable.

Seems to me there might be some code in there. If “scientific explanations” means evolution, wouldn't “questions outside the realm of science” mean creation?

Next term, scientific theory.

(C) know that scientific theories are based on natural and physical phenomena and are capable of being tested by multiple independent researchers. Unlike hypotheses, scientific theories are well-established and highly-reliable explanations, but may be subject to change as new areas of science and new technologies are developed

Then I looked at the context of the “code” statement. How exactly did the Texas educators hope students would apply the critical thinking skills developed by examining all sides of scientific evidence? The section containing the “code” statement starts out

(3) Scientific processes. The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom.

Since students are expected to spend 40% of their instructional within the science classroom actually doing science, they are going to have to learn to make some decisions. Those decision-making skills, it is hoped, will serve the students well outside the classroom.

Section 3 then starts with Dr. Osborne's code statement.

A. In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations (my bold) by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.

So first comes the acquisition of scientific skills and next comes the application.

(B) communicate and apply scientific information extracted from various sources such as current events, news reports, published journal articles, and marketing materials [written text] ;
(C) draw inferences based on data related to promotional materials for products and services

The standards repeat the same definitions and expectations within each of the major subject headings, even to the extent that, for example, Section 3A under Aquatic Science is the same Section 3A under Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth and Space Science, Environmental Systems, Integrated Physics and Chemistry, and Physics—word for word eight times.

Finally, Dr. Osborne defends the inclusion of Darwinian evolution in the curriculum.

Darwin’s place on the school science curriculum is justified because it meets two fundamental criteria.

I presume that he would agree the inclusion of any other topic in the science curriculum also meet both “fundamental criteria.”

First, it is a “big idea”—one that dominates and frames the discipline. For the life sciences, anyone who does not understand its major principles and tenets would be as illiterate as someone studying English who has never heard of Shakespeare.

No argument there. I would add, perhaps provocatively, that the study of English literature should likewise include the many literary allusions from the Bible.

Second, within the scientific community it is not up for discussion. And, as it lies beyond criticism, it is hard to see what value any attempt to evaluate critically the evidence and logical reasoning on which it rests would serve.

Well, scientifically speaking, pretty much everything is always up for discussion. Nothing within science is beyond criticism.

Creationists may argue that the biggest idea is God, and a God such as they postulate would certainly be above criticism. The pot does not complain to the potter. But that is precise why creationism is not science. “It does not matter how big the idea, if it is not falsifiable, it is not science,” so said a scientist (personal communication), not a science educator.

Whatever modifications scientists may make to Darwinian evolution in the future, Charles Darwin's place in the science curriculum forever is assured. If it should happen that Darwinian evolution should find its way to the scientific waste bin as a scientific theory, it will always be around as scientific history.


The Texas standards specifically address evolution thusly:

(7) Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;
(B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;
[(B) analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;]
(C) analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals;
(D) analyze and evaluate how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential of a population to produce more offspring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success;
(E) analyze and evaluate the relationship of natural selection to adaptation and to the development of diversity in and among species; [and]
(F) analyze and evaluate the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination ; and [.]
(G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.

What's an Argument? Bring Back Debate Club

When I was in high school, there was an active debate club that competed with all the area high schools. If successful, our team could compete at regional, state and even national events. At the time, it was one of many extracurricular opportunities whose presence I took for granted. Now the arts are gone, recess is replaced by test prep drills, and most extracurricular activities vanish if candy bar or gift wrap sales disappoint. Debate club was one of the first to go by the wayside.

So it is no wonder that recent research on the place of argument in the school curriculum shows that students cannot even define the term, much less formulate an opinion about it. A whole generation of students has grown up thinking “argument” means nothing more than a verbal quarrel, either to be avoided or won, usually by voice volume rather than persuasive points.

Not only are the students clueless, but according to Gerald Graff, so are their teachers.

Graff: I think cluelessness in academia is a major threat to democracy, especially at a moment when talk-back radio, Cable TV talk shows, the Internet, and the reliance of politicians on opinion-polling have made a certain kind of public debate—even if it’s debate within narrowly constrained parameters—more immediately important in American and global politics. In these conditions, one needs not only an ‘informed’ citizenry, but a citizenry that’s sophisticated enough in weighing arguments to spot logical contradictions and non-sequiturs, not to mention outright lies.

Students are not getting an education in argument, and do not miss what they never had. Schools have abandoned critical thinking while the proliferation of so-called critical thinking materials notwithstanding.

Graff: You’re right that many students don’t miss an initiation into the intellectual world of whose very existence they never even learn. No, I don’t see as much concern within academia over this problem as I think there should be. I think we’ve gotten accustomed to a system in which the very few excel in school (and reap the rewards in the vocational world beyond) and the many stumble along and more or less get by, or get through, or fail.

Graff's reason for the apathy is a classic example of the sort of educational obstructionism that pervades our society. We only need a few well-educated elites. There are not enough slots for everyone else.

In some ways such a system suits us academics—it’s not our fault if the majority stumble or fail, we can easily say, that’s just the way it is; only an elite in any society is going to ‘get’ the intellectual club, etc.

Who does Graff blame? Not the parents. The popular weasel strategy of blaming the parents conveniently forgets the fact that parents have to be educated first.

Insofar as this is a common academic attitude, I blame academics more than parents, whom it’s also our job to educate, after all.

Somehow most of our college students are missing out on what should be the goal of their education—becoming a well-informed, thinking citizenry.

...at best I was reaching 15-20 percent of the students in an average undergraduate class and that the remaining 80-85 percent were in some other country or time-zone. Comparing notes with colleagues over the years led me to conclude that most felt the same way. Some unashamedly said they teach to that top 15-20 percent and figure there’s no point worrying about the others.

I have had the same experience. Whereas I was able to persuade just about every member of my junior high and high school classes to buy into my program and reach previously unattainable levels of achievement, I found my college classes to be far more resistant. Some of my college students said straight out, “We don't want to know how or why the math works. Just tell us how to get the answer.” Combine the students' attitude with the new consumer, so-called student-centered approach to education, and there we have a recipe for a generation of ill-educated college graduates.

Professors who refuse to bow to student demands and try to educate the unwilling regardless of their resistance risk unfavorable student evaluations. Professors who respond to market conditions fare much better, and thereby effectively “purchase” great student evaluations. Twenty years down the road, I wonder how many students of the first professor will be grateful for the gift and sorry for their evaluations, and how many students of the second professor will feel they have been royally gypped.

There is a reason, grasshoppers, why I have the big desk and you have the little ones.

Can you imagine a college class where thew books of Ann Coulter Michael Moore are required reading? Dr. Graff can.

I can imagine a good course in which students would read Coulter and Moore for starters and then move on to more nuanced and complicated texts on the same set of issues.

Graff would like a chance to test his ideas.

Take five sections of freshman composition at a university and teach them using the ‘argument templates’ discussed extensively in Clueless and other methods for demystifying academic culture. Closely monitor the writing done by the students over the course of the semester or year, and compare their work with that produced by a randomly-chosen control group of a different five sections of the same course. I like to think the results would dramatically bear out my claims. If they didn’t it would be back to the drawing-board for me.

Yet he observes sadly that universities seem unconcerned about product beyond job training.

But it’s symptomatic of the incuriosity of higher education about what students actually get out of college that one never hears about such experiments even being tried.

Western Education has the Wrong Mindset

Science educators know full well that school textbooks lag at least a generation behind the times. Teachers who do not take the initiative to independently keep up and supplement the textbook with current information are teaching possibly out-of-date stuff. Sad to say, the vast majority of teachers teach the book, especially at the lower grades where the lifetime foundations for critical thinking are laid.

Hans Rosling, a professor of public health, in a presentation to the US State Department, marvels that the Western world is a generation behind in its understanding of the global situation, especially regarding the developing world.

My problem is that the worldview of my students corresponds to the reality in the world the year their teachers were born.

In Dr. Rosling's words, “Their mindset does not match the data set.”

We have a world that cannot be looked upon as divided.
...snip...
The world is converging.

We have completely misunderstood the HIV “epidemic.”

There is no such thing as an HIV epidemic in Africa...It's not war...It's not economy...Don't make it Africa. Don't make it a race issue. Make it a local issue and do (appropriate) preventative approaches.

Dr. Rosling has made his data presentation software available for free at Gapminder.

Incidental Oversight or Deliberate Social Engineering

America is full of sober, responsible people who tried very hard to do the right thing financially. They got their education, got a job, bought a house, stayed out of debt and saved for retirement. They followed all the rules only to wake up one fine morning and find themselves in serious financial trouble. What did they learn? They did not necessarily do the right things after all. They, meaning we, found that very often our financial teachers gave us advice that benefits them rather than us. Yet even now, our financial teachers, wherever they may be found, are advising us to do what we have so long been taught to do: go to school, work hard, stay out of debt, save for retirement, and hope things will be okay. Once the crisis is over and things are back to normal, doing all those old right things will work---except when they don't.

Every financial adviser strangely urges relying on the same failed strategies to work in the future, the strategies that enrich them instead of us. And why not? Most so-called financial advisers are really financial sales people. We should expect what they say to benefit mostly themselves. It seems each financial adviser has a pet financial instrument. For some, no matter what the financial problem is, the solution is life insurance. For others, the solution is an annuity. Still others, it's the stock market. For yet others...whatever it is they are licensed to sell. Once they have been paid, it little matters how their advice impacts their clients for good or ill.

Given the importance of finance in every single person's life, it is astonishing that finance is not generally taught in schools, nor is there much public demand to make finance part of the school curriculum. Teachers may read and groan, Oh, please, do not add even one more burden to the teaching load or one more excellent subject to be neglected in favor of NCLB testing. Even so, finance should be part of the curriculum, perhaps within the math curriculum. To be sure, many math textbooks touch on financial topics, especially when looking for real world applications of the math students are supposed to be learning. But these incidental financial topics are taught by the same elementary math teachers whose lack of a profound understanding of fundamental mathematics has already been well-documented.

Robert Kiyosaki, taking some cues from John Taylor Gatto, believes that keeping our children in ignorance about money and how it works is evil. We are in the information age when knowledge about all kinds of things, including money, is crucial. Yet as any history of education shows, our education system still operates in the industrial age. During the most recent presidential campaign we heard that education and the economy are intertwined and interdependent. However, there are no broad-based initiatives to include finance in the curriculum.

A program to teach financial literacy is probably more important than the technology literacy schools were more than happy to integrate into their curriculum, especially since technology in schools was often generously funded by the foundation arm of corporations in a position to profit. Thus Apple put free computers in many schools. Nearly every foundation's Request for Proposals (RFP) for grant funding requires a computer/technology component. Financial literacy is even better, because almost by definition, financial literacy would enhance that darling of all educators, CRITICAL THINKING. Financial literacy is all about evaluation, the very top level of cognitive knowledge.

What would a curriculum of financial literacy include? Robert Kiyosaki, writing about this very topic, would probably say a curriculum* of financial literacy would include:
1.The language of money.
2.The difference between capital gains and cash flow.
3.The fairytale aspect of most financial advice.
4.The influence of attitude on reality.
5.Selling yourself.

In other words, students need a new mind set, a different frame of reference, a modified set of pegs for organizing the basics of financial knowledge, such as rate of inflation, compound interest and tax strategies, just to name a few. Those basics need to be taught within a different frame of reference, because clearly the old frame of reference further enriches the already rich at our expense. Schools need to prepare students for the information age where knowledge is king. So far, schools seem uninterested in the task, perhaps because teachers with the new, different, modified mindset are so rare, and because the usual, but flawed advice, is not only everywhere, but everywhere accepted as correct. I am not necessarily recommending Mr. Kiyosaki's work. He has his own agenda. However, finance is such an integral part of the adult life for which we are supposed to be preparing students, we need to get serious about including it in the curriculum.










*Robert Kiyosaki spelled out his curriculum in chapter 12 of his new online book. The chapter did not exist when I first wrote the post, and the link is now broken.

“History of money...
Understanding a financial statement...
Difference between asset and liability...
Difference between capital gains and cash flow...
Difference between fundamental and technical investing...
Measuring an asset's strength...
Know how to choose good people...
Know which assets are best for you...
Know when to focus and when to diversify...
Minimize risk...
Know how to minimize taxes...
The difference between debt and credibility...
Know how to use derivatives...
Know how your wealth is stolen...
Know how to make mistakes...”