Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A couple of Baylor professors, Paul Glanzer and Wesley Null, have written a profoundly silly op-ed in a Texas newspaper taking the bizarre position that the State Board of Education shouldn't listen to biologists when developing the biology curriculum.
Some state biologists claim they know the most about this interdisciplinary relationship, but they are wrong. Why should we trust biologists over religion professors, curriculum professors and others who spend their lives studying and teaching these subjects? We can think of many good reasons not to trust biologists on matters of religion and curriculum. A recent statement by a biologist affiliated with the 21st Century Science Coalition highlights a problem with listening to "experts" who are out of their specialized field. Speaking of the relationship between religion and curriculum, that biologist said, "It's time to keep religion and faith in the Sunday schools and not in the public schools." That position is a view that many legal, religious and educational experts outright reject.
But it shouldn't be an issue at all when it comes to biology classes. When you're designing the biology curriculum, you look to biologists to do so. Would anyone do anything but laugh at the notion that a math textbook should be written by a non-mathematician? Especially if it was written by someone who wanted to "supplement" the material in it with religious arguments for why differential equations are wrong or why 2 + 2 really equals 5?
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, "It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." Furthermore, many educational groups -- including the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development -- issued statements acknowledging that "schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education."
The key phrase, of course, is "where appropriate." It isn't appropriate in a science class, period. This has nothing to do with a comparative religion class. I would no sooner turn to biologists to write the curriculum for a comparative religion class than I would turn to religion scholars to write the curriculum for a biology class.
Perhaps when it comes to discussing the relationship between biology and religion, we need a referee from another discipline. In this case, we are more apt to trust philosophers than biologists who are unfamiliar with the history and philosophy of science.
Well okay, let's talk to philosophers of science and see how they feel. Guess what? They're almost universally opposed to teaching creationism in science classes too. At the Dover trial the defense presented a philosopher of science and his contribution was the absolutely bizarre argument that fringe ideas in science should be taught in public schools to help them recruit new followers. Good luck finding a credible philosopher of science who endorses teaching religion in science classes.
Many questions remain unanswered by the biologists who seem most interested in trying to control curriculum. Why do biologists assume they are experts in curriculum when they are not?
There is no such thing as an expert in curriculum. The expertise that is needed to design a curriculum is expertise in the subject area of that curriculum.
Why not discuss the history of biology as a discipline and how the field's approach to this problem has evolved over time?
Okay, let's do that. Here's a start: "Until the mid-1800s, almost everyone assumed that the Bible, literally interpreted, provided an accurate framework within which to understand the natural history of life on earth. Now we know that was nonsense." End of subject.
Why not discuss with students why biologists tend to operate within a naturalistic framework, including the benefits and limitations of the framework?
Because this is way beyond the level of any high school class. And because ALL science operates within a naturalistic framework. Evolution is naturalistic in precisely the same sense that every single other theory in science is naturalistic. Why aren't Glanzer and Null demanding that we "broach the exciting intellectual problems surrounding the relationship between faith and science" by teaching the "theory" that angels push the planets around in their orbits rather than being the result of gravity? Why not "broach the exciting intellectual problems surrounding the relationship between faith and science" by giving equal time to theories that diseases are caused by demons along with the germ theory of disease? Why not "broach the exciting intellectual problems surrounding the relationship between faith and science" by teaching flat earthism along with conventional earth science?
Gravity is every bit as naturalistic as evolution. So is the germ theory of disease. So is every single theory in science. And every single theory in science conflicts with someone's religous views. So why is this fight always about evolution? Because the people advocating against it believe that evolution conflicts with their religious views.
Politics
Comments
Do these Professors have a history of spewing this?
If not, perhaps they're playing Jonathon Swift?
Either way, it falls flat.
Posted by: GaCracker | October 9, 2008 9:35 AM
Do these Professors have a history of spewing this?
If not, perhaps they're playing Jonathon Swift?
Either way, it falls flat.
Posted by: GaCracker | October 9, 2008 9:35 AM
Sorry, I suck.
Posted by: GaCracker | October 9, 2008 9:37 AM
Perhaps when it comes to discussing the relationship between biology and religion, we need a referee from another discipline. In this case, we are more apt to trust philosophers than biologists who are unfamiliar with the history and philosophy of science.
Remember Kentucky-Fried Disco-Tute Sophist Martin Cothran? He made exactly the same argument sometime last year, and it rapidly fell apart, and ended when he tried to pretend that EVERYONE could function as a "philosopher," including the very scientists he was trying to kick out of the debate.
You chose the right phrase: "profoundly silly."
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2008 9:47 AM
This is what you get when you let professors from a Baptist University out of the tabernacle.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 9, 2008 9:56 AM
"Curriculum professors"? (And I work with people who write curricula!) What's next - "Education educators"?
Posted by: Kristine | October 9, 2008 9:59 AM
Hmmmm, so based on this, when I was part of the committee that revised our World and US History curricula, I should have had Klansmen and Neo Nazis there to explain why slavery was just great and the Holocaust didn't happen? How about royalists or fascists to help us determine how the government curriculum should emphasize authoritarian rule over representative democracies?
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 9, 2008 10:08 AM
It's time for the sorry truth. Repeat it over and over again, whenever they try to impose their religion onto science curricula:
If you need science to affirm the transcendent truth of your god(s), you don't believe in it/him/her/them, either.
And since most of the American movement is, in actuality, Christian fundamentalist, allow me a brief example:
Matt 14:25-32
25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came unto them, walking upon the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a ghost; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto the upon the waters.
29 And he said, Come. And Peter went down from the boat, and walked upon the waters to come to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? (ASV)
This manufactured controversy wasn't ever about religion, anyway. It was and is about using religion to gain, keep, and wield political power.
The people need to realize that their opinion-managers are not one whit more "religious" than those who oppose imposing religion upon public science curricula.
They might even be less religious.
Posted by: Farb | October 9, 2008 10:10 AM
Baylor ? Friends of Mr Dembski, perhaps ?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 9, 2008 10:21 AM
"Until the mid-1800s, almost everyone assumed that the Bible, literally interpreted, provided an accurate framework within which to understand the natural history of life on earth. Now we know that was nonsense."
Just nit picking here but the vast majority of people on this particular planet thought no such thing. It was always the Euro-centric and Christian-centric part of the world who thought that. And not even all of them.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | October 9, 2008 10:28 AM
I've always been of the opinion that Christians pick on Darwin, not because his theory contradicts their beliefs (scores of scientific theories that they have far less of a problem with do that), but because evolution catches Christianity, essentially, with its hand in the cookie jar.
Christianity, and other religions, commonly tell people who to marry (in-faith only), when to marry, how many kids to have, ban contraception, and ban nonreproductive sexual behaviors such as masturbation, homosexuality, and nonvaginal sex.
They're obsessed with sex, and once the theory of evolution came around, the reason for this became obvious.
Christianity is primarily focused with breeding more Christians, not with a superior morality, not with a convincing theology, not even with "saving souls", whatever that means, but with breeding as many kids as possible and filling their little heads with Christian beliefs long before they have any chance of thinking about those beliefs critically.
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 9, 2008 11:09 AM
"by teaching the "theory" that angels push the planets around in their orbits "
Who calls that a theory? That's a FACT! They also pull you down to the ground if you try to fly because only angels can fly and planes can't fly unless the people on them pray and the angels push up on the wings.
(that's why there are so many plane crashes in non-christian countries)
Posted by: Kevin | October 9, 2008 11:11 AM
This really is completely wrong. Designing a curriculum and the adequate testing of that curriculum is a (rare) and extremely involved skill.
The above phrase is akin to saying that you don't need engineers to design a spaceship, you need rocket scientists.
You certainly need very good knowledge of the subject matter, and knowledge of religion or philosophy is completely irrelevant to the designing of a science curriculum of course, but actually you do need experts in curriculum development.
Posted by: Matthew | October 9, 2008 11:11 AM
Failes: Bingo.
By the way, when is someone going to start beating these "conservatives" over the head with their own moral relativism? Aren't they supposed to be the defenders of concrete truths? Yet here they are arguing that science classes should teach the subjective drawbacks and benefits of both a naturalistic and metaphysical world view. They are actually suggesting that our elementary and high schools teach subjective reality, a field of philosophy with questionable value, in our science classes. The reason for this should be clear; the more time they spend on such nonsense, the less they can spend actually teaching science.
Posted by: Julian | October 9, 2008 11:21 AM
The corollary being that, if a plane crashes in a Christian country, it's because the people on board didn't pray hard enough.
QED.
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 9, 2008 11:46 AM
I'm with Matthew here. Of course biologists should be consulted for what to teach in a biology class, but their main expertise is studying biological questions -- not conveying that knowledge to students. It's is the expertise of the educator to figure out how to parse the information biologists provide and deliver it to students in an understandable format.
Still, pretty silly essay from Null and Glanzer. Here I must reiterate that Baylor's biology department is perfectly up-to-date with scientific findings.
Posted by: Cody | October 9, 2008 11:47 AM
So, Cody, why not take excellent teachers of History, who are great at "parsing" historical information, and have them teach Physics? Just give them a script to recite for every class, tell them what equations to write, and the students will learn physics, right? That's as ridiculous as saying biologists only need to be "consulted" for what to teach in a biology class. The students might as well skip class and read it out of the textbook.
The only way you can convey material to students is if you know the material. That is and always will be the most important qualification for being a teacher. You can't explain something you don't understand.
Posted by: DG | October 9, 2008 12:12 PM
@Kevin - How dare you spread such lies? Everyone knows the only way to get a plane off the ground is to sacrifice a goat.
Posted by: peaches | October 9, 2008 12:13 PM
These guys are relying on the work of Warren A. Nord, who is so "out there" both philosophically and legally that even the Discovery Institute can't stand his ideas.
Incidently, you can see what the DI's real agenda is there:
To be fair to Nord, the DI is against him mostly because he might give too much opportunity for people of faiths other than conservative Christianity to spread their beliefs by their own efforts.
Posted by: John Pieret | October 9, 2008 12:17 PM
Phrases like "naturalistic framework" really irk me because they're so obviously meant to be condescending. "Their closed minds just can't handle the invisible BIGGER PICTURE!"
I just do a mental search-and-replace with "framework in which we're not allowed to just make shit up".
Posted by: Adrian W. | October 9, 2008 12:19 PM
The point Cody and Matthew are making is that most biologists are used to teaching college and graduate students. Constructing an effective curriculum for K-12 education is not something that most college professors have experience with. They can identify what they want students to know when they enter college, but getting five-year-olds to that point over 13 years is simply not a skill you usually pick up teaching 21-year-olds.
The best way to design a K-12 curriculum is to mix K-12 science educators with college professors. For Biology it'd be biology teachers and biologists, etc.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | October 9, 2008 12:23 PM
So, Cody, why not take excellent teachers of History, who are great at "parsing" historical information, and have them teach Physics?
Nice straw man. Yes, content knowledge is crucial. So is pedagogical content knowledge - knowing how to structure the lesson, how to sequence the material, how to address several learning styles . . .
Several reputable universities offer Ph.Ds in Curriculum and Instruction.
That's why the science standards-writing committees in most states have a mix of scientists and science teachers and science curriculum experts.
No attorneys or philosophers or theologians, though.
Posted by: nunyer | October 9, 2008 12:32 PM
DG, that's missing the point. Good teachers don't necessarily make good writers of curriculum either, nor do old teachers, but that is who is generally promoted to do such a job. This is why good designers of curriculum are so rare. Just like in my profession, where old engineers generally become managers, despite them being totally different skills.
Input from university biologists is certainly essential, but the writing of an effective curriculum for high school students is not a skill that university professors have by default. A lot of them are actually shit teachers of university students as well, because they often get into the postitions they are by being good at, and interested in, biology instead.
I will say it again, and believe me I do say this from knowledge, not speculation, that writing an effective school curriculum requires a healthy amount of expertise in the process and mechanics of curriculum writing, which is not an inconsiderable skill. Knowledge of the subject at hand is vital, but it is not as big a component as either you or Ed seem to think.
You can't just leave a bunch of expert biologists to get on with it and expect anything other than completely useless results, unless you get very lucky indeed.
But of course either way religion is totally fucking irrelevant.
Posted by: Matthew | October 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Actually, this is so ignorant of the process and nature of teaching that I am going to have to have another go at it:
You would absolutely, definitely and beyond doubt get better results from a good teacher, teaching with no knowledge of biology, taking their material entirely from a book, than you ever would trying to accomplish teaching any subject by sticking an expert with no teaching ability or experience in front of a class. In fact, the difference would be enormous.
Remember that, because not only is it right, if you don't understand it then you have no place discussing what to do or not to do in a classroom. No place whatsoever.
No more, in fact, than a religious maniac has having anything to with what gets taught in a science class.
Posted by: Matthew | October 9, 2008 12:50 PM
The benefits- real results, real information.
The limitations- likely nothing
Posted by: JimC | October 9, 2008 12:51 PM
I am a teacher so I'd like to weigh in here. Although I agree that Science experts should be heavily involved in developing curriculum, there ARE such things as curriculum experts (experts in teaching teachers how to teach)and they could also be productively involved when it comes to deciding how to deliver content and general focus of, and prioritization of, content. They should not, in my view, be allowed to alter fundamental and foundational content ideas. I have seen plenty of PHD's teaching at the high school level that were severely in need of guidance from curriculum experts and I have seen many teachers with Bachelor's degrees that were extremely succesful in their craft.
Sincerely M Duran
Posted by: mark duran | October 9, 2008 1:26 PM
You would absolutely, definitely and beyond doubt get better results from a good teacher, teaching with no knowledge of biology, taking their material entirely from a book, than you ever would trying to accomplish teaching any subject by sticking an expert with no teaching ability or experience in front of a class. In fact, the difference would be enormous.
Except, that's a false dichotomy. Or at least completely unrealistic. There are many university professors who are very good at teaching, and, with a little bit of guidance (a little bit), could probably do very well at the K-12 level.
A teacher with no knowledge of biology, teaching from a book, can only explain things in one way - the way the book explains it. What happens if this is not the best way to explain it to some of the students, and they don't get it? The teacher is stuck, with no way of reinterpreting the material, because they don't know it. Take some biology professor with an innate ability to explain things to people (not as uncommon as you suppose), and they can draw on their extensive knowledge of the subject to come up with many alternative ways of looking at the same thing. Eventually, they'll hit on a good way of saying it.
Remember that, because not only is it right, if you don't understand it then you have no place discussing what to do or not to do in a classroom. No place whatsoever.
No more, in fact, than a religious maniac has having anything to with what gets taught in a science class.
So, again you make a terrible analogy. The worth of biological knowledge and religious knowledge is pretty much mutually exclusive. Religious zealots have no place teaching biology. Certainly, the usefulness of different pedagogical approaches to teaching science does not rise to this level of contrast.
What you're really saying here is "if you don't agree with my interpretation, you have no right to be in the discussion". That DOES remind me of the opinions of a religious maniac.
Posted by: DG | October 9, 2008 1:32 PM
Sorry DG, I am trying really hard not to talk at completely cross purposes here.
You originally said:
And the bits I am disagreeing with are twofold. Most specifically the idea that it is ridiculous to suggest that biologists only need to be consulted for what to teach in a biology class.
That is in fact entirely sensible: biologists only do need to be consulted. They need to be extensively consulted and very seriously listened to, but ultimately it is down to curriculum experts to write curriculum, not biologists. Reverse this, and the results would be appalling.
The other point I was making is that the other thing you declare to be ridiculous is also not anything like as silly as you are suggesting: that a very good teacher of history could not make a very good teacher of biology, or indeed anything else, armed with no more knowledge than was in the textbook. I am assuming, when I say this, that said hypothetical teacher will both respect their lack of knowledge as a bad thing, and also that they will take steps to reduce it, but good teachers do that all the time anyway, even in subjects in which they are not ignorant.
In your more recent post your positions are a little different. Remember that the false dichotomy, that of someone teaching a subject about which they know nothing, is something you brought up, not me. Of course some biologists could make excellent teachers. But the paramount skill in teaching is the in act of teaching and it is most definitely and absolutely not a detailed and extensive knowledge of the subject matter because any good teacher can and will deal with this. They will, with no other way of explaining things, explore the knowledge with the students, as part of the learning process, which is one of the most important things you can teach a child anyway, irrespective of the discipline.
The point I was trying to make is not that all academics are crap teachers, of course some have excellent natural skills, and plenty have lots of practise. But a great many are crap, a great many are disinterested and virtually none of them have any experience in curriculum development for high school.
The primary expertise needed in teaching and in designing curriculum is very specifically about teaching itself and not about the subject matter. I am not saying that you should be doing any of this without excellent knowledge of the subject matter, but the reverse, the idea that knowledge of the subject matter is the most important thing - virtually the only thing - is what both you and Ed seem to be saying and that is patently false.
Finally, the religious maniac comment was just to make it clear that I was not suggesting anyone consult 'community leaders' or any of the other unrelated people that the looney right want to be involved.
But you appear to be in danger of making a similar, opposed mistake: that of turning biologists loose on a job they are only tangentially qualified to do - that of imparting knowledge to teenagers.
Posted by: Matthew | October 9, 2008 2:08 PM
I had my introduction to curriculum-writing specialists back in the seventies. Over the years, I've been lectured on the absolute necessity of this and that curriculum technique. It's been interesting over the decades to see how what was considered a bare minimum necessary technique for teaching pretty much any subject became a few years later out of date, while some new technique became the new necessity.
After I had been teaching online courses for a few years, the college hired a specialist in online curriculum, one who assured all the teachers that she would create a curriculum and they could be effective teachers merely by having "input" into the process and inserting "content" into the preplanned spaces in her courses. Fortunately for me I was close enough to retirement to ignore most of her demands. Don't provide your online students with written copies of your classroom lectures, she said, as people don't like to read. Fill in your "content" in the little bullet point layouts provided. Give multiple choice tests with one minute per question allowed. Organize all courses the same way with most of the links to textbook assignments and schedules and a page with a long series of resource links (which, I suppose, we should assume the students would never use as we were not to expect them to read).
The problem for me was that I was teaching writing. Imagine how successful I would have been teaching college-level writing by providing bullet points so the students wouldn't have to read any actual examples of thoughtful, reasoned writing. As for the multiple-choice questions, I explained that my multiple choice tests involved reading a problem description of five hundred words or so in length, followed by a dozen or so possible answers, many a paragraph or more in length, with most of them right to some degree. The student was asked for the answer that was best suited for the specific details in the problem description. One minute per question, indeed. In her mind a question was "X was discovered by" followed by a list of four names.
When a class becomes a curriculum-specialist structure with some "content input," where the subject being taught is just one "component," the class becomes mindless training, not education. Curriculum specialists may have something to contribute to some classes, but their contribution is not as big a component as its practitioners sometimes seem to think.
Posted by: JuliaL | October 9, 2008 2:22 PM
I've heard both sides of this argument many times (as anyone who spends a decent amount of time at a university invariably does). In principle, to me it boils down to one question:
Would I want Feynman to be teaching a class on quantum mechanics, or a professional teacher who had never had to use QM in his research?
The answer to me is pretty clear - for the really interested students, who expect to become scientists, Feynman (or any other good professional scientist) is by far the better teacher. For the ones who want to get a taste of the idea but will never seriously pursue it, a professional teacher is better.
In practice this is also how it usually works, the more advanced classes become (hence leaving only those serious about the subject), the more the teacher is not a professional teacher, but a researcher.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 9, 2008 2:54 PM
There are certainly lots of bad developers of curriculum out there. The problem is that it is like many other positions of management or bureacracy, people promoted to do the job are often more technical experts than management or development experts, and people brought in from outside lack the necessary technical expertise.
Posted by: Matthew | October 9, 2008 2:57 PM
But Coriolis, people in university classes choose to be there and have specifically selected that subject.
Teaching reluctant and often downright obstructive thirteen year olds is entirely different.
I know this is the point that you are making, but I think a few people really do seem to be treating high school students as simply a younger version of university students, whereas the mere fact of selecting a subject and then making pretty significant personal sacrifices in order to study it changes the playing field almost entirely.
Posted by: Matthew | October 9, 2008 3:03 PM
I'm afraid that version of the question is now, in many places and situations, out of date. The argument now concerns two kinds of "professional teacher."
Should this person be someone with a wide and deep knowledge of the field and a lifelong passion for it, enough of a passion to learn a bit about what classroom management techniques might help make the subject clearer to the students? Or is it more important that this person be someone, perhaps with only a rudimentary knowledge of the field (and thus obviously little passion as he/she has not made that field a central focus of his/her life), who presents whatever facts may be listed in the chosen textbook in the approved manner: write the day's topic on the board, repeat it several times, sum it up at the end, put students in little groups for part of the period, etc.
The second type of teacher will have a well-managed classroom where students are reasonably quiet and don't attack each other, and he/she will "cover" the required textbook with all the standard tests. The first type of professional teacher may inspire some students who never before valued the subject with a lifelong interest in it and a willingness to support it later with the money and other resources it needs. The second type of teacher trains. The first type educates.
If we must train someone to perform a specific task in a specific way, that requires very narrow focus and very frequent repetition. But educating a person, even a young child, means providing a rich environment, with more than the person can absorb at the moment, in the context of a relationship with a knowledgeable, passionate mind.
Posted by: JuliaL | October 9, 2008 3:21 PM
Well yes, I agree, HS classes are somewhat different. But even in a good HS, I would want to have separate "honors" or advanced classes for people who have a deeper interest in a subject. Unfortunately this is practically hard to do. I personally had very good luck in being at a very good public HS, but this is obviously not the case for most people. But that is something that can be worked on, if we put more money into it.
The question I was trying to answer Matthew, is if you had the money to spare to actually make a more advanced class (even in high school), taught perhaps by a visiting active researcher, would that not be better than a professional teacher? At least in my eyes, the answer is yes.
And Julia at least for my subject that's not quite the point we're at. With physics at my state university, most introductory courses are taught by professors who are primarily researchers (with help from grad students for labs/recitations). Only the more casual physics classes that are meant for people who don't know calculus are taught by professional teachers. The main difference is that the introductory classes are taught by professors more experienced in teaching, while in graduate school classes, anything (at all) goes.
This does have it's own issues - most of these professors don't particularly care that much about teaching - research is their main passion. And some time ago I would've whined quite a bit more about that. But I think at the end of the day, it's probably better that way.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 9, 2008 3:45 PM
25 years in high school.
The most common complaint from my students--who are mostly very good, high achieving 11th and 12th graders--is that they have teachers who know the subject matter but don't know how to teach. These are not kids looking for an excuse to check out; they're kids in rigorous and difficult courses who, despite their best efforts and long study, are not getting it all. That's as close to a clear measurement of teaching quality as you will ever see, by the way. Sometimes that complaint aims at the mechanics of grading and evaluating, since many poor teachers are also arbitrary or ruthless graders. But mainly we're looking at a choice that falls decisively on the side of the pedagogy (a word I despise) rather than the content.
That said, the choice is artificial. Good teachers (like Feynman, I'm told) who are also good, or brilliant, thinkers, are pretty common. It's also far more common that a good teacher becomes competent at content than the reverse, a good or practical user of the discipline becomes a good teacher. (this is high school, remember.) It's fairly common to see people enter teaching as a second career, after a successful career in other, more applied or practical fields. I've seen some of those people succeed but many fail, and the succeeders are nearly always ready to say that they always wanted to teach but for various reasons (usually income) went another way.
At the moment, for example, one of my most respected colleagues, a teacher of literature, is also a member of the bar. Another recently retired guidance counselor at this school had a bs and ms from MIT--but not, need I say, in guidance counseling. But for all of those I've seen a bunch of people, and a preponderance of retired military people, come in to the high school and bomb out.
Good teachers are also journeymen, capable of adjusting to any job any time. Few HS teachers get to specialize and stay specialized, and it's a good thing.
I'd endorse the thesis that good teachers can teach anything. Don't forget that that rambunctious 13-year-old doesn't learn biology at a very elevated level. Anyone with a teaching credential should have enough bio to stay ahead of them without relying solely on a book. Furthermore, HS pedagogy (yuk) relies on a careful thoroughness that elevates teaching over content. We are also usually required to teach a broad range of students at the abilities they bring into class--that means differentiating, preparing and executing a range of activities for a range of kids. Even the most basic college class has a different structure and attitude, and so values content differently.
But of course our professors--Null? Really? the Null null hypothesis?--are actually after a different thing. They clearly understand that sabotaging science curricula is difficult unless you have malleable morons in positions of power.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 9, 2008 4:07 PM
Because this is way beyond the level of any high school class.
This could be addressed at high-school level. Rigorously, even.
You'd need to include an extra year of background math, covering basic propositional logic, introductory set theory (about to the construction of Godel's theorem), and formal languages and automata. You'd also need to include about a month's worth of probability, which could be squeezed in sometime in grades 6-8.
Posted by: abb3w | October 9, 2008 4:42 PM
Well, I have to weigh in on this one. As a content expert in biology who also happens to do research in curriculum reform and even writes curriculum standards for K-12 systems, I can officially say that curriculum experts exist and they are far from sufficient for creating curricula. I also can tell you that the research indicates the best teachers have the deepest content knowledge. I would have to fervently disagree with Mathew's premise that:
The research on science education does not bear this out. This is why many universities (including mine) now require high school science teachers to be heavily into the content and the degrees themselves are housed in the science departments, not in the education college. There are certainly some college professors that aren't good teachers, but they would certainly do better at teaching someone their topic of specialty than a layperson who only knows educational philosophy (at least according to the data).
Posted by: Scott Reese | October 9, 2008 5:27 PM
Bullshit!
Granted that there are people who know the subject and are not very good teachers, but a person who doesn't know the subject simply can't be a good teacher.
I had this conversation with one of our vice-principals who claimed that "anybody can teach Earth Science; I could teach Earth Science." This from a former Social Studies teacher who proclaims that she is mathematically illiterate.
No, she could pass out handouts and recite a script. Unless she can correctly answer a student who asks why the astronauts float around in the space shuttle, she can't teach Earth Science.
Posted by: BaldApe | October 9, 2008 7:48 PM
Right... When's the last time you have a Jewish Rabbi as the Preacher in a Christian Church? An atheist teaching your bible studies class? Or a Buddhist as the Catholic Pope? You would think someone teaching religion should have the "interdisciplinary" experience of a non-believer for complete teaching?
Posted by: Lucas | October 9, 2008 8:59 PM
I think from reading these comments that we have discovered that curriculum design, as understood today, is irreducably complex. Take away content, instructors, or experts in learning styles, and the curriculum becomes dysfunctional. :)
But perhaps they each served other purposes and over time came together to design curriculum. Ah well....
Posted by: SouthernFriedSkeptic | October 9, 2008 9:40 PM
Bad examples. If any of these situation were to arise, they would be huge improvements over current practice. I'll volunteer for the bible studies class.
Posted by: Tex | October 9, 2008 9:42 PM
As a public school teacher, I have this radical suggestion. How about we let the Biologist determine the content of the science curriculum, the curriculum experts design the methodology and schedule for presenting that content, and allow the instructors to implement the design, with all three giving feedback and suggestions to each other over possible problems but each separately having authority over its individual aspect of overall curriculum design.
Posted by: SouthernFriedSkeptic | October 9, 2008 10:28 PM
SFS, you sure know how to kill a thread. Everybody else, nod your head and that should be it.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | October 10, 2008 1:28 AM
Feynman actually taught introductory physics at CalTech, they were the basis of Six Easy Pieces. Feynman himself was rather pessimistic about his results.
That out of the way, I'm scratching my head over this:
What interdisciplinary relationship? All other reports of Quinn's quote place it in the context of instruction of biology. It's a non-sequitur of an argument. There's no "interdisciplinary relationship" being proposed, besides the one the creationists are trying to "Wedge" in.
Posted by: Citizen Z | October 11, 2008 1:05 AM
Or to try to put it more clearly, the authors are deceptively trying to create the impression that Quinn was discussing some class about the relationship between religion and biology, instead of simply biology.
Posted by: Citizen Z | October 11, 2008 1:09 AM
SouthernFriedSkeptic:
Sorry, but that would work and work well. That makes it unlawful and contrary to established custom in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, as well as U.S. possessions and occupied territories.
Posted by: BaldApe | October 11, 2008 9:30 AM