…and this is a 
National science standards?
Category:
Posted on: December 4, 2008 12:51 AM, by PZ Myers
I'll believe them when I see them. Greg Laden says we should all vote on this idea: that we ought to rather thoroughly revamp how science is taught in this country by setting national science standards on the teaching of evolution. I'd like to see it if it could be done well, but I predict that such an initiative would set up some awesome squealing from the creationists…which is another reason to support it.
Comments
Posted by: LS | December 4, 2008 12:55 AM
Sqveel little creationists pigies Sqveel, im getting bored and need entertainment
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 12:58 AM
Already voted on it in the last thread. Is there any way i can do it again (explain slowly- i'm a space geek, not a techno fanboy)?
Posted by: woodstein312 | December 4, 2008 1:00 AM
Yes, there should absolutely be strict standards when it comes to teaching evolution to students. An understanding of Darwin's theories is essential to the most basic education in biology, just like understanding how to add, subtract and multiply is key to understanding basic math.
It baffles me that students, including home-schoolers-- are able to get into college in this country without ever learning, or by intentionally ignoring, the concepts of evolution. If I ruled the world (someday, just try and stop me), students wouldn't be able to progress through high school and on to universities without meeting this criterion for education. How can America claim its place among the developed nations of the world if our children are kept in the dark on the most essential theory in biology?
Posted by: Jing-reed | December 4, 2008 1:01 AM
Help to spread the information about setting national standards for science education.
I found that even for a 75 year old geezer like myself the process of automatically adding a widget to my blog was surprisingly simple.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 4, 2008 1:14 AM
This is a great idea.
Anyone with a blog should be blogging about this.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 1:14 AM
How can America claim its place among the developed nations of the world if our children are kept in the dark on the most essential theory in biology[, and we have no marketable assets, and we have poor healthcare, and we are driven my emotional, insane religiots, and....and....]
Just thought i would bitch as usual. I'm frankly embarrassed for our country. Getting our asses in gear as far as education is concerned ought to be priority #3 after the economy and our piss-poor foreign relations dominated by oil. Anything i missed?
Posted by: Steve | December 4, 2008 1:15 AM
National standards would be awesome, but it'll be a big uphill fight. It's worth fighting, though!
Posted by: Brett | December 4, 2008 1:29 AM
I just graduated from college in '08 and I don't remember learning about evolution in high school science class at all. The topic was just glossed over, sadly. Thank you Oregon.
Posted by: havoc | December 4, 2008 1:34 AM
Most of our country is still dominated by the religious right... don't let the recent election fool you.
...the statistics on blacks who voted for Obama while still supporting the gay marriage ban in CA should give some insight to this.
Electing a "liberal" president doesn't necessarily mean this country is ready to put our socially convservative past behind us...
Posted by: BobC | December 4, 2008 1:41 AM
National science standards would be excellent if they were identical to Florida's new science standards, except perhaps they could remove the constant repetition of "The Theory of" from the standards which were put there to compromise with the creationists who don't know what a scientific theory is.
National science standards, if they were the best possible standards, would be a big improvement, especially in America's hick infested states that have received a D or F grade from the Fordham Institute.
Science education in America is under attack, with "discovery learning" on one flank and the Discovery Institute on the other. That's the core finding of our just-released comprehensive review of state science standards, the first since 2000. Written by pre-eminent biologist Paul R. Gross, The State of State Science Standards finds that even though the majority of states have reworked, or crafted from scratch, their science standards over the past five years, we're no better off now than before. That's the bad news. The good news is that many of the standards are easily fixed. More involvement by bench scientists, and better editing, could greatly improve what's out there. Plus, there are a number of excellent models to follow (California, Massachusetts, and South Carolina, for example). The public's anxiety about the future of our nation's scientific prowess is palpable--and reasonable. How serious are we in addressing their concerns? To find out, read the report.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | December 4, 2008 2:06 AM
I would love to vote on this, but I suspect non-US citizens are not allowed to, and this is too much of an important thing to use any type of corrupt means to vote (so RickRoll at 2, don't even think of giving them an excuse to pull it), since that would undermine its validity.
On crappy internet polls, multiple voting doesn't matter - in this case it could totally undermine us.
Posted by: Meng Bomin | December 4, 2008 2:45 AM
But that's why elitism is so great. The people who care most about scientific education are professional scientists and science educators and thus they have a louder voice than the "riff raff" who don't know what they're talking about.Now, that's not to say that there won't be the occasional creationist challenge, but Kansas and Texas are the exception, not the rule in terms of creationist power. Remember that the Dover judge was a Bush-appointed Republican. Bringing the issue to the national level could help seal up some of those pockets where the forces of ignorance are getting feisty.
But, as PZ rightly points out, we have to make sure that such standards are done well. If the main effect is worsening the quality of education in states where it's relatively high rather than patching it up in the straying states, then it's certainly not a worthwhile endeavor.
Posted by: DagoRed | December 4, 2008 2:49 AM
A national standard I think is a VERY BAD idea short of making it an amendment to the constitution! Otherwise, it will become yet another toggle to fiddle with for the ever revolving machinations of the executive branch.
All is fine while we have some semblance of an Obama-esque administration, but the next time the intellectually retarded public of ours elects another Bushie-clone to prez (and, yes, this WILL happen some day), what will keep some Liberty University "graduate" appointee to the Department of Education from slipping in the "teach the controversy" to this proposed national standard? The WHOLE nation then becomes subjected to this educational corruption for a period of four or eight years. No thanks. I am not willing to save a few backward Southern and Midwestern states at the risk of exposing the ENTIRE nations children to this kind of lunacy.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 4, 2008 3:03 AM
You can reasonably assume that the ID crowd will begin yammering about "states' rights" when this comes up.
Posted by: JM | December 4, 2008 3:29 AM
We have national science standards here in the UK, and they are apparently rather poor (I'm not a science educator). At least, someone from the Royal Society of Chemistry has submitted a petition to our Prime Minister asking for a return to science education and examination based on problem-solving, critical thinking and the application of mathematics rather than the descriptive science taught and examined here currently. See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/examstandards/
It could do with some help from British citizens.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 3:33 AM
A national standard is important. I think that once we can get this passed- again, i have no idea how influential this poll even IS- we will be on our way to a point-of-no-return as far as improving the country (surprising, i know, since i probly dislike america the most on this thread, and it is nearly antithetical to my sentiment earlier). I doubt it will be reversed, and it ethically couldn't be. It would be the equivelent to going back to slavery. Not to say That couldn't happen either.
The whole issue of states rights was settled in the 1860's i beleive, and boy did we kick ass! Yes, i say we, because technically, the Conferderacy was another country, until we re-asssimilated it by force. Good to see how well that all worked out. *roll*
Posted by: clinteas | December 4, 2008 4:21 AM
In any other country trying to do this,I would be concerned that the smallest common denominator found would actually be worse that the preexisting averages,but in the U.S. its probably not such a bad idea.
Posted by: Sigmund | December 4, 2008 4:42 AM
It's a good idea in principle but it doesn't address the real problem underlying the teaching of evolution in US schools. The real problem is bad science teachers.
Is there a single district in the US with science standards that would prevent a good teacher from teaching evolution?
Turn it around the other way.
Is there any possible set of science standards that will counteract the negative effects of a biology teacher who is a strict creationist?
According to the recent study of US teachers by Michael Berkman of Penn State;
"The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% - about 12.5% of the total survey - said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
When you have 12.5% of US teachers who are creationists and 25% who think its reasonable to teach both evolution and intelligent design it is pointless window-dressing to simply change the science standards while ignoring the fact that the current level of bad teachers render the whole exercise moot.
Posted by: Walton | December 4, 2008 4:58 AM
Does the federal government really have the constitutional authority to impose "national science standards"? I realise they could use conditional grants in order to strong-arm state governments into complying (as they presently do with the drinking age). But this seems to me to be obeying the letter of the Constitution, not the spirit.
And is it really a good idea? Localism is very valuable. As Milton Friedman says, "If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations."
The thing is, centralised federal control can work both ways. It might promote the teaching of evolution - and make you happy - today, but tomorrow, under someone else's control, it might just as easily impose bad standards on everyone. Friedman again: "Government can never duplicate the variety and diversity of individual action. At any moment in time... by imposing uniform standards in schooling, road construction or sanitation, central government could undoubtedly improve the level of performance in many local areas and perhaps even on the average of all communities. But in the process, government would replace progress by stagnation, it would substitute uniform mediocrity for the variety essential for that experimentation which can bring tomorrow's laggards above today's mean."
Posted by: clinteas | December 4, 2008 5:10 AM
Sigmund @ 18,
Good point,it never occurred to me that that might be a problem,it would be unthinkable anywhere else in the first world.
Maybe if you had uniform science standards,teachers could be forced to teach evolution,whether they like it or not? 12.5% of teachers creationists,man,what a disgrace.
Does anyone know a good book about the origin and rise of this shit in the US?
Posted by: G. Tingey | December 4, 2008 5:17 AM
# 17 the UK has something like national standards.
There is the core "National Curriculum" which MUST be taught. For most subjects, not just science.
Started to try to improve our educational-standards which were slipping badly.
Unfortuneatly, the whole thing has bee vitiated by the exams getting easier, so an "A"-level (High-School graduation exam equivalent at age 18) pass of "A" (grades A-to-E are passes) now, is equivalent to grades A-to-C of 40 years ago.
">The Royal Society of Chemistry did the tests and the guvmint is now trying to wriggle out of the findings.
AND
the BBC gave it LOTS of publicity
However, we DO have proper celebrations for 200 yrse x 12the February 1809 coming up in the form of a major public exhibition called Darwin's BIG idea
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2008 5:36 AM
Walton @19,
There're already many national standards*, would you argue these are a bad idea? Would it be very valuable if each county had its own weights and measures, for example? This argument applies to already existing standards (eg. FDA); note that as the number of stakeholders increases, changes for the worse become more difficult to enact.* Federal law is a "national law standard", for example.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 5:38 AM
Walton,
stop your nonsense with localized free-markets for Schools, it'd be a catastrophy.
There is a very simple reason why : parents, in order to choose a school, would look at performance indicators published by the schools. A school, in order to get good results, would just make the tests as easy as possible.
Which obviously corrupts the whole system.
Anybody with half a brain can see that you need national standardised tests in order to be able to benchmark schools.
I've already asked you this question, to which you refused to answer : how are parents supposed to judge the quality of a school if there are no national standardised tests to compare the results of its students ?
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2008 6:07 AM
G. Tingey @21, looks like the UK is ahead of the USA, anyway :)
BTW, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has interesting resources, particularly the online database for the most recent assessment in 2006.
Posted by: pieco | December 4, 2008 6:15 AM
Science always help to human for Investigation and experiment
Science is boon of world.
With Regards
http://look4leads.com/blogger/index.php?null
http://www.look4leads.com/
http://www.look4leads.com/forum/index.php
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2008 6:21 AM
Troll @25, thanks for giving me another site to block in my hosts file.
Idiot.
Posted by: Sigmund | December 4, 2008 6:31 AM
#20
"Maybe if you had uniform science standards,teachers could be forced to teach evolution,whether they like it or not?"
Only 2% of US science teachers currently avoid evolution completely. This means that the vast majority of even creationist teachers do teach about it.
The question is what they teach.
Look at the Discovery Institute.
Do they want teachers to ignore evolution?
Or do they want teachers to teach the Jonathan Wells version of evolution (that there are no transitional fossils and that the only evidence for the theory are discredited points such as the Piltdown skull or the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis of Ernst Haeckel.)
I suspect that most creationists would be perfectly happy teaching about evolution (and how it has so many 'flaws' and 'gaps'). I also suspect that they would be incapable of properly explaining the positive evidence for evolution (what possible standards could make a Caroline Crocker teach evolution in a way you would be satisfied to send your children to her class?).
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2008 6:52 AM
Sigmund,
I imagine that if textbooks used included required material from a standardised curriculum, and students were tested on that content, underperforming teachers would find it very difficult to evade their responsibility.Posted by: Richard Harris | December 4, 2008 6:53 AM
I thought it would be a good thing to have such standards, especially if it upsets the Cre*ti*nists. Non-US citizens are allowed to vote, but my vote just now was merely # 101.
This needs Pharyngulizing!
Posted by: Jack | December 4, 2008 6:57 AM
As someone who just started teaching, my take on it is that national standards probably wouldn't change much at all. Most states have some sort of "state" standards. If a teacher is ignoring those, he'll just ignore the national standards. Meanwhile I don't trust the federal government to maintain consistently good science standards. And please, don't let them near Social Studies standards.
Anyway, I wasn't going to get involved in the school debate but #23 was pretty insulting so I'll jump in for a little bit.
There are national standardised tests - the ACT and the SAT.
Furthermore, you would judge private schools like you judge colleges. Which classes do they offer? Some might offer a better program in Japanese or have a better band or something. Who has the best teacher? Campus? Who has the best reputation among colleges? How many of their graduates go to good colleges? etc.
Plus there would definitely be quite a few "consumer reports" type publications on schools. They would be accredited or given a seal of approval or given a grade. You don't need the government for that, it happens in quite a few markets already.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 7:20 AM
Jack,
So if you support national standardised tests, why don't support national science standards ?
And if you want my opinion, the ACT or the SAT are still more of a farce than anything else, try british "A levels" or French Baccalaureat for proper national standardised evaluations.
Posted by: KL | December 4, 2008 7:29 AM
As a long time teacher, there are several obstacles to good science teaching. Standardized, content based tests cover too much, so teachers must rip through the material, giving students too shallow an experience. There are few good standardized tools to assess science process, and process can't be taught as easily in large, very diverse classes with little equipment and 45 minute class periods. Many people who love science go on to be scientists, since teaching high school kinda interferes with being a scientist. Few schools provide real professional development opportunities that allow teachers to be scientists. (there are some, just not many and schools can't afford to send their teachers to them). Finally, our standards for elementary teachers are so incredibly low, many math and science phobics end up in primary classrooms, where science and math are given less time and attention.
These are generalities, but it explains why the most successful students come from magnet and science charter schools, large schools with AP programs, and non-fundamentalist religious and secular private schools, as they have found ways to overcome these problems. The average students often slip through the cracks, yielding a citizenry that is mostly science illiterate.
Posted by: BobC | December 4, 2008 7:48 AM
This is one of the reasons why I have so much contempt for Christians. Thousands of students never received a proper education in science because their teachers were creationist retards. All creationist teachers must be fired immediately. They must never be allowed to teach anything ever again. No matter what the subject is, idiots should not be allowed to teach it, and nobody is more idiotic and hopelessly stupid than a creationist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 7:58 AM
There's that rational response we're looking for.
Posted by: cyan | December 4, 2008 8:02 AM
#33 BobC,
What Constitution-legal test do you propose to filter out those teachers who are creationists? If such a test were legal, what is to prevent a creationist from lying in order to pass it?
With national standards in place, at least one could track whether or not a teacher were following them, regardless of their professed beliefs,
Posted by: 300baud | December 4, 2008 8:02 AM
Been reading a lot of Canadian news the last couple days, took me a few beats to figure out why there would be resistance to the idea.
Posted by: clinteas | December 4, 2008 8:03 AM
BobC,
mate,easy there,just easy....
I take it its early morning in the US,so you must be writing this while sober?
Even worse.
The last thing your country needs is a cleansing operation where teachers are filtered for their beliefs or religious denominations...Whats next,put a yellow star on them?
Just think your posts through every once in a while mate....
This is why i am fond of the idea of a national science standard,so even the creo teachers would be legally bound to teach certain topics,and if they dont,or dont make a big enough effort,good riddance,Im all for it.
Posted by: BobC | December 4, 2008 8:09 AM
#35 cyan, students could report any teacher suspected of being a creationist. Then a simple interview could easily determine whether or not the teacher believed a god fairy waved its magic wand to create people and other creatures. I feel very strongly these teachers should be publicly humiliated, fired, and permanently banned from teaching. It's not fair to students to be stuck with an idiot teacher.
Posted by: BobC | December 4, 2008 8:14 AM
I am suggesting teachers should be fired for being incompetent. That's the way it is in every other profession. If a person deserves to be fired, he or she should be fired. There should be no exceptions, especially not for the teaching profession.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 8:14 AM
Um, yeah that's a great idea.
Frankly I'd like to move away from any and all tactics like that. It's exactly that kind of talk that the creationists use to brand us all as wanting to send the religious to the camps.
No thanks.
Judge teachers on their ability to teach the subject matter.
Period.
Posted by: Baudi | December 4, 2008 8:16 AM
I voted and posted a widget in my facebook and myspace. It was very easy to do. If anyone has any questions just ask me. I can't think of anything more important than teaching proper science to American students.
Posted by: BobC | December 4, 2008 8:23 AM
It's fair to say creationist teachers are not qualified to teach evolution. It would be like having a math teacher who believes 2 + 2 = 5 teaching mathematics.
If I was a student I wouldn't want a creationist teacher in any class, for the simple reason creationists are insane uneducated hicks.
Try to imagine believing a god fairy poofed people into existence. That really requires a tremendous amount of stupidity. These idiots must be purged from our public schools.
Posted by: wombat | December 4, 2008 8:24 AM
The SAT and ACT are administered and created by private organizations. The SAT by the non-profit College Board and the ACT by the non-profit ACT, Inc. They have become standardized not through some direct government intervention but through their acceptance at virtually every institute of higher learning. Therefore they are not analogous to this discussion.
I wouldn't be so eager to push for national science standards from the federal government. It is far easier to poison one well than it is many. Perhaps there would be a placed for suggested standards. But mandating and enforcing standards is hard enough on a state level much less on the massive scale that would be necessary for a national law.
Posted by: Walton | December 4, 2008 8:26 AM
BobC, you are frighteningly insane.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 8:28 AM
You're now dangerously treading into calling for thought police.
A creationist can teach the standards. Unfortunately many of them chose not to, but that does not mean they can not.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 8:33 AM
King of Typos strikes again!
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 8:48 AM
BobC,
put a bit of water in your wine :
you wrote :
This is quite different from what you wrote next :
I don't really see how being a creationist would automatically mean that a teacher is incompetent to teach anything, be it English, French, Art, or Mathematics.
One of the best math teacher I ever had was one of the most creationist nutcase believer I ever met.
Posted by: Ibid | December 4, 2008 8:48 AM
I'm rather surprised to see that only two posters have addressed the fact that administrations change.
As long as you, I, or Obama are setting the standards you'll get properly considered and sound science lessons. But when Sarah Palin beats out Hillary Clinton in 2016 the standards would change to show that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side until Jesus came to Earth to kill the dinosaurs.
Posted by: Prof MTH | December 4, 2008 8:50 AM
I support revamping the entire educational system. They current system perpetuates inequality. For example, most districts fund schools by collecting property taxes at a district (sub-city) level. Some states supplement those funds with "sin taxes"--taxes on alcohol, etc.
Realizing that this funding system creates and perpetuates inequality, citizens of Texas sued the state claiming that this funding system violated the student's rights. They lost. I favor nationalizing education and funding it federally not locally and especially not at a sub-city level (districts). After all, all of Western Europe at least has a nationalized educational system and their K-12 schools far exceed ours.
When I bring this argument up with politicians some one invariably yells "that is communism" or "what about states rights". Well, it is not communism and the comment underscores your ignorance if not elitism. States rights by definition end at the state line; education transcends state lines. Look at what happened to schools after Katrina; students compete nationally and even internationally for placement in universities; people simply move.
Also, Western Europe has a nationalized standardized curriculum. Every Child Left Behind attempted to partially set nationalized standards and curriculum did not establish nationalized resources. Schools must first improve before they receive supplementary federal funds. School that decline are punished via funds withdrawn. Many schools declined after Katrina because of the influx of low socio-economic students who had been receiving a poorer education combined with stagnant funding.
If we are really committed to improving education and competing internationally we must revamp the entire K-12 educational system. We need to teach more math and science as well as humanities subjects; we must equalize per child funding, standardized curriculum, nationally standardized teacher qualifications which should include having at least a BA in the subject one teaches. Now a math teacher, in some school districts, is not required to have a degree or even a minor in Math in order to teach that subject.
If life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are truly inalienable rights then a quality education is a necessary means for enjoying equal opportunity and participation in liberty (self-determination) and pursuing happiness (well-being). "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Also, studies show that secularism increases with quality and degree of education.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 8:53 AM
Are you suggesting that national science standards would necessarily be set by the POTUS ?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 4, 2008 8:54 AM
Ibid, please get the delusion right. The peace loving, coconut eating Dinosaurs were killed off by humanities sins. Some of those beasties may have been very large but they were oh so sensitive.
Posted by: Ibid | December 4, 2008 9:01 AM
I'm rather surprised to see that only two posters have addressed the fact that administrations change.
As long as you, I, or Obama are setting the standards you'll get properly considered and sound science lessons. But when Sarah Palin beats out Hillary Clinton in 2016 the standards would change to show that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side until Jesus came to Earth to kill the dinosaurs.
Posted by: Prof MTH | December 4, 2008 9:03 AM
To address the issue of changing administrations, the education curriculum would be controlled by the Department of Education (which admittedly is subject to Presidential appointment) but in conjunction with the National Education Association. This type of system is already utilized in other fields. For example, The General Accounting Office publishes documents for Congress that are supposed to provide actual data related to a public policy issue. The GAO regularly outsources the research and writing to the private sector. The American Bar Association does a lot of research for the GAO.
Posted by: Ibid | December 4, 2008 9:03 AM
The POTUS would select the people that sets the standards, yes.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 9:07 AM
Ibid,
it wouldn't be either you, I or Obama who would set the National Science Standards, because none of these three person is competent to do this. Think !
Posted by: Sigmund | December 4, 2008 9:09 AM
It doesn't matter if a teacher is a creationist or if he or she accepts the theory of evolution, what matters is that they teach biology properly (for the most part maths, chemistry and physics are not a problem at high school level).
I suppose it's possible that they can simply follow a curriculum but I wonder how effectively they can teach specific topics if they personally believe the lesson plan is false. A science teacher should never teach things they believe are lies.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 9:09 AM
Who says so ?
Posted by: Rob | December 4, 2008 9:09 AM
NCLB has been a horrendous flop that has probably done more to hold back real education than anything else in recent history.
What makes people think that national science standards would be implemented any better?
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | December 4, 2008 9:11 AM
The current national educational debacle in progress -- no child left behind -- is an example of what we get with 'national standards'. As such, I'd be very careful about wishing for national education standards.
If it were my sisters (teachers, including science) and me (scientist) writing the standards, ok. How confident are you that we would be? Or that our version would remain the standard? Take a look at Kansas over the last decade before answering.
Remember, too, that nothing you put in a standards document will prevent bad teachers from being bad teachers. Nor from bad principals from keeping bad teachers. On the other hand, you can prevent good teachers from being good teachers. Much of what has been done, imnsho, over the last 20-30 years of 'tightening' state standards has been in that vein.
Good teachers don't just teach a raft of disconnected factoids. But factoids are cheap and easy to test. So (state and local) standards have driven towards more and more of them. They're now so numerous that it's hard to teach both enough factoids and do anything that would inspire any interest in or understanding of science. Bad teachers, on the other hand, like lists of things to memorize. How many people today think science is just a bunch of memorization? Remember that scibloggers and their readers are hardly a typical sample.
Before supporting national standards, I'd be thinking long and hard about how confident I was that they'd be good standards (vs. the climate section written by Exxon lobbyists, evolution by Pat Robertson, vaccination by Jenny McCarthy, ...), that they'd be supportive of good teaching, and that once in place, they would only improve over time.
Posted by: Prof MTH | December 4, 2008 9:30 AM
Grumbine:
Yes those are all problems but some of them are parasitic on the current funding system. As I said, we need to revamp the ENTIRE SYTEM. Every Child Left Behind did not revise anything.
And a nationalized system can be done, as I said, look at all of Western Europe (and even Eastern Europe). It is one thing to complain but another to offer solutions.
Posted by: KS Bioteacher | December 4, 2008 9:33 AM
I must have missed some critical part of this discussion??
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962
We've had national science education standards since 1996 with very explicit content standards on evolution--every state standards of any worth rely heavily on the national standards. These standards are one of our most effective tools when we fight the political battles for effective science education. I can assure that they were very important during both of the Kansas Science Standards crises. The biggest problem with the NSES is that they need iterative analysis and revision (just like science, itself) The path that led to these original standards was pretty bloody so there has not been any effort to revise the standards since they were published back in 1996. Check them out if you have time--for the most part they are pretty good.
Posted by: wombat | December 4, 2008 9:38 AM
"To address the issue of changing administrations, the education curriculum would be controlled by the Department of Education (which admittedly is subject to Presidential appointment) but in conjunction with the National Education Association."
No offense to you, but I really don't think you know what the NEA does. They are the national teacher's labor union whose purpose is to represent the interests of its membership. Indeed the NEA is the largest labor organization in the world. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but the interests of teachers do no always line up with the education of of their students. In addition to just being a bad idea, putting the NEA in charge or anything in a formal way would be outside the bounds what is allowable by law. They are an active lobbying organization.
The goal here is noble but the focus is in the wrong place. The best way to promote and improve science education is not through a top down bureaucracy but through a bottom up, grass roots approach. Give your support to non-profits like the NCSE. Keep your eyes of the state standards and watch your local school boards activities. It may seem frustrating to have to run around stamping out multiple little fires of educational ignorance. But it is far better than building a giant stack of dry wood and hoping it doesn't turn into a bonfire.
Posted by: JJR | December 4, 2008 9:49 AM
I just know it was an eye opening experience to read Peter Sacks' book STANDARDIZED MINDS, on the shortcomings of standardized tests. Standardized tests are not necessarily the same thing, nor even need to be a component of, National Science Standards.
Posted by: Prof MTH | December 4, 2008 9:52 AM
Yes I know the NEA is also a labor union, of sorts. It is not a labor union like the UAW. I have worked at the NEA in DC. I know it is also a lobbying organization. It does other work as well.
I also mentioned the Dept of Ed. We have a nationalized system already in place for universities. But universities are different from K-12. But maybe the NCSE is a better idea.
But keep in mind I am advocating an education revolution; we need to revise education funding as well as curriculum standards; revise teacher qualifications. In a university you cannot teach Math without having a degree in Math (a PhD or MA); why should we allow someone with a BA in education teach Math in K-12?
Yes, we need good teachers as well. That too can be taught/trained to some degree. My university hosts seminars for faculty. Georgetown University has a program (CNDLS) for PhD students, faculty, and teachers in the K-12 system.
Funding is not a local fire that can be stamped out.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 4, 2008 9:57 AM
Uh, what's "discovery learning"?
Posted by: wombat | December 4, 2008 10:20 AM
What is this "nationalized system already in place for universities"? System for what? All the universities I know of, with the exception of the service academies, are operated by State governments or private institutions. Their Presidents are chosen typically by the governor of the state. The federal government's involvement in state universities is usually limited to grant funds for both students and research initiatives. Their are some federal laws that directly affect them (such as Title IX) but on the whole, they are run by the state.
And thanks for the link KS Bioteacher. It seems like the National Academy of Science is on the case but I can imagine that they have been operating with some trepidation over the last 8 years due to having an administration that was pretty openly hostile to the sciences. Perhaps the new administration will provide the needed resources to update these standards. They could be a terrific resource for state boards of education to evaluate their standards and requirements. This is the proper way to go about this. The National Academies advise but does not make policy. That is the very thing that has made it so respected and affective.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 10:24 AM
The concept of a National Standardised Educational System pretty much exists in France since 1802, thanks to Napoleon Bonaparte.
The IGEN (Inspection générale de l'Éducation nationale) is the administrative body that writes the programmes and overseas the IEN (Inspection de l'Education Nationale), National Inspection Service of all public servants in the National Education System.
It consists of 160 very highly ranked civil servants in 14 discplines who are recruited amongst the best professors in the public schools and universities. Doctorate with research habilitation or Agrégation (a civil service highly competitive examination for post graduates) and 10 years of teaching are minimum requirements, and in France, these are also standardised national degrees which you can't get from a diploma mill.
Why would you want that any of these members include " humans and dinosaurs lived side by side until Jesus came to Earth to kill the dinosaurs" when our public educational system prohibits the recogntion of any religion ?
Posted by: Ibid | December 4, 2008 10:26 AM
negentropyeater,
Qualified? Who said anything about qualified? We had a horse show judge as the director of FEMA.
Sure we like to think that Obama would pick qualified people to set the standards. But you know Bush would have picked the head of the Minutemen or that guy on the bridge who screams at passing cars or someone like that to be the Secretary of Education. Palin would likely get someone like Ken Ham or Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 4, 2008 10:27 AM
Posted by: Prof MTH | December 4, 2008 10:34 AM
"The accreditation database is brought to you by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education. Each of the postsecondary educational institutions and programs contained within the database is, or was, accredited by an accrediting agency or state approval agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as a "reliable authority as to the quality of postsecondary education" within the meaning of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The database does not include a number of postsecondary educational institutions and programs that elect not to seek accreditation but nevertheless may provide a quality postsecondary education."
So technically this is not a pure national accrediting system as it is still left up to the states to some degree but mandated by federal law.
Further information:
U.S. Department of Education at www.ed.gov
Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) at www.chea.org
Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) at www.detc.org
Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association at http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org
Defense Activity for Nontraditional Education Support (DANTES) at www.voled.doded.mil
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 4, 2008 10:44 AM
It's also called constructivism, in which kids "discover" their own learning. In math, a constructivist approach might be to give children blocks, and then told to group them (say, into one set of 6 and one of 11), and then to come up with a way to find out how many there are in total. Typically, in small groups.
One way is to count the blocks. Another is to add the numbers. A third way is to estimate the values to 10 and 5, and then figure there are "about 15" blocks.
There are problems with this approach. First, when given tasks it tends to be easiest to pick the easiest approach, which leads to issues when kids are drawing 5 groups of six sticks each and then counting to get the answer to 6*5 in a complex problem.
Generally, the same people who favor constructivist math (aka, "fuzzy" math) also favor whole language. Most teachers probably have some skepticism about both approaches, and teach with an arbitrary mixture of the two.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Ibid,
why do you assume that it would necessarily be the POTUS who would appoint the people who set the national science standards ?
Posted by: Graculus | December 4, 2008 11:23 AM
some awesome squealing from the creationists
Am I the only one who flashedback to a scene from Deliverance?
Yes?
Erm, well, I'll just have some more coffee.
Posted by: Josh | December 4, 2008 12:02 PM
In a university you cannot teach Math without having a degree in Math (a PhD or MA); why should we allow someone with a BA in education teach Math in K-12?
An excellent point. I not only agree with it, I'll go further (and I'm sure this will be an unpopular comment): is a BS in physics enough education to teach physics at the K-12 level? Is a BS in biology enough to teach HS bio?
I've met enough K-12 science teachers in the last year who are teaching various principles of science incorrectly (e.g., if we successfully test theories long enough, they become laws), that I'm becoming skeptical that a BS is enough. In some ways I think teaching science at the secondary level is harder than teaching it in college, because it's so easy to get the nuances wrong. Science is subtle. Personally, I don't think you begin to "get" science until you start doing it, and there aren't that many people who do real science at the undergraduate level. Some do, sure; perhaps even "many." But how many of those end up as HS teachers...?
I've got a HS Earth Science text sitting here beside me as I write this comment--there's a lot in it that's just f-ing wrong (regarding both science principle and geological fact). I'd put money on it that if you had 100 people with geology BS degrees review this book, most of them simply don't know enough to be able to ferret out what's incorrect.
Am I applying too harsh a standard? Perhaps. I would absolutely agree that having every HS earth science teacher possess at least a BS in geology would be a dramatic improvement over the current dilema, but as long as we're dreaming...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 4, 2008 12:41 PM
CrypticLife @ # 71: Thanks for that explanation.
Most teachers probably have some skepticism about both approaches, and teach with an arbitrary mixture of the two.
And many of them probably come up with some good processes that reach m