…and this is a 
One of the big issues in science education is the topic of science standards: each state is supposed to have guidelines for the public school curriculum, which are intended to enforce some uniformity and also make sure that key subjects are covered. These standards are often accompanied by big political fights as the religious right tries, for instance, to get evolution (and sex education, and historical accuracy, and …) expunged from the curriculum. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes the good guys win.
An article in Evolution: Education and Outreach assesses the current state of state science standards, and one of the things they've done is grade each state on their support for evolutionary biology. A centerpiece of the article is this map of science standard scores…how is your state doing?
Minnesota is doing pretty good. We got dinged for weak coverage of cosmology, and also for the inclusion of some waffly language that was included to appease the creationist lobby. Those are productive suggestions that we can build on for the next round of standards revisions, in a few years. We had our recent infestation of creationist yuckiness (ahh, Cheri Yecke…we do not miss you at all), but we got better. We've also built a local advocacy group, Minnesota Citizens for Science Education, that is there to provide support and information in building better standards.
I can't help but gloat over our neighbor to the east: Wisconsin may have an excellent university system, but their politics have been poison to science education. That may change — they've now also got a Wisconsin Citizens for Science group, so maybe someone will be doing some effective lobbying in the future.
I think that's key: you need activists mobilized to work for improvement, good education doesn't just poof into existence. The other interesting cases on that map are Kansas and Florida: if you've been following this blog for a while, you know that those have been two hotspots for creationist inanity for some time now. So what's with the perfect As for those states? How can such hotbeds of creationism be scoring so well?
First thing you have to keep in mind is that state science standards just say what should be taught, not necessarily what is taught. States with great standards can still have many teachers who are doing a poor job and not meeting those standards; similarly, there are great teachers in those failing states that go above and beyond to teach evolution well. The standards merely represent what direction the educational authorities in that state want their schools to take. A state with an A standard is declaring that they are aiming high for their students; the F states have essentially announced that they are giving up and diving for the basement.
The other point is that these reflect recent changes: responsible citizens have been stirred up by the crazies infesting their school boards, and are working hard to improve matters. There is hope: there is a clear message being sent to teachers in those states that they must do better. They also have excellent citizen groups organized there — Kansans should join Kansas Citizens for Science, and in Florida, help Florida Citizens for Science.
As for Texas…hoo boy. Texas is a bad story all around. They have some great advocacy groups working there (Texas Citizens for Science and the Texas Freedom Network), but have deep problems. They have a political history of putting the very worst, most unqualified creationist dingleberries in charge — Don McElroy, for instance — which makes progress difficult, and I suspect there is a lot of external pressure on the state, as well. As one of the largest textbook markets, and with a centralized decision-making apparatus for selecting textbooks, they are a major target of all of the creationist organizations; they know that influence in Texas ripples out everywhere else. We can only hope it will turn around soon.
So look at your state. If your standards are good, don't be complacent: keep them that way, and also work locally to make sure your school districts actually implement them. If your state is shading into the dark grays…look for a state citizens for science group, or if you don't have one, create one. Write to your representatives and let them know what's going on; maybe send them a copy of the Mead and Mates paper and shame them a little bit.
Do something, though. It would be nice to see the United States get straight As someday.
Mead LS, Mates A (2009) Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up. Evolution: Education and Outreach 2(3): 359-371.
Education
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 1, 2009 3:42 PM
I must be doing mostly the right things, since Washington's got a pretty good grade.
I guess a few asses still need kicking, though.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 1, 2009 3:45 PM
A big thums up PZ!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 1, 2009 3:45 PM
Oh look, us dumb hicks in South Carolina got an A.
New York only get a C? Conn a D? Washington and OR B's?
At least the standards here are good. Who knows what's actually being taught.
I wonder where this thread will go?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 1, 2009 3:47 PM
I must be from WV..Big thumbs up PZ!
Posted by: spinetingler | September 1, 2009 3:48 PM
W00t! SC actually got an A in something good having to do with education!
Hmm, maybe they took into account the resignation of our home-schooling Sec of Education!
Posted by: Funnyguts | September 1, 2009 3:49 PM
Huh. Indiana got an A. How odd. I figured our standards for teaching evolution were kinda average. I guess either we're doing better than I thought, or everyone else is doing even worse.
Posted by: Thomas Joseph | September 1, 2009 3:51 PM
Interesting Mississippi gets a B. New York gets a C.
Posted by: MK | September 1, 2009 3:52 PM
Can not but be reminded of this vadlo cartoon!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 1, 2009 3:52 PM
Kansas gets an "A"??? Why does 'Family Guy' keep picking on them? ;>
Posted by: Laurie | September 1, 2009 3:54 PM
Huh. My state (New Hampshire) is interesting because it is one of three states to go from an "F" in 2000 to an "A" in 2009. I don't recall hearing anything about changes to the science curriculum. It could be a product of the influx of more liberal residents. Our state also turned "blue" in that time.
Posted by: RBH | September 1, 2009 3:55 PM
PZ wrote
And effective lobbying doesn't just poof into existence, either. It depends on developing sustained long-term relationships with decision-makers. It depends on making yourself a trustworthy advocate to them. It depends on being able to mobilize troops when necessary, including but not limited to college and university professors. It depends on being willing to sit in a school board meeting at the local or state level for hours waiting for the opportunity to make a two-minute statement that succinctly captures the issue for lay people on the board. It takes commitment, time, and effort. But it's worth doing.Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 1, 2009 3:57 PM
Hooray for the west coast! Especially California, my state!
I'm surprised at the New England area. I would think that they would be better and protecting the integrity of science education.
And PZ's right. Despite this, I can recount, from my personal experience, the failure to uphold the standards in certain high schools.
Posted by: Joel | September 1, 2009 3:58 PM
Again with the shameful Texas. Maybe after they secede, they can move the creationists here, and the rest of the country can get on with it. Maybe they'll take OK with them.
It's really sad that I choose to live here :-(
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 1, 2009 3:59 PM
The survey has to be flawed. Has to be. There is no way Florida deserves an A, despite the best efforts of Florida Citizens for Science.
Posted by: Aetre | September 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Speaking as a teacher in Maryland: the fact that Maryland gets a C and Washington, DC gets an A by NO MEANS indicates that students learn science better in DC schools. This may tell very plainly what the written standards are... But there's such a wide variation in how that actually gets taught in the different schools. In other words, there's a discrepency here between what is written and what is done.
Yes, it's important to get the right laws on the books. But the fact that DC schools get an A in anything says to me that this paper is being extraordinarily selective in the facts it looks at. (And extremely blind to the majority of factors that contribute to good public education.)
Posted by: NixNoctua
|
September 1, 2009 4:00 PM
NC got a B, and where I go to college got an A. WOOHOO!
Haha, West Virgina got an F. So many jokes...
Posted by: Kris | September 1, 2009 4:00 PM
I guess I should be happy I grew up in NJ. They really do cover evolution early and well. But, then again, I was one of those “Honors” (or is it “Gifted”?) students, and I'm not quite sure what my peers learned.
Posted by: Laurie | September 1, 2009 4:01 PM
Also, I am shocked that there are public schools, entire states full of schools, that don't teach human evolution. I guess I shouldn't be shocked - but, yeah.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 1, 2009 4:02 PM
I live in the Finger Lakes region of NY... you'd be surprised how right-wing christian this state is outside of the metropolitan areas... I can't tell you how many arguments I've had at local school board meetings over the "teach the controversy" bullshit... I never miss them now for that reason.
Posted by: Lance | September 1, 2009 4:03 PM
C'mon, Missouri. If we can't laugh at Kansas for teaching creatardism, we are left with only seeing Colorado from the MO-KS border. I want more than one jab!!
Posted by: jj | September 1, 2009 4:11 PM
w00t for CA! I can attest I got a very good science education in high school. Wasn't too long ago, so I assume it's the same. We had a very rigorous biology, chemistry and physics and Math class. One reason why I never truly understood the debate. My physics teacher was by far my favorite teacher ever. My HS is what made me become a Science major in college.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
September 1, 2009 4:12 PM
From Texas:
F is for "Fuck, that's some bad fucking science grades right there."
Nice, at least, to see former homes Illinois and New Mexico with a B and A, respectively. Sad to see former home Maine with a C.
Miles. Miles, I say . . . to go before we sleep, with apologies to Robert Frost.
Still, refreshing to see a report like this. The first step to fixing a problem is to elucidate that there is a problem.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: NixNoctua
|
September 1, 2009 4:12 PM
Really? Entire states? Well, I guess if it's human evolution. I can't even remember if I learned that in high school, TBH.
Posted by: m | September 1, 2009 4:16 PM
this is unrelated but i thought you might like seeing this:
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectId=5226822
A JAPANESE IVORY MODEL OF A BOAT WITH PASSENGERS BEING ATTACKED BY AN OCTOPUS
Posted by: Laurie | September 1, 2009 4:16 PM
Aetre,
The paper acknowledges the very point you are making, stating as follows in its introduction:
"Unfortunately, even if state science standards accurately reflect the central role of evolution in biology, there is no guarantee that evolution will be taught effectively. Moore (2009) noted that supposedly state science standards are the basis for what teachers teach and students learn and thereby establish the foundation for states’ desired education outcomes. However, Moore also found little correlation between good science standards, particularly with respect to evolution, and instruction in evolution by biology teachers."
So, yeah, I guess we "A" states shouldn't be too proud of ourselves.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 1, 2009 4:17 PM
@Laurie #18: Maybe it's all graded on a curve and we're all swirling down the toilet bowl.
Posted by: Akiko | September 1, 2009 4:17 PM
Laurie #18m
Many states do teach evolution but call it something else. "Changes Through Time" is one such cope out. My state teaches it but calls it a "Belief", "Just a Theory" or same "some people believe...". Some school districts have warning labels on biology books to let students know that evolution is not believed by everyone. I am hoping they also have stickers to warn students that sex causes pregnancy, some people are born gay, the pope is a Nazi and lots of people think the bible is bullshit. But for now, I am just a dreamer. Our local school district, which is the largest in the state, teaches "Morals" which is a thin veiled attempt at converting everyone to Christianity. Educational experts in our state are apalled by this but it is still happening. After reading the morals they teach, things like "Respect the Creator", I pulled my kids out to homeschool them. We started our world history lessons with the Big Bang not Christopher Columbus and the other Revolutionary War Fairy Tales like our local school district does.
Posted by: BeamStalk | September 1, 2009 4:23 PM
I am member of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE). It is an uphill battle here though. We tend to just copy whatever Texas does, at least it seems that way.
Anyone else here from Oklahoma that is not a member of the OESE, go sign up now.
http://www.oklascience.org/
Posted by: arachnophilia | September 1, 2009 4:24 PM
i am downright surprised that florida has an "A" on that map.
Posted by: Zach Miller | September 1, 2009 4:25 PM
My fair state, known for the science of Palintology, was unsurprisingly awarded a D. We've got a lot of backwoods Christian groups up here, which makes life difficult. Even our natural history museum is afraid to use the world "Evolution," which they call the "E-word."
*facepalm*
Posted by: Davianed | September 1, 2009 4:29 PM
I find the list of some of the A states to be the most interesting, and no surprises in the F states, to be entirely honest. The states that were F's was unsurprising to me, as they are places that I would expect to have strong fundamentalist roots causing problems.
South Carolina at an A and Mississippi at a B was a pleasant surprise to me. Moderately surprised, particularly over Mississippi's score, although I haven't paid a lot of attention to the political or school scene there, so I don't know if anything outrageous and unconstitutional has been slapped down around there recently.
Posted by: Deepsix | September 1, 2009 4:34 PM
Woot! Tennessee got a "D"! MUCH better than I expected.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
September 1, 2009 4:40 PM
It’s not going to happen anytime soon. Not as long as people think that scientists are stupid and preachers are smart.
Posted by: Brandon | September 1, 2009 4:46 PM
Florida most certainly does deserve its A. We fought very hard for it. Now we have to fight even harder to keep it. you can read all about our adventures defending our good, new set of state science standards here: http://www.flascience.org/project.html
Posted by: Fred The Hun | September 1, 2009 4:46 PM
m @24,
Attacked? Why the wise kindhearted octopus is just lending a little of it's jet propulsion to help propel the boat through rough seas so the passenger may arrive sooner and safely at their destination.
Humans are so strange...
Posted by: CatBallou
|
September 1, 2009 4:49 PM
m #24--
That's a beautiful carving, but I think Christie's is wrong to say that the octopus is "attacking." It's clearly just being friendly.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 1, 2009 4:49 PM
God, but those pushy, aggressive, loudmouth, militant New Atheist fundamentalists take the cake. Imagine, a museum afraid to use a word just because there's some small contingent of assholes that are so afraid of an evidence-backed concept that they'll terrorise any organisation for merely mentioning the word "evolu--wait, what? Evolution?
So, it's not the New Atheists blackmailing the museum? Have Mooney, Kirschenbaum, and Stein: the Justice Trio, been informed of this?
Posted by: Ashley | September 1, 2009 4:51 PM
Yay for PA!
Not surprised though, I was very satisfied with my education.
Posted by: chironex | September 1, 2009 4:51 PM
YEAH for my home state Pennsylvania! The science teachers aren't all so great, but at least we don't appease the creationists :)
Posted by: Jim | September 1, 2009 4:52 PM
Go Louisiana! From C to F in a few short years. Woo-hoo!
Posted by: moioci | September 1, 2009 4:52 PM
Unfortunately, it looks like alscience.org is kaput. Sadly emblematic of the fight in this F-rated state. Whatever resources are available here are spent fighting off the latest "academic freedom" bill instead of repealing the stupid disclaimer. We should get a Darwin Pledge bill introduced to shift the window in the proper direction.
Posted by: Tim H | September 1, 2009 4:53 PM
Just sent the link to my state rep. (I'm in Illinois.) She's on the education committee. It would be nice for the standards to get to an A. How well they teach it will be another battle, of course. Great post.
Posted by: Kristine | September 1, 2009 4:57 PM
So, is anyone actually doing research/surveying to see what is actually being taught?
(Did I just hear a "No"?)
It would be interesting to conduct the research (but a huge job).
Posted by: MadDruid | September 1, 2009 5:06 PM
North Carolina is listed as A/B??? I am shocked and pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | September 1, 2009 5:08 PM
Why is "Human Evolution" scored separately from "Biological Evolution" in this study? Do humans evolve differently than other things in biology? Seems like a pretty species-centric attitude to me?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 1, 2009 5:08 PM
I suppose the oft-quote phrase (from a notable scholar whose name escapes my mind) "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" could be parsed as a 'no'.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 1, 2009 5:08 PM
Being removed by 33 years from my high school graduation, I'm surprised how poorly CT fared and how well IN rated. During the mid 70's the findings of the report would have been flipped. It makes me wonder what caused the deterioration in CT?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 1, 2009 5:11 PM
The process isn't any different, but as far as I know humans are the only species to shit bricks when informed that the process exists.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 1, 2009 5:18 PM
Actually, Randy Moore has been assessing what is actually taught here in Minnesota -- evolution is mandated, but something like half the teachers don't do it. I think it was about a third that were also teaching creationism.
Posted by: IST | September 1, 2009 5:20 PM
NC might well be B for curriculum... I've read it and taught it... the question is how many of my colleagues are presenting it correctly, and giving it a fair amount of time. The state exam for HS is heavy on cell bio and DNA and really light on evolution and ecology.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 1, 2009 5:26 PM
It's important not to forget that scientists should begin at home. Most scientists I know are extremely ignorant of most science outside of their own field. Maybe not as ignorant as Billy Bloggs, but still not even close to a level that justifies getting cocky.
Posted by: MartyM | September 1, 2009 5:29 PM
I'm from Missouri, so I'm not surprised at our grade given the proximity to Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, and Tennessee and the fact that Missouri is also a RED state. However, current events not withstanding, I've been monitoring state education news for a while and have not seen much in the way of creationist attacks on science or history. Not that it's not an existing problem, nor a future problem, but it seems to have been pretty quiet around here. That may be due to how the state board of education is formed, and/or that the standards have not been up for review in the last few years as far as I know. But, obviously, I'd like to see a better grade for MO.
Posted by: Grook | September 1, 2009 5:30 PM
Hooray, New Hampshire!
I always thought that my high school education in evolution was good, if fairly basic. I even remember watching a video that refuted some common creationist claims, like "Its just a theory." I must say though, I wonder why we were so bad as to warrant an F in 2000.
Posted by: adobedragon | September 1, 2009 5:37 PM
New Mexico got an "A?" Really?
I went to college in New Mexico, including grad school where I taught undergraduate science labs. And I was less than impressed with the scientific literacy of New Mexico high school graduates.
Since I still live in the Land of Enchantment, I'm glad to see the "A," but I don't think the rating reflects what is actually taught.
Posted by: Govt. Bureaucrat | September 1, 2009 5:38 PM
Understand the the written standards are only one step in the process. An important one--but only one. In many states the standards are written so vaguely, or so poorly, that teachers are not really clear on what they are supposed to teach. In such states the assessments often become the de facto standards.
Push for really rigorous, high quality, science assessments in your state if you really want to drive education in the right direction.
Posted by: Tophe | September 1, 2009 5:39 PM
Interesting that TN received a grade of 'D', but that grade was based on K-8 curriculm according to Table 3 of the review. TN actually has a very good science curriculum that specifically addresses teaching the evidence supporting evolution.
http://www.state.tn.us/education/ci/sci/index.shtml
Posted by: Multicellular | September 1, 2009 5:39 PM
I live in Texas. Can't wait to get out of this F-ing state.
Posted by: Kris | September 1, 2009 5:43 PM
#45: Some schools teach that the process exists, but not that it applies to humans. Moreover, it's somewhat akin to teaching World History and US History. The former is more general, and the latter applies more directly to us, and is covered in a bit more depth. Aside from just being more directly applicable to our lives, it also connects us to the process and generally evokes more interest in the subject — which is probably the cornerstone of any good education.
Posted by: Melissa | September 1, 2009 5:45 PM
Aw Wisconsin got a D? That makes me sad. I'll have to see what a high school senior can do to change this.
Luckily, my science education experience has been good so far. I took AP Biology last year and had a wonderful teacher. She informed us on the first day that she didn't care what our religious views were; she was going to teach evolution, and if we didn't like it we should drop the class. I think I learned more in that class than my other 10 years of science combined.
Posted by: IST | September 1, 2009 5:45 PM
as has been pointed out above:
curriculum != what's actually taught, and more importantly having had creotard parents breathing down my neck:
taught!= learned , particularly with something that causes the finger-in-ears reaction in so many.
Posted by: Dayna | September 1, 2009 5:46 PM
My son's 7th grade science book, from Indiana, has a section in it entitled Natural Selection. Evolution is called evolution in the chaper and there is no mention of it being a belief or "just a theory".
Posted by: student teacher | September 1, 2009 5:46 PM
I'm an elementary level student teacher in Illinois and I'm amazed how my religious cooperating teacher can slant things while still being secular-ish in the classroom.
We were doing Venn diagrams of basic mammals vs. non-mammals in science when a student get confused about humans status. Breath-taking in it's own right from a beginning 4th grader, but my cooperating teacher responded that "...well we're not really animals..." then self corrected, but the message was there.
(sigh)It's going to be a long semester. While science isn't the cornerstone of my life, I will endeavor to at least not pollute basic science concepts with predicated bias.
Posted by: Gecko
|
September 1, 2009 5:47 PM
For my part, I'm in the science curriculum right now. That being said, Iowa deserves and A for effort the F for teachers.
Posted by: littlejohn | September 1, 2009 5:48 PM
Indiana got an A??? Good gawd, we're the stupidest people on Earth. Really. I mean, look at me! I'm 55 and I still eat my own boogers.
Posted by: Susan | September 1, 2009 5:51 PM
I amazed, Jersey has an A. So we have good standards but at 30,000/kid in the Abbot districts, we better.
Posted by: LtStorm | September 1, 2009 5:53 PM
I live in Mississippi.
The fact that it's apparently a beacon of scientific understanding in the Deep South is utterly horrifying.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 1, 2009 5:55 PM
This is accurate, even in some states where the standards language isn't terribly problematic.
In Ohio, evolution is fairly clear in the state standards, but the evolution of humans is avoided like the plague in the assessments. Additionally, there is active antagonism, at a certain stage of the test production process, toward assessing both evolution (in general) and the Big Bang.
Posted by: Jon Rodriguez | September 1, 2009 5:55 PM
I really appreciate calls to action like this. It may be a shameless plug for an association I work for, but the Science Teachers Association of Texas is doing a lot to promote proper science education in Texas.
I've helped get people to SBOE hearing meetings and prepare testimony for our executive committee members to combat the "strengths and weaknesses" language that was creeping in. I know there's a lot of national attention on the glaring problems that Texas has with science education.
If you're interested in getting involved, STAT could certainly use all the help we can get. Visit the website if you have a chance.
Posted by: Helena Handbag | September 1, 2009 5:56 PM
No way are we letting you Gophers overtake us Cheeseheads in high school science standards!
Thanks for the link to the new WI group--I just joined and will send it around.
Posted by: Steven mading | September 1, 2009 5:57 PM
Don't forget that the map seems to be scoring states based on how regulated and standardized their science curriculum is. That's not the same thing as how good it is. Standards don't always improve things - take the "No Child Left Behind" testing Bush foisted on us as an example. The best scenario is good standards that are adhered to. but the worst scenario is bad standards that are adhered to. Having no standards takes a middle-ground between those two. So to characterize it as "all the more standardized states are doing better than all the less standardized ones" doesn't really tell the whole story.
For example, I'd much rather have a biology teacher teaching a class all on his or her own adrift with no state standards than to have a biology teacher teaching a class with a state-mandated requirement to pretend that creationism is an equally valid theory to evolution, and an rule that one is reprimanded if one fails to put forth this pretend story.
Posted by: vhutchison | September 1, 2009 6:04 PM
The Oklahoma teaching standards ("PASS" - a link to the standards is on the OESE website at http://www.oklascience.org/ got an 'F' also on the last rating, due mainly to the fact that the word 'evolution' does not appear in the standards, likely due to political considerations. HOWEVER, evolutionary principles and mechanisms are required teaching throughout the PASS document.
In fact, we try to inform teachers that the Oklahoma standards do require the teaching of evolution as shown in the PASS documents and that should provide them the backbone to offset any complaints from students, parents, etc. In fact, OESE is a sponsor this coming week end of a workshop for teachers on the proper teaching of evolution.
Despite the ultra-conservative stance of the State in recent years and the prominence of several far right crazies (e.g., Rep. Sally Kern), we have been able to defeat creationist legislative bills for the past 10 years, unlike Texas, Louisiana, and a few other places.
We do know, however, that teachers in the State do not always cover evolution in science courses and some even teach out and out creationism. I am sure that this is true in many states. In fact, we are currently taking action to support a courageous parent who has complained about his child being taught creationist B.S. in a science course. Thanks to NCSE, AU and maybe OKlahoma ACLU for assistance!
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | September 1, 2009 6:06 PM
I'm having trouble understanding what Iowa is doing wrong. Getting beaten by Minnesota I can take, but not Florida and Kansas.
Posted by: Islander | September 1, 2009 6:11 PM
"They [Texas] have a political history of putting the very worst, most unqualified creationist dingleberries in charge — Don McElroy, for instance — which makes progress difficult."
All too true, and our all-star governor recently decided against a candidate for the chair of the Texas Board of Education because of resistance to his creationist views... and he chose a woman with the same exact views (6,000 year old earth and the whole package) instead. I doubt we'll ever have a governor that's not an old, white, Christian, good ol' boy millionaire.
PZ, I think "dingleberries" works very well here, because looking at the map, it appears that Texas is a cling-on that is annoying the rest of the country's ass, and I won't be shocked if they pinch us off for good.
Posted by: NixNoctua
|
September 1, 2009 6:11 PM
IST, if it makes you feel any better, my AP Biology course was the final thing that made me an atheist...so our state isn't too bad is it?
...
Although, my earth science teacher did refuse to teach the Big Bang. And he said that. Out loud. To the class. And nothing happened.
Posted by: Fizzy | September 1, 2009 6:12 PM
It's greatly distressing to see that Connecticut has declined so much in the last 9 years. Evidence for evolution, human included, was presented explicitly in "Earth Science", biology, and anatomy classes when I was in high school less than a decade ago.
Posted by: Roy Latham | September 1, 2009 6:15 PM
I wish every state had an A on teaching evolution, as surely it is important. But the whole evaluation seems to suppose that there is nothing but evolution, and that smacks of an obsession. Evaluation ought to be evenhanded over all aspects of science. I'd be happier if people understood, say, the need to back up wind and solar power systems and the cost implications of that than evolution. Crazy religious theories that don't cost anything are not as bad.
Posted by: KL | September 1, 2009 6:20 PM
My local county high school (in TN) teaches creation. Got that straight from the Biology teacher herself. Doesn't matter what the state standards are-they aren't always adhered to. My school (which is independent and religious) teaches evolution only in science. Has an excellent Geology course too!
Posted by: David Jensen | September 1, 2009 6:23 PM
As a Madisonian, I understand that this is challenging. If you send your kid to Madison West or a similar school, the lack of state standards doesn't matter. Unfortunately, we have places like Grantsburg that have decided that they ought to be able to 'Christianize' the curriculum and there is little the folks in Madison can do about it because the state doesn't have a lot of standards. It hadn't been considered a problem until relatively recently because Wisconsinites could always point to areas of excellence.
Right now, all of the education discussion in our state is about whether the Mayor of Milwaukee should be able to run the schools in Milwaukee. I agree with Mayor Barrett and Gov. Doyle that Milwaukee schools are doing badly and need to be fixed, but I don't see any evidence that Barrett has time to fix the schools given all of the problems he has in the rest of the city that he hasn't been able to fix yet.
I also strongly endorse Wisconsin Citizens for Science, enough so that I decided to volunteer to be the treasurer. We do accept donations at our POBox.
Posted by: Jack Krebs | September 1, 2009 6:23 PM
Thanks for the plug for Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS), PZ.
But Kansans should know that school board elections are next summer, and it won't take much to swing the balance back to the creationists. So if you're a Kansan, pay attention to your local elections next year, and get involved!
Thanks,
Jack Krebs
KCFS Board member
Posted by: KL | September 1, 2009 6:26 PM
Roy, the cost of crazy religious theories is insidious. If you allow schools to introduce the supernatural into science, it destroys the effort to promote science literacy. We don't teach flat-earth, or astrology, or magic because there are no religious groups demanding for us to do so. That is why teaching evolution is such a litmus test for good science education. You fail there, you fail period.
Posted by: freelunch | September 1, 2009 6:27 PM
I'd be happier if people understood, say, the need to back up wind and solar power systems and the cost implications of that than evolution.
Technology is a different issue. Teaching students about a particular technology is not nearly as fruitful as teaching them how to understand science and, indirectly, technology. Teaching complex items like evolution will be more useful in getting citizens to understand why certain technologies are better.
Posted by: ForgotMyGingko | September 1, 2009 6:28 PM
I'm a secular homeschooling mom. Here in the great state of Louisiana - the school system was not capable of keeping up with my highly capable kids. (My short bio: I'm a Forensic Psychologist)
But I've landed an interesting side-gig. I'm teaching SCIENCE at a local "homeschool supplemental academy" - attended by predominantly RELIGIOUS (and I mean the crazy fundie kind) group of students.
I was asked to teach because "we don't have anyone who can do what you do" - I guess that means "think critically". My classes start next Wednesday... My first major triumph was scrapping the "Exploring Creation through..." text books by Apologia.
We'll see how well the job is going after we cover pseudo-science and mythbusting in October!
Posted by: Greg | September 1, 2009 6:30 PM
Thanks, PZ. I will be contacting my state legislators about this.
Posted by: IST | September 1, 2009 6:34 PM
Nix> no, it isn't all that bad, it just depends on the faculty. I started out in Brunswick Co. and ended up in Wake... the difference is rather large.
Posted by: The Other Elwood | September 1, 2009 6:35 PM
Now compare the per capita income of the states receiving an "F." West Virginia ranks 49th, Louisiana is 47th, Alabama is 38th. It is almost like the poor states want to stay that way. Sabotage the education system and make sure the next generation does not have it any better than we did!
Posted by: freelunch | September 1, 2009 6:41 PM
ForgotMyGingko --
Good luck to you. Will you be blogging your adventures?
Posted by: Silva | September 1, 2009 6:44 PM
What have I done for science education? Why, two custom lab safety posters. It's better than nothing, and maybe the kids will be intrigued by the idea that science is accessible even to artists.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | September 1, 2009 6:48 PM
Kris (@#58) answered my question, "Why is "Human Evolution" scored separately from "Biological Evolution" in this study?" with, "Moreover, it's somewhat akin to teaching World History and US History."
So it *is* political! Or to continue your analogy, we are a bunch of speciesists the same way we are a bunch of nationalists.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 1, 2009 6:49 PM
Damn straight it's better than nothing. Those of us who care about defending science education against the forces of fucking evil are all on the same team. Everything that is done to help...helps.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | September 1, 2009 6:49 PM
I'm astonished that Arizona got a B, since it ranks last in the union overall for education spending, and has frequently been pilloried as the dumbest state in the union.
Posted by: Doug | September 1, 2009 6:57 PM
I live in Kansas, and the situation here is a bit different than what is often portrayed in the media. We have had two distinct attacks on the science standards, but in each case it was defeated by popular action, not by the courts or the state government. Most of the school board members who supported the degraded standards were resoundingly voted out of office. Kansas actually has three distinct political populations distributed through two parties. There are the Wingnuts, the sensible Republicans, and the Democrats. In both instances, the Dems and the sReps combined to get rid of the Wignuts on the school board. Unfortunately, the Wingnuts are a bit like cockroaches, you can step on them but they keep coming back. School board elections here are kind of low key, so most mainstream people don't vote in them. The Wingnuts do, however, and that's how they get there people elected. I am sure that this process has not ended, but I am equally sure that science standards will remain high in Kansas. I work with science teachers here, and I would characterize most of them as church-going sRepublicans who nevertheless accept and teach evolution, big bang cosmology, a 4.5 billion year old earth, etc. In fact, even when the standards were changed the first time, most teachers continued to teach evolution, even though it was no longer required by standards. I think they did this partly because they wanted to teach biology correctly, and partly because they knew that students would need it at the next level. So, even though the whole evolution flap gave the state a black eye in the popular mind, science education here has always been fairly good at the primary\secondary level.
And to answer an earlier question, Kansas get made fun of because it's easy to ridicule. It's a small, plain, rather uncool place, thus picking on Kansas is the equivalent to high school kids picking on the quiet, nerdy kids.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | September 1, 2009 6:57 PM
ForgotMyGingko:
Another inquiry/request re: Blog about your adventure!
Posted by: Sesoron | September 1, 2009 6:58 PM
I feel very lucky. I took high school biology in 1999-2000 in Ohio, at which time the standards (according to the previous assessment cited in the article) had earned an F -- but nevertheless I developed a fully adequate sense of what evolution was and, in broad strokes, how it works. At least, I learned enough to want to continue learning, which I did somewhat in college. I suppose the encouragement of my father, an engineer, in science in general was helpful to this end.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
September 1, 2009 6:58 PM
So it *is* political! Or to continue your analogy, we are a bunch of speciesists the same way we are a bunch of nationalists.
The word you're looking for is "anthropocentric." And yes, to our detriment, it is true...
Posted by: elty | September 1, 2009 7:07 PM
The Texas Legislature managed to pass a few new laws that our beloved [*snort*] governor Perry did not veto, including allowing internet broadcasts of meetings of the BOE! (Austin American Statesman article here.) Maybe it will discourage a little outright boondogglry if they feel like people are watching?
Posted by: Irenicus | September 1, 2009 7:09 PM
I had a creationist chemistry teacher, and I benefited enormously. Evolution was taught in my biology class, and I did all the required work and was a good student. Even still, I knew very, very little about evolution, and had no idea how to prove this creationist wrong. I was compelled to actually go and do some research. I read Dawkins, Gould and Darwin. I even acquainted myself with some basic geology so I could deflate his ridiculous claim that the continents were pulled apart by the Great Flood.
Overall I learned hugely more than I would if I had a normal, non-creationist science teacher. Not only in the way of knowledge, but also research skills and intellectual confidence.
Posted by: Jojo | September 1, 2009 7:20 PM
No surprise for PA's A. I would like to thank my bio teacher for her great job on teaching evolution. The road kill disections were cool too.
Posted by: SecularDad | September 1, 2009 7:37 PM
That's it, I'm joining Oklahoma for Excellence on Science Education. I've been meaning to for a while. Maybe we can do something about this before my kid makes it into highschool.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | September 1, 2009 7:39 PM
Well I must say I'm glad that the state I'm from (IL), and the two states I've been a resident of (AZ and MN), all have Bs. Sure those could be As, but it could be a lot worse than better. I'll definitely have to locate the AZ groups that are fightin' the good fight. No More Mr. Nice Guy! is correct though; *ANY* time the budget comes up in the state legislature, education gets another bullet in the leg. An professional acquaintance of mine has a wife who teaches biology (and who was a former practicing biologist) in the public school system here and he says she has a horror story every day she comes home. There was a big dust up over the most recent budget in which education lost yet again. Republicans here feel it's a badge of honor to defund education. It's a red state so they know they are unlikely to lose their seat if they do so openly. AZ is not turning blue quickly enough.
AZ may be a B at the moment, but the way funding is going they are working on becoming a D real fast.
Posted by: Alex | September 1, 2009 8:04 PM
I went to school in Utah, and it could have just been that I lived in a rural area, but my school at least deserved a grade WAY lower than a B. All of my high school biology teachers skipped the chapter on evolution (and made a production out of it, as in "we WON'T be studying evolution".
Posted by: Uerba | September 1, 2009 8:20 PM
New York with a "C"?! Oh, hell no! Well, time to start writing some letters, I guess...
Posted by: adagio | September 1, 2009 8:29 PM
There are some other American state organizations for science advocacy listed at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/state_organizations_for_scienc.php which might be of interest to some of you.
For those of you living outside the US, how does science advocacy vary in the regions of your countries? Do you have huge variance like the US?
Posted by: Akiko | September 1, 2009 8:29 PM
ForgotMyGinko #82
I think you will need a new job in a couple of weeks. No way those nuts want you to teach real science. Apologia is the biggest bunch of crap around. They have titles such as "Exploring Creation: Flying Creatures of the Fifth Day". I shit you not. Apologia is the best selling "science" texts for Fundie homeschoolers and it is full of baloney. Between the Waldorf nuts and the Fundies I dont know who is the looniest.
http://www.highschoolscience.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1
Posted by: freelunch | September 1, 2009 8:45 PM
Akiko,
Could you tell me about the Waldorf folks. I was under the impression that they were more Montessori-like, not actually confused on the concept of learning.
Posted by: Nique | September 1, 2009 8:51 PM
I suspect the outlook for Wisconsin would look a lot different if you could view things by county--there's a big difference in viewpoints/politics between South Eastern Wisconsin and... well. Everywhere else in the state.
Posted by: Sphinctoral Apparition | September 1, 2009 8:57 PM
Well crap my state actually got B. I wish i were in Texas. Looks like Mississippi has a lot of catching up to do with Texas and some others. Crap. Evolution sucks. I suppose I will have to move to Alabama when I have kids.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 9:04 PM
It's probably already here, but
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z0h_c9eH-8
Posted by: bobxxxx | September 1, 2009 9:13 PM
My god-soaked hick-infested state, Florida, got an A, a bit of an improvement from our previous F, thanks to our new science standards, and partly thanks to relentless ridicule of Christian retards who attacked our new standards.
Posted by: vhutchison | September 1, 2009 9:26 PM
Thanks Beanstalk (#28) and Secular Dad (#98) for your comments on Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE).
Those in Oklahoma who wish to keep up with science education in the state (and general news on the subject from other places)can sign up for the Oklahoma Evolution List Serve. I mangage the list and we now have over 700 subscribers. I have been told that this is more than any other evolution list serve in any other state or Canadian province. This is an indication that we do have interested and active advocates for good science in Oklahoma, but we are outnumbered!
Those in other areas can sign up for their state by accessing links on the NCSE and AIBS web sites. To subscribe to the OK list send an e-mail to okevol-on@okevol.talklist.com and enter subscribe in the body of the message and send. There is also a link on the OESE web site for subscription ( http://www.oklascience.org/ ). We need all the help we can get in this reddest of states!
Posted by: Badger3k | September 1, 2009 9:51 PM
"Sphintoral" @106 - you can only move to Alabama to have kids if you marry a sister or cousin. Otherwise, it's considered unnatual.
Akiko @103 - I think I saw that crap in the local religious "educational" bookstore where someone recommended I look for books on teaching for the TAKS test (state standard). Their homeschooling books made me want to wretch - bunch of ignorant drivel. The things they wanted to teach as "science"....makes me mad, makes me mean mad.
Posted by: Zen Druid | September 1, 2009 9:59 PM
It is my good fortune to have received my primary education in DoD-sponsored schools overseas [1960s era]. The collective student body was quite spoiled, in that DoD could pick and choose from a field of teachers that would give a precious part of their anatomy to have that sort of access to Europe, the Far East, etc. Plus, we had new textbooks and plenty lab equipment to go around.
The military community being essentially cosmopolitan, religions didn't have much of any impact back then, though I've heard some disturbing rumors of a parallel Dominionist hierarchy slowly developing across the military...Someone tell me I'm imagining things, please...?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 10:08 PM
And just for kicks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk7i_EPxTlY
Choreography well ahead of its time.
Posted by: James Brown | September 1, 2009 10:22 PM
I wouldn't get to excited about any of the scores.
The one that really jumps out is Utah. Now 1/2 that state is Mormon and the Mormons DO NOT BELIEVE in evolution. If you ask them if they believe they will jump and shout "YES WE DO" but they do not caveat it with "except for us humans - we didn't evolve".
So I'll take the other 49 with a large bolder of salt - thanks.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 10:26 PM
Control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EleKwkt_fU
Posted by: Douglas Watts | September 1, 2009 10:34 PM
Excellent post, PZ. And a massive guilt trip (which is its intent, of course).
As supplication and burnt offering, I have been working for the past two days on an essay-photoessay on the natural and cultural history of the Sebasticook River that is now posted here: http://tispaquin.blogspot.com/2009/08/sebasticook-is-now-atlantic-salmon.html
We can't all be teachers, but we can teach the teachers and teach the students.
Posted by: R. Schauer | September 1, 2009 10:39 PM
Reminder: with grades like these the US is something like 34th in the World in education...it may be wise to say to every State, rest not ye on thy laurels.
Posted by: adagio | September 1, 2009 10:59 PM
#115 Douglas - wonderful photoessay about the river restoration. Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: SkeptikSnarf | September 1, 2009 11:17 PM
born and raised in Indiana - A state
currently a student in New Mexico - A state
wow and Florida is an A state, good job
New York, C? WTF!
oh Texas my neighbor to the east. so many jokes, so many facepalms
Posted by: Greg | September 1, 2009 11:57 PM
Dr. Myers,
If Texas is the 363kg gorilla of the textbook world, what's to keep us from creating a 544kg gorilla elsewhere? California has 50% more population and an A grade on your science curriculum graphic. They don't appear to have nearly the buffoonery on their education boards. What would it take to make California the deal maker on textbooks?
Greg
Posted by: Ibis3 | September 2, 2009 12:31 AM
What strikes me (as an outsider) is the fact that you have to fight and form lobby groups to make sure that your (public!) schools educate with known facts, rather than indoctrinate with nonsense. The closest thing we have to a problem up here (as far as I know)is the Alberta government recently passing a law that parents must be informed ahead of time when things they might object to are going to be taught so they can pull their kids out of class (teachers or schools failing to comply can be brought up for a human rights violation). The provincial government insists that evolution, as accepted science, is not subject to this law. I imagine (hopefully) that this law will be struck down if anyone ever tries to apply it.
Posted by: Ibis3 | September 2, 2009 12:47 AM
Well, I just did a quick search, and there do seem to be some problems here in the past couple of years with creationist groups pushing to get evolution out of the schools, and some teachers are apparently caving (i.e. not mentioning it??). I doubt it's on a level with what goes on in schools to the south, but it's still something to be resisted when it does appear... I'm keeping my eyes open.
Posted by: Ibis3 | September 2, 2009 12:59 AM
This little blog post from last year talks about the place of evolution in the Ontario highschool curriculum. I think the fight we have is to make this unit mandatory (move it to an earlier grade) instead of elective. But overall I'm impressed with the content. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/evolution-in-ontario-schools.html Note that the call out box is from an article in a church newspaper that's criticising the schools for not teaching *enough* evolution. (that makes me smile).
Posted by: Dave Springer | September 2, 2009 1:18 AM
I got an idea. Why don't you guys prove what a wonderful thing it is to get a good grade on that map by correlating it with economic indicators.
Har har har
Posted by: Pascalle
|
September 2, 2009 1:24 AM
This is how the european union thinks about teaching Evolution
Resolution 1580.
1. The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.
More...
http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm
Posted by: Ronaldo | September 2, 2009 2:42 AM
I'm appalled that a post about education would use a sentence as grammatically abhorrent as "Minnesota is doing pretty good." It should say "Minnesota is doing pretty well."
Posted by: uncle frogy | September 2, 2009 3:22 AM
One of the things I have heard about not sure where might have even been here concerns text books and their high cost. I have seen for some time now that Texas has way too much influence on what text books get published and adapted throughout the country> They are a rather large market and the publishing market is difficult. I have heard that there are some schools that are beginning to allow the use of Digital copies there are still many details to iron out but as publishing in general is moving in that direction it is just a matter of time until it becomes commonplace. That would reduce the cost and the break even point on developing a textbook. There would be less a tendency to have to "dumb it down for the hicks" in order to make any money, would give a greater choice to all the schools which might be a good thing. either way it looks like that is the way it is going . might even be a significant cost reduction (maybe or maybe not)
Posted by: IST | September 2, 2009 6:58 AM
SkepticSnarf> Having grown up and attended school in NY, that irked me too... if you look it up though the reason appears to be that NY hasn't changed their science curricula since 1996. The treatment of evolution is, along with almost anything else in the Regent's standards, excellent... I suppose the evaluating body just decided that they couldn't be up to date?
Posted by: Ranson | September 2, 2009 8:01 AM
I'm sort of wondering what's changed in WV the last couple of years, too. It was only a year or three ago that the standards were changed to endorse evolution in no uncertain terms. The general science standards probably suck, though. I was just fortunate to be at a top school back in the day, I guess.
Posted by: Lorax | September 2, 2009 8:12 AM
@119
The problem is Texas buys its textbooks as a state not at the local level. So as a publisher you are comparing the entire state of Texas with a district in California. That's, at least, historically why Texas has had so much pull.
Sadly, what primarily seems to keep MN from an A is "Generally good, however, standards continue to contain passage originally intended to forestall creationist objections."
As a member of the committee that just worked on the revision, we were bound by law to keep a specific benchmark from the last standards (run by Yecki) in the standard that is likely the problem one. I know Eugenie Scott, Greg Laden, and others were not happy with this benchmark. Sadly, it can only be changed at the legislative level.
Posted by: John Atkeson | September 2, 2009 8:45 AM
Re: The Other Elwood, #85.
Yes, I'm really interested in any correlation between creationism and poorer regional income.
If this is the case, vested interests might finally get worried when creationism starts to drive down their local real estate prices.
As someone who has a kid and is buying a home, I can tell you that school district quality has a ridiculously huge effect on property values.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 2, 2009 9:00 AM
... grade each state on their support for evolutionary biology. ... We got dinged for weak coverage of cosmology...
Cosmology is now a subset of evo-bio (and not vice-versa)?
How can that be? As noted by Stein (2008), evolution by natural selection doesn't even explain gravity!
Posted by: Kristoff | September 2, 2009 9:10 AM
We re behind Mississippi and Georgia.
I wonder if that s actually due to a disinterested objective analysis or has anything to do with Ken Ham s bastion of pseudo-scientific nonsense in Petersburg.
Probably not the latter, but in either scenario, I weep for my state.
Posted by: BenW
|
September 2, 2009 9:51 AM
And my state is the lowest in the country.
There is a reason I am trying so hard to get a free thinkers group on my campus.
Posted by: BenW
|
September 2, 2009 9:55 AM
Ferrous Patella | September 1, 2009 5:08 PM
Why is "Human Evolution" scored separately from "Biological Evolution" in this study? Do humans evolve differently than other things in biology? Seems like a pretty species-centric attitude to me?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because some places teach there is evolution but not for humans.
Posted by: BeamStalk | September 2, 2009 9:57 AM
Thanks Vic (#109), your hard work does not go unnoticed.
I knew I forgot something, the Oklahoma Evolution List Serve. It is a great source that helps keep Oklahomans up to date with what is going on locally and nationally. Definitely sign up for this service as well. Vic does a wonderful job getting this information out to everyone on the list serve. Including which representatives to contact about specific situations.
Posted by: Parrotlover77 | September 2, 2009 10:04 AM
I can't believe South Carolina scored higher than my beloved North Carolina! And SC got an "A" to boot! Holy crap I need to do something about this...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 2, 2009 10:41 AM
Zen Druid @ # 111: ... disturbing rumors of a parallel Dominionist hierarchy slowly developing across the military...Someone tell me I'm imagining things, please...?
Yeah, you're imagining that military secularism is not going all to hell.
Probably the best place to keep up to date with the fundie infiltration at all ranks is the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (aka Not Camp Happy).
Updates on the hyperchristian assault on the entire US (yes folks, there's a lot not covered at Pharyngula) can be found at Talk2Action (pls note - criticisms of religion per se are unwelcome in their comment sections, so there's a lot here that's missing there).
Posted by: momkat | September 2, 2009 10:59 AM
As an lifelong Alabamian, we like to say "thank
god for Mississippi" when it comes to rankings. Sister, you're makin' us look bad! What's up with that?
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 2, 2009 11:19 AM
I would have to argue that the rankings and map display of states and their grades in science education are misleading. For example, my current state of resident, Arizona, has earned a "B" based on their standards. But you could have the greatest standards in the world, if you don't put any money towards education you're simply whistling in the dark. Arizona has been in the bottom 5 in education funding for at least a decade. Science teachers in Arizona may have the blueprints for a luxury car but they have the parts for a '72 Pinto. On the other hand my former state of residence, Wisconsin, earned a "D based on their standards but they've been top 10 in education funding (and achievement) for more than a decade. They might only have the plans for a Gremlin they've been producing Camrys for years.
Dramatic improvement is necessary in both states, in the one, funding, in the other, leadership and established standards. I would not be surprised if a large number of states are in the same situation.
Posted by: jbw | September 2, 2009 12:45 PM
I had the opportunity to review a draft of the new Colorado Academic Science Standards and was favorably impressed. The two sentences that I was please to see were:
Students must be able to distinguish fact from opinion and truth from fantasy.
Evolution is the unifying theory of biology, connecting seemingly random and disparate observations about living organisms.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/UAS/DRAFTS/Science_Public_Draft_5.1.09.pdf
Posted by: Jouda Mann | September 2, 2009 1:29 PM
What I'd like to know is how the hell Kansas, which passed a bill almost excluding evolution from being taught this year, gets a higher grade than Texas, which has a fair chance of influencing national school books?
Posted by: Dylan | September 2, 2009 3:19 PM
Ok you sharp ass skeptics...
Riddle me this.
Is this guy satire or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICgjhPZiAeo
Im completely torn.
Are any YEC's actually THIS stupid?
Or this man amazing a satire?
Posted by: Steve Dutch | September 2, 2009 4:30 PM
Wisconsin's D shows there are much worse threats to education than creationism. It's not a state with a powerful creationist movement, but it is obsessed with nit-picking regulation. Thus we have a requirement that students be taught about Mildred Harnack, a native of Milwaukee who was executed by the Gestapo in 1943. Because somehow the other 8432 Wisconsin service members killed were less dead, maybe. But we can't have a strong evolution requirement.
Wisconsin likes to take pride in its Progressive roots, but Bob LaFolette has been dead for over 80 years. Wisconsin is actually a very reactionary state, run by a coalition of rural conservatives unwilling to spend money on anything beyond the county line and flower children gone to seed from the urban areas.
To see the difference, compare the geological surveys of the two states. Minnesota's is far more active than Wisconsin's, because Wisconsin is paralyzed with fear that somebody might want to mine something. A large ore body at Crandon in the north was discovered in the 1970's but was never developed because the lunatic fringe owned the debate on developing it from day one.
The most anti-intellectual governor we've had since I came here was ueber-liberal Anthony Earl in the '80's. University faculty had been battered by the double digit inflation of the 70's, but Earl actually believed they would go on loyally supporting him, well, because he was liberal, and that's what college faculty do. When the anger reached the boiling point, Earl hinted darkly that the pay raises might have to come at the cost of closing campuses. Because it's "elitist" to pay professionals well. The one person who did most for me as a professor was Ronald Reagan, by reining in inflation.
Posted by: Jacksonskepticalsociety | September 2, 2009 6:55 PM
Finally, Mississippi gets a wee bit of recognition for all the hard work the rational types have been pumping into this terror-mobile.
We shot down a textbook warning this year, last year it was an "academic freedom" shit-fire, and the year before that it was a "teach the controversy" kerfluffle that never made it out of committee. When I asked someone about why these things don't seem to make it out of committee (they're all sponsored by the same guy, an insurance salesman) the best response I got was "we can't afford new textbooks, lawsuits, or teachers."
Poverty FTW!
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | September 2, 2009 10:25 PM
I live in the Finger Lakes region of NY... you'd be surprised how right-wing christian this state is outside of the metropolitan areas...
Upstate NY is totally red-- that's how we managed to have a Republican state government for damned near 40 years. I live in the Albany area and the amount of religious kooks running around here is simply astounding. I'm actually kind of surprised we managed to pull off a C grade.
Posted by: Mike | September 3, 2009 3:54 AM
Let's not forget that evolution is also an important part of the history class. As a former Florida High School history teacher, I must give props to the standard writers for including human evolution and early pre-historic human history in the curriculum. I always got support from administration, most of my colleagues, and never once a complaint from parents for having taught their kids that human history starts with the evolution of all life.
Posted by: Walton | September 3, 2009 7:39 AM
m @#24:
And people accuse me of going wildly off-topic...
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 3, 2009 7:42 AM
Off-topic?
(Brandishes cephalopod)
This is PHARYNGULA!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2009 8:15 AM
The difference is Walton, you go off topic and then stay there spouting your big L wank fantasies ON NEARLY EVERY THREAD whether it is related or not.
You seem to think that your selfish Utopian dream world applies to everything. It doesn't.
This example of going off topic is nothing compared to the repetitive bullshit you spout all the time.
Posted by: meg | September 3, 2009 4:12 PM
well tell Ed Brayton & Rob Pennock, who run the Michigan Citizens for Science, that a blog that is updated twice a year doesn't get read. You'd think Ed would know that. And now when I look at their website, access is forbidden, maybe they gave up on it altogether?
Posted by: MEG | September 3, 2009 10:47 PM
MK # 8
I understand it is a cartoon but that map is not good representation of red/blue states.
Posted by: blah | September 4, 2009 2:44 PM
evolution is the biggest piece of fark that has ever managed to be forced on an unsuspecting populace ever.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 4, 2009 2:50 PM
And yet you cannot seem to produce good evidence against it. Yawn.
Posted by: Laura Ruble | September 5, 2009 9:24 PM
Yay! North Carolina... let's keep it up!
Posted by: Erica | September 6, 2009 8:47 PM
WTF? is there a New York Citizens for Science?
@#19 no kidding. I'm in the Finger Lakes region too. My dad is one of those sort. Fortunately for me he didn't acquire this particular insanity until after I started college, and previous to that I attended California public shools. :P
Posted by: Erica | September 6, 2009 8:50 PM
Heh. Got such a good education I can't even type 'schools' :)
Posted by: Josh
|
September 6, 2009 8:50 PM
Fixed...
Posted by: Paul Lang | September 6, 2009 11:35 PM
laugh all you want about LA, Bobby Jindal will be ALL OF YOUR problem soon enough.