1. Comment #76342 by mjwemdee on October 5, 2007 at 3:08 pm

This is unbelievable

Other Comments by mjwemdee

2. Comment #76344 by Vinelectric on October 5, 2007 at 3:12 pm

some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally

Rubbish. The school curricula are there to be adhered to and the teachers don't have the option not to conform to them.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

3. Comment #76347 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm

If teachers are afraid of teaching something because students might not want to hear it, they really should find another job.

This is a non subject created by someone with a book to sell.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

4. Comment #76353 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 3:29 pm

evolution is in the national curriculum and it has to be covered by law. Of all the subjects in the science curriculum evolution is possibly one of the worst taught, unless one is really sure about the concepts involved it would be very easy to get confused (teacher) and to pass on that confusion (student). Personally, if creationsm were brought up i'd simply say that its a religious belief and is to be discussed in religious education class which is also part of the UK education system. Unfortunately i can forsee problems in schools with muslim parents wanting their children pulled out of classes with evolution, i'd like to be wrong on that of course

Other Comments by phasmagigas

5. Comment #76357 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm

they can't be pulled from science classes, only sex education.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

6. Comment #76359 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm

they can't be pulled from science classes

so would that constitute an illegal action (not allowing kids into science lessons)?

Other Comments by phasmagigas

7. Comment #76365 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:51 pm

You just can't do it, the only way you could stop your kids oing to science lessons would be to stop them going to school. Which is illegal, unless you taught them at home which is legal as long as you teach the curriculum I think.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

8. Comment #76366 by kaiserkriss on October 5, 2007 at 3:55 pm

"The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families."

So now children are educated by the lowest common denominator principle?? Is it any surprise the level of scientific understanding in the population as a whole is decreasing when we lower our standards to the lowest common denominator of the population. A classic case of dumbing down.. Pity.. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

9. Comment #76368 by SilentMike on October 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm

It seems that islam is becoming a bigger problem all the time. not just from the terrorist angle but also on internal policy issues. In europe especially. There should seriously be some sort of war waged on this crazyness (not the kind where you use cannons obviously). Put the pressure on them till they crack down the middle and begin reforming themselves into oblivion.

Other Comments by SilentMike

10. Comment #76386 by mmurray on October 5, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Aren't their some crackpot `faith' schools you can send your kids to in the UK that teach intelligent design ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

11. Comment #76390 by Matt7895 on October 5, 2007 at 5:19 pm

"one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation stories - whether they are based on the Bible or the Koran."

I feel sick reading that. This is the UK we're talking about, not America. Evolution is a commonly accepted view of how life exists, there are no areas that ban its teaching.

"The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families."

That explains it then. It doesn't surprise me in that sense, as a third of British Muslims advocate terrorism.

Other Comments by Matt7895

12. Comment #76393 by PrimeNumbers on October 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm

If a kid brings up Creationism, they need to be asked for scientific evidence of their Creator and it's doings. If they mention the Bible, this needs to be shot down in that the Bible is not evidence for anything. Then creationism can be shot down similarly - lack of evidence.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

13. Comment #76394 by Robert Maynard on October 5, 2007 at 5:33 pm

I'm sorry, the teachers have to be replaced.
These classrooms are literally where the future is forged, and you cannot afford to not teach them this stuff.

There must be a way to gently assist kids in considering a dramatic shift in worldview. I'm probably not the best person to speculate how, though, because my childhood had such light religious instruction (weak sauce scripture classes). I did the obligatory model of the solar system in grade school, and became enthralled with dinosaurs as being specifically from a pre-human era, so very early on I was receptive to an old-earth paradigm (this made the significance of events in Jurassic Park all the more appreciable when it came out :P). One could snarkily suggest that I've been indoctrinated in scientific instruction, that I'm a "Scientist child", but they'd have to give me some credit for taking the claims of creationism against science seriously enough to critically study them.

It's a position frequently espoused by fundamentalist christians, but we can't afford to ignore the so-called "Islamification" of European democracies, as illustrated in this article and elsewhere. It just so happens that the solution is not more Christians, but less watery secularists, like these teachers.

PrimeNumbers

If they mention the Bible, this needs to be shot down in that the Bible is not evidence for anything.

Science classes have to find a way to help students get down to the core processes of their learning - teaching the scientific method and critical thinking and so on, before they introduce thorny issues. Discussing dubious claims is one thing, but you're not going to get many confident, moderate, happy science students by "shooting down" conflicting opinions. That's just another kind of dogmatism.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

14. Comment #76404 by automath on October 5, 2007 at 6:06 pm

"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others,"

What a pile of shit!
By approaching religion in such a relativist way in the first place is what led to one apparently having to respect all beliefs equally! What utter bloody rubbish. You'd think some of these people have never really lived. I tolerate a belief in creationism but I'll never be able to respect it and in part that comes from what it does to innocent children, our society as a whole and the future of our search for knowledge.

Other Comments by automath

15. Comment #76408 by automath on October 5, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Hey Robert Maynard you haven't been in a typical science classroom in the UK have you. You'd be lucky to get them to pay attention in the first place.

Actually it is not a teachers job to undo religious indoctrination (you'd probably end up being sacked these days), even if they could. Most university students lack critical thinking skills, how would you teach an 9 or 10 year old such skills?

And no, showing other beliefs to be inferior and bloody stupid in context is not dogmatism. It's called approaching knowledge in a honest way. It would seem that, this idea of respect for all beliefs is much more corrosive than darwins dangerous idea.

Other Comments by automath

16. Comment #76411 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 6:36 pm

the notion that ID/creationism should be included atall in science may not be a good idea even if it was used as a way to explore critical thinking and the scientific method in general.

as we know its the most pathetically contentious issue available. if it was used nationwide as a way to discuss science and darwinism there would almost certainly be minor incidents involving religious pupils. It also can create the wrong impression of an actual 'controversy'. The teachers would have to fully ground themselves with information/argument in both sides of the 'debate' (which could get heated) which is totally unacceptable considering the broad scope that teachers have to deal with on a minute by minute basis anyway:discipline, continual assessement, having the correct information, oh and the actual teaching bit....

Other Comments by phasmagigas

17. Comment #76415 by automath on October 5, 2007 at 6:54 pm

3. by fides_et_ratio

If teachers are afraid of teaching something because students might not want to hear it, they really should find another job.

They shouldn't be placed in this position in the first place. They need firm objective support from the school they are at and a government that doesn't kowtow to every so-called religious sentiment going.

7. by fides_et_ratio

You just can't do it, the only way you could stop your kids oing to science lessons would be to stop them going to school. Which is illegal, unless you taught them at home which is legal as long as you teach the curriculum I think.

There isn't an need outside of state schools to teach the national curriculum, therefore home schooled children do not have to learn about evolution or anything else a parent doesn't want to teach them. There is also no legal binding on parents to send children to school as long as they insure some form of education in line with their age and abilities.

Other Comments by automath

18. Comment #76417 by Robert Maynard on October 5, 2007 at 7:02 pm

automath,
No, I haven't been in a UK classroom, but you're talking about them (and the attitudes of students) as though they're immutable conditions. How do you believe the situation can be changed if you automatically assume that kids in science class will never pay attention?

Showing other beliefs to be inferior and bloody stupid in context is not dogmatism

You're misrepresenting my remarks. "Shooting down" does not describe an act of "showing", or "demonstrating". It is dogmatism to simply assert things without adequately exploring why such claims can be confidently made. Religious beliefs are reasoned beliefs, flowing from deeply flawed premises. If you simply dismiss the beliefs without systematically targeting the foundations, you're not going to convince or inspire anyone, you're going to anger and alienate them. Scientific arguments have good premises - it is criminal to simply assert them over the top of other assertions.

Besides this, I have not advocated respect for religious beliefs, here or anywhere else.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

19. Comment #76420 by Bonzai on October 5, 2007 at 7:35 pm

My highschool biology was taught by a born again Christian. Evolution was on the syllabus so she had to cover it. But she made it clear that she didn't believe it and that Jesus Christ was her personal savor before even started. She then "covered it" by just reading the book word for word in class and refused to answer any question. In this way she "taught" the evolution portion of the course in maybe two or three hours. She used the same "teaching method" in sex ed. The only good thing I can say about her is that at least she didn't try to promote creationist literature.

Besides evolution and ecology, most of the topics in the biology syllabus were pretty boring and a lot of time was spent on taxonomy and nomenclature. As a result I slept through most of the classes and got the impression that biology was all about rote memorization. I was so glad that as a physics and math major I didn't have to do any biology in university. It wasn't until much later that I got interested again by reading Dawkin's "the blind watch maker" I wish I have read it much earlier.

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #76429 by discipline on October 5, 2007 at 8:16 pm

kaiserkriss: "So now children are educated by the lowest common denominator principle??"

You really should visit the US some day, where LCD is a national value, along with Jesus and the almighty dollar. (I'm American, BTW.)

Prof Reiss estimates that one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation stories

Here in the US, it's six in 10. You must hold your ground, my British brethren! If you can't, there's no hope...

Other Comments by discipline

21. Comment #76436 by Strappado on October 5, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Why do I suddenly wish to become a teacher?

Other Comments by Strappado

22. Comment #76439 by BullShifter on October 5, 2007 at 10:35 pm

In a state school, I can't see what the problem is; at worst the parents would complain?? It's the Principal's job to deal with that.

I recently resigned from a Catholic School (so please excuse any deranged ravings - I am still in recovery), which receives part of its funding - both buildings and wages - from our government(s). I can tell you now, they definitely DO intimidate teachers into steering a nice path around evolution to keep in touch with the Old Testament. That is not fear of the students/parents, that is fear of the sack. So I don't quite get the point of the article (therefore, I agree with fides_et_ratio).

Oh, and BTW, did you know, girls and boys, that when it is dark at your home, God is on the other side of the world making it light so that the boys and girls there can go and play?

B-)

Other Comments by BullShifter

23. Comment #76447 by irate_atheist on October 5, 2007 at 11:19 pm

What we're dealing with here, is a complete lack of respect for the law.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

24. Comment #76457 by technogogo on October 6, 2007 at 12:02 am

Kind of related, because it mentions attitudes in science, check out this publication from the muslim council of britain:

http://www.mcb.org.uk/downloads/Schoolinfoguidancev2.pdf

The document describes how schools can be made more suitable for muslim pupils. Warning, you may get increasingly annoyed as you work your way through the pages.

Other Comments by technogogo

25. Comment #76461 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 12:20 am

SWMBO is a member of the QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) and picked this up last week when it was mentioned on the radio.

She is down at a meeting next week and intends to raise this. Needless to say she is not for making any accommodations to the religious of any denomination.

Incidentally, have a look on www.teachernet.gov.uk for information on teaching evolution. It is a Word document (spit) and posting the long link to it is more than I can manage.

Other Comments by epeeist

26. Comment #76468 by irate_atheist on October 6, 2007 at 12:32 am

technogogo -

Are we supposed to respect these people? Anyone who genuinely believes and follows these guidelines must, quite simply, be insane. How anybody could be stupid enough to believe it is beyond my comprehension. That billions do, makes me weep. Reason save us from these lunatics.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

27. Comment #76475 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 1:06 am

There are 150 state funded Islamic schools, in the 'pipeline', in the UK.

Other Comments by Nick Good

28. Comment #76490 by mr-zero on October 6, 2007 at 1:52 am

This is a complete non-story. There is a science curriculum which must be followed. Evolution is in the curriculum therefore will be taught.
The department for education has already said that ID/creationism should not be taught in science lessons. I know of no science teachers who are not teaching evolution when required.
Is Michael Reiss selling a book perhaps?
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

29. Comment #76516 by dvespertilio on October 6, 2007 at 3:33 am

We're getting a lot of stuff in the media on this side of the pond about "the islamification" of Europe. My attitude is, hey, if you want to advocate terrorism and you don't want to assimilate to western values of science, reason, democracy, etc, LEAVE! In fact, people who consistently advocate extreme views on matters like terrorism should be deported to their countries of origin. And if they are native-born, they should be told, in no uncertain terms, to cease and desist. Maybe there needs to be a program to deincentivize such views. "OK, you can advocate crazy views like creationism, ID, etc, but we don't have to hire you or consider you for jobs, etc." Yeah, I know, this would probably be considered a violation of basic human rights and suddenly we are acting like fascists and fundamentalists, the very people we are trying to oppose. But I am beginning to feel a little like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens on these issues. If we stand around saying, "Oh, we're so tolerant and understanding, why don't we all hug one another and live in peace and love?" we're going to find ourselves in societies where reason, democratic principles and toleration for ALL forms of diversity have gone out the window. And about this democracy thing...with continued immigration and high birth rates, what do you do when a muslim MAJORITY votes in sharia law, etc in places like the UK or France? Religious fundamentalists of that ilk may win solely on the basis of demographic trends.

I am working on certification as a biology teacher here in the US. I don't think UK students are a whole lot different than American students. The overwhelming majority of these students are not interested in science, have no concept of the scientific method or how to apply it in their lives, etc. Why should they? It isn't being taught, schools look and are run like prisons, and the parents are largely even more abysmally ignorant than their offspring. Hey, this is America, we have GOP (Republican) candidates running for president who not only don't believe in evolution, they're PROUD of it! This country has a long history of extolling all that is anti intellectual, anti scientific, etc. So where does this leave us? Look around, America. Many of your doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc are foreign born, and the numbers of these are increasing all the time. If we wish to keep any kind of technological/business advantage over the rest of the world, we have no choice but to allow increased immigration for these people,as our own children, born and raised here, are increasingly not interested in science, and not sufficiently disciplined to pursue it. Science is HARD WORK! Very few individuals have the intellectual skills and drive to become,say, a Dr Craig Venter, or someone like that. I see it right here in my own household and in my own community. My daughter and her friends talk about being scientists, in my daughter's case, a zoologist. But the kids are getting piss poor science education generally, they are not being taught the PROCESS of the scientific method or how to apply it, nor is it being impressed upon them that this requires DISCIPLINE and HARD WORK. The world is not a computer game w/ instant gratification. A good part of the problem is that we live in a society that tolerates every kind of fuzzy thinking and touchy, feely, huggy I'm OK and you're OK,too do goodism. We send the message that anything and everything is OK, that mediocrity, stupidity and banality are OK, and to be accepted or even ENCOURAGED, on par w/ excellence, intelligence and outstanding achievement. Too many kids get too much positive feedback for performing at levels that should be considered basement level achievement, but treated as if they were all Nobel prize laureates. Well, folks, life is hard, and people are all very different. And some few people ARE more intelligent, more driven and more skilled than the rest of us. Wake up, America, and the rest of the developed world, before it's too late and you find yourselves buried by fanatics who will probably use western derived technologies to do it (witness al Quaeda's search for nuclear bombs and bioterrorist weapons, and their extensive use of the internet) If we don't stop acting like imbeciles, get off of our increasingly fat asses and face the cold, hard realities of the world in which we live, we're all DOOMED!

Just a few thoughts on education.....hey, what do I know, anyway? HA HA!

Other Comments by dvespertilio

30. Comment #76531 by rokort on October 6, 2007 at 5:38 am

It's sort of off-topic, but i wanted to share this, for what it's worth: yesterday the Council_of_Europe accepted a resolution that creationism shouldn't be taught in Science class in school because 'creationism can be a threat to Human Rights'. It called upon all 47 member states to constrain from teaching creationism.

Resolution here
Background on it here

Unfortunately it's nothing more than an advice...


EDIT: sorry, can't get a proper link to the resolution working
EDIT2: yes i can!

Other Comments by rokort

31. Comment #76545 by bitbutter on October 6, 2007 at 7:09 am

and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others

What does this even mean? Of course we should respect others but the views of others never deserve respect.

Other Comments by bitbutter

32. Comment #76551 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 8:04 am

Comment #76531 by rokort

It's sort of off-topic, but i wanted to share this, for what it's worth: yesterday the Council_of_Europe accepted a resolution that creationism shouldn't be taught in Science class

It is completely on topic.

Thanks for the links, I have passed them on to SWMBO to take to her QCA meeting next week,

Other Comments by epeeist

33. Comment #76576 by mero on October 6, 2007 at 10:53 am

dvespertilio : But the kids are getting piss poor science education generally, they are not being taught the PROCESS of the scientific method or how to apply it, nor is it being impressed upon them that this requires DISCIPLINE and HARD WORK.

Good rant. I am a recent college grad (B.S. in biology) and for our senior year it was a requirement to complete and present an independent research project. Going into it, I was scared shitless about being asked to do this - but afterwards, the experience made SUCH a big difference in what I can do now. I have total respect for the method and it reinforced my drive to do research for the rest of my life. Of course, other students felt it was such a huge bother and did crappy side projects with a professor - and got nothing out of it.

They were given hard work to do - and not many benefited from it. It isn't just the schools - but the overall upbringing and drive of the individual.

Other Comments by mero

34. Comment #76660 by kaiserkriss on October 6, 2007 at 3:50 pm

discipline: I know what you mean, actually, I live in Canada and have visited the US quite often. "Jesus land" is quite remarkable in many ways, it surprises me, given the amount of conformity to NOT think outside the box, such progress has been made in the past. I hate the LCD principle with an absolute passion. As semi intelligent animals we should strive to better ourselves by at least recognizing the fallacy of the LCD principle.

I'm reminded of a poster I saw 20 years ago "How am I supposed to soar with Eagles when these Turkeys are dragging me down", and believe you me, there are way to many Turkeys in the world. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

35. Comment #76726 by PsyPro on October 6, 2007 at 11:28 pm

I may be alone on this, but I see both the original article and most of the posts here as over-the-top reactions. I have yet to see any students pay more than exam-time lip-service to anything ``taught'' in high-schools (or the UK equivalent). And a good thing, too.

As a university professor, I pride myself in professing, as is my job-title. I tell my students what I think, and why I do so; they are free, indeed, encouraged, to do the same, but in the same fashion I offered my opinions: give me the argument. In their essays, I cross-out any statement that is predicated on ``I believe'', ``I think'', etc., and tell my students that I really do not care one wit for what they think, or believe, or ..., except as their arguments compel me to do so. After a few weeks of this (I use weekly essays), the cheap tactics (``I think...'') disappear and real, argued thought appears. There are many really smart students out there, who just need a nudge to realise how to express themselves, and to realise how what they were doing previously wasn't argument at all. It is a cheap, Wittgenstein-like victory, I admit, but a victory nonetheless.

I also admit, it doesn't do wonders for teaching evaluations (inevitably bimodal; but one hopes the higher mode accumulates the greater frequency). But, it does allow one to entertain *anything* in a classroom setting, and avoids the unfortunate deontology inherent in the original article and almost all the posts.

Other Comments by PsyPro

36. Comment #76729 by Veronique on October 7, 2007 at 12:06 am

35. Comment #76726 by PsyPro

Haha. Nice one Prof:-). Is your discipline psychology?

Don't be too judgmental about this site. It's a free-for-all rather than a set of considered essays with referenced material:-).

I think our concern has to do with the ridiculous notion of teaching the threadbare 'creationism' and its tuxedoed bastard cousin 'ID' in science classes rather than where it belongs (if at all) in RE.

I have seen a number of this type of article and visit the threads rarely these days. Having said that, I appreciate your comment here.

You are doing a commendable job by ruling out the 'I think' and 'I believe' arguments. However the teaching of critical thinking would stop those arguments in their tracks if only it were taught to students at high school.

That's what is worth putting in any spare time you may have available.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

37. Comment #76733 by PsyPro on October 7, 2007 at 12:29 am

Thank you Veronique. I was worried my message would be lost in my often oblique verbiage.

I do not know what to do about high-school education. I have lobbied to have it removed; indeed, I have advocated that non-university education should cease at grade 6 (Canadian system---age 11-12 years). Then, at age 18, all interested individuals could join the universities. What happens between age 11-12 and 18 could be very interesting...

Other Comments by PsyPro

38. Comment #76739 by Veronique on October 7, 2007 at 12:49 am

37. Comment #76733 by PsyPro

Hey Prof., you haven't answered my initial question. And, unfortunately, I don't know enough about the Canadian system of education from kindergarten through to high school leaving age and educational standards.

Are those who finish high school granted access to University depending on their grades and availability of faculty placements? What sort of choice do University entrants have in their choice of study regimes?

You will have to inform me.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

39. Comment #76755 by BullShifter on October 7, 2007 at 5:26 am

The issue again moves into law/policy problem, where again, the teacher is the (expendible) meat in the sandwich. dvespertilio has run down the line of exasperation at the blurring of the notions of "tolerance" and "integrity", whereby standards are compromised. Itseems to me to have been another case of confusion of terms. We have laws against Racial Vilification, so there is a line. I think, though, that dv's vitriol regarding "poor feedback" relates a lot to this thread I think - we have an increasingly over-regulated teaching environment that appears to be aimed at improving "accountability" in order to develop teacher "incentive" (eg. Merit Pay), whereby the entire purpose of "education" is lost. I am a primary teacher (elementary school in the US??), and I am being driven nuts by the accountability side of things - the idea that I can get the "curriculum" presented is naïve; the issue becomes not so much what the theoretical possibilities are, but the reality of being in a classroom - so you have to decide what to keep and what to leave out - and the stressful stuff gets left out. If you booted out all of the teachers who were making concessions based on the pressures from their constituencies, well, do I need to point out the "teacher shortage crisis" that is sweeping the (western) world? So, I can only assume that the man has been misquoted regarding respecting the views of others, and that he was meant to be saying something like "Let us not use the ad hominim approach". And what I like about his idea in the context of a High School (where the one teacher does not work in a range of Learning Areas) is that it opens the door for the Science teacher to bring the tools and knowledge of science to bear on those terribly deficient, yet (apparently) tantalysing notions, and to have the time to do so. Our learned friend PsyPro tells of his attempts to weave Crticial Thinking into the ordinary thoughts of his students; we are all (???) aware of the need for learning to occur where meaning can be made by the students - if we thence move forth into true "contextual learning" (ie practically situated, not theorised from a book and posters), so the *decision* is brought forth - "Do I believe in this premise/hypothesis or not, and why?" (Education derives from the Latin 'educare' - to bring forth) The science teacher is there to provide whatever informational resources, as well as reasoned opinion, they can. It is then for the students to decide for themselves. But the key point is that they are deciding, they know what they are deciding about, and there is no proselytiser hanging about to confuse the issue with deceits (eg. Summa Theologica) to trap the unwary or inexperienced (as might more likely occur in a Religious Education setting). So often, it seems to me, that Science is delivered as if we all really get off on memorising the periodic table, or love noting down the radii of orbit of electrons around an atom or whatever - if that is the entirity of the science lesson, that is a lesson wasted. That is certainly not "the poetry of reality". So give the man his due - he sounds like he is really mindful of the daily hassle for teachers, and wants to be able to allow them the opportunity to allow the students to flesh out this basic set of ideas (scientific truth and evolution) without losing the opportunity to discover the flaws in the stuff that can't keep up (eg ID). And all couched in terms that can't possibly be objected to in the current climate of confusion over the term "tolerance". Beautiful!

p.s. And for automath, you teach 10 year olds thinking skills by teaching them. That's the special skill teachers have - because, as we all know, we can't do anything else (Those who can, do; those who can't, teach).

Other Comments by BullShifter

40. Comment #76890 by kaiserkriss on October 7, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Slightly off topic, but still to do with education: I happened to notice Richard Dawkins is to receive the Deschner Prize in Frankfurt, Germany next Friday.

One of the contributors to the event is Prof. Michael Schmidt-Salomon who is currently releasing a delightful children's book, albeit in German, freely translated as "Where is the way to God asked the little piglet?"

According to the press release, this book for young and old breaks the even greater tabu of Dawkins (religion as delusional systems)by informing children of such. http://www.schmidt-salomon.de/homepage.htm

I hope this book is translated into every conceivable language and becomes a best seller, just as the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm.

Congratulations RD you are also making waves in the non English speaking parts of the world!!! jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

41. Comment #76922 by automath on October 7, 2007 at 7:03 pm

I think this article shows the level of ignorance that science and it's teaching are up against in the UK.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2184632,00.html

-o-o-o-o-

There are a lot of interesting opinions on here, but I do find them, and even my quickly penned points, to be missing the bigger picture.

I'm also finding it rather worrying that instead of trying to oppose creeping religious indoctrination. People are instead having a go at teachers and either wanting them removed or suggesting they leave. How is that going to solve anything? These teachers need support, not criticism for having the odds stacked against them.

PsyPro

Thankfully. I find that not all pupils take on such an attitude to learning.

BullShifter

Professor Michael Reiss is also an Anglican Priest, who has written a book for science teachers on how to address creationism in science lessons. There appears to be elements of the Discovery Institutes Wedge strategy in this thinking. It gives some credence to the myth that creationism is a valid theory.

I'm not convinced that his quote regarding an equal respect for all beliefs is anything but sincere. It is a very typical Anglican stance at this present time. One that is usually used to devastating effect when advancing ones opinion.

I share some of your concerns around the curriculum, and the pressure is just as intense at the secondary level. With an average of 35 children (lets not mistake these for students at a university) time constraints on achieving delivery of the curriculum in a satisfactory manner to all is to put it mildly a tough challenge.

I also share your fear that science can become mechanised in its delivery, a throw back to times when that little quote might have held more sway. Myself I had a ex-Professor of Physics that couldn't teach to save his life. I was lucky/self motivated enough to attain an 'O' level but I was one of three out of a class of about thirty that did.

On another note, just look at how science has been undermined at the primary level, maybe this is one reason for more believing in creationism up to the age of 11! I'm not shifting blame but it is an area that needs to be revisited. Science as just another 'way of knowing' is not going to help future generations, as I do think it is probably the most important 'way of knowing' we have at our disposal.

Other Comments by automath

42. Comment #76928 by Veronique on October 7, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Hey BullShifter

Could I ask you please to paragraph your comments? That one of yours is just so difficult to read:-)

And you too please dvespertilio?

Take pity on me and others of my age with old eyes.

Thanks in advance:-)
V

Other Comments by Veronique

43. Comment #76948 by Eric Blair on October 7, 2007 at 11:38 pm

I find it hard to get too hung up about the teaching of one subject, even it is evolutionary biology. But then I never took biology or evolution in high school but still managed to pick up its main points later (not in science but in history and philosophy).

As long as science is taught consistently well and students are taught the scientific method somewhere along the way the smarter ones will see that religious-based ideas just don't measure up. If religious kids are raising Creationism in science class, it's an opportunity to discuss this head-on -- in another, more appropriate class. The science teacher should be able to say, "Well, Billy, in this class we're learning about evolution. But you will have a chance to talk about your ideas about how the world began in your XYZ class next week."

I'm sure there are all kinds of limitations and problems in UK state schools across the curriculum and grade levels, just as in Canada. But teachers need support/resources to deal with controversy and diversity in the classroom without just saying that everyone's views are equally valid.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

44. Comment #76951 by Veronique on October 8, 2007 at 12:01 am

21. Comment #76436 by Strappado

Because it is so important, silly:-). So many teachers are trained to teach to a curriculum. Over the years the topics within a curriculum (say, Science) have grown in number to such an extent that teachers barely have time to cover these increased topics, let alone in much depth.

The other problem (well, it used to be, someone can correct me) is that teachers now coming into teaching institutions to gain qualifications have been subject themselves to poor education curricula standards. This started, at least, in this country in the 1960s.

To my mind, this is an ongoing, virtually 'dumbing down' problem. It may be not so much a deliberate thing but is happening because modern education tries to cover so much in the way of teaching students facts, that it has lost the capacity to teach students how to think for themselves.

In the late 1500s, Michel de Montaigne wrote a wonderful essay called On Educating Children where he expressly advises against filling children's heads with facts. He argues that the tutor should find out what interests the child and focus on that (or those) thing(s) by teasing out how the child learns.

Of course he was talking about one tutor and one child. We are not in the same position now. I wonder, however, what we see education as these days. Often, I think it is merely a baby-sitting exercise and, at best, employment fodder training.

I can understand a lot of dvespertilio's frustration and exasperation. I too think that the standards have reduced by sending out poor messages in grading so that everyone 'passes' and that mediocrity is to be rewarded.

See, I did read your comment (oh! My eyes:-). Unfortunately the 60s and 70s peace, love and brown rice movement has quite a bit to answer for (in my view). Sorry:-).

I am interested in how you are taught to teach in the US, maybe you can tell me.

34. Comment #76660 by kaiserkriss

I heard that saying differently. Keep flying like an Eagle. Don't let the Turkeys get you down. Subtle difference, isn't there:-)? One's a plea, the other is a positive.

PsyPro The Russian educational system used to (not sure about now) finish high school at age 18 and not admit students to Uni until they were 19 (or was it 20). It reduced the first year drop out rate markedly. I thought it was smart.

39. Comment #76755 by BullShifter

Our Federal Government is trying to set a federal educational standard and curriculum and the teacher 'incentive' pay system has been mooted. I think it a bad move and hope it doesn't happen here.

See, I read your comment as well:-).

Thunder and lightening has arrived in my neck of the woods. Must go.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

45. Comment #76973 by rationalteacher on October 8, 2007 at 1:59 am

I teach science in a large high school in London. We have 25% muslim students. You would be surprised how willing to engage in debate the vast majority are, when challenged really quite strongly (as I tend to do!) about their negation of evolutionary theory.

Many, many students have borrowed books such as The Blind Watchmaker. I get a sense of yearning for something better in many of these children, a sense of wanting a more rational explanation for things. They are of course hamstrung by their upbringing, but it is not quite so bleak a view as some would have.

However, it is a problem that faith-heads are allowed to teach science at all. There really should be some kind of test to weed these people out of our beloved profession. Anyone out there fancy a career change and the chance to change the world? Train as a teacher - it is the most wonderful job.

Other Comments by rationalteacher

46. Comment #76977 by Veronique on October 8, 2007 at 2:27 am

45. Comment #76973 by rationalteacher

I am so pleased to read your comment!!

You have no idea how pleased I actually am:-)

You give me hope and a smile:-)
V

Other Comments by Veronique

47. Comment #76989 by dvespertilio on October 8, 2007 at 3:39 am

Comment #76951 by Veronique on October 8, 2007 at 12:01 am I am interested in how you are taught to teach in the US, maybe you can tell me.

Sorry, Veronique, about my rambling paragraph style. I'll try to do better at that in the future.

Well, as far as how I am being taught, this is how it works. I am becoming a science teacher under a plan set up as part of our No Child Left Behind law (you know, the one that C Hitchens lampooned as "No child's behind left" HA HA)

Anyway, this law created an entity known as ABCTE, the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence. This past Friday I took and passed my subject competency test in Biology, grades 6 through 12.

The next step involves the PKT test (sounds somehow medical, doesn't it?) That's the Professional Knowledge of Teaching test which is part multiple choice and part essay. I am just beginning to study for this, and frankly am a little daunted by the prospects. I have been given rubrics to review for the essay portion which I have not yet taken the time to review, but it will probably take me several more months to prepare for this as I have only limited classroom experience to date and virtually no theoretical background courses in pedagogy.

In Florida where I live the process is supposed to work like this: after obtaining certification on the subject and PKT exams, and having survived a background check and check of academic credentials (my college transcripts for my BA degree), I am to apply to local school principals for positions. If hired, I am supposed to be mentored for two years (not sure exactly what that will involve, appears to be a highly subjective process basically up to the principal and teacher mentor and differing from school district to school district). After the two year probationary mentoring, the state is supposed to grant me a permanent teaching license which must be kept current w/ regular educational updates, etc. That's my understanding of the teachers' education process in which I'm involved.

Hope that sheds a little more light on things.

You see, despite having a federal Department of Education, and fifty state versions of the same, education is still largely a local phenomenon here. The state departments of education are all scrambling on this accountability thing, trying to come up w/ comprehensive testing measures that demonstrate that the students have learned ( or are learning) the essentials as they progress through the system from 1st grade through senior year high school (grade 12). In Florida the tests for this are called FCATs, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests. Each state has its own version of these, and its own process for implementing, assessing, revising, etc, these. So it's a very complicated educational situation here in the USA.

At the immediate local level, there is the local (in my case, county)school district. There is a School Board of elected officials and a hired Superintendent of Schools. All of this is highly political. Currently, here in Duval County, Florida, we have concerns about reorganizing the school district into smaller, subdistricts and the Superintendent is feuding w/ the Board over this. Additionally, a huge chunk of the money for the education budget here comes, as it does everywhere in Florida, from property taxes. The state legislature recently passed a proposal to dramatically cut property taxes, a move which would adversely impact many local services, i.e., police, EMT, fire and educational services. They were originally looking for a $19 million shortfall on the educational budget for next academic year. But there was supposed to be a referendum on the matter, and a judge struck that down on the grounds that the ballot version of the property tax reform was too confusing. Hence, we are now about to have the state legislature revisit the entire issue. That means, at this point, the school districts, like the county and municipal authorities, don't know exactly what funding they will have available from property taxes next year, so all the budgets are up in the air. Politics and money, again.

On the classroom level, we have armed police officers in the schools, we have had mutiple instances of weapons and violence in local schools and the environment is not always friendly, even in the supposedly better "A" and "B" grade schools (they grade them based on their overall FCAT performances). As a substitute in the past, a few years back, I have had students attempt to physically challenge me in the classroom ( I am not easily intimidated, for you see I worked for a number of years in adult and adolescent, inpatient psychiatry, and I've pretty much seen everything. Also worked for a while in various situtations as a pharmacy tech and patient relations advocate in a major hospital trauma center, so I've seen my share of gunshot wounds, blunt trauma to the head and body, etc., am not easily cowed by anything.)

Teaching in this district is also relatively low paying, considering the level of competence and responsibilities expected. Entry level positions start around $32K, which is not a whole lot of money when a typically middle class house here cost say, $250K, and a family of four needs a monthly income of $4-5K just to survive, never mind college funds, vacations, etc. The US is NOT a country with a highly developed social welfare system. I am currently self employed, doing odd jobs, etc. May be working in a supermarket at $8.00/hour in the near future, to make ends meet until I can finish this teaching "reeducation" process. This is one of the wonders of our "global", so-called "free market economy" (yeah, I know, it really isn't a "free market economy", I'm not an economics major, so sue me!! HA HA!)

According to the prevailing wisdom of most of my neighbors here, I'm pretty much on my own and it's my responsibility to "pull myself up by the bootstraps". After all, it's my fault that I didn't get a useful degree back when, thirty odd years ago (I'm 53 years old). I was also crippled by a rc background that left me feeling guilty about myself and searching for an illusory and apparently non existent god. I have only recently, in the past few years, freed myself from that twisted and distorted upbringing. I am, in my middle years, taking a hard look at myself and the situation in which I find myself (which is economically hardpressed and quite strapped), and trying to come up w/ a realistic and pragmatic vocational alternative. I figure I'll very probably live another 30 odd years, will have to work until I'm at least 70 years old. Teaching looks like an honourable profession, if I can survive the politics of the school district and daily rigours of the classroom. We shall see.....

Other Comments by dvespertilio

48. Comment #76998 by phasmagigas on October 8, 2007 at 5:54 am

psypro:

I may be alone on this, but I see both the original article and most of the posts here as over-the-top reactions. I have yet to see any students pay more than exam-time lip-service to anything ``taught'' in high-schools (or the UK equivalent). And a good thing, too.

you are right that kids will pay but lip service to stuff taught at school (save for those who are genuinely interested) but thats part of the point, why would a teacher even need to bring notions of creation into a lesson when it immediately brings out contention, it aims the focus too strongly on darwinism being at odds with their beliefs (and that is not good from their point of wiew), if you have a class of 80% muslim children it will raise a disproportionate amount of interest in the subject and they could well side with the creationist view on the whole no matter how well informad the debate becomes. it could well sow a seed of anti evolutionary belief within many who would otherwise have never even thought of it. There is a presence of muslim children in the UK who are fully ready to play the religion card in schools in order to get attention and undermine the teachers 'authority'. Evidence, ive been there and seen it having been schooled in a north of england town with a large islamic community.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

49. Comment #77001 by phasmagigas on October 8, 2007 at 6:06 am

rational teacher:

I teach science in a large high school in London. We have 25% muslim students. You would be surprised how willing to engage in debate the vast majority are, when challenged really quite strongly (as I tend to do!) about their negation of evolutionary theory.

Many, many students have borrowed books such as The Blind Watchmaker. I get a sense of yearning for something better in many of these children, a sense of wanting a more rational explanation for things. They are of course hamstrung by their upbringing, but it is not quite so bleak a view as some would have.

However, it is a problem that faith-heads are allowed to teach science at all. There really should be some kind of test to weed these people out of our beloved profession. Anyone out there fancy a career change and the chance to change the world? Train as a teacher - it is the most wonderful job.

interesting. of all subjects in science this is one that can grab attention, hopefully for the right reason, in my post i suggested that some islamic children will see evo in a negative light under scrutiny from their beliefs. the problem is that i wonder how many teachers (even biol specialists) really understand the basic evo principles enough to engage a really good debate, intelligent kids could throw challenging questions at a teacher which if not answered well could undermine what the teacher is trying to convey. an interesting tactic would be to ignore creation in the classroom even if brought up but the teacher could of course ask the pupils that if they really want to discuss the issues that they could do it after school as its interesting but not part of science lessons. the less formal structure and genuinely interested pupils could result in a far more productive outcome.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

50. Comment #77304 by BullShifter on October 9, 2007 at 2:13 am

Okay V, I will try to use paragraphs. Never been my strong point, since I don't pause to breathe, but here goes…

I take it from what you are saying, automath, that you are yourself a teacher; perhaps at a high school? We could bang on for ages about it all, but that would be off-topic (perhaps we could sneak off and have a Private Discussion out in the hall…), but I think that we are on topic and in total agreement on this one:

… instead of trying to oppose creeping religious indoctrination.
People are instead having a go at teachers and either wanting them
removed or suggesting they leave. How is that going to solve
anything? These teachers need support, not criticism for having
the odds stacked against them.

I have perhaps come from a more drastic situation than what you guys have experienced - as I mentioned earlier, I have just resigned from teaching at a Catholic School, and that little bit about God making it light on the other side of the world was from a reading that the RE teacher was gushing out to MY STUDENTS one day (interestingly, they wouldn't let me teach RE after a couple of years...:-). So I think "Oh, we can diss ID etc during Science lessons? Excellent!", whereas you (automath) seem to be suggesting that this "Discovery Institute" is trying to use the argument that our Prime Minister (!! Hail to the chief???) has offered (I think he got it from GWB) - "We ought to give students both sides of the story". In that case, they can jam it. And I disagree strongly with Eric Blair about discussing ID etc in class XYZ somewhere else - see below for my rationale - because you leave it to the potentially inexpert to expose the flaws - imagine the hapless teacher saying "well, yes Billy, it seems like the jury is still out on that one..." Yeah, right. And what I would like to assert is that the baggage of Religion is the core basis for the yoke over Education; we cannot have the former (in any form) if we are to liberate the latter!



So, on to mechanised science delivery ... the issues of pedagogy and communication research are so crucial (it seems to me) and here we are debating religion in schools, and the answer is, once again, firmly rooted in the way schools operate. I am not sure where I read it (here?) where someone said that schools look and operate like prisons. This is exactly like religion and so on - hierachical control structures, where the "masses" (for whom the structures are regularly claimed to be in place) are to be moulded into the products desired by the forces of social industry. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas craps on about the legitimacy of murdering heretics (as long as you ask them twice to recant); what is ADHD but a new term for "heretic"? Dare we dream of a society beyond some conservative, controlled, traditionally predicated orbit of the Mediocre (Dark) Ages? Would that make us ... terrorists? subversive? irresponsible? unsuitable for employment? (would you trust your children with *that* man?)



So, we classroom heretics have the nerve to suggest that the curriculum is a guide - and here I would be most interested in the feedback from non-teachers - but the students are the imperative. Once we understand the goals of the curriculum and so on, we then work with our students to bring them from where they are at to where we can - we are not miracle workers. The key assumption here kind of flies in the face of radical curriculumists: we don't know until after the teaching period is complete where the students might go. An attendant assumption is that we are usually NOT going to get through the whole of the stated curriculum, in the sense that not all students are going to have mastered, or even attemtped, the material designated. Therefore, and this is the kicker, we require teachers to *give up power based authority* and be ready to LEARN FROM THE STUDENTS where they are at, so that we can, together, chart a course out of the wilderness (after all, this is meant to be about reality, right???). However, the teacher must also become an absolute jet with respect to the learning areas, as well as meta-conceptualisations across learning areas, to *claim* authority by virtue of demonstrated mastery (after all, we are uninterested in false or unsubstantiated claims, right). This is not easy. This requires complete dedication to the cause - it consumes your whole life. That is why *real* teaching is hard, rare and not that many can do it. I can't even do it properly, and I enjoy and kind of know what I am supposed to be doing (from the radical heretic perspective) - which is why I had to leave (I was asked to go) the restrictive environment I have done, to search for more suitable employers. Anyway, in a vain attempt to remain coherent, I would like to swing this back to the bit about what to have in the curriculum and this guy's book - real teachers wouldn't use it as toilet paper if any of that IF (Imaginary Friend) malarkey is embedded in there.



And to clarify how this can get once the religion heads get their way, check out this little anecdote: my learning programme revolves around critical thinking, personal expression, self-governance and communication processes. So, the students get to run the class government, decide on the study programmes, organise the time, soapbox (speaker's corner ??), etc etc, you know the drill. In short, I don't tell them what to say or think, I just set the scene (for personal respect). SO the students do this and have a great time, and so on. So the Principal calls me into his office and asks me to "stop forcing my agenda onto the students. It is inappropriate for teachers to do that." Apart from the inaccuracy of that (ie I don't decide on the study programme, except as guided by the curriculum pointers), this is in the context of a place that bangs on about their claim to ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Beat that.



Veronique attended to to the issue of Merit Pay - imagine how a Radical Heretic would stand up to such a checkbox scheme. Sure, I like to believe that my students come out with improved overall critical literacy and therefore the ability to produce fine outcomes/products, however it is far more scary than such a measure - like how's about your programme for the term being delivered before Day 1 of term - how f#@&ed is that?? SO, do we want awesome education (new) or boring, ineffective education (traditional)? Who's got the banners ... ;-)



I wonder how science has been undermined at the primary level in Britain?? In Australia, things are on the Up and Up! We have this new initiative called "Primary Connections", and whilst I sort of only partly use it, what I like is that it has the capacity to run across Learning Areas to make the Science the central theme of study - now that's pretty cool :-) Check out : http://www.science.org.au/primaryconnections/index.htm for the details. I have often filched material from the British Science websites for experiments and so on in my classes - perhaps resourcing is not the issue??



rationalteacher suggests that teaching is "the most wonderful job". I would like to add that it is for some, but it is hard - it is political. In fact, it is the hardest job I've ever done, and that includes labouring. It gives me the ships, though, to see those people who are "employed as teachers" - you know what I'm talking about.



Ciao 4 Niao,



B-)

Other Comments by BullShifter