1. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #77625 by BullShifter on October 9, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Well, I think that automath's link sounds the deathknell for old Reiss ... and can we go past this section:

==
The job of a science teacher should be to present the evidence ... alternatives to Darwinism such as creationism and intelligent design can come into discussions on the subject, but only to illustrate what does and does not constitute a scientific theory.
==

That's about it, eh?

Onya dudes.

B-)

2. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77600 by BullShifter on October 9, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Bravo Dinah, Eric Blair and those still on the case:

The article basically points to our value of freedom - just how much do we value it?

Whoever wants some genital mutilation, okay, those dudes don't have to vote. The rest of us?

Aren't we all jumping up and down screaming "Why aren't politicians DOING something about these fanatics (of whatever persuasion)???" in a whole range of topics (cf the Religious Schools or Religion in Schools threads elsewhere on this site). This is precisely why.

Who should fund? I would return to the question: if you had the chance to fund an icon of freedom (real freedom), wouldn't you love the chance to work with all interested parties to create a smooth arrangement so that the FREEDOM (in this case represented by Ali) is preserved? I know what I would want, both if I were the icon, or able to help.

How much do we really know? I don't know; it has been great reading the posts (except the ad hominim stuff). All I hope is that somehow the governments and free corporations of the world all chip in and put aside their specific interests in favour of the greatest interest.

B-)

3. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

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-)

4. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

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).

5. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

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-)