science education

John Stossel thinks so: I visited another charter chain, American Indian Public Charter Schools in Oakland, Calif., that gets similar top results, also at lower cost. “Kids in American Indian Public Charter Schools score so far above the average for the state for public school children that there isn’t even a word for it,” says Andrew Coulson, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. Those schools use methods different from the charters in Harlem. For example, they pay some kids to tutor other kids. Both charters do something that regular public schools rarely do: fire teachers. One charter principal calls it “freeing up a person’s future.” (“Exciting Schools” Townhall , September 21, 2011) Of course, part of this Read More ›

Here johnnyb talks about “Intelligent Design and the Education Crisis,” assuring us, “No I’m Not Talking About Evolution Today”. No need, johnnyb. I used to work in educational publishing, and heartily agree with this: Want to start a revolution in education? Start by looking at what motivates kids to love learning. Money can motivate kids to *do* the work, but that’s not what education is. Loving learning is what will make kids educated, whether they go through college or not. None of the standardized tests will tell you if your child loves learning. None of them will say, “this person wants to get to the bottom of things, and won’t stop until he finds it.” But here are some problems: Read More ›

Says political theorist John West here: Earlier this summer, Perry’s education commissioner recommended for use supplementary science curricula that fail to offer any critical analysis of Darwinian claims, contrary to the state’s own science standards. At the same time, Perry’s education commissioner allowed his staff to spike the one proposed curriculum that did try to follow the Texas science standards. Presumably, he thinks everyone who supports him is dumb as a post. More on him here. West thinks Bachmann is sincere, by contrast, based on her record in Minnesota. More on her here.

Here.

Rube shouts in: Read More ›

From Leonard Krishtalka (July 19, 2011) at LJWORLD (Lawrence, Kansas), we hear the grim news, “Science takes a beating in early presidential campaign”: Referring to candidate Michelle Bachmann’s comments,

“I support intelligent design,” she said, reported CNN. “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide.”

Krishtalka disagrees, saying,

… knowledge of evolution is an economic necessity. It underpins U.S. and global R&D on the production of the world’s food, fiber, fuel and pharmaceuticals.

How, exactly does it do that?, a friend of Uncommon Descent writes to ask: “Do you have a paper or quote that refutes the ‘teaching more evolution increases the state’s economy” myth? Read More ›

Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller thinks his book will be bought for Texas schools, even though he refuses to follow their “no magic Darwin” guidelines. Curriculum? Guidelines? Actually, it could get worse than magic Darwin … Better stop it there. Follow UD News at Twitter!

Here. According to a source, round the 45 minute mark, she says U.S. courts have ruled that teachers cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. Then she says:

46:29 Okay, what else can you not do? I have a little asterisk here. You cannot teach evidence against evolution. There have been some court decisions that have talked about this including Kitzmiller, but there has not been a really clean test of this idea of teaching evidence against evolution. …

Read More ›

I commend Thomas Cudworth’s post today to all, for raising a very good question: Do Darwin’s best known hacks and flacks do much science research. Given their other activies, like interfering with academic employment decisions and journal publications, writing hit pieces on scholars, and demanding wacky decisions from school authorities, one wonders where they would find the time.

One curious fact is that these activists are, generally speaking, Americans talking to Americans – and their fellow Americans have displayed a low level of confidence in Darwinism for decades.

So one of three possibilities, surely: Read More ›

And the situation is far too important to justify stopping to find out what is going on.

Here, “Granite geek” David Brooks warns, “Creationism trying to sneak into New Hampshire laws” (July 4, 2011):

… two possible bills may come up in the fall to get creatonism into the classroom. One would mandate teaching “intelligent design”, the other would mandate teaching evolution “as a theory”.

Both lawmakers agree there are theological/philosophical elements to their proposals – one wants to examine how much atheism is being the push for evolution in classes; the other is concerned by the lack of a deeper meaning in evolution. I argue in the column that evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings, but I also note that the argument is irelevant: Science classes should teach science.

The Granite one seems unaware that just saying that “evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings” means that he has a definite theological position, and saying that “Science classes should teach science” only raises the question of what he means by “science.”

Happily, he answers that. Read More ›