Thousands of teachers in California have been laid off this year. I've been discussing this with people and thinking about, but put off writing about it because it seemed so overwhelmingly bad. It still seems overwhelmingly bad, and I still don't want to put myself through writing about it. Luckily, thanks to Megan Fox, I don't have to. Enjoy.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Photosynthesis Rap
Say what you want about the current state of hiphop and rap -- I am certainly a harsh critic of much of the rap coming out these days -- but these kids know photosynthesis.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Graduates from Texas universities, your degrees are about to become worthless
State Rep. Leo Berman was outraged, Outraged! that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) was not able to grant Master of Science degrees.
So he did something about it. Meet House Bill 2800, which will allow all non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the authority of Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board. The board authorizes institutions of higher education the ability to grant degrees. It is how we know the young job applicant with a degree from University of Texas, or Baylor, or a small community college near Houston, actually learned something.
Even though the bill is in response to the plight of ICR it is not specific to IRC.
Which could create even bigger problems for the state than just being a laughing stock, and the state of choice for students wishing to pursue an advanced degree in creationism.
“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago,” Berman told FOXNews.com. "I do believe in creationism. I do believe there are gaps in evolution.
So he did something about it. Meet House Bill 2800, which will allow all non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the authority of Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board. The board authorizes institutions of higher education the ability to grant degrees. It is how we know the young job applicant with a degree from University of Texas, or Baylor, or a small community college near Houston, actually learned something.
Even though the bill is in response to the plight of ICR it is not specific to IRC.
Which could create even bigger problems for the state than just being a laughing stock, and the state of choice for students wishing to pursue an advanced degree in creationism.
“This would open the door to other fly-by-night organizations that come in and want to award degrees in our state, because the bill is highly generalized,” said Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science.
“Right now, we don’t have this problem in Texas. Texas is not a center for degree mills, because our laws allow only the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to approve the granting of graduate degrees.”
“It would certainly open the door to all kinds of chicanery,” says Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. “I mean, all you have to do, it looks to me from the bill, is start a non-profit organization, don’t take any federal or state money, and then offer degrees in any fool subject you want.”
Monday, March 16, 2009
State science advocacy organizations
Our friendly neighborhood developmental biologist over at Pharyngula is compiling a list of state level grassroots organizations working to improve science education in their states. Pennsylvania Citizens for Science is on the list, although it unfortunately does not seem all too active.
I'll also post a complete list at some point, but for now I'm going to hang back and let him do all the work.
I'll also post a complete list at some point, but for now I'm going to hang back and let him do all the work.
Teaching science with science
An article in the Hunterdon Review (New Jersey) reports on some lucky third graders who during January and February
The program is through a company called the Pearl Observatory and provides schools an opportunity to bring real science into science class. It is unfortunate, but all too often science class is far removed from actual science. Programs like this not only help students better understand what "doing science" means, but also can go a long way to getting students excited about science.
participated in a special science and astronomy program called Wonders of the Universe in which they took part in a number of unusual lessons and activities such as comet making, rocket making and launching, and observing the day and night skies through high powered telescopes.
The program is through a company called the Pearl Observatory and provides schools an opportunity to bring real science into science class. It is unfortunate, but all too often science class is far removed from actual science. Programs like this not only help students better understand what "doing science" means, but also can go a long way to getting students excited about science.
“Each morning, [my students] entered the classroom and looked at the schedule,” said third grade teacher Jaime Levy. “If ‘Visiting Scientist’ was on the schedule, I heard cheers. If it was not, I got questioned, ‘Why isn't John coming today?’ They especially loved picking his brain with all of their questions.”
Creationism in education
I recently came across a website called Education News. It seems to be, as the name would imply, a site dedicated to news and information about education. I haven't really explored it too much, but on the surface it seems pretty good. Just a big repository for news about education, both K-12 and higher ed. Unfortunately I was on the site for about 30 seconds when I noticed a column titled "No one is really talking about any weaknesses in evolution."
Even more unfortunately, it is exactly what it sounds like, creationist propaganda. It is written by a "guest columnist" named David Shormann.
Shormann begins his column with:
Oh no. I should have stopped there, but I continued:
Okay. Wow. Where to start with that? It appears Dr. Shormann does not consider the possibility that perhaps some of the 3000 young salmon that starved to death did not have the best ability to find food, or that some of the ones that survived predators may have been a little faster than some of their kin which did not, or that just maybe a few of those young salmon who met their untimely fate by getting smashed against rocks were not as strong of swimmers as those that did not.
I say it appears Dr. Shormann did not consider any of these possibilities because he finishes with
I am not going to go into a complete take down of his argument here, because the presence of this column is not my big problem here. After I read the column I of course looked at the comments. Ednews.org allows commenters to rate the article with 1 to 5 stars. I am assuming the visitors to this site are mostly professional educators, which is why I found it so disturbing to see so many 5 star comments singing the praises of the article. In fairness, there are many one star comments that are excellent rebuttals to the article, but on a site dedicated to education and educators there are far too many responses that sympathize with the columnist. This is a problem. Far too many professional K-12 teachers (unfortunately including science teachers) are either outright creationists or simply don't understand evolution.
Even more unfortunately, it is exactly what it sounds like, creationist propaganda. It is written by a "guest columnist" named David Shormann.
Shormann begins his column with:
In March, the State Board of Education will vote on amendments to the new Texas high school biology teaching standards. Please contact your State Board of Education (SBOE) representative and encourage them to unanimously approve of teaching strengths and weaknesses regarding all scientific theories, particularly evolution.
Oh no. I should have stopped there, but I continued:
Consider for example a female sockeye salmon in Alaska's Copper River. Let's say she lays 3,000 eggs, and all of them hatch. Now, to keep the population stable, only two of those eggs need to mature to adults and return, which means 2,998 of them will probably not make the return journey and produce offspring. Some will get eaten by birds, others by bears, or maybe even a salmon shark. Some will get smashed against rocks, others may starve. Only two are likely to survive to journey from their birthplace to the sea, then venture thousands of miles, before returning to their birthplace.
Now, do you really think the two salmon that survived to adulthood did so because they were clearly the best suited for the environment? Perhaps, but in reality, there is only a 1 in 3000 chance the salmon with the best set of genes survived to adulthood. And the likelihood gets smaller when you consider redfish, which can lay over one million eggs each season.
Okay. Wow. Where to start with that? It appears Dr. Shormann does not consider the possibility that perhaps some of the 3000 young salmon that starved to death did not have the best ability to find food, or that some of the ones that survived predators may have been a little faster than some of their kin which did not, or that just maybe a few of those young salmon who met their untimely fate by getting smashed against rocks were not as strong of swimmers as those that did not.
I say it appears Dr. Shormann did not consider any of these possibilities because he finishes with
Genes mutate, resulting in differences in parents and offspring. However, the low probability of mutation and selection working together to produce fitter populations is a weakness of natural selection theory, and Texas high school biology textbooks should explain such weaknesses.
I am not going to go into a complete take down of his argument here, because the presence of this column is not my big problem here. After I read the column I of course looked at the comments. Ednews.org allows commenters to rate the article with 1 to 5 stars. I am assuming the visitors to this site are mostly professional educators, which is why I found it so disturbing to see so many 5 star comments singing the praises of the article. In fairness, there are many one star comments that are excellent rebuttals to the article, but on a site dedicated to education and educators there are far too many responses that sympathize with the columnist. This is a problem. Far too many professional K-12 teachers (unfortunately including science teachers) are either outright creationists or simply don't understand evolution.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A brief, but excellent, history of Intelligent Design
From "A Brief History of Moonbats" by Lou at Crowd Head, Cozy Bed
It is an excellent read and well researched. A must read for everyone interested in evolution, education, and the ID movement.
By this point my son was livid at the dishonesty of the creationists, but there was more to come. At the time of the Edwards decision, a Christian Fundamentalist group called the Foundation for Thought and Ethics had been working on a high school targeted text book, ostensibly about Biology but in reality a Creation Science fakery entitled Biology and Origins. In response to Edwards the text was search/replaced, replacing each instance of “Creationism” with the new moniker “Intelligent Design”, “Creationist” with “design proponent”, and “God” with “Intelligent Designer”. The text got a shiny new title, Of Pandas and People. Unfortunately for Dr. Behe, who wrote the chapter on blood clotting, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics is as incompetent as it is dishonest and this would come to haunt him in federal court eighteen years later.
It is an excellent read and well researched. A must read for everyone interested in evolution, education, and the ID movement.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
More ID nonsense. Florida's turn at bat
Florida State Senator Stephen Wise introduced senate bill 2396. The bill "Requires that the instructional staff of a public school teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution and certain governmental, legal, and civic-related principles."
That 'critical analysis' is code for intelligent design. Florida is not the only state with an anti-evolution bill on the floor right now, but if this passes and Florida gets rid of teacher tenure any teachers wishing to even try to oppose this trash might not be around long enough to challenge it.
This, by the way, is not Sen Wise's first flirtation with teaching ID in public schools.
That 'critical analysis' is code for intelligent design. Florida is not the only state with an anti-evolution bill on the floor right now, but if this passes and Florida gets rid of teacher tenure any teachers wishing to even try to oppose this trash might not be around long enough to challenge it.
This, by the way, is not Sen Wise's first flirtation with teaching ID in public schools.
A novel idea.....for Mississippi anyway
Mississippi state legislature is considering a bill (House Bill 234) to create a sex education program for the state's public schools.
As the state with the highest birthrate among teenagers and third highest teen pregnancy rate you might think nobody could possibly be against this. You, of course, would be wrong.
Meet State Senator Lee Yancey, a Republican from Brandon. Mr. Yancey voted against the proposal in committee. According to this article Sen. Yancey said he's aware of the need for young people to be better informed about sex and its consequences. However, he's opposed to schools teaching children how to use contraceptives.
What? Okay, try not to think about that statement too hard. It will hurt your brain. The article goes on to quote Sen. Yancey as saying:
"What everybody's afraid to say is what method would they use to demonstrate how to use a prophylactic?" Yancey said. "Is that something an eighth-grader or sixth-grader needs to see?"
Yes Sen. Yancey, that is something an eighth-grader or a sixth-grader needs to see. I am sure Sen. Yancey is basing his opinion on something, but it does not seem to be any type of experience working with middle school students or the CDC data that says Mississippi is number 1 in births to teenage mothers. So once again. Yes, Mr. Yancey, that is something sixth and eighth graders need to see.
As the state with the highest birthrate among teenagers and third highest teen pregnancy rate you might think nobody could possibly be against this. You, of course, would be wrong.
Meet State Senator Lee Yancey, a Republican from Brandon. Mr. Yancey voted against the proposal in committee. According to this article Sen. Yancey said he's aware of the need for young people to be better informed about sex and its consequences. However, he's opposed to schools teaching children how to use contraceptives.
What? Okay, try not to think about that statement too hard. It will hurt your brain. The article goes on to quote Sen. Yancey as saying:
"What everybody's afraid to say is what method would they use to demonstrate how to use a prophylactic?" Yancey said. "Is that something an eighth-grader or sixth-grader needs to see?"
Yes Sen. Yancey, that is something an eighth-grader or a sixth-grader needs to see. I am sure Sen. Yancey is basing his opinion on something, but it does not seem to be any type of experience working with middle school students or the CDC data that says Mississippi is number 1 in births to teenage mothers. So once again. Yes, Mr. Yancey, that is something sixth and eighth graders need to see.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Louisiana says science not welcome; Scientists say Okay
The president of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology recently sent a very polite letter to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal informing him they will not be holding their 2011 annual meeting (or any others) in New Orleans.
This decision was in response to the passage of Louisiana's Science Education Act. The Science Education Act is actually a direct attack on evolution that was heavily pushed by the Discovery Institute.
Louisiana Coalition for Science issued a press release with all the information, and a pdf of the letter sent to the governor.
For those who don't think this is a big threat, SCIB has more than 2300 members and its 2009 meeting that just ended in Boston brought over 1850 scientists and graduate students to that city for 5 days. A nice boost to any local economy.
In March the National Science Teacher's Association will be holding their 2009 annual conference in New Orleans, and while I understand it is too late to change the venue for that, it would be nice if in the future they followed suit and also boycotted states that attack science education.
As much as I love the city of New Orleans, and as much as it desperately needs money right now, I am in full support of the SICB decision to boycott the state. If they are going to trash science for political gain the scientific community should refuse to help subsidize their budgets.
So kudos SICB. If they spit in your face, kick 'em in the wallet.
This decision was in response to the passage of Louisiana's Science Education Act. The Science Education Act is actually a direct attack on evolution that was heavily pushed by the Discovery Institute.
Louisiana Coalition for Science issued a press release with all the information, and a pdf of the letter sent to the governor.
For those who don't think this is a big threat, SCIB has more than 2300 members and its 2009 meeting that just ended in Boston brought over 1850 scientists and graduate students to that city for 5 days. A nice boost to any local economy.
In March the National Science Teacher's Association will be holding their 2009 annual conference in New Orleans, and while I understand it is too late to change the venue for that, it would be nice if in the future they followed suit and also boycotted states that attack science education.
As much as I love the city of New Orleans, and as much as it desperately needs money right now, I am in full support of the SICB decision to boycott the state. If they are going to trash science for political gain the scientific community should refuse to help subsidize their budgets.
So kudos SICB. If they spit in your face, kick 'em in the wallet.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Darwin Day
There is a fundamental principle in science that evidence is all that matters. As scientists we do not accept ideas simply because of the person proposing them, we evaluate the evidence. Among the anti-science crowd you will often hear the argument that Charles Darwin is held in almost a sacred position. That to deny his ideas is sacrilegious. This is not just false, but also offensive to scientists. And it is destructive the dialogue between the scientific community and the general population.
So when scientists celebrate "Darwin Day" (Darwin's birthday) it must seem to some as if the scientific community is in fact proving the point of the science deniers. Again, this is not the case. Darwin Day is a day to celebrate science, and the process of science. Yes, it is intended as an honor to Darwin, but not for the reasons some would claim. It is NOT to celebrate the birth of the man (as some kind of god). It is NOT to worship him.
Charles Darwin is held in high esteem among scientist for the work he did, more so than for his idea.
Charles Darwin was not the only person to propose the idea of descent with modification. He was not even the first. The reason he is given so much credit and is so well remembered is the evidence he collected and published. Darwin gathered evidence from all over the world (quite a feet in his day). He spent the better part of his life gathering and analyzing data and evidence before publishing his idea. Within the pages of Origin of Species you will find examples domestic dogs, pigeons (wild and domestic), earthworms, beetles, birds of South America, prehistoric fossils from all over the world, and most famously, the island biogeography of the Galapagos Islands.
Charles Darwin published a ground breaking idea, but more importantly he had the research and evidence to back it up. In the 150 years since the publication of Origin of Species we have discovered much about biology, medicine, geology, paleontology, anatomy, and the all the other sciences. Obvious Darwin could not have predicted these advances or used the evidence we now have. But in that time we have discovered nothing to contradict the basic premise of his hypothesis. A hypothesis that is now a valid scientific theory which ties all of biology together.
So it is right that the man's work should be respected as not only one of the most influential and important ideas in the last 200 years, but also as a stellar example of how science is supposed to work.
So today, Feb 12th, 2009. It is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species. Take some time to read or investigate a little about how evolutionary theory influences our modern world.
Here are some good places to start:
This is and excellent editorial about evolution and the current debate from the Guardian. I would love to see American journalists saying some of these things
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/09/charles-darwin-anniversary
Seed compiled a short selection of some ideas that have arisen as a result of Darwin's work
http://www.seedmagazine.com/darwin_200.php
Nature has dedicated its weekly podcast this week to a Darwin theme. Featuring poetry, science, and info about the man himself.
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html
Here is a pdf from the magazine Nature titled "15 Evolutionary Gems". It is well worth a look.
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
And New Scientist put out a list this month of their top 10 evolution articles
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16322-darwins-dangerous-idea-top-10-evolution-articles.html
So when scientists celebrate "Darwin Day" (Darwin's birthday) it must seem to some as if the scientific community is in fact proving the point of the science deniers. Again, this is not the case. Darwin Day is a day to celebrate science, and the process of science. Yes, it is intended as an honor to Darwin, but not for the reasons some would claim. It is NOT to celebrate the birth of the man (as some kind of god). It is NOT to worship him.
Charles Darwin is held in high esteem among scientist for the work he did, more so than for his idea.
Charles Darwin was not the only person to propose the idea of descent with modification. He was not even the first. The reason he is given so much credit and is so well remembered is the evidence he collected and published. Darwin gathered evidence from all over the world (quite a feet in his day). He spent the better part of his life gathering and analyzing data and evidence before publishing his idea. Within the pages of Origin of Species you will find examples domestic dogs, pigeons (wild and domestic), earthworms, beetles, birds of South America, prehistoric fossils from all over the world, and most famously, the island biogeography of the Galapagos Islands.
Charles Darwin published a ground breaking idea, but more importantly he had the research and evidence to back it up. In the 150 years since the publication of Origin of Species we have discovered much about biology, medicine, geology, paleontology, anatomy, and the all the other sciences. Obvious Darwin could not have predicted these advances or used the evidence we now have. But in that time we have discovered nothing to contradict the basic premise of his hypothesis. A hypothesis that is now a valid scientific theory which ties all of biology together.
So it is right that the man's work should be respected as not only one of the most influential and important ideas in the last 200 years, but also as a stellar example of how science is supposed to work.
So today, Feb 12th, 2009. It is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species. Take some time to read or investigate a little about how evolutionary theory influences our modern world.
Here are some good places to start:
This is and excellent editorial about evolution and the current debate from the Guardian. I would love to see American journalists saying some of these things
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/09/charles-darwin-anniversary
Seed compiled a short selection of some ideas that have arisen as a result of Darwin's work
http://www.seedmagazine.com/darwin_200.php
Nature has dedicated its weekly podcast this week to a Darwin theme. Featuring poetry, science, and info about the man himself.
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html
Here is a pdf from the magazine Nature titled "15 Evolutionary Gems". It is well worth a look.
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
And New Scientist put out a list this month of their top 10 evolution articles
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16322-darwins-dangerous-idea-top-10-evolution-articles.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
