Standards and the Teachers who Need Them

Reed A. Cartwright: "disserved"?

My thanks and gratitude to Pat New and also to the Georgia Citizens Integrity in Science Education.

YES! We need VERY specific standards, written by scientists and science-education organizations (Science Teachers' Association, NAS, etc.) in place in every state. They need to specify evolution by name -- no pulled punches or weasel-words. And they need to be written in such a way that it is perfectly clear that a district or teacher who does not teach those standards has committed an actionable offense. What else would be the point of STANDARDS? Modest suggestions of what to teach if nobody objects or if you think no one will complain?

Yes, I agree whole heartedly. We should also disallow any different thought or actions concerning the state approved science curriculum. If the approved standards are not followed or there is dissent then the offending student or teacher should be punished with a minimum of 2 years in federal prison. Power the people!

"We are all equal but some are more equal than others".

"Ideas are not all equal. Some ideas are supported by enormous amounts of interlocking evidence, and others are flimsy tissues of speculation, supported by religious ideologues who disguise themselves as objective for those ignorant in the subject."

If I recall correctly, state standards in Kansas are not mandatory.

You're right Pete. The Kansas Science Standards are not mandatory. An evolutionist teacher like Pat New would be free to teach things ~her~ way in Kansas, under the current standards.

Looking at some of the posts in this thread, it's the evolutionist side who is feeling such insecurity (despite their political dominance) that they would place threats like "actionable offenses" and "2 years in federal prison" on science teachers.

Go figure.

FL

Gimme a break FL. You should know damn good and well that teachers in these communities are scared s#!tless for their jobs and their positions in the community by the hypocritical bigots and cretins who would either fire them or harass them. Just look at the case of the woman in Delaware recently reported in the NY Times who was driven out of her community by "Christians" who refused to honor her request that she not be subjected to sectarian prayer in PUBLIC functions. And don't give me that crap about the NY Times being biased -- I've seen the same S#!t go on here, including in my daughter's classes. Those science standards serve the purpose of allowing a teacher to teach SCIENCE, not religion, and to keep religious fanatics from pushing sectarian religious beliefs in PUBLIC schools.

Are evolutionists insecure? You bet. When judges get death threats for upholding the constitution and science, when teachers are shunned, threatened and even fired for teaching science, and when children are harassed by their peers (as my son and daughter are) for not professing to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, you bet you a$$ that they are insecure.

The facts are
1) teachers who want to teach actual science in religiously conservative communities are regularly pressured not to teach it
2) creationists have always been the ones historically trying to legislate evolution out of the schools
3) evolutionists have been historically on the defensive in the courts trying to keep fundamentalists from defining what is taught on the basis of religious viewpoints
4) science standards are meant to enforce SCIENCE. If folks don't want to believe it after it has been properly taught, I can't help that -- people believe in all sorts of nonsensical crap despite any evidence. Just look at poor pathetic Kurt Wise. That's why creationism will never die.

Looking at some of the posts in this thread, it's the evolutionist side who is feeling such insecurity (despite their political dominance) that they would place threats like "actionable offenses" and "2 years in federal prison" on science teachers.

What I know, Mplavcan, is that I heard a Kansas City teacher express that her colleagues expressed that fear you speak of to her---in regards to deviating in any way from the pro-evolution textbook!

That's not going to convince you, your mind's already made up, as is mine. In fact, you're in agreement with the "actionable" penalty wording being proffered above by your evo-comrades. You seem to think that the insecurity reflected by that foolishness is somehow justifiable, maybe a way to get some emotional payback for some sort of particular school situation?

Well, in Kansas, your perceived enemies don't see the need to use **science standards** for that kind of thing. State Science Standards should not be used for intimidation and censorship of science teachers. State ~science~ standards should not be used to get emotional paybacks on alleged or actual personal/school "harassment" situations. That should be settled in some other venue.

OUR current standards don't function that way. Again, a Pat New would LEGALLY be okay to teach evolution her way in science class in Kansas. No jail time. No Scopes in reverse.

*********

I like the way Sir Toe jumped in there to attempt an emergency bail-out on his boy Les. Claiming that it's all 'hyperbole'.

How unfortnate that Les said he agreed whole-heartedly with Just Bob, who called for "actionable offenses". Of course, Sir Toe had nothing to say about that, not even an emergency spin job. Cat got his tongue, mmmm.

That alone shows that Les wasn't being hyperbolic, he REALLY was talking about making the offense actionable. Les merely specified what Bob, circumspectly chose to leave unspecified.
Fact is that Les's own post doesn't have the slightest indication that he meant to be hyperbolic.

***************

But foolishness aside, here's the point: Kansas Science Standards aren't mandatory. Pat New can teach freely in Kansas. Only people talking about mandatory and actionable and prison, are you evolutionists.

Why? Because for all your political winnings, you know it honestly ain't over.

The pro-science people will simply keep on plugging away, this year, next year, the next, the next, until the Kansas Science Standards permanently reflect good, solid science (as opposed to business-as-usual canned Darwinian spoonfeedin'.)

FL

no contributer on this site would ever suggest such a thing.

State Science Standards should not be used for intimidation and censorship of science teachers. State ~science~ standards should not be used to get emotional paybacks on alleged or actual personal/school "harassment" situations. That should be settled in some other venue.

as opposed to business-as-usual canned Darwinian spoonfeedin'

I like the way Sir Toe jumped in there to attempt an emergency bail-out on his boy Les. Claiming that it's all 'hyperbole'.

[Your attempt to play the "victim" without just cause is noted, yet again.]

It butters up FL's martyr complex to "play the victim".

As usual.

"Georgia Education on My Mind"?

Oh, now I get it.

How unfortnate that Les said he agreed whole-heartedly with Just Bob, who called for "actionable offenses".

Do any of you ever answer the questions that the ID people bring up or do you just make ad homonym attacks and talk about the separation of church and state? I know lots of scientists that aren't creationists that have lots of problems with evolution and some of it's claims. We need to make sure that we don't become so dogmatic that we close our eyes about other ideas. By the way can anyone here explain the mechanism of evolution or that there are good questions regarding the fact that evolution might be breaking the second law of thermodynamics. Your thought full scientific answers would be most appreciated.

— Les Schulz

Cudos to Pat New!

FL:
"I heard a Kansas City teacher express that her colleagues expressed that fear you speak of to her----in regards to deviating in any way from the pro-evolution textbook!"

That is presumably a science textbook, so it is "evolution", not "pro-evolution". (You don't think this is about religion or politics, do you? Oh, I forgot, you do.) She can deviate, but she shouldn't leave out or contradict the science with your religious crap.

"Fact is that Les's own post doesn't have the slightest indication that he meant to be hyperbolic."

Your forebrain can't work well if you can't recognise satire and hyperbole. I don't think anyone is surprised about that.

Uuups, I meant sarcasm and hyperbole. But indications are FL can't recognise satire either.

As a practical matter, does it really help a teacher under pressure from the local community (and the school administration) to wave state science standards around and claim support? There seems to be an underlying assumption here that IF a teacher in a fundamentalist community teaches biology properly, and WHEN (no if here) the locals rise up in righteous anger, properly written State board of education guidlines will be an effective shield to protect that teacher's job, reputation, and career - and creationist-friendly standards won't.

So my question is, do the state standards really have this power? Will creationists really back down (or alternatively, will the local school administrators back the teacher rather than the parents) on that basis?

If the teacher is NOT supported when teaching to the standards, or the administration backs the parents in that case, then the teacher's recourse is to take it up a notch, either with the accreditation body, the state teachers' organizations, or the union. I suspect the ACLU might be interested in that case, but I'm not educated in legal matters. However, the teacher must be ready for the onslaught of personal attacks against them and their family if it gets ugly. (And it can)

Content standards were designed to encourage the highest achievement of every student, by defining the knowledge, concepts, and skills that students should acquire at each grade level.

KKJ:

Yes, I read all that. I was struck by two things:

1) Pat New had "no problems teaching evolution" after her appeal to the state standards, which acted like a lightning rod deflecting the heat from her or her administrators.

2)Pat New retired one year later. I presume she knew, and the administrators knew, and maybe even the parents knew, that this was about to happen. In any event, we get no feedback as to how this would affect the career of a beginner.

I read somewhere (maybe here?) that in much of Kansas, the existing pro-science standards may be in effect but evolution is not mentioned in the classroom. Biology is reduced to memorizing parts for tests. At least to me, this implies that the teachers and local school administrators simply aren't willing to fight this battle.

And I note that Pet New comes across as someone highly unusual if not unique in being willing to get up on her hind legs (easy with retirement a year off) and bring things to a head. So for me, the implication is that congenial state standards may be helpful, but we STILL need people on the front lines fully armed with brass balls and fallback plans.

What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to be a teacher.

Look at all the perks of the job:

- Crazy, stupid, zealot parents attempting to prevent you from teaching the truth about any number of subjects.
- Endless levels of beauracracy insisting that you teach to tests that measure nothing useful, and in addition, tying your career to this.
- Less pay than the slightly mentally disabled guy serving fries at McDonald's.
- Pressure from the community to conform to their values and be a role model at all times, even when they constantly engage in wildly inappopriate and immoral behavior.

Sign me up!

Seriously, what you pro-evo people need to shut these ignorant pig(deleted)s up is a full-scale boycott of science education. If they don't want you to teach it, just refuse to teach any students mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, computer science, and anything else related to science.

If they don't want to know, don't teach them. You'll have a competitive advantage and make a lot more money in private industry when nobody else has the knowledge you have, anyways. Besides, isn't there something perversely appealing about leaving them so ignorant they can't figure out that the thing popping out the front of the computer is not a cupholder and their inerrant belief in the flatness of the earth means we can all move to Europe and they won't follow us for fear of falling off the edge of the planet?

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you FL, but I was up late last night doing actual "science."

Let's examine a model situation using an unambiguous scientific factoid to clarify things. The state science standards say that children should be taught that the earth is round. A religious sect, fearful that its adherence to a rigidly literal interpretation of sacred texts might be contradicted, thereby undermining the faith, claims that the earth MUST be flat. The justification for this as "science" is that "good science" has to agree with the scriptures (hmmmmm...gee... sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?). So, a teacher who does not belong to this sect gets verbally abused and harassed by parents and administrators (who leadingly remind her of who makes the employment decisions and gives out pay raises) for teaching that the earth is round in accordance with stardard scientific models. Thankfully, she can at the very least hold up the science standards to point out that she is doing her job as required by the state in a government funded public institution. It gives her some sort of legal protection for doing her job.

Meanwhile, a member of the flat earth religion gets a job as a teacher in another district in which the members of his sect are not in such a majority. He teaches that the earth is flat. It is considered ludicrous by the scientific community world wide, and runs contrary to every known scientific fact and model. Those scientists who have examined the evidence for this model point out repeatedly and forcefully that there is no support for this model as science, and that in fact the only reason that members of this sect claim that it is "science" is because they themselves have stated that "science" must be defined in such a way as to avoid conflict with their interpretation of the scriptures. When parents who do not belong this sect complain and take action to prevent this crap from being taught as science, the teacher screams and whines about persecution and repression, and complains about fear for his job for trying to teach "good science" in the face of ideological bigotry against his religion. He immediately turns to a sectarian legal foundation for help in trying to legislate that his views be taught, or be allowed to be taught, as science in science classes. He whines and complains about how science standards are just a means of repressing "good science" in the name of some weird, ill-defined, manufactured "ideology" that really just repesents any viewpoint contrary to his narrow, sectarian religious doctrines. Needless to say, even conservative, Bush appointed, church-going judges consistently find that this teacher's claims are "breath-taking in their inanity."

Now, your mind is made up about evolution. That's pretty much par for the course when it comes to narrow, inflexible religious ideology. Sadly, you are wrong about science, and as you imply, there is little that any of us can do to convince you that your reality radio is so distorted that communications with the mother ship have become garbled and incoherent. I have read and studied virtually every creationist argument out there (at least, it's been quite a while since I heard a new one). I have yet to see a single one that stands up to any sort of scrutiny. Most are patently absurd. Those made with regard to my specific areas of expertise (paleontology, primate and human evolution, comparative and functional morphology, and systematics) are laughable because they are so completely wrong. As a scientist, I am open to any evidence that even suggests that evolution is wrong, and I anxiously await something -- ANYTHING -- that might provide even a smidgen of intellectual challenge to evolution. Instead what we get is drivel -- intellectual drool that goes beyond deserving of contempt into the realm of pathos.

Well, in light of Les's other post, I will stand corrected on that issue. I'm willing to apologize to Les for misreading his post. Shoot, I'll even retract what I said to Sir Toe. There you go!

But I hope these guys will actually someday LISTEN to the points you're making, Les, not merely quote it as a corrective to my remarks.

FL

I do love a good verbal slaughtering sometimes! mplavcan, you deserve a year's supply of beer. :)

As for FL, who said:

"The pro-science people will simply keep on plugging away, this year, next year, the next, the next, until the Kansas Science Standards permanently reflect good, solid science (as opposed to business-as-usual canned Darwinian spoonfeedin'.)"

He thinks the people against 'Darwinism' are 'pro-science'? I don't think I've EVER seen anyone of the creationist side come up with a more jaw-droppingly stupid statement than this one.

As someone once said: "He couldn't get a clue if he was drenched in clue pheromones, dancing in a clue field in the middle of clue mating season, wearing a clue suit, and shouting, "Clooo! Cloooo!"

And FL, I think for everyones safety, including your own, that we keep you specifically AWAY from beer. No beer for you! Just juice. Good boy.

He thinks the people against 'Darwinism' are 'pro-science'? I don't think I've EVER seen anyone of the creationist side come up with a more jaw-droppingly stupid statement than this one.

Larry Fafarman said the exact same thing a few days ago. That's pretty much the level FL is on.

True, Larry is a doofus. But I could imagine Larry's arguments looking quite convincing to people who don't have a clue. More experience with the actual arguments I guess (even though we know his arguments miss the point or are totally wrong). FL on the other hand, is just bonkers.

thread where Larry Fafarman did yesterday morning what FL did later. Great minds think alike.

It's just what the drones do, you know. Dembski and the DI write that science is being served by the recommendation of "critical analysis" (hey, it does sound good--which is the only reason they write those words), that someday the pro-science forces will win, and so the little boys thereby learn what to say from their master. Like Coin said.

Of course we don't know if it's supposed to be "pro-science" because it's the rhetoric of "intelligent design", or because it has the name "critical analysis" (anyone seen any critical analysis from these bozos?). It's the same thing regardless, enshrining inadequate arguments within science education, and making out incompetent criticisms of science and its methods to be the equal of the rigor of honest critical analysis.

So I don't know if FL or Larry could come up with the "arguments" the DI dredges out of the waste water to "back up" their labels, but at least they have heard from their slogan-masters. So they dutifully engage in the word wars, the only thing that IDists do have some expertise in.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

But I hope these guys will actually someday LISTEN to the points you're making, Les, not merely quote it as a corrective to my remarks.

True, Larry is a doofus.

He thinks the people against 'Darwinism' are 'pro-science'? I don't think I've EVER seen anyone of the creationist side come up with a more jaw-droppingly stupid statement than this one.

What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to be a teacher.

FL: This debate has already occurred, numerous times, before an impartial moderator, under agreed-to rules of evidence, both sides free to present their best evidence, and rebuttals. The last such debate took place in Dover, toward the end of last year. I'm sure you remember. As I recall, most of the "leading lights" of the IDiots (Dembski et al.) decided not to participate because they didn't like the rules.

One can only guess at the depths of hatred that fuels your ability to do all that name-calling and insulting, but hatred ain't science (and it ain't science education either, btw.) However, that's your addiction, not mine. I've done my apologizing and retracting and am moving on.

Sir_Toejam said:

"no... Larry is legally insane. a few months back, his brother weighed in on a thread where Larry was spewing some drivel or rather, and asked the other commenters to go easy on him as his mental state is a bit "off". His brother went on to confirm this, and offer a few opinions of his own, which of course were entirely 180 from poor Larry's."

Wow, sorry I missed it.

FL said:

"Care to debate it for a brief time (no more than a couple evenings) with me? Just say so."

What would be the point? You got your view, I got mine, neither of us will likely convince the other. Besides, you've already shown that arguing with you is like arguing with Larry. On another thread, despite having been shown evidence contrary to his opinions, he simply refused to acknowledge it and continued to spout off his own opinions, misunderstood science quotations and even used his own blog as a reference source. (Dave S. did most of the hard work (and a long post from me to Larry didn't show up! Darn it!!!)).

Anyway, I have no doubt that a debate with you would go past my holidays and it would be a complete waste of time. But ask yourself, while it may be easy to debate with a non-scientist like myself, why don't you present your evidence right here for all the science dudes to see, also? That's right, 'burredbrain' answered that one for you.

Okay, cue up the "chicken" remarks. (yawn) Yeah, I know.

'bk bk bkGURK!' (that was my chicken impression)

Wow, sorry I missed it.

Well, in light of Les's other post, I will stand corrected on that issue.

you're stupid, dumb, a moron, and an IDiot, and nothing you have ever said or done has any value.

can you point to evidence anwhere that any contibutor ever posted that would actually lead you to believe that someone here would realistically purport federal jail time for standards violations?

Well, Darth, sincere thanks for answering my question.

I regret that you will not be defending your previous statement there.
Perhaps your jaw will not drop quite so much next time I characterize non-Darwinists as "pro-science".

(I do want to emphasize that I was quite serious when I said "no more than a couple evenings." Neither of us has time for long debates, and I respect that limitation.)

And no, I have no intention of calling you a "chicken." You do not strike me as fearful, so I have no reason at all to do so (not to mention the fact that I leave name-calling to other folks.)

On the other hand, it does sound like you're offering excuses to a degree. Reasons:

1. I've given you no reason nor motive to think I'd dialog past the stated two evenings.

2. You've never done any focussed one-on-one dialogs with me, so you have no way of comparing me with Larry or anyone else.

3. Hey, both of us are non-scientists, that's okay.
However, I didn't ask any scientist's permission prior to characterizing Non-Darwinists as "pro-science".
And equally, you didn't ask any scientist's permission prior to characterizing my statement as "a jaw-droppingly stupid statement."

Therefore we could have went ahead and debated. Scientist or no scientist, nothing wrong with supporting your assertions if you are in fact able to do so.

But it's not a super big deal. There'll be more threads, more opportunities for one on one exchanges. After all, this is PT.

The weekend is here, time to go, and I sincerely thank you for responding all the same.

FL

You've never done any focussed one-on-one dialogs with me, so you have no way of comparing me with Larry or anyone else.

Neither of us has time for long debates, and I respect that limitation.

Yes, ACTIONABLE. For those a wee bit easy to tip over the edge, "actionable" doesn't mean felony prosecution. But it does mean grounds for a lawsuit or justification for firing.

And I do mean it. Shouldn't it be actionable for someone to teach that the Earth is flat (as suggested above), or that bacteria really don't cause any diseases, or that the Constitutional Convention was really a Communist cabal? Why should a teacher on the public payroll assume that she has license to teach children "facts" completely contrary to the well-established knowledge in any field? Why shouldn't standards have some teeth in them? Why wouldn't we want to enforce teaching valid facts in any field?

I'm a teacher, and believe me, I've seen plenty of teachers who ought to be FIRED for the crap they teach. And administrations and boards who ought to be sued. I am on the public payroll, and if I don't want to teach what the public (in the form of the state or national government) think ought to be taught, I can bloody well seek employment elsewhere. I can even teach MY version of the "facts" in some private "academy"--just not on the taxpayer's dime.

FL said:

"I regret that you will not be defending your previous statement there."

Nothing to defend.

"Perhaps your jaw will not drop quite so much next time I characterize non-Darwinists as "pro-science"."

True, I should be used to strange statements by creationists by now.

"On the other hand, it does sound like you're offering excuses to a degree."

Nah, I'm just plain lazy. :)

"1. I've given you no reason nor motive to think I'd dialog past the stated two evenings."

Fair comment.

"2. You've never done any focussed one-on-one dialogs with me, so you have no way of comparing me with Larry or anyone else."

Well, apologies to both you and Larry for the comparison. It's just that I was a 'lurker' on PT for nearly a year before I started posting, kind of getting to know the personalities of people here and witnessing many debates. Given that, I still think that debating you would be pointless. As I said, you got your view, I got mine and win or lose (or neither), I don't think I'd come out of it feeling any better or worse.

"3. Hey, both of us are non-scientists, that's okay.
However, I didn't ask any scientist's permission prior to characterizing Non-Darwinists as "pro-science".
And equally, you didn't ask any scientist's permission prior to characterizing my statement as "a jaw-droppingly stupid statement."

Oh, well. Then any scientist (or non-scientist) is welcome to see the post I made on Comment #116612. Should I have asked permission to say that? (You don't have to answer if you don't want to.) If so, my apologies to everyone.

Given that, I still think that debating you would be pointless.

The weekend is here, time to go, and I sincerely thank you for responding all the same.

The case with FL and other fundamentalist Xtians is that they live in a free society yet they dream of the days when people were persecuted because of their religious beliefs. They are the victims of heartless atheists that will stop at nothing to eradicate the good Xtians. Give a break not even in your wildest dreams you have a sense of what real repression is. I really would love to see how do you react when your a$$ is really on the line. You guys are pathetic losers that try vicariously to live the lives of the saints but without all the inconveniences such as persecutions, death, running for your lives, mobs, etc. You are nothing but an armchair martyr.

You are nothing but an armchair martyr.

"I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." -- D. Dale Gulledge