Posted on 01/29/2004 3:08:06 AM PST by Ben Chad
Revised curriculum plan outrages science teachers
By MARY MacDONALD The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution, and may never even hear the word uttered in class.
New middle and high school science standards proposed by state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox strike references to "evolution" and replace them with the term "biological changes over time," a revision critics say will further weaken learning in a critical subject.
Outraged teachers already have told the state it is undercutting the science education of young Georgians.
"Just like any major issue people need to deal with, you need to know the facts," said David Bechler, head of the biology department at Valdosta State University. A member of the committee that worked on the biology standards, Bechler said he was stunned to learn that evolution was not in the final proposal.
"Whether you believe in creationism or not, evolution should be known and understood by the public," he argued.
Cox declined requests for an interview on the issue. A spokesman issued a statement Wednesday that said: "The discussion of evolution is an age-old debate and it is clear that there are those in Georgia who are passionate on both sides of the issue -- we want to hear from all of them."
Cox, a Republican elected to the state's top public school position in 2002, addressed the issue briefly in a public debate during the campaign. The candidates were asked about a school dispute in Cobb County over evolution and Bible-based teachings on creation.
Cox responded: "It was a good thing for parents and the community to stand up and say we want our children exposed to this [creationism] idea as well. . . . I'd leave the state out of it and I would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories."
Gateway course
Biology is a gateway course to future studies of the life sciences. And scientists consider evolution the basis for biology, a scientific explanation for the gradual process that has resulted in the diversity of living things.
If the state does not require teachers to cover evolution thoroughly, only the most politically secure teachers will attempt to do so, said Wes McCoy, a 26-year biology teacher at North Cobb High School. Less experienced teachers will take their cue from the state requirements, he said.
"They're either going to tread very lightly or they're going to ignore it," McCoy said. "Students will be learning some of the components of evolution. They're going to be missing how that integrates with the rest of biology. They may not understand how evolution explains the antibiotic resistance in bacteria."
The state curriculum does not preclude an individual public school system from taking a deeper approach to evolution, or any other topic. And the proposed change would not require school systems to buy new textbooks that omit the word.
But Georgia's curriculum exam, the CRCT, will be rewritten to align with the new curriculum. And the state exam is the basis for federal evaluation, which encourages schools and teachers to focus on teaching the material that will be tested.
A year in the works
The revision of Georgia's curriculum began more than a year ago as an attempt to strengthen the performance of students by requiring greater depth on essential topics. The new curriculum will replace standards adopted in 1984 that have been criticized by many educators as shallow. The state Board of Education is expected to vote on the revised curriculum in May.
The Georgia Department of Education based its biology curriculum on national standards put forth by a respected source, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But while the state copied most of the national standards, it deleted much of the section that covers the origin of living things.
A committee of science teachers, college professors and curriculum experts was involved in reviewing the proposal. The state did not specify why the references to evolution were removed, and by whom, even to educators involved in the process.
Terrie Kielborn, a middle school science teacher in Paulding County who was on the committee, recalled that Stephen Pruitt, the state's curriculum specialist for science, told the panel not to include the word evolution.
"We were pretty much told not to put it in there," Kielborn said. The rationale was community reaction, she said.
"When you say the word evolution, people automatically, whatever age they are, think of the man-monkey thing," Kielborn said.
Pruitt could not be reached Wednesday for comment.
Cox released the state's proposed new curriculum on Jan. 12 and invited comments on all subject areas for the next three months from parents, teachers and students. She described the new curriculum as world-class and said it provides clear direction to teachers for the first time on what will be expected of students.
Backlash a result
The biology revision was eagerly awaited by a strongly organized network of scientists, university professors and classroom teachers. Several teachers and professors say they are pleased the state adopted large sections of the national standards, which include a strengthened explanation of the nature of science, the function and structure of cells and genetics.
But the treatment of evolution prompted a backlash. More than 600 Georgians, including professors and teachers, by Wednesday had signed an online petition challenging the curriculum as misguided.
If Georgia approves the revised curriculum, the state will be among six that avoid the word "evolution" in science teaching, according to the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that advocates for evolution instruction.
Many other states, including North Carolina and South Carolina, have adopted national standards that cover evolution in detail.
The word "evolution" itself is important because it is a scientific term, said Sarah Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University. "Students need to know the language of science," she said. "They don't need to know euphemisms. It's just silly."
The proposed changes in the Georgia curriculum would leave students with tremendous gaps when they reach college, Pallas said.
"The students from other states always perform better in my classes, and that's a real indictment of the state educational system," the professor said. "North Carolina, another very conservative state, adopted all of the benchmarks. If they can do it in North Carolina, why can't Georgia do it?"
Debate over how and whether to teach evolution has divided communities and states for years.
In metro Atlanta, the Cobb County school system became the center of national attention in 2002 after it placed disclaimers about evolution in science textbooks and adopted a policy that could have allowed discussion of alternate views in science class.
The Cobb superintendent defused the dispute by issuing guidelines for teachers that told them to stick to the state curriculum.
Can you measure the allele frequency of a single individual? Do you understand how that relates to evolution?
Which version of the Bible is the correct one?
I have to admit that I do love teaching about the phlogiston theory...but part of that is just that I love saying the word. ;-)
This again? Puh-lease! Where?!
au contraire. But the last that made a good case was Hugh Miller c.1857. But the pre-Darwinian theory he was refuting was the nonsense of Robert Chambers, a speculation not credited today, except by Creationists as their version of "What Evilution is".
And Miller, geologist, Christian and Creationist, fully accepted the geological column and the concept of deep time whic arose from the speculation of James Hutton (not Charles Lyell).
And academic freedom to simply discuss the data relevant to macroevolution and allow the presentation of other alternatives. actually existed 1-200 years ago, amd the decision was made on which alternative made sense, and explained things.
That's how science works. one field impinging on another and answering questions. The concept of formation over deep time explained the geological column, the fossils in the column showed biologiocal change and speciation. Then the similarity between the column in Africa and S America inspired the idea of Continetal Drift (which again depends on deep time). And once CD (or the later modification Plate Tectonics) was part of "flawed science" there was then an understanding of why fossil marsupials are found only in Australia and the Americas and not in the Mountains of Ararat.
But I expect the alleged Dr Jay Wilde may not know that. The scraps of his writing you quote do not impress.
Frankly, if you are using Mr "You simply cannot put your faith in something as flawed as science." to teach your son biology, you are harming him.
see that's just how the medical practice of blood-letting endured so long. The docs were calling it phlebotomy.
I would prefer a different term ; )
(Tongue-in-cheek-mode) What would happen if one took this further in regard to neo-darwinian methods such as:
Random mutations
Natural selection
Chance and necessity
'Random' is essentially meaningless, 'natural' is fundamentally mindless, and 'chance' is lucky happenstance. Science must be careful with the 'selection' of a modifier to these words out of 'necessity' as it could cause 'mutations' in transcription and imply purpose;)
Science must only use the now shunned teleology to discover natural causes. Hmmm…
Why doesn’t the ‘word’ evolution just mean “biological changes over time” which now seems to be a dilemma?… If evolution was defined as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next” should we thank Mendel or Darwin? I believe the difference to be in the ‘mechanism’ and apologize for using this teleological ‘term’ as it might be offensive as to imply design. Neo-Darwinism is now defined as evolution? It seems Darwin was wrong but naturalism forgives.
Neo-Darwinism vs. teleology? Well I don’t know what naturalism will predict in regard to my post but teleology predicts that I will be called a creationist because I see design and purpose in regard to life. (Somewhat ironic : )
Regards...
The quality of education in Georgia (my home State) is such that Kathy Cox and pals think we are too stupid to understand the implication of that statement.
They don't do that right now all over the country. This is a movement to change socialist dogma.
I remember a year ago on FR when we talked about a NON-southern state was attacking evolution and people here poured out their support for creationism. But GOD forbid Georgia does it. What hypocrites you are.
Yes, it is, and for obvious reasons.
... mildly pejorative
Offending idiots or the ignorant is allowed.
... and a debating tactic lacking substance.
Buy a clue. Using the available means to demonstrate that the evidence is contradictory to what you believe isn't a tactic.
It can also be viewed as abusive of Christianity. Clear enough?
No, not at all. How is noting any objectively verifiable fact considered to be abusive of beliefs in an ancient mythology? You need to be a little more explicit here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.