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.
Did a group of evil, atheistic scientists get together with the expressed goal of getting rid of God by developing a disabolical theory that removed God? Uhhhh, no, and I'm not suggesting that. However, for all practical purposes, the theory, idea, conjecture of evolution has been used to do exactly that, create generation after generation of unbelievers because they are easier to control. And if you think that evolution is not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind. I personally think this is food for thought, and this is the reason other ideas and thoughts on origins should be mentioned in the classroom (remember this thread is about the classroom, not wether evolution is correct or not). I guess one lecture or hand-out comes to close to challenging your cherished beliefs that this should not be allowed. Also if evolution is as self-evident and other ideas are mere myths, then students will be able to see, right? So why the opposition?
Holy cr@p! A med student who doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of the scientific method or the theory of evolution? How did he get into med school?
So what? A tool is a tool is a tool.
Or would a statement like:
And if you think that guns are not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind.... make you want to ban all guns?
It seems that you need to learn to separate cause and effect from meaningless correlation.
Nice try. You don't have to be a Christian to be a creationist. Also many of us who ridicule "creation science" are Christians. And as a Christian I do not want to be associated with such idiocy.
Evolution does not challenge my cherished beliefs at all. In fact, I expect man to try and explain Creation (with or withour God). Science does not consider the "supernatural" because it is unreproducible by definition. I have no problem with this. It makes sense as far as the scientific method is concerned. As well as this, one cannot also reproduce, experimentally, all the change necessary for evolution either, so to take what can be objectvely seen today and extrapolate backwards is a completely scientific and rational approach. Addmittedly, all of evolutionary theory is trying to give rational explanations (conjecture if you will) to try and "connect the dots" between what can be objectively seen today. Unfortunately, science holds to this "cherished belief" like any religious institution holds to a dogma, and doesn't allow any questioning of evolution or origins. Science discounts the probabilities, lack of genetic evidence for beneficial mutations, and completely ignores any biochemical problems to the origin of life from chemicals, to name a few. Yet, science's answer is: "we're here, so it must have happened that way!" What other area of scientifc discovery is such an answer appropriate?
The Ministry of Healing has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. I'm training to become a "human mechanic" not an evolutionary biologist. What we currently know about human anataomy and physiology as it applies to the medicine of the human today, does rest on any sort of evolutionary foundation.
I would treat your children just fine, but like any good or service in this country, there's more than one of us.
Quite easily actually . . .
I am afraid you and others here have this all backwards.
The creationsts are the ones who would like to see certain knowledge prohibited from being taught in schools. If there was a viable alternative scientific theory in addition to evolution, rest assured it would be included in the curriculum. But there isn't.
Straw man. Guns are not a tool used to chnage the heart, soul, and mind, and in this case evolution is.
I'm not a violent guy at all, but if they want my gun, I'd like to see them try and take it.
Could you give me a cite for that? I googled "diversity is the only absolute to be gained", and all it came up with was 4 copies of "Remarks to the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee by T. C. Pinckney" from 2001.
This sounds to me like (yet) another creationist fantasy quotes.
Not me - teach it.
No offense, but what kind of medical school are you attending? Haven't you taken any molecular genetics? microbiology? At our institution even the med students learn to do some bioinformatics and sequence analysis.
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.