PASADENA CAPSI - NSF FUNDED SCIENCE WITH NO BOOKS, NO CONTENT e:\doc\web\99\12\capsi.txt Date sent: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:34:52 -0700 To: "ClearingHouse" From: Wayne Bishop Subject: [education-consumers] RE: The Kansas Standards Copies to: "Jerry P. Becker" , Mary Hanson , Daryl Chubin , Judi Hahn Send reply to: Wayne Bishop ===================================================================== I wrote this a couple of day's ago in response to Jerry Becker's posting on the same issue. It seems appropriate here as well. Adding to it slightly from this morning's email, Pasadena Unified has its own Science Standards on the agenda for tonight's Board of Education meeting. A concerned parent went through them in comparison with the California Academic Content Science Standards and counted *only* 232 specific points in the CA Standards which the Pasadena ones (essentially written by CAPSI for Pasadena and their NSF grant) ignore. Specifically, he reports that "the 5th, 6th, and 8th grade standards content is almost non-existent. For 9-12 there is no electrical theory at all. No chemical equilibrium theory at all. Nothing about the grand scheme of the universe, and nothing about California geology." Following Judi Hahn's posting, it might be enlightening to go through the Kansas science standards and compare them with the CAPSI standards as proposed for Pasadena public school children (we have some superb private schools so don't worry about we affluent and educated residents, just the po' folk who don't know better or can't afford to switch even if they do). Who is doing more damage to U.S. science education, the Kansas State Board of Education or the National Science Foundation? Wayne. ------------------------------------------------------ Jerry, Although this is all clearly true, it does not address a much deeper and nationwide problem of science education, the failure to teach children to read science. The NSF, AAAS, and down to my local district have downplayed the importance of direct teaching, whether from books or from lectures, in deference to hands-on, inquiry-based science education. Nearly all of what any of us know, or think we know, about science we read or we were told. Avoiding some particular, albeit important, concept in our collective knowledge for political or religious reasons is bad but that is not comparable with never developing the skill to read technical material nor to pay adequate attention to a knowledgeable individual who is presenting rather complicated concepts. I think it is no accident that my district, Pasadena Unified, has its lowest SAT-9 scores in reading and in science. Similar numbers apply at the 9th grade (the year at which science scores are first reported in California) but the 11th grade (the last year reported) has Reading at the 29th NPR and Science at the 30th. Math is at the 34th, Language Arts at the 38th, and Social Science at the 46th. Through elementary school at least, no textbooks are mandated, recommended, nor even encouraged in a major NSF funded program through (now Numero Uno!!) Caltech, also in Pasadena, called CAPSI, in part because students are poor readers. This is the science program in all of the public elementary schools of the district (Pasadena's excellent private schools know better) and efforts are being made to spread the program nationally. I deeply believe that avoiding this kind of reading, even with incumbent oversimplifications and sometimes outright mistakes, is bad both for developing reading skills and for group learning from experts, those whose time is valuable and whose availability might be extremely limited. On average, I'd bet on those kids educated in Kansas over those educated in Pasadena Unified *in science* as well as in other disciplines. Don't avoid evolution, of course, but don't avoid science itself. Wayne. ----------------------------------------------------------- At 12:29 PM 8/21/1999 -0500, Jerry Becker wrote: >U.S. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD STATEMENT ON ACTION OF >THE KANSAS BOARD OF EDUCATION ON EVOLUTION > >The National Science Board notes with sadness and deep concern the recent >action of the Kansas Board of Education to remove evolution as a topic >for required teaching and testing in the state's science curriculum. >Although the Kansas Board's vote allows local schools to continue >teaching evolution in science classes, teaching and learning stand to >suffer. > >Evolution is a well-documented process - and the rich scientific debate >about its precise nature will continue to contribute to our knowledge >base. But biology, like every science, does not exist in isolation. The >Kansas action removed a key element from the body of scientific knowledge >that schoolchildren need to learn and, in so doing, diminished the >quality of education that they are likely to receive. > >At a time of already-profound concern about the quality of mathematics >and science education in our Nation's schools, the Kansas action is a >retreat from responsibility. A school board, whether elected or >appointed, is expected to act not only in its community's best interest, >but also in the national interest. America's children will someday be >expected to think, vote, and participate in the global economy and local >community debates - many grounded in the life sciences. An appreciation >of the tensions among observation, explanation, theory, and fact will >prepare them to be knowledgeable and effective citizens. > >Parents, educators, and policy-makers should regard damaging cuts to a >state curriculum with dismay. Such decisions may be "local" but, if >unchallenged, they will ultimately affect the quality of life in this >Nation for years to come. > >------------------ >The National Science Board serves as the governing board of the National >Science Foundation and provides advice to the President and the Congress >on matters of national science and engineering policy. ------ NSB 99-149; > August 20, 1999 Media Contact: Mary Hanson -- (703) 306-1070 / >mhanson@nsf.gov Program Contact: Daryl Chubin -- (703) 306-2000 >***************************************** * Jerry P. Becker Dept. of >Curriculum & Instruction Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL >62901-4610 USA Fax: (618)453-4244 Phone: (618)453-4241 >(office) E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu > At 12:28 PM 8/24/1999 -0400, Regnier, Paul wrote: >===================================================================== > > > >It is very important to make the point that many of us who are appalled >by what was done in Kansas are very aware of just what, in fact, was done >and are STILL appalled. WE are NOT reacting to misinformation in the >press. Speaking for myself, I am appalled because: > >1.) by taking evolution out of the material that Kansas students are >tested on, the Board is, minimally, sending the message that evolutionary >theory is not central to modern biology, which could not be farther from >the truth (Evolution is central to the study of biology and undergirds >many aspects of biological and other sciences. Marginalizing it at the >state level is like marginalizing -- by not testing for -- the Periodic >Table of the Elements.) > >2.) what the Board did is a step on the way to getting biology out of >the curriculum (or teaching it as scientifically equal to "creationism") >in schools throughout the state, and will be used to do so in many places >in Kansas. > >This is a struggle between reason and unreason. Our children and our >nation will suffer if obscurantists like those who persecuted Galileo >(because he believed his eyes and reason instead of their religious >views) are allowed to undermine the study of science in our schools. > >Those of us who want excellent education for our children need to oppose >such views and actions. > > -----Original Message----- > From: J. E. Stone [SMTP:professor@education-consumers.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 11:38 AM > To: ClearingHouse > Subject: [education-consumers] The Kansas Standards > > >===================================================================== > From: Judi Hahn > > ******************************** > > John: > > I think that those who are discussing what the Kansas Board did >should > take the time to read the approved standards before saying > anything >more > about what a terrible thing the Board did. I have read the >standards -- > all 103 pages. I got a copy of what the Board approved the day >after the > vote. So you know, the press misrepresented totally what the > Board >did. > > > The new Kansas science standards in no way eliminated or expunged > evolutionary teaching. What the Kansas board did was to eliminate >the > state testing of evolutionary theory. The standards are certainly >clear > that evolution is part of what a child should know about -- even > in Kansas. > > If the problem is "teaching to the test" and thus by "teaching to >the > test" -- which will not test on evolution -- that eliminates the >teaching > of the evolutionary theory, then that's a teacher problem. Every >text > book (but one) that I've reviewed for middle school level science >through > high school science is rife with evolutionary content. A teacher >would > be hard pressed not to teach evolution if using one of the > standard texts. > > I know we depend on the media for a lot of the information we >receive, > but in this case, they plain got it wrong. The teaching of >evolution is > still alive and well in Kansas. > > Judi Hahn > ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Website & Archives: http://education-consumers.com You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, use the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or