Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[loki09789]

There you go again ....

You are saying that the 'community' has a voice with which to petition the curriculum. In business, we call this the 'voice of the customer'.

What are the limits to this voice?
At what point, can the voice of the community reach no further into the functioning of the school?

It seems you are presenting that the voice-of-the-customer can reach into the classroom as far as the content of material taught. You disagreed with the argument that the voice-of-the-customer could extend as far as whether anything is taught at all. Why would the voice-of-the-customer be able to affect one, but not the other?

I believe the community should decide if education is required for all children or not. (In this country, this argument has long been settled. Like most ideas, perhaps it needs to be revisited occassionally.) Once that decision is made, we should allow the experts in a particular field of study determine what is appropriate to be taught in that field.

Off topic. The school board, PTO and tax paying community already do have a voice/influence so that is place. You are comparing a consumer/business model on a governmental model.

I do find it ironic that you think that the appointed, approved 'experts' should determine appropriate decisions on education but are not leaving the appointed, approved 'experts' of this country to determine the 'appropriate' decisions about those choices.

citizens have a say in what happens within their community in a democracy. You are free to crow and gripe about Bush and the current administration and are free to petition, lobby and contact your chosen/voted representatives to let them know how you feel.

These citizens have the same rights at the local level when it comes to public education.

 

[Makalakumu]

It has already been discussed that a faith based mental construct will not stand up in a scientific mental construct. Vice versa is true too.

I am not debating the validity or the accuracy of these beliefs. I am saying that if the community that is paying taxes into the local public school are lobbying for their community values to be represented (not in place of, instead of, or better than the science but at least represented) what is wrong with that?

I know that you think Creationism should not be allowed in the science class, but in the context of this debate and in the context of fundamentalist belief, they think it should be. So, they are exerting pressure at the local level to do this.

That is the problem I have with local control in education in the context of this debate. The locals in question are pushing something that is obviously incorrect and the victims of this decision will be their children. Putting it simply, they are making a mistake.

So, the question becomes, do we let them make that mistake or do we attempt to explain that they are mistaken and take away their freedom to screw up their kids education?

Sounds like we are talking about a lose/lose situation.

upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

.... but are not leaving the appointed, approved 'experts' of this country to determine the 'appropriate' decisions about those choices.

I do not understand this.

Who are the 'experts' to which you are referring, and what 'choices' are you referring to?

 

[Makalakumu]

Mr. Persons' opinions in bold. It'd be nice if he were on this forum so we could answer him:

Rest assured that I will answer Mr. Person's infantile rant in the same forum he presented it. The comment about moral absolutist vs moral relativist really fried me... :flame:

 

[loki09789]

I do not understand this.

Who are the 'experts' to which you are referring, and what 'choices' are you referring to?

Presidency, administration, .... all elected public servants.

School boards are voted/appointed and vote on every hiring and firing from bus drivers to school superintendents. They are (generally speaking) elected officials.

So, the local governmental model is similar to the national governmental model. Comparing it to a business model isn't effective IMO because students are not 'raw materials being manufactured into finished products' they are people.

 

[loki09789]

I know that you think Creationism should not be allowed in the science class, but in the context of this debate and in the context of fundamentalist belief, they think it should be. So, they are exerting pressure at the local level to do this.

That is the problem I have with local control in education in the context of this debate. The locals in question are pushing something that is obviously incorrect and the victims of this decision will be their children. Putting it simply, they are making a mistake.

So, the question becomes, do we let them make that mistake or do we attempt to explain that they are mistaken and take away their freedom to screw up their kids education?

Sounds like we are talking about a lose/lose situation.

upnorthkyosa

Or do we simply offer the comprimise of teaching it in ELA and Social classes instead? Based on the morals and values of citizenship, they have right to their voice AND their chosen local representatives have the right to say no to their requests or to modify them and say that is where it ends...it doesn't have to be so blunt or cut and dry as Yes or NO.

It may be incorrect that they are (and at this point I don't remember if the original thread topic states this or not) pushing for Creation in Science class, but they are 'correct' in their point of view because of faith. IMO, fundamentalism or any singular 'ism' only works in a vacuum anyway. I teach kids who are being raised in strong faith families and when I present things that make them uncomfortable because of difference, I make sure that I don't simply present it as "THE WAY" but the way some people see things.

I have met the local school board members, at least one NA, a construction contract business owner and I'm not sure about the rest. They work hand in hand with the administrators. If the local citizenry (which is pretty heavily fundamentalist here as well) were to propose such a move locally or at the state level, just like any other issue before a board, the negotiations and consensus skills come out before a final decision is made.

 

[michaeledward]

I do find it ironic that you think that the appointed, approved 'experts' should determine appropriate decisions on education but are not leaving the appointed, approved 'experts' of this country to determine the 'appropriate' decisions about those choices.

I believe the community should decide if education is required for all children or not. (In this country, this argument has long been settled. Like most ideas, perhaps it needs to be revisited occassionally.) Once that decision is made, we should allow the experts in a particular field of study determine what is appropriate to be taught in that field.

Presidency, administration, .... all elected public servants.

School boards are voted/appointed and vote on every hiring and firing from bus drivers to school superintendents. They are (generally speaking) elected officials.

So, the local governmental model is similar to the national governmental model. Comparing it to a business model isn't effective IMO because students are not 'raw materials being manufactured into finished products' they are people.

We obviously are not talking about the same thing.

I do not think an elected school board member should be able to deterimine the curriculum content for, let's say English liturature, unless, that school board member has a demonstrated level of expertise in that field. Determining the content of a course is not something that should be left to the democratic process.

There are many more yellow belt students than black belt students. Because of their greater number (majority) do we allow the yellow belt students to determine what is going to be taught in the karate studio?

 

[loki09789]

We obviously are not talking about the same thing.

I do not think an elected school board member should be able to deterimine the curriculum content for, let's say English liturature, unless, that school board member has a demonstrated level of expertise in that field. Determining the content of a course is not something that should be left to the democratic process.

There are many more yellow belt students than black belt students. Because of their greater number (majority) do we allow the yellow belt students to determine what is going to be taught in the karate studio?

Again, inaccurate construct comparison. What class structure model are you working from for the martial art class: confucionistic family model, para military rank structure....?

As I said, the school board works with the administration. The school board uses the administration and staff as topic experts and, generally speaking, votes in favor of the curriculum advise that is presented. They don't act in a vacuum.

 

[raedyn]

I do not think an elected school board member should be able to deterimine the curriculum content for, let's say English liturature, unless, that school board member has a demonstrated level of expertise in that field. Determining the content of a course is not something that should be left to the democratic process.

I agree with this, but it is often not what happens in real life. Elected officials usually like to get re-elected, so often (there are notable exceptions) they will do what is popular with their consituents - disregarding what is the 'right' choice. And other times, they will act on their own principles, disregarding the opinions of their constiuents. See, for example, book banning. Shouldn't a librarian be fit to determine what books should be available to the students? I would say so, but many school boards have over-ruled librarians' authority.

 

[Makalakumu]

I teach kids who are being raised in strong faith families and when I present things that make them uncomfortable because of difference, I make sure that I don't simply present it as "THE WAY" but the way some people see things.

Do you think the school board has the right to make the decision to dictate THE WAY you had to teach and that was the ONLY WAY that could be taught?

I don't think that they do, yet that is what some local communities are trying to do with evolution.

And Creationism is wrong as a scientific theory.

The problem I'm trying to point out with Local Control of Schools is that some people just aren't informed enough to make some decisions regarding curriculum. Is this a job better left to "experts" or is this something the average joe can give input?

The result of a mistake is screwing up the education of your kids...I'm sure it would be someone elses fault...

 

[rmcrobertson]

No. It is not a librarian's place tp pick and choose which are the 'good,' books, and it damn sure isn't the school board's.

It is the librarian's, and the school board's job to explain to the community why it is that intellectual freedom is important, why it is that a few loudmouths do not get to dictate what everybody else reads, why it is that it's just a crying shame if somebody's beliefs (goofy or otherwise) conflict with books.

Of course there're financial considerations, just as there are common-sense considerations: grade-school librarians ought not to be ordering "Hustler."

But considering some of the vicious nonsense that appears in libraries and nobody says a word, and considering that the books the yahoos fuss over include "The Cat In the Hat," "Harry Potter," "Huck Finn," and everything Judy Blume ever wrote--yes, and Darwin--we're not talking about porn really, are we?

A big chunk of the American public believes in astrology--including Nancy Reagan. So let's get rid of Carl Sagan, that godless bastard, and teach astrology in astronomy...it's only fair, just another theory. A big chunk believes that "racial minorites," are biologically inferior--so we should teach that in biology classes, it's just a reasonable compromise. There're lots of wackos who believe that gay people deserve to die, that the Indians had it coming, that Hitler got a raw deal--so let's represent white people's diversity too.

Since when are Americans willing to compromise over intellectual freedom, and real science? Where's this political correctness coming from...the Right?

 

[Makalakumu]

"On the issue of evolution, the jury is still out regarding how God created the Earth," George W. Bush.

 

[Makalakumu]

This show just happened to be on NPR's Science Friday...

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2004/Nov/hour1_111904.html

This is an awesome program. I'm listening to it right now.

upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

While we were out ... this comes in from TIME Magazine

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html?cnn=yes

At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This fantasy accommodates the creationists’ view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is false. Among the park exhibits is one that illustrates another creationist article of faith. It consists of a long trough filled with sand and fitted at one end with a water spigot. Above the trough is a sign reading “That River Didn’t Make That Canyon.” When visitors open the spigot, the water quickly cuts a gully through the sand, supposedly demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was created, practically overnight, by Noah’s flood.

And, oh yes, it was formed about 4,500 years ago, a direct consequence of Noah’s Flood. How’s that? Yes, this is the ill-informed premise of “Grand Canyon, a Different View,” a handsomely-illustrated volume also on sale at the bookstores. It includes the writings of creationists and creation scientists and was compiled by Tom Vail, who with his wife operates Canyon Ministries, conducting creationist-view tours of the canyon. “For years,” Vail explains, “as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time span of millions of years. (Most geologists place the canyon’s age at some six million years). Then I met the Lord. Now I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old.”

 

[loki09789]

Do you think the school board has the right to make the decision to dictate THE WAY you had to teach and that was the ONLY WAY that could be taught?

I don't think that they do, yet that is what some local communities are trying to do with evolution.

And Creationism is wrong as a scientific theory.

The problem I'm trying to point out with Local Control of Schools is that some people just aren't informed enough to make some decisions regarding curriculum. Is this a job better left to "experts" or is this something the average joe can give input?

The result of a mistake is screwing up the education of your kids...I'm sure it would be someone elses fault...

Firstly, the school board and the supers don't tell you how you can teach that is your pedagogy and such... they CAN tell you what content they want you to cover -they do that now with State educational standards and the District/Subject curriculum maps that we use. The maps basically outline the skills and content that are to be covered from K-12. The way that you teach those skills and content pieces is really up to you - as long as you don't go TOO crazy with it based on your schools policies and culture...

oops did I say School CULTURE -which is a reflection of the local culture, which is using the locally funded educational institution as a vehicle to pass on it's ideas of citizenship and values - as well as informational/skills proficiency?

We are public servants and serve the community with our content knowledge. The superintendent and school board are the ones who decide what the overall vision/mission/philosophy and culture that we are working it will try to perpetuate or develop. If you don't like the direction that your school district is going, get involved or get out those are really the choices we have. Move from Faculty to Adminstration so that you can influence the culture to fit your vision. If you stay a classroom teacher, you are just that a classroom teacher with your individual views and only the influence of your classroom/department. Personally, at this point, I am not interested in Administration. I understand that I might have a different, more 'educated' view on certain issues relative to the school board - but they have taken up the mantel of decision making and I have not. Lead, follow or get out of the way is basically the way it goes.

School boards do have the power to approve issues of education - this isn't new - and isn't the issue.

I don't argue that Creationism is flawed as a scientific theory....it is a faith issue and I have been pretty straight on that all along.

 

[Makalakumu]

Firstly, the school board and the supers don't tell you how you can teach that is your pedagogy and such... they CAN tell you what content they want you to cover -they do that now with State educational standards and the District/Subject curriculum maps that we use. The maps basically outline the skills and content that are to be covered from K-12. The way that you teach those skills and content pieces is really up to you - as long as you don't go TOO crazy with it based on your schools policies and culture.

In some places in this country, your experience is not the norm. The school board must approve all curriculum. And in some states, creationism (intelligent design) has already been adopted as part of their state standards. There are some places in the bible belt where you are handed a large three ringed binder and THAT is what you must teach from.

Again I ask, do these parents/school boards/religious groups have the right to screw up their childrens education? By teaching evolution the way they want to teach it, they basically are taking the scientific method and trashing it.

The bottom line is that these people are messing up their children's chance for success in a scientific field.

oops did I say School CULTURE -which is a reflection of the local culture, which is using the locally funded educational institution as a vehicle to pass on it's ideas of citizenship and values - as well as informational/skills proficiency?

Yet, we are part of a broader nation and the success of our nation depends on education. Are we going to allow a group of backward thinking fundamentalists to weaken our nation so they can feel more comfortable with their spiritual choice?

We are public servants and serve the community with our content knowledge. The superintendent and school board are the ones who decide what the overall vision/mission/philosophy and culture that we are working it will try to perpetuate or develop. If you don't like the direction that your school district is going, get involved or get out those are really the choices we have. Move from Faculty to Adminstration so that you can influence the culture to fit your vision. If you stay a classroom teacher, you are just that a classroom teacher with your individual views and only the influence of your classroom/department. Personally, at this point, I am not interested in Administration. I understand that I might have a different, more 'educated' view on certain issues relative to the school board - but they have taken up the mantel of decision making and I have not. Lead, follow or get out of the way is basically the way it goes.

What makes you think that people aren't doing this?

 

[Tgace]

Are we going to allow a group of backward thinking fundamentalists to weaken our nation so they can feel more comfortable with their spiritual choice?

As an American, the bolded part is what worries me. I understand that sometimes the "majority rule" needs to be overruled in the interest of doing whats right (Slaverly was the majority rule, Hitler was elected etc. etc). At the same time, we should be extremely careful with the "we know whats best for you" approach. I find that teachers (very general statement coming up) are amongst the more liberal crowd. And I think that all the years of being the person with all the answers, and the final say in the classroom, causes many of them to believe that they know "whats best" for everybody. Having both family and friends in the profession, as well as spending many years (and $$) in the educational system, Ive meet many educators with very arrogant and condescending attitudes. Fortunately, Ive also meet many (hopefully the majority) teachers who are genuinely interested in education and student welfare and keep their personal politics just that...personal.

On creationism, I remember it just being "mentioned" as an alternate option when I was in school. How much time can it really occupy in the classroom anyway?

 

[loki09789]

1. In some places in this country, your experience is not the norm. The school board must approve all curriculum. And in some states, creationism (intelligent design) has already been adopted as part of their state standards. There are some places in the bible belt where you are handed a large three ringed binder and THAT is what you must teach from.

2. Again I ask, do these parents/school boards/religious groups have the right to screw up their childrens education? By teaching evolution the way they want to teach it, they basically are taking the scientific method and trashing it.

3. The bottom line is that these people are messing up their children's chance for success in a scientific field.

4. Yet, we are part of a broader nation and the success of our nation depends on education. Are we going to allow a group of backward thinking fundamentalists to weaken our nation so they can feel more comfortable with their spiritual choice?

5. What makes you think that people aren't doing this?

1. That, in essence is how some Social Studies Curriculums and mathematic curriculums run as well. If that was VOTED into approval and developed by Educated people who embrace these values, who are we to say you are wrong - it is THEIR CULTURE that they are preserving. Would you blast the Native American Reservation schools for teaching traditional values within their curriculum - along side the state standards? I don't think so. But, it is amazing to me that something so much closer is freely blasted on.

2. They are teaching it as they see fit. If it conflicts with the 'truth' of the rest of the world, then they will be challenged at college when they get hit by the wider world - or not at all and we will get limited view folks...wait those people have always been around - even among 'educated' people it seems if they can find someone with the degree clout to legitimately develop a statewide curriculum on creationism...Remember that Science only EXPLAINS what people THINK (with substantial support and detail) how they think things happened. Faith deals with the WHY things even bothered happening...never the twain shall meet.

3. Nope. They aren't. These people are doctors, psychs, scientists, mathematicians...but interestingly enough they can justify learning a method and applying a mental discipline that conflicts with their personal values in some way. Herrie has already mentioned that 'fundametalists' does not automatically equate to 'extremist' or 'fanatic' in all cases.

4. Gee...those 'backward thinking fundamentalists' were the exploratory backbone that fought the elements, disease, each other.... to build this nation. That same 'fundamentalist' level of faith has been around in some form or another for a very LONG time and has been a source of strength and will to get the job done in so many ways. It isn't just that these 'backward thinkers' believe that God literally created the heaven and earth in 6days and then drank a cold one.

There are some very good values and personally enriching faith practices in these 'backwards thinkers' that we all could learn a thing or two from - and that is coming from a Catholic who already gets in trouble for discussing religion with his local priest...

Now, they are going to undermine the nation? The Puritan work ethic, the 'God Fearing' order established in the community to serve each other instead of self, the Bapstists who supported the underground railroad,... yeah 'those people' (sounds awefully prejudicial to me) really destroyed the nation.

5. I am not addressing some people, but I am addressing you. You and I are classroom teachers. If it is so bothersome to you, you have the opportunity to move up the food chain to increase your range of influence if you want...otherwise we are simply classroom teachers with very limited influence. That is my point about lead, follow or get out of the way.

If we were generalizing African Americans/Latin Americans/Muslims...who ever else as a group and stereotyping them this badly there would be someone that would be blasting it all over the place as prejudice/bigotous and racist. I am really surprised at the lack of criticism up to now.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. That, in essence is how some Social Studies Curriculums and mathematic curriculums run as well. If that was VOTED into approval and developed by Educated people who embrace these values, who are we to say you are wrong - it is THEIR CULTURE that they are preserving. Would you blast the Native American Reservation schools for teaching traditional values within their curriculum - along side the state standards? I don't think so. But, it is amazing to me that something so much closer is freely blasted on.

What makes you think these people are Educated? Why do you think they have the background to make these decisions? They may, or they may not. From my experience with school boards, these folks are average joes and janes. Very few of them have any scientific training if at all. How are they qualified to determine what should be taught in science?

I wouldn't blast the Native Americans from preserving their culture anymore then I would a Fundamentalist Christian. Their culture does not belong in a science classroom, though (the exception would be when discussing how a culture impacts the real world). By its very nature, science is cultureless (or it should be). Science attempts to look at the world through an objective lense in order to glimpse what is really out there.

The fancy stories cooked up by the human imagination do not belong in the science classroom. Science is discussing the real world and is therefore fact based.

2. They are teaching it as they see fit. If it conflicts with the 'truth' of the rest of the world, then they will be challenged at college when they get hit by the wider world - or not at all and we will get limited view folks...wait those people have always been around - even among 'educated' people it seems if they can find someone with the degree clout to legitimately develop a statewide curriculum on creationism...Remember that Science only EXPLAINS what people THINK (with substantial support and detail) how they think things happened. Faith deals with the WHY things even bothered happening...never the twain shall meet.

Science means knowledge. True knowledge. Real knowledge. In a scientist's mind, a real world exists and we believe that we can know that world through observation. You can't just "teach it as you see fit" because then you are not addressing the real world. You are not teaching science.

3. Nope. They aren't. These people are doctors, psychs, scientists, mathematicians...but interestingly enough they can justify learning a method and applying a mental discipline that conflicts with their personal values in some way. Herrie has already mentioned that 'fundametalists' does not automatically equate to 'extremist' or 'fanatic' in all cases.

The Soviet Union rejected Genetics when the theory was first formulated because it conflicted with their ideology. Their knowledge of biology was thrown into a quagmire of deadends for decades because of this. We are facing the same thing in a way. The fundamental beliefs of science are being attacked right now. According to the fundamentalist view, science is mutable when it doesn't ascribe to your worldview, but when it does, its rock solid. In a very Orwellian way, this is exactly what O'Brian was trying to show when he was attempting to tell Winston that 2+2 = 5. In our world, we see this with our current administration, if the science doesn't fit, disregard it and find some that does, no matter how obscure.

I agree, fundamentalist does not always equate to extremist or fanatic.

4. Gee...those 'backward thinking fundamentalists' were the exploratory backbone that fought the elements, disease, each other.... to build this nation. That same 'fundamentalist' level of faith has been around in some form or another for a very LONG time and has been a source of strength and will to get the job done in so many ways. It isn't just that these 'backward thinkers' believe that God literally created the heaven and earth in 6days and then drank a cold one.

There were a lot of people who contributed to building this country, not just the "fundamentalists". I'm not sure how you are defining this anymore...I'll go with my gut, though...

Our knowledge base has, by and large, exponentially during the age of reason and enlightenment. Fundamentalists have fought this every step of the way despite all of the good it has done for humanity. So, backward thinking isn't a term that is dripping with prejudice invective. It describes the truth.

By the way, a LARGE segment of the fundamentalist population believes that God literally did create the heaves and earth in six days then kicked back a cold one on the seventh.

There are some very good values and personally enriching faith practices in these 'backwards thinkers' that we all could learn a thing or two from - and that is coming from a Catholic who already gets in trouble for discussing religion with his local priest...

I'm not denying this. I believe that most people carry goodness in their hearts. Yet, they have no right to force Science (which means Knowledge with a capitol K) to back up their worldview when reality shows nothing of the sort.

Now, they are going to undermine the nation? The Puritan work ethic, the 'God Fearing' order established in the community to serve each other instead of self, the Bapstists who supported the underground railroad,... yeah 'those people' (sounds awefully prejudicial to me) really destroyed the nation.

Loki - You are taking my words into places where they were not meant. All people are basically good and all peoples have done good. Yet, they have also done "not so good" and you can pick out the places in their philosophy where this has occured.

5. I am not addressing some people, but I am addressing you. You and I are classroom teachers. If it is so bothersome to you, you have the opportunity to move up the food chain to increase your range of influence if you want...otherwise we are simply classroom teachers with very limited influence. That is my point about lead, follow or get out of the way.

Hmmm - my district isn't having a problem with this because I am part of a group of professionals that is getting the information out. I can affect people in other districts by talking to people in far away places like I am right now and by voting.

Have no fear, I practice what I preach and I have no problem with putting my money where my mouth is. :asian:

If we were generalizing African Americans/Latin Americans/Muslims...who ever else as a group and stereotyping them this badly there would be someone that would be blasting it all over the place as prejudice/bigotous and racist. I am really surprised at the lack of criticism up to now.

What are the "generalizations" in which you object? I believe that what I have said has been correct.

 

[Makalakumu]

As an American, the bolded part is what worries me. I understand that sometimes the "majority rule" needs to be overruled in the interest of doing whats right (Slaverly was the majority rule, Hitler was elected etc. etc). At the same time, we should be extremely careful with the "we know whats best for you" approach. I find that teachers (very general statement coming up) are amongst the more liberal crowd. And I think that all the years of being the person with all the answers, and the final say in the classroom, causes many of them to believe that they know "whats best" for everybody. Having both family and friends in the profession, as well as spending many years (and $$) in the educational system, Ive meet many educators with very arrogant and condescending attitudes. Fortunately, Ive also meet many (hopefully the majority) teachers who are genuinely interested in education and student welfare and keep their personal politics just that...personal.

On creationism, I remember it just being "mentioned" as an alternate option when I was in school. How much time can it really occupy in the classroom anyway?

I'm not sure how to respond to this, but I'll give it a go. I've got a Masters in Education and now in Physics. Does this give my opinion more weight when talking about issues involving these two topics?

If I was respectful in giving this opinion to you and it went against something you believed, how would you react?

What if my opinion was soundly grounded in fact?

upnorthkyosa