Slashdot Mirror
New House of Reps Site on Science, Math, & Tech Education
Michael Lach writes "The U. S. House of Representatives recently lauched a web site documenting recent hearings and noise about K12 science, math and tech education. Interesting comments from all sorts of big-wigs. There's a place for comments--it looks like they might actually do something on this issue at last. "
If we let 6th graders decide if they wanted to attend school or not, we'd see about a 95% dropout rate. Tell me, when you were in 6th grade, would you have rather been learning fractions or playing outside with your friends?
And what happends to all of the "weeded-out losers"? Do they just disappear? Get sent to prison? Work at McDonalds for life? What do we do with all of the unskilled morons then?
paranoid.android
Genesis 1:1 heavens and Earth :)
Basically this was an opening statement, it was a quick synapsis of the whole thing, not part of the order.
1:3 light
1:4 darkness
Both are stated as being basically created at the same time, then seperated. Kinda strange I guess, but this could be seen as the stars forming in the galaxy from the expanse of gasses
1:8 Heaven again!
1:9 Earth again!
No not again, first time. 1:1 was synapsis remember
1:12 plants on the land
1:14 light again! darkness again too!
slight rehash basically you could see the stars now from earth. and the stars where still finding their position in the sky.. things moved pretty fast after the big bang
1:16 god calls the moon a light - heh heh!
Didn't say such thing, said greater light in day lesser light in night, could be talking about star light, or whatever its really not clear, but still there is light comming from the moon, even if it is reflected. Would you say a sunroof was a "light source" I personally would
1:20 finally sea animals, and birds
1:24 beasts of the earth
1:27 man finally
yea.. that pretty much completes the cycle of evolution.. I see no problem here. Just some guy with something to prove.
There is a book which may interest you called None of the Above by David Owen. It was last printed in 1985 and I believe it is about to be reprinted this month. Fatbrain did not show it, but Amazon is taking orders.
It's a very interesting expose of the SAT and the pseudo-science behind it. I highly recommend it to anyone who is about to take the SAT, LSAT, or any other standardized test.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
As a product of a purely public education and a member of a family comprised largely of teachers, I feel qualified to comment on the state of our educational system.
The only thing that is lacking from our public schools is a motivation to learn. You can not make a pupil learn when they have no desire to. Conversely, nothing can stop a student who wants to learn.
I am a Chemical Engineer. I tested out of college calculus despite the fact that my high school calculus teacher was one of the worst I'd ever had. How? I sought help elsewhere. I got a tutor. I studied the book.
How many of us learned to program in a classroom? Not many I'd guess. Yet, I'd stake the farm on the fact that most of us learned to program faster than we ever learned anything in school. Why? Because we wanted to. It was our own project. We did it by trial-and-error, reading a book, following other people's examples.
It doesn't matter how you teach a child... the only thing that matters is whether or not they want to learn.
-- First post (by a female living in a state that begins with M and does not end in a vowel with a birthday that falls
Yes, that is a plausible compromise between the Bible's decription of creation, and the theories of evolution. Many people I know subscribe to such ideas. The people who are calling themselves "Creationists", and are trying to get Creationism taught in schools along with or instead of Evolution Theory, are saying something completely different. To summarize, from The Creation Research Society (one of the big organizations pushing for creationism education), Creationism consists of the following principles:
* The Bible is the written Word of God. Genesis is simple historical truth, and should be taken literally;
* All basic types of creatures, including man, are direct creations of God. Minor changes within those types might have occured since then;
* Noah's flood was a historic, worldwide event;
* Christ is the savior.
As you can see, this agenda is pretty hard to swallow for anyone non-christian. It is also solidly outside the realm of science, and should not be taught as such, particularly not in the public schools, which are forbidden to endorse one religion over others.
In addition, Creationists generally either assign a specific age to the earth of something between five and six thousand years old, or at least say it's no more than ten thousand years old. This flies in the face of hard observational evidence and theories of not just evolution, but physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Stop me if I'm wrong here, I understood the statemnet about newtons theories having almost zero percent chance of being proven wrong. But, then you continued on to say evolution also has about zero percent chance of being proven wrong. :)
HEHEH.. prove it!
Or, at least, every genuine expert in the various branches of the computer industry that I know became experts through experimentation, study of source code, simply trying to do something, and reading books. You can't spoonfeed this stuff.
;)
That said, some of us got our introduction in formal settings, but the substantial learning was self-directed.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
You may be right about your momentum point, I certainly have no references which I can confirm either presentation of his second law, only that most schools teach the law as f=ma, not f=mv'+vm'.
However, there are other points where Newton's laws produce incorrect results. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation does not produce correct results if the objects are moving toward or away from each other rapidly. It assumes the change in relative location would have an instant effect on the change in force, yet this is not the case. Also, while Newton's laws do explain most features of orbits, they don't predict effects such as the precession of orbits like Mercury's.
The bottom line is, some of Newton's laws of Mechanics have been shown to be not strictly accurate. However, for most conventional applications, they are certainly accurate within the precision required, and are quite useful.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I agree that comparing SAT scores from year to year is inappropriate. The problem is that school boards, governments, and the press like to do it.
At least once a year, you can find an "SAT average scores are up/down this year" story. Governments and school boards love to use year-to-year comparisons:
1) SAT scores are down. We need more money.
2) SAT scores are up. We're doing a good job.
Would a ten-year downward trend in SAT scores really mean that students were getting stupid? If we assume that today's students are the beneficies of 20 years of progress in education (dangerous assumption), then the trend in SAT scores for the last 20 years should generally be UP. Realistically, the test will be "adjusted" before this trend ever shows up.
We put WAY too much emphasis on this silly, subjective bubble-coloring test.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
IMHO, education is going in entirely the wrong direction, in a lot of ways.
Firstly, people aren't tape recorders or parrots. So, any system which teaches that way of thinking is inherently flawed. How to test for this? Well, if a computer, using only a fixed database of facts, can score above average in an exam, there's a problem.
The human mind isn't built to store things "precicely", but it IS geared to process that data in creative ways, using lateral thinking. It's also very good at logical thinking, but that's not it's strong point.
When you teach people, and award marks, in a way that tries to make the brain do something it's not built for, you are BOUND to teach less than you could, and retention is BOUND to be poor.
Secondly, people who have exceptional ability in a given area are often neglected, giving rise to bored, aggitated kids, who will undoubtably be disciplined for responding to that neglect, which leads on to a whole cycle of abuse/neglect from teachers, and reactions from the kid. Often, such kids are the ones who do worst at school, and become effectively rejects in society. For the horrible crime of being smart.
Those exceptional kids who aren't neglected are often over-pressured into doing well. Such kids often burn out quickly, and make up a sizable fraction of university suicides.
Average kids are also pressured to "succeed", at any cost (including their own physical and mental health, their social development, their peace of mind, their own likes and dislikes, their friendships and virtually everything else that is important to a kid or for a kid.) Those who rebel will end up without the scraps of paper they need to get a job that pays well enough to cover the rent. Those who don't will probably end up in AA, a psychiatrist's couch. Or both.
It seems to me that an educational system that teaches fundamentally flawed materials and inherently damaging principals has got to need some serious revision.
I doubt either House will ever do anything, any more than the British have. (The best the British have managed, in the past few hundred years, are a few feeble, misguided gestures. GCSE's should be shot, for a start.)
Science needs to be taught in schools in a way that helps kids understand it, not turn half of them into axe-wielding luddite technophones and the other half's brains into blue/green jello. And for chrissakes, can SOMEBODY put a globe in the geograhy classes!! England is NOT off the coast of Florida!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
odysseus complex wrote:
Good scientific practice is to look at and consider all alternatives.
No, that's good philosophy, has nothing at all to do with science. Good science is to follow the scientific method. That is:
* look at and consider all appropriate observational evidence,
* formulate a hypothesis based on the evidence,
* and attempt to disprove the hypothesis by applying more observational evidence to it.
If you fail to disprove it, you show it to your peers, if they fail to disprove it, you can call it a theory. After it's been around a while, you get to teach the theory in science classes.
Creationism, while an important belief for many, just isn't science. It isn't a hypothesis based on observational evidence, it is based on religious faith. There has been no attempt by it's supporters to disprove it scientifically, and when scientists do so, they are ignored or even insulted. It isn't science, it has no place in science class. It is religion, it has no place in an organization (such as a public school) covered by the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Hmmm.
Maybe the "voucher system" should extend to home-schooling -- if a parent wants to stay home and teach, they get the voucher(s).
(And if, upon reaching 18 or so, the kid(s) can't pass a high-school equivalency test, the parent has to pay the money back into the system.)
Some quick points.
There is no way that Newton's theory will ever be falsified. Not even Einstein's theory did that!
According to Newton's theories (he did have more than one theory, you know), as long as you apply a constant force to an object, its velocity will increase according to the simple equation F=ma, indefinately. Einstein's theories show that to be patently false. Newton's theories of mechanics are known to be incorrect, but are still taught because they are an excellent approximation of what will happen during most student's experiences, they are easier to calculate, and they are easier to comprehend. A good science teacher will make sure students know that they are just approximations.
If you are going to argue loudly on behalf of science, make sure you've got your science straight first.
Your speciation example is much better. It shows that the theories of evolution have continued to hold up under new and different observation, confirming the theory.
Note that no reputable scientist would say "This is the one and only truth of the universe". Scientific theory is merely the best ideas we have right now of how the world works. Theories last until a better idea comes along. Scientifically speaking, Creationism is not a better idea than Evolution, it doesn't hold up to vast amounts of observational evidence in biology, geology, physics and more. While I agree with you here, make sure you don't get too dogmatic about scientific theory, or you are in as bad shape as the Creationists are.
There's a great deal of evidence that the Christian god is fabricated out of whole cloth.
I would be very curious to be shown such evidence. And I mean observational evidence, not historical anecdotes. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence that there is or is not a god, Christian or otherwise. Religious belief must (and should) be based upon faith, not evidence. They shouldn't tell scientists what science is, scientists shouldn't tell them what god is or isn't. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I was disapointed in the witness lists. I did not see anyone out side of the education industry. After many years of being a practicing chemical engineer my wife decided to give something back and start teaching middle school math science. With a masters in ChemE you would think that she could get licienced, but not so. It was not the education courses, she was willing and did take those. She did not have the right kind of MATH courses. The state required college algebra and college geometry. Calculas, and engineering ecconomics were not good enough.
I do not see anyone in the witness list to give me hope that the closed education industry will change.
Yesterday's paper USA Today cover story was about the new plan for grading SAT's on a curve. A student would get extra points for "striving" if that student came from a school where scores were lower or somesuch. (I couldn't find the article on their web site via their search. Anyone have a link?)
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Starting around 6th grade, kids that don't want to be in school should be allowed to leave so that those who want to be there won't be held back. If a student is a disruption to the learning environment, kick 'em out. If the losers and idiots weren't in the schools, they (the schools) would be great.
We all know Americans can teach... we have some of the best Universities in the world. It is just that after High School all the losers are weeded out. Weed 'em out earlier is what I think we should do.
I read the web site and I saw written nowhere that creationists and other irrational people are a huge threat to education. I agree with them that science education in this country is a mess. The fact that most adults believe that the universe was created by a god is proof of that. One of the critical things that we must do is defend schools against such things as public prayer, religion, and especially creationism. When dogma is taught as science all truth is in jeopardy.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The poster of this article sounded pretty hopeful that this was an indication of vast initiatives to come. I don't believe it. This is little more than a public relations page - there is no obligation for any of your representatives or even their representatives to read the comment board. By posting this forum, they are allowing people like ourselves and also educational apologists to blow off steam and feel as though their government is participatory. That is all this page will probably accomplish.
I sound cynical, I know. But remember, with the way our democracy is currently structured, it is in the best interest of Congress is to make us feel as though problems are being addressed, not to actually address them. Without hot topics like education/affirmative action/taxes/etc., what grounds would most of those schmucks have for requesting reelection? They have to cover the influence of their corporate masters somehow...
If you really want to influence education in America, then fuck websites. Get off your ass and DO something in a poor community. Donate computers! More importantly, donate your time! There are many ways that educated individuals can improve local schools. And don't forget to vote.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
"One alternative is that you and everything else are all figments of my imagination, and I am the only thing in the universe."
:)
Actually, that theory has worked pretty well for me so far.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Just one more piece of proof concerning people who love to spout off irrational ideas. The bible doesn't say that pi = 3. You have to understand the way the hebrew language works to understand what it really says. But just because we translated it wrong, doesn't mean jack.
umm (not a page I would personally recommend but first one I found from searching pi and bible.. but basically explains the problem)
First, let's look at the public prayer issue. The restriction on prayer in schools is absurd.
:-) Others have already commented about "theories" and "laws" and how "proof" is a useless non-concept with regards to natural sciences.
.. ?
.. well, you're wrong.
As usual, people are making a bigger deal out of this than they ought to. There is no restriction on personal prayer in schools, and you know it. If you want to say a silent prayer to yourself during recess, study hall, or an exam, you have the right to do so -- and nobody can ever take that right away. The restriction is on organized prayer. Now while the Christians cry persecution, you know damn well that a Muslim principal who starts out a commencement address with the words "There is no God but Allah" would have the Christians in an uproar to end all uproars. Yes, I know that by pointing out that Christianity is not the only world religion I have made myself to be anti-Christian and an enemy of God. I simply feel that the fact needs to be pointed out every once in a while.
As for creationism: notice that it's called the "theory of natural selection", the "THEORY of evlotuion". Do I need to explain the difference between scientific theory and scientific law to you?
Inasmuch as it appears you are unqualified to do so, please don't.
Yes, it's true that evolution is taught alongside of some other suspicious pseudoscientific claptrap, such as the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the theory that germs cause disease, etc. After all, nobody has ever actually seen an atom with their own two eyes, and yet we teach our children about their existence with no qualms whatsoever. Time for some more warning stickers, apparently
You seem to be of the stripe that believes in total freedom to be anything but a Christian.
Well, I can't speak of the original poster, of course, but I am "of the stripe" that believes that a vocal religious minority has no right to force its beliefs down the throats of everybody and make its superstitions compulsary. If I was a raving lunatic that believed that the world was created by the Headless Horseman, you wouldn't want me teaching that to your children, would you? If you wouldn't, then perhaps you can understand why non-Biblical-literalists object to the teaching of Biblical creation in science classes (not to mention the fact that such teaching would be perhaps the penultimate violation of the First Amendment.)
Nobody's talking about limiting Christianity or religion in general. If you think you're being persecuted because people oppose legislating your religious beliefs
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I read the front of this page and that was enough. The government can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean they really care. The biggest tipoff for me was this line: "Education is the key to developing the intellectual capacity of our children -- the next generation of innovators, CONSUMERS and citizens." Yeah, gotta make sure that the kiddies know how to spend all their money on stuff they don't need.
To me there are two big problems with education. Number one is money. If the government was serious about improving education, they wouldn't cut the education budget every year, while raising the budget for the military and the prison system. They need to raise the salaries for teachers so that the educational system can attract people who would be truely good teachers.
Second is teaching kids to think for themselves. Another post mentioned something to this affect. I never learned anything like this in school, all I learned were a few half truths about history and how to do some math problems. We need classes on how to view the media critically, commercials, tv, or anything else that takes your time and or money. But no, not in this country...here we have to go out and buy whatever the commercials tell us to buy.
Until the gov't addresses these issues (or something similar) I won't take them seriously.
I live in Dallas, Tx. Here, our school board meetings are often attended by political activists. These people are more concerned with getting their pictures in the news than with education. I believe that education is starting to become the practice field for aspiring politicians and activists.
These clowns will rant for hours about values, fairness, and budgeting. If you ask one of them how we should teach a child the formula for finding the area of a circle, you'll get a blank stare. That's the problem.
The first priority should be teaching core materials -- math, science, history, and language. If we're not doing that, we're not educating. We're simply creating an institution to hold kids until they're old enough to graduate. Maybe we'll accomplish some social indoctrination along the way. In Texas, that means you should know the score of last night's game even if you don't know the value of pi.
The politics of American schools are becoming truly disgusting. Everyone wants to get their pet "values" put into the curriculum. This way, they gain mindshare with impressionable future voters. Best of all, they can defend their efforts with, "it's for the children."
The best thing "for the children" now would be for schools to drop the fluff and get back to teaching. It should be so simple, but we make it so hard.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
I wasn't defending creationism (or denying it) I just don't like to see people throw false facts out to try to prove their case. And if you accually read the Atheism FAQ you just pointed me to, it in no way mentiones the theory stated above, much less disproves it.
Note: if you wern't replying to me, I apologize, but I see no reason for a rational person atheist or not standing up for ungrounded arguments.
Creationism should not be part of a science class because it is not a scientific theory.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.