Points to Ponder about Ohio's Science Standards
-
Ohio must adopt new science standards by Dec 31, 2002. A committee of
scientists and educators has been hard at work for more than a year trying
to draw up new standards that can be implemented in 2003. They are still
revising the proposed standards, but the new draft will be available for
public comment in April, 2002 on the
Dept of Education website.
Standards are important because they symbolize Ohio's committment to
guaranteeing a quality education for all her children. The standards present
a vision of what Ohio considers the bare minimum students should know to
pass each grade. The 10th grade standards provide the basis for the required
proficiency test necessary to graduate from Ohio high schools.
Standards do not inhibit academic freedom. They set no limits on what
teachers are permitted to teach. Rather, they make a statement about the
minimum that must be covered each year. If it's in the standards, it must be
covered. Local school districts and individual teachers are free to teach
additional material. In fact, this is encouraged. But the additional
material must not violate any other laws, such as statutes against
pornography, local laws against inciting race hatred, or the constitutional
separation of church and state. The standards merely constitute the lowest
common denominator among educational experiences in Ohio.
Analysis of SEAO's Proposed Changes
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a non-profit group based in Oakland, Californina
supporting quality science education, has done an analysis of the
proposed changes offered by Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO), a project of the American
Family Association of Ohio. SEAO seeks to include "intelligent design" creationism in the newly drafted standards.
NCSE's analysis is available in both
html and
PDF
formats.
|
-
A group called SEAO (an affiliate of the religious American Family
Association) is trying to derail the process by eliminating references to
evolution and watering down biology content.
-
SEAO and other anti-evolution activists are making false claims that
President Bush recently signed legislation that would force schools to teach
Intelligent Design theory (also known as progressive creationisn or abrupt
appearance theory) and other fringe beliefs in science classes. for more
information on this see our Santorum "Amendment" page.
-
Inspired by the creationists' false claims, Ohio legislators have
introduced legislation that would require that the "full range of scientific
views" be taught in Ohio's classrooms. These bills have been put on hold for
the moment and will probably die in committee. However, it is worth
pondering the implications of such language for science education in Ohio's
K-12 classrooms:
What would teachers have to teach if this "full range of scientific views"
were interpreted to include
material
that sounds scientific, but has been rejected by the vast majority of
scientists and does not have a significant presence in peer-reviewed
journals? For example:
- Would teachers be required to tell their students about
J Phillippe
Rushton's "scientific" views on the inferiority of Africans?
Notice that, although promoters
claim the work is scientific and even claim that it forms part of the
evolutionary corpus, they publish in books, not peer-reviewed
journals --just like Intelligent Design "theorists."
-
Would teachers be required to tell students about
Cryptozoology, the "scientific" search for animals unknown to science, such as
bigfoot,
reptoids,
and the
Loch Ness monster?
Like intelligent design creationists, promoters
argue that if students are not taught to look for these possibilities, then
they won't find them. OCS feels that valuable classroom time should be spent
making sure Ohio's children consistently achieve a good understanding of the
major theories and results of mainstream science.
Cryptozoologists are heartened by the recent passage of the
giant squid (Architeuthis) from the
realm of myth into the realm of science. Ohio Citizens for Science is
excited about the giant squid research, but cautions that this does not mean
that all stories about undocumented animals are true. Now that Architeuthis
has entered the scientific literature, it is a great subject for classroom
discussion. Students can now discuss aspects of the squid's biology -its
digestive, reproductive and visual systems. But prior to scientific
documentation, the discussion could only have focussed on what we don't
know - a topic with limited appeal for children and little applicability to
future scientific projects.
-
Would teachers be required to cover premodern sciences that still have
followings, like
Alchemy and
Astrology? These are tough because there is some
peer-reviewed literature. Yet, much like intelligent design creationists,
most enthusiasts are motivated by religious feeling, rather than strictly by
the scientific allure of the results. Thus, inclusion of these could be
challenged on establishment grounds.
|
