HomeScience(Page 3)

Science

A Third Evolutionary Alternative?

Eduflack Science

The battle over evolution in the classroom is always an interesting one.  As some states battle to teach creationism alongside evolution (or to eliminate the teaching of evolution altogether), it often comes down to a basic debate of science versus faith.  That comes as a surprise to no one.  But it makes for some interesting rhetorical battles at both the school district at the state levels.

What is surprising, though, is the latest Gallup poll data, reflected on the front page of today’s USA Today.  More than 1,000 adults were surveyed the first week of February, asked to weigh in on their opinion of evolution.  The results?  39 percent of Americans believe in the theories put forward by Charles Darwin and defended by Clarence Darrow down in Tennessee more than 90 years ago.  A quarter of adults (25 percent) don’t believe in evolution, siding with the Old Testament and William Jennings Bryan.  And a whopping 36 percent have no opinion on the topic.
Eduflack gets the battle lines between those who believe in fish with feet and those who do not.  But how can more than a third of adults have “no opinion” as to whether they believe the theory of evolution?  What, exactly, were they taught during their school days?  Did they have a bad experience with a monkey or in Sunday school?  It’s no wonder our school districts get confused when it comes to how to proceed on the future of such science instruction.  That 25 percent of creationists may be vocal and clear of their intents and purposes, but the 36 percent who don’t know, don’t care, or generally don’t have an opinion speak louder than all.  Or maybe there is a third alternative that we just haven’t considered yet? 

Advocating for Meaningful STEM Education

Eduflack Math, NGA, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

Earlier this week, www.ednews.org ran a Commentary from Eduflack on how to advocate for meaningful STEM education, particularly at the state level.  The article was originally found here — ednews.org/articles/33615/1/Advocating-STEM-Education-As-a-Gateway-To-Economic-Opportunity/Page1.html.  Thanks also to Fritz Edelstein and the Fritzwire for spotlighting the piece.

I’ve received a lot of response from folks on the piece, so I thought I would repost the original EdNews piece here, crediting EdNews as the publisher.

Advocating STEM Education As a Gateway To Economic Opportunity

By Patrick R. Riccards

Effectively integrating Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) education and its impact on the economic opportunity into the culture is more important today than anyone ever anticipated.Our nation’s recent economic struggles, coupled with concerns about career readiness and 21st century jobs, have refocused our attention on infrastructure – both physical and human.At the heart of rebuilding our nation’s intellectual infrastructure is a STEM-literate society, and students equipped with the STEM skills needed to succeed both in school and career.

But implementing a STEM education effort isn’t as easy as it seems.To some, STEM is a retread of education programs offered decades ago or a recast of vocational education.To others, it is something for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, not for every student.To overcome these obstacles, states and school districts are forced to move into a mode of advocacy and social marketing, effectively linking K-12 education and economy and demonstrating the urgency for improvement to both.

Education improvement no longer happens in a vacuum.Call it communications, advocacy, PR, or social marketing, it all comes down to effective public engagement.For education reform efforts across the nation, ultimate success is more than just educating key constituencies about their cause and goals.True success requires specific action – implementing improvements in partnership with educators and other stakeholders to boost student success, close the achievement gap, and ultimately prepare every student for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century workforce. Such actions require us to move from informing the public to building commitment for a solution, and, finally to mobilizing around specific actions.

Making stakeholders aware of a concern like the need for STEM education is one thing.It is quite another to move the public to the more sophisticated level of informed opinion necessary to reach consensus and generate a sense of urgency that ultimately leads to the action of investing in a K-12 STEM agenda.But this is how great education reforms move from simply good ideas to great successes.

Before we can get audiences to adopt STEM education efforts and embrace the portfolio of research and recommendations available to them, we must first make them aware of the issues at hand.The informing stage makes people aware of the issue, developing a true sense of urgency for change.

While many decisionmakers recognize that there are problems in meeting the coming workforce demands, many do not agree on what those problems may be or what actions might successfully address them.Unfortunately, too many people believe that there is nothing that can be done to fix these problems. Those states that are poised to become leaders in STEM education must convince K-12 and postsecondary education leaders, current and potential employers, state and local policymakers, and the public at large that there are solutions that will work, and solutions their communities can get behind and support.

Ultimately, we do this by showing the enormous need for reforms in “schools like mine, in classes like mine, with kids like mine.” By focusing on past successes and proven-effective methods, educators can demonstrate the critical role STEM plays in our schools, economy, and community, helping make key decisionmaking constituencies understand the serious risks they face simply accepting the status quo. Thanks to groups like the National Governors Association (and a number of forward-thinking states) and the National Math and Science Initiative, such efforts are well underway.


Next, we shift into phase two — building commitment.Once parents, educators, and policymakers recognize the problem, they are ready to commit to a meaningful solution.Transforming a general need for improvement into a public call to arms for STEM education requires understanding that these solutions are the right ones to improve efficiency and success.

Inevitably, some people will reject proposed reforms. Some will be reluctant to face and accept the trade-offs that come from choosing a specific plan of action. Opponents will try to poke holes in specific reforms. The best way to avoid this resistance is to ensure that everyone is involved in the process and that all of their concerns have been heard.

After moving beyond initial resistance, stakeholders begin to weigh their choices rationally and look to a variety of options for moving recommendations into practice.Decisionmakers need to feel that they have a range of choices and a reason to make them.Successful advocacy clarifies the pros and cons of each decision and allow time and opportunity for deliberation.In Colorado, for instance, STEM leaders are working with business leaders and the P-20 Council to explore opportunities and make specific choices to meet the state’s educational and economic needs.

With that, we are finally ready to move to phase three — mobilizing for action.Changing attitudes and informing the debate is not enough. STEM education succeeds when policymakers and community leaders are actively supporting its solutions.Once our target audiences are engaged because they believe in the merits of our position, they will need to know what we want them to do to help accomplish these goals.So it is important that our communications and organizing efforts include specific actions – ideally actions that are easy and feasible – that supporters can take to help reach overall goals.

If history tells us anything, we know the public may agree that reform efforts are valid and will produce desired results, but may not be willing to change their behavior or adopt specific recommendations.This is
temporary, though.Given time, incentives, and opportunities to consider their core values in light of challenges and needs, stakeholders can reach the final stage of full intellectual and emotional acceptance of the importance of improving education opportunity for all.Now is the best time to make sure that there is a role for everyone to play in education improvement, giving stakeholders the tools and information needed to move themselves and others from awareness to action.

Education is an industry as driven by emotion as it is by fact.As a result, too often, stakeholders decide that inaction is the best action, out of fear of taking a wrong step or alienating a specific group. That is why too many groups, causes, and reforms struggle to develop true public engagement efforts that affect real outcomes.That’s where the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action model comes into play, offering education leaders one of the most effective methods to implement meaningful education solutions. Applying this model to STEM efforts is critical and will offer long-term impacts on strengthening our schools, our community, and our economy.

(Patrick R. Riccards is CEO of Exemplar Strategic Communications, an education consultancy, and author of Eduflack, an education reform blog.)

Published February 9, 2009

Advocating STEM Education as a Gateway to Economic Opportunity

Eduflack Math, Science, STEM

Over at www.ednews.org, Eduflack has a new commentary piece on how STEM education efforts — particularly those led at the state level — can have a real, lasting impact on strengthening our economy.  I’ve said it often and I’ve said it loudly, STEM education is an enormously powerful tool to our P-16 infrastructure.  We unlock that power by understanding the issues, knowing the audiences involved, their pressing concerns, and how STEM can help erase those issues and empower decisionmakers to use our educational levers to make instruction more relevant for all students while building a workforce pipeline ready and willing for the challenges of the 21st century economy.

This commentary piece focuses on how we effectively market STEM to the teachers, business leaders, elected officials, and families who are all a part of the solution.  And it walks you through the steps we must take from informing those audiences about STEM to driving them to specific actions that improve our schools and strengthen our economy and community.
Happy reading!

What’s Wrong with 21st Century Skills?

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM, Students, Workforce

Recently, there seems to be growing momentum against the notion of 21st century skills in our K-12 classrooms.  Some find the term just to be a little too trite for their tastes.  Others believe it moves away from the classically liberal arts education, like literature and history, that K-12 was designed for more than a century ago.  And still others think that it is code for turning our high schools into trade schools.

So Eduflack asks the question, what’s wrong with 21st century skills?  We hear time and again that other nations are eating our collective school lunches when it comes to international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.  We worry about how our kids stack up when it comes to math and science and such, worrying that more jobs may either be eliminated or relocated.  We wonder what jobs will be out there when they do graduate, and whether they will be competitive enough to secure those jobs.
In last year’s Quality Counts, EdWeek gave my home state of Virginia an “F” when it came to college preparedness of our students.  In my previous work with the Virginia Department of Education, I heard time and again from businesses in the Commonwealth that today’s high school graduates simply don’t have the skills necessary to fill today’s jobs, let alone tomorrow’s jobs.  Nationally, our high school drop-out rate is still about one-third, meaning one in three students never gains that diploma in the first place.  And for those who get through high school and do move on to postsecondary education, more than half of them need remedial English or math courses when arriving at their higher education institution of choice.
So, again, what is wrong with 21st century skills for our 21st century schools?  Better yet, what is wrong with defining what 21st century skills really are, at least as they relate to today’s K-12 students?
Reading, math, and science are all 21st century skills.  The ability to use technology is a 21st century skill.  Soft skills like problem solving and teamwork and critical thinking and such are 21st century skills as well.  The problem we have is that when we talk about 21st century skills, too many people think we are talking about skills newly discovered in the 21st century.  That just isn’t the case.  Yes, we are talking about core skills that have been around since Plato.  But that doesn’t mean the skills aren’t as relevant today as they were a millennia or two ago.  It just means we need to starting thinking about them and teaching them in new or different ways that make them more relevant in our 21st century world.
In recent weeks, I’ve talked with a good friend who is a former urban superintendent about the future of classroom instruction.  One of his top concerns is the belief that we are “un-plugging” our students once they enter schools.  Here at Eduflack, we’ve used the term “de-skilling.”  For many, this boils down to the issue of technology in the classroom.  When you have students living on computers and MP3s and instant messaging and cell phones, and you have a world and an economy that are equally reliant on the same, where is the logic of putting away all that technology between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.  and teaching reading, math, science, and social studies through 19th century delivery mechanisms?  
Concern on the issue is redoubled when we consider the changing face of the American classroom teacher.  Across the nation, school districts have been experiencing significant retirements and a new face on the teaching workforce.  Incoming teachers, particularly in our urban districts, have been brought up on computers and cell phones.  They’ve likely never used a card catalog, and many of them do not take a daily newspaper.  But that doesn’t mean they are informationally deprived.  They simply get their data through other sources, through 21st century sources aligned with their interests, their skills, and the world in which they live.
I am no shrinking violet when it comes to the advocacy for STEM education and the need to ensure every student is STEM literate.  For me, this isn’t just an issue for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world.  Even that student looking to work on the manufacturing line next to his father is going to need STEM skills in our new economy.  Every student benefits from STEM literacy, regardless of their future education, career, or life path.  That includes providing them the soft and the content skills that we define as 21st century skills.  More importantly, it requires a new way to deliver the content that, for decades, has been deemed essential learning.
What does all this mean?  Ultimately, when we talk about 21st century skills, we aren’t talking about new sets of content and new academic areas of study.  Sure, topics such as engineering still have yet to really be defined in a K-12 environment (and we clearly don’t have a praxis for secondary school engineering teachers), but we are still talking about core academics like reading, writing, math, science, and the social sciences.  At its heart, 21st century skills is about a new delivery system.  It is about moving beyond the chalkboard to the interactive white board.  It is about moving from the card catalog to the World Wide Web.  And it is about moving from rows and rows of single desks into groups of interactive, collaborative students progressing beyond rote memorizations into critical thinking and higher-level learning.  
Ultimately, it is about delivering our core education in a 21st century world through 21st century means.  An education more relevant and interesting for students.  An education more engaging and empowering for teachers  An education more applicable and valued in the economy.  If 21st century skills is a code, then it is simply code for skills that are relevant and outcome-based for all those involved in the learning process.  That is the sort of progress we should be investing in.

A TIMSS-tastrophe?

Eduflack Math, Science, STEM

Eduflack has been a broken record when it comes to the need to equip all students with the knowledge and skills they need to achieve in the 21st century.  We know all kids will need higher-level math, science, and technology skills if they are to hold good jobs a year or a decade from now.  And we’ve put the impetus on our K-12 system to provide the instruction relevant to today’s economy and to tomorrow’s opportunities.

In many states across the nation, specific STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) programs are just getting off the ground.  Forward-minded states are laying the necessary frameworks to establish statewide STEM education strategies, building real, relevant instructional programs for our K-12 and higher education systems.  But from today’s data, we clearly aren’t moving fast enough.
Today, NCES released “Highlights from TIMSS: 2007,” revealing the data of U.S. student achievement in math and the sciences.  The lowlights:
* Only 10 percent of fourth graders and 6 percent of eighth graders scored at or above the advanced international benchmark for math.  Our fourth graders were outperformed by fourth graders in such educational leadership nations such as Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.  Our eighth graders couldn’t measure up to heavyweights such as Russia and Hungary.
* The average science score for both fourth and eighth graders hasn’t increased since 1995.
* Of the 35 countries participating in TIMSS, our eighth graders were outperformed by seven countries in math and six in science.
What does it all mean?  When it comes to math and science performance, the United States is quickly becoming a textbook case for mediocrity.  There was a time when countries like Kazakhstan and Hungary aspired to just get closer to us, now they are outperforming us.  There was a time when we offered the gold standard in science and math education, now we are fortunate to be competing in the top 25 percent.
It is no surprise that NCES and the U.S. Department of Education are trying to put a positive face on this disappointing data.  At a time when we promised every student would be math and science proficient within the decade, we are heaping praise on statistically insignificant gains on math scores (against ourselves from 12 years previous) and merely holding our own on science.  We’re treading water, and we’re doing a damned fine job at it!
It’s nice to live in such a world, but the data just doesn’t live up to the real world our kids are facing.  We know we need dramatic increases in math and science achievement, but the numbers just don’t show it.  We know our kids need stronger math and science ability, but they just can’t demonstrate it.  We know STEM is the path to success, yet we are only slowly moving toward its reality.
How do we learn from the TIMSS data?  We need to focus on five key ideas:
* Ensuring that all schools, particularly those in at-risk communities, have qualified, effective math, science, and technology teachers … and those teachers have the instructional materials and professional development they need to succeed
* Rapidly ramp up statewide STEM initiatives that affect all students, in grades kindergarten through high school, looking at Minnesota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania as models
* Better connecting K-12 and higher education, tapping into quality instruction, quality course offerings, and long-term pathways of learning
* Exploring more ways to get mid-careers in the classroom, moving those from the science professions into science instruction (particularly in the middle and secondary grades)
* Providing all classrooms with the instructional materials, technology, and access they need to effectively learn, whether it be through textbooks, virtual instruction, internships, and real-life engagements.
The task before us is whether we take these TIMSS results, act on them, and build from them or whether we simply put this report on a shelf and move on to the next issue.  For the sake today’s students, we desperately need to focus on the former.  Unfortunately, we historically have spent too much time on the latter.  
These results should be a call to arms for the education community.  We shouldn’t be satisfied with the outcomes, and we shouldn’t settle for mediocrity.  We have a lot of work to do if we are to pass by those kids from Hungary and Kazakhstan and start competing with the likes of Hong Kong and Japan.  

When It Comes to Reading, It’s All in Our Heads

Eduflack NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Science

Over the last decade, we have seen a real evolution into scientifically based reading instruction.  The work of the National Research Council and the National Reading Panel both focused on the research base that was out there, and what the data told us about good, effective instruction.  The American Federation of Teachers released a report on reading instruction titled “Teaching Reading is Rocket Science,” hoping to dispel, once and for all, that there was a proven scientific method behind effective reading instruction madness.

Those who believe in the whole language philosophy (and it is a philosophy folks, it is not an instructional method), would tell you that good reading instruction is actually more art than science.  We need to let students learn at their own pace, do the things they enjoy, and gain skills (or not gain them) on their own terms.  Instead of focusing on the need for practice and skills development, those who stand up against proven instructional methods would almost prefer we let our kids feel their way around reading, guessing in the untested instead of learning through the proven.
When we think about proven reading instruction, particularly in elementary schools, we often think about teachers, teachers’ aides, reading specialists, parents, and after-school programs.  How often, though, do we think of neuropsychologists?  But today’s Washington Post, the Health section no less, reminds us of the lasting and meaningful role hard sciences can have on teaching our children.
WaPo’s Nelson Hernandez paints a compelling picture of the impact neuropsychology, MRIs, and brain scans can have on diagnosing reading difficulties and helping educators provide the interventions specific students need.  The full story is here — <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402987.html?hpid=sec-health.
Eduflack”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402987.html?hpid=sec-health.
Eduflack has had the privilege of spending time with Laurie Cutting at the Kennedy Krieger Institute and seeing how this science works and how it can guide effective classroom instruction.  It is truly amazing to see the process the Post describes in action, to see how brain activity changes, both during an individual session and over time.  It is incredible to know we can use brain maps to literally see scientifically-based reading approaches take hold in a child’s head, giving the instructional foundations virtually all students need to learn to read.  And it is that science that must serve as a foundation for the future of reading instruction.
In the coming year, we are likely to see a de-emphasis in our attention to scientifically based instruction.  We’ve all heard how much scientifically based research was included in the original NCLB legislation.  We’ve all questioned the true impact and validity of the findings offered by the What Works Clearinghouse.  And we’ve are even slowly seeing the differences between both good research and bad research, though most are still learning how to tell the difference.  
Both presidential candidates, along with legislative leaders such as Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman George Miller, and Congressman Buck McKeon have all spoken to the need to continue to “do what works” in our classrooms.  That means spending our valuable education dollars on methods and materials that are proven effective and based on real, replicable research.  No matter who is calling the shots come January 2009, we all must remember that guiding principle.  We pay for what is effective.  We reward what works.  
And we make a national commitment to move evidence-based instruction forward, regardless of the direction ESEA reauthorization may take.  At the end of the day, we are investing in our children, placing a large bet that virtually every child can succeed and every kid can perform.  We win that bet by putting our marker on a sure thing.  Evidence-based instruction is as sure as it gets these days.

The Mind as an Education Tool

Eduflack Math, SBRR, Science, STEM

Eduflack is a true disciple of the science of education.  Over the years, though, I’ve heard many people describe instruction as more art than anything else.  At a National School Boards Association national conference years ago, I actually got into an argument with an attendee who tried to explain to me that it was wrong to try and force kids to learn to read at any age.  His thought, they will eventually come along to the issue.  Instead, we should be encouraging them to play guitar or yodel or do whatever feels good, and once they were focusing on what they were enjoying, they may soon decide that reading could be a joyful activity as well.  Reading will come in time, through wishful thinking and pockets full of rainbows.

Perhaps that’s why we often hear that the reading wars are an issue of phonics versus whole language.  The only problem with that, though, is that phonics is an instructional approach (and but one piece of many instructional approaches needed for effective reading teaching), where whole language is a classroom philosophy.  Anyone who has attended a postsecondary institution knows there is a difference between science and philosophy.  But I digress.
During my work in scientifically based reading advocacy, I was most taken with a visit I made to Georgetown University and the time I spent with Professor Guinevere Eden.  Dr. Eden showed me how MRI machines can help diagnose reading skill struggles.  By studying the brain, we can literally see students struggling with phonics or fluency or vocabulary.  And with the right interventions, we can actually see the brain changing, with colors and activity evolving as students acquire the reading skills they need to become reading proficient and achieve in the classroom.
After all of these years, we know the brain science associated with reading instruction.  We also know that such approaches and such science applied to other instructional topics as well, particularly mathematics instruction.
Don’t believe me?  Then check out an upcoming summit here in Washington on October 21.  The MIND Research Institute will host a national summit on math education and brain research.  Consider it the perfect chaser to this week’s U.S. Department of Education’s implementation summit on the National Math Panel’s report.
We all know how important reaching multiple audiences is to promoting a good education idea.  The MIND Research Institute is not only promising the usual practitioners and policymakers, but they are bring neuroscientists to the fold, giving them the soapbox to talk about real, measurable, non-squishy research in instructional practice.  It is a little different for DC, yes, but different can be good, particularly as we struggle to identify the best ways to get proven instruction in our math classrooms.  Check out www.mindresearch.net for more information.
Doesn’t matter if it is reading, math, science, or even the arts.  Research-based practice is research-based practice.  Whatever we can do to better explain the research base, educate stakeholders on good versus bad research, and actually get scientifically based education research into practice is an action worth taking.  Hopefully, the MIND Research Summit will keep the discussion going, demonstrating that science tells us a great deal about instruction and doing what works shouldn’t be limited to reading instruction.

“Fortune and Glory …”

Eduflack Science, STEM

Over the years, we have heard of the effects of pop culture on higher education pursuits.  In the 1980s, the data shows a spike in law school enrollments, credited to the “L.A. Law” effect.  Young legal minds seeking to be the next Arnie Becker or Victor Sifuentez.  In the 1990s, it was the ‘ER” effect, with increases in law school admissions as young doctors-to-be sought to gain a residency slot at County General.  And in recent years, it has been the “CSI” effect, as aspiring criminologists sought to collect prints in Vegas or Miami

This weekend, Eduflack had one of those rare instances where he was able to slip out to a movie.  (Having a two-year-old in the house means this was the first newly released moving in six months I and Eduwife have been able to see.)  Without giving it a second thought, we jumped in the Edumobile and headed out to an early morning show of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”

Two hours later, I was certain I needed to quit all of this ed reform stuff, go back to school, and become an archaeologist.  If it weren’t for my inability to gain competency in any foreign languages (Indy seems to speak dozens, including the dead-for-a-thousand-year-ones), I’d be fitting myself for a fedora, mastering the bullwhip, and heading out to the jungles, deserts, and mountains when antiquities, fortune, and glory can be found.  I wouldn’t even mind teaching those quaint little undergraduate classes on the civilizations and legends of the past.

Of course, I know this isn’t what archeology is really like.  But it is enough to get the juices and the mind flowing, while inspiring us to pursue new ideas.  We also knew that going to law school didn’t mean a high-powered barrister life in the City of Angels, nor did the forensic sciences afford us a life of glamour, power, and intrigue.  But these pop culture moments inspire others to pursue education.  They see something on TV or at the movies, and have an “a ha” moment.  A career possibility to be explored.  An academic pursuit recently discovered. Doors of knowledge opening for the first time.

Areas like archeology and ancient history are in need of such “a ha” moments.  College majors where many don’t see true fortune and glory are passed over for business or pre-law or economics.  But much value can be found in these subjects and others like them.  Sure, none of us are going to become the next Indiana Jones, but that doesn’t mean we use these moments to educate and to inspire.  To teach and learn.  It is a similar philosophy that has us putting a lense of relevance, interest, and passion around the STEM subjects.

But sometimes we have cold water thrown on our dreams of leather jackets, arks, and temples.  Just check out the piece in today’s Washington Post from Neil Asher Silberman.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302453.html  He paints the job much differently, of excavating by centimeters and analyzing plant remains.  With the stroke of a pen, he took all of the excitement and passion out of a career path that needs passionate and committed scholars.  Unintentionally, Silberman took away a great teaching moment to inspire students to study history, science, and the humanities all rolled into one.

Oh well, I guess that archaeologist-adventurer job will have to be left to my dreams.  Back to ed reform.

What Would Darwin Think of These Teachers?

Eduflack Science, STEM

In many education circles, we like to use the teaching of creationism in science classes as a punchline.  We thought all of this was solved at the Scopes Monkey Trial.  We’ve seen Inherit the Wind, and thought Clarence Darrow had William Jennings Bryan dead to rights.  Darwin won.  And fish with feet now adorn many a good liberal’s Saab or Volvo.

But then we see reports like that released by ABC News.  Researchers from Penn State surveyed 2,000 high school science teachers last year.  Nearly 1,000 teachers responded.  And they found 12.5 percent of them taught creationism as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.”  Sixteen percent believe that human beings were created by God within the past 10,000 years.  And teachers who “subscribed” to creationism spent 35 percent fewer hours teaching evolution than their non-creationist colleagues.  Check out the article here — http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4895114&page=1.

We’d all like to believe that teachers leave their personal opinions and points of view at the classroom door, particularly when it comes to supposedly fact-based courses such as science.  In fact, when we hear about the problems of teacher points of view, we usually think of social studies classes and teaching about wars and social policy issues.  We think of courses on cultural issues and current events and such subjective ones, not biology and the earth sciences.  We’d think wrong.

In an era where students are on the lookout for biased textbooks and teachers with an agenda, it is fascinating that 12.5 percent of teachers are so open with their beliefs and their teaching of creationism.  It is even more interesting that we don’t hear the complaints.  Creationism stories seem to be anecdotal at best.  If we are truly getting creationism lectured in one out of every eight high school science classes, where is the ACLU?  Where are the separation of church and staters?  Where is the liberal conspiracy?

Eduflack was raised in a strong Catholic household.  I spent eight years in CCD.  I learned how God created the heavens and the earth in six days.  But I never heard it in my K-12 experience.  Not in biology, not in chemistry, not in physics (and not even in those social studies classes).  Maybe I was attending one of those seven in eight classes.  Maybe my teachers realized that the science behind evolution was uncontroverted.  Maybe they just followed the texts, and the texts were all Darwin, all the time.  Or maybe, just maybe, we are looking for conspiracies, personal agendas, and things that go bump in the night in places where they just don’t exist. 

Do we really believe their is a national spike in creationism instruction?  Or is this yet another example of individuals telling pollsters what they want to hear (or what they believe and refuse to act on)?  Anyone have data on teachers and creationism from 20 years ago?  Or even 10?  Anyone?