California ID class is sacked

[funyun]

Well if you want the short and sweet answer its throw it all out, and start giving the tools to find out the answers not giving them the answers and hope they figure out how the tool works.

Ok, from now on we'll start getting down to the bare bones in elementary science classrooms, and teach kids the mathematics of General Relativity whenever gravity comes up. I'm sure a 3th grader will have no trouble understanding Riemann manifolds.

 

[Praxiteles]

Everyone should be concerned to some degree with what is happening in the US. It has a cultural and political impact outside its borders to a much greater extent than any other country.

So I find this dumbing down of education there to be quite upsetting.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Everyone should be concerned to some degree with what is happening in the US. It has a cultural and political impact outside its borders to a much greater extent than any other country.

So I find this dumbing down of education there to be quite upsetting.

You think ID is the biggest problem? Science is barely taught, period, in elementary school now.

 

[Praxiteles]

You think ID is the biggest problem? Science is barely taught, period, in elementary school now.

I think that ID is a symptom of the problem. Minimising all science is another symptom.

The US has politicised school boards: that is the biggest problem.

 

[ravenscape]

I think that ID is a symptom of the problem. Minimising all science is another symptom.

The US has politicised school boards: that is the biggest problem.

Bingo! It's been a problem forever, but couple an anti-science culture with politicized school boards and you have a recipe for...well...what we've got in the U.S. -- schools held accountable for nearly anything BUT education of the students.

 

[Praxiteles]

Bingo! It's been a problem forever, but couple an anti-science culture with politicized school boards and you have a recipe for...well...what we've got in the U.S. -- schools held accountable for nearly anything BUT education of the students.

I'm sure it's a very expensive way to get things done, too. Running elections isn't cheap. I was very surprised when I first learned that administors are elected.

I was likewise surprised when I first discovered that some law enforcement officials and government prosecutors are also elected. Different strokes, I suppose.

 

[Erock83]

Ok, from now on we'll start getting down to the bare bones in elementary science classrooms, and teach kids the mathematics of General Relativity whenever gravity comes up. I'm sure a 3th grader will have no trouble understanding Riemann manifolds.

Cool dude won’t know if they will until you try.

Now granted that was sarcasm to some degree; however I think we give the human mind a little to much credit especially when it comes to children. If a student can’t repeat facts in 3rd grade they are receiving failing marks. Even if they can understand A Brave New World, but can’t remember what soma is but can tell you why that little white pill in the book was important. My point is we should be teaching kids to how ask the latter question, and not be able to blindly remember the former. The Idea that parroting is a good way of teaching concepts is like telling a student to read these five studies on a ToE and learn the scientific method, plus remember the authors and what they found. You have got to be kidding me right? The only students that will be able to answer the first question would be ones that have a natural gift of reading into things or once that parents actually care about what their child is doing in school and teach the student themselves. This means that an average student in a single parent two job home will never be able to excel as well in school as the student from more economically well off family. Want to talk about cycle of poverty. Maybe you don’t understand why teachers are allowed to do such things, its subtle, just like you say teaching IDism is a way of sneaking religion into the classroom. The methods allowed in schools(generally limited by funding(money is kind of important to this argument so remember this)), the pay teachers receive, and a myriad of other factors that control education. Is done so for a reason because the people with the money want to keep the money, from the people that don’t have the money, the current lack of interest and caring about how taught in schools is because the people with the money know that if people started caring they would start losing.

Ok you think I’m off ranting and raving about off topic crap so here is the big lasso. We are going to talk about strange bed fellows now. As a general rule conservatives are supporters of the elite and supporters of God (not saying you can support one and not the other *stops looking in mirror*. The conservatives know that if the shove IDism or YEC in to a class room here and there, and the ACLU sue and they lose that liberals think they have done something good, and should get a cookie, and guess what, then conservatives can then say look we took this God stuff out of schools you owe us something. It’s a token gesture on both sides one to make the fundamental Christians happy “sorry we tried to stop those evil liberals” and they make the liberals happy “we made education better because we took God out of school”

It is a recurring problem because its is a red herring by the very nature of what they are doing. God in schools is just a mask, so the elite can gain more control. By doing this they can turn to the religious right and say we are going to tax you more invade your homes but you will still supports us because we pray every night promise. Aside ”not sure what God they are praying to but I’m totally unfamiliar with that God.”

Then they give liberals a token win argument so they feel they must comprise on other issues like taxes or any other political and social issues.

Guess what the right wins again because we don’t address the real issues we address the battles they pick for us instead of the ones we should be picking.

One Love.

 

[notto]

Why not? Is a 16 y/o (giver or take a few years) mind not capable of critical though? Or is the problem with an educational system which does not enable and teach critical though? I believe the answer to the former is most defiantly, and the answer to the latter is yes that is exactly the problem.

This is not an issue of what material should or should not be covered in the classroom but the nature in which it is covered. High school students in the US by in large just have to parrot what the teacher says and they get an A. That is not learning, nor does it encourage an atmosphere which would enable the student to challenge or question theories. The High school system teaches dependency, and compliancy, instead of instilling the students with the tools and ability to find and understand answers instead of being spoon feed information.

One Love.

E = mc^3

 

[Erock83]

E = mc^3

I guess, mind proving it?

One Love.

 

[Praxiteles]

E = mc^3

Oh sure. That's what you tell your relatives.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I think that ID is a symptom of the problem. Minimising all science is another symptom.

The US has politicised school boards: that is the biggest problem.

The problem is the current of antiscience that is festering in the heart of the nation- politicised school boards are yet another symptom.

 

[Praxiteles]

The problem is the current of antiscience that is festering in the heart of the nation- politicised school boards are yet another symptom.

If education weren't political, the festering wouldn't have nearly the same effect. As it is, because it *does* have such an effect, each new generation is ill equipped to see through it.

 

[notto]

I guess, mind proving it?

One Love.

Shouldn't we leave that up to the high school science classes?

 

[Edx]

Shouldn't we leave that up to the high school science classes?

Sure. Leave them their timestables then "hope" they work it out.

 

[Tomk80]

Cool dude won’t know if they will until you try.
<snap>

I've snapped your reply, because I think most of it isn't relevant to the issue here, which is how we should teach the kids. And more specifically, high school kids.

Should we learn them to do research? Well, the basics. Teaching them advanced statistics and research methods isn't going to be feasable. You need at least 4 years of specialized study in college to come even close to understanding the issue. And then the learning actually just begins, when those students have gratuated and get into research.

So should we then have them criticize certain ideas that are commonly accepted in science? My answer would be no. Why? Because they can't. To criticize an idea, you first need to learn the basics. Then you need to learn the arguments behind the basics. Then you need to learn the extensive evidence behind the basics. Again, this takes years of specialized study. Criticizing an idea before you have the basics down isn't going to work. So in high school, the kids should get the basics (and only the basics) of all these ideas. Then they can specialize in college, learning the advanced basics of one specific field and the precieze evidence behind these basics. Only after that, will they be fully able to understand and criticize the ideas they've learned.

That has nothing to do with keeping 'the elites' in power. It has everything to do with two simple notions. Namely, that to criticize an idea, you first have to understand it. And that understanding those ideas in our current society, takes years of specialized study first.

And learning has two important parts, namely understanding and remembering. Sure, understanding the basic concepts is one of the important parts of learning. And the past decades, the thought has reigned supreme that children don't have to learn that much by heart anymore, because all information is easily available anyway. However, recent research shows that learning to remember things is very important, because it trains the mind and instills discipline. So that should be an important part of high school also. Exactly how much time should be spend on each, and how one should use both 'understanding' and 'remembering' to reach a gradation will always be a point of debate. But both are necessary elements of education.

So that is what a high school curriculum should do. Teach the basics of a lot of things. Learn the student how he can easily get to understand things and remember things. Then, after these three basics have been instilled, the student can choose a topic of his liking and specialize further in that in the future, criticizing it when he fully understands it.

 

[HairlessSimian]

why should a scientific theory be challenged in high school?

I fully agree and have stated same a few times.

It's only because of the importance people attach to the implications on religious doctrine, past and present.

i.e. (and not to over-state the obvious) it's because "man descended from monkeys" is the popular conclusion, contradicting the long-held Genesis account.

 

[Tenka]

Erock, Your philosophy on education reform was a little unclear but I think you were proposing that we 'Give students the tools to find their own answer'.
First of all, the right tools to find answers would include existing knowledge such as evolutionary theory. Further learning should use what we have now as a base not a target.
Second, why should we -as a species with the ability to share knowledge so effectively- require that our youth finds the answers for themselves? At what point would they be exposed to previous investigation into evolution, cosmology, ergonomics or dental hygiene?

Why shouldn't they simply be taught briefly the best current understanding we have and leave the finding of answers to those with the time, resources and knowledge to do so effectively?
To me it seems like a ridiculous plan to nuke the teaching of one particular theory (evolutionary) while leaving all of education as collateral damage.

 

[Erock83]

That has nothing to do with keeping 'the elites' in power. It has everything to do with two simple notions. Namely, that to criticize an idea, you first have to understand it. And that understanding those ideas in our current society, takes years of specialized study first.

Tom, I surprised usually your ideas are well formulated and logical, I tend to disagree but such is the nature of ideas on society. Usually you don’t try to prove a point and feed another’s argument. I’m going to post twice because I see two things wrong with your post the first which I think is more important is the elitism commentary, the next post will be about a misunderstanding that we seem to have run across.

On to elitism, this part of your post is very confusing you can see other mentions to this as well. Your basic premise seems to be that in order to be able to comment on something of an academic nature you must be formal educated. I won’t argue the fact that being formally educated helps but I will argue the fact that you can effectively think critically with out years of post-secondary schooling. To say that you can’t would just be a simple re-statement of my assertion. That however good natured our schools systems (speaking more to the US), they have been taken over and are being used as a method of control. Just because someone does not have a B.S. after their name does not mean they can not contribute to society, in forms of thought. Your assertion by its very nature is elitism.

One Love.

 

[Erock83]

Erock, Your philosophy on education reform was a little unclear but I think you were proposing that we 'Give students the tools to find their own answer'.
First of all, the right tools to find answers would include existing knowledge such as evolutionary theory. Further learning should use what we have now as a base not a target.
Second, why should we -as a species with the ability to share knowledge so effectively- require that our youth finds the answers for themselves? At what point would they be exposed to previous investigation into evolution, cosmology, ergonomics or dental hygiene?

Why shouldn't they simply be taught briefly the best current understanding we have and leave the finding of answers to those with the time, resources and knowledge to do so effectively?
To me it seems like a ridiculous plan to nuke the teaching of one particular theory (evolutionary) while leaving all of education as collateral damage.

So should we then have them criticize certain ideas that are commonly accepted in science? My answer would be no. Why? Because they can't. To criticize an idea, you first need to learn the basics.

Ok now this misunderstanding point. I’ll use the most basic teaching method. Its called Show, Do, Evaluate.

The teacher shows how a tool works in this case how to properly use testing equipment, then the students do the experiment come up with results, then the teacher will evaluate the process and the results.

Thus the name Show, Do, Evaluate.

What happens in schools is give answers and evaluate. I have no problem for the most part subject matter that is covered in high schools my problem is with how it is covered.

One Love.

 

[Mystman]

Thus the name Show, Do, Evaluate.
.

ah..

you propose that every high school gets itself a nuclear reactor so they can get some basic knowledge on quantum physics?

you propose that every high school student is going to spent the rest of his life studying rocks in order to get some basic info on geology?

basically: you propose that every high school student should spent the rest of his life to verify all the knowlegde that is currently presented in high school? Actually, 70 years isn't even near long enough of a period for that. So we would first have to invent some kind of immortality potion before this plan can be put into action.