posted on July 17, 2001 11:06:00 PM
bunnicula, you are certainly right about the SAT scores. Once we lower the SAT scores to get into college, then the colleges will be forced to lower their standards until all that will be left are classes on Creationism.
posted on July 18, 2001 12:22:57 AMHere in California a lot of kids flunked the tests which measure where they should be.
Hmmm...where should they be? Who is qualified to decide that for an individual? It seems that if you aspire to be a nuclear physicist you might need to be somewhere different than if you aspire to be a landscape architect. I have a problem with standardization.
On testing, particularly of homeschoolers, suppose the child is learning disabled and can't pass the test. They force them to go to school....where they are still learning disabled but now getting less attention than they were at home. Suppose you teach Creationism and they score poorly on evolutionary science. Suppose you teach World History in 7th grade instead of American History...then American history in 8th grade instead of World History. Does it matter?
I am teaching Ancient History in Pre-K instead of "what are family units" and "what does a fireman do". I figure she will pick up families and firemen along the way somewhere. Does it matter really?
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." —Thomas Jefferson (1777)
T
posted on July 18, 2001 12:24:36 AM
Just a quick different thought.
We are hearing the current failure modes of the schools - but that is not to say everything was perfectly rosey before. There needs to be change but not always back to what was before.
An example. NOW we are talking about testing not showing the student's ability yet I had a problem with my testing not meaning anything in the 60's because of the grading system.
My school system in the mid 60's was giving 3 to 4 hours of home work every night and also extra homework was given as punishment if you had a discipline problem unrelated to any scholastic performance. I simply refused to spend the evening doing mindless exercises and work that was little more than copying material over from book to hand writing. My teachers would lament that I had all A's on my tests but they could not grade me better than a D or a C because I had not turned in my homework. As kindly as was possible I would point out to them that they were trying to wear the kids down into the perfect factory drones who would be happy at any mindless factory job by training them to accept stupid drudgery in school and that I already had started working for myself and would not accept that sort of work anymore than I would accept that sort of schooling.
I remember once they sent a bunch of us to Columbus Ohio to tests for the students doing exceptionally well based on our class room tests - not our overall grade. I had taken a Science test and was waiting to take another test for Geometry I think and was bored so I asked what was being tested while I was waiting. They said trigonometry was one so I asked if I could take that rather than sit and twittle my thumbs. They said sure there are extra desks and tests so I took the state trig test and placed somewhere around 15th for the State. It sort of offended a couple teachers because I had never taken trig in school but I had taught myself trig a couple years before so I could use it machining things. I could do trig in my head visualizing the shapes and functions so the test was a breeze when they got to practical applications which is where everyone else did poorly. The test had a couple questions about surveying which lead to me studying that next - on my own of course. They would never teach anything so useful in high school.
posted on July 18, 2001 12:25:12 AM
Double post.
[ edited by jt on Jul 18, 2001 12:26 AM ]
I simply refused to spend the evening doing mindless exercises and work
And this is how I teach math. If you have mastered subtraction, why should you have to work 25 subtraction problems a day? Why not move on to something you haven't mastered yet? I use a textbook for math...scratching out all the addition and subtraction problems.
I don't believe in "seat work" just to keep you busy and silent in your chair. It's about learning something...or else get up and go do something else constructive and creative. If they could do social studies in the sandbox, plant science in the garden, and teach measurements with cups and bubbles in the tub, most kids wouldn't need to be sedated in order to learn. That doesn't work in the artificial environment of a flourecent lit, neatly rowed classroom.
posted on July 18, 2001 12:35:25 AM
And when you test what are you testing? Knowlege or Belief?
I was graded poorly in my Biology class because my teacher taught old material and I thought that his old out of date ideas and creationism were both a crock of crap but he would fail you on your test if you did not personally affirm that you believed what you were taught - not just know it.
I used to give him the Nazi salute which he did not appreciate at all. He had the same mind set. You will declare for da Fatherland or we will crush you. He is probably dead of a self inflicted stroke by now as he spent so much time beet red and hypertensive if everyone did not agree with him.
posted on July 18, 2001 05:24:46 AM
"It seems that if you aspire to be a nuclear physicist you might need to be somewhere different than if you aspire to be a landscape architect. I have a problem with standardization."
This is what college is for. When you go to college, then you channel your area of study to specialize in your intended vocation (after taking 2 years of courses that are required for everyone.) Before that, everyone learns a level of math, science, english, etc. etc. I like that.
"Suppose you teach Creationism and they score poorly on evolutionary science... Does it matter?"
Yes, it does matter. Sorry, it doesn't make any difference if you add an "ism" at the end of the word, it's not science.
And, I can tell you, if your children go to college and keep insisting on trotting out "Creationism" when they're in "real" science classes where this comes up, they're going to have a very tough time, perhaps to the point where a career in science won't be an option. Of course, if they, or you, have decided that they aspire to being a landscape architect rather than nuclear physicist or some other vocation that requires a "hard science" background, this might not be a matter of any concern to you.
posted on July 18, 2001 06:51:48 AM
Actually I would argue that a well educated person is aware of the oppositions belief's and arguements as well as their own. Otherwise they are simply saying "I believe this because my teacher's said so."
That's why I had no respect for my biology teacher who taught outdated evolutionary theory but was not interested in knowing why the creation theory being put forward by the opposition was a load of hog wash also. It simply did not matter to him because they were beneath his contempt by being on the wrong side.
I found this view was suspect in school for political ideas also. If you actually READ the communists writings so that you knew beyond a few stereotypical phrases where they were coming from you were viewed with suspicion as being tainted with these ideas when in fact it made you really appreciate why socialism fails. Perhaps they are too uncomfortable with the fact you may recognize socialism under different names if you understand it's workings too well....
posted on July 18, 2001 06:59:16 AM
jt - Thank you for that link. We don't have children so I had no idea there were as many weird people who think almost exactly the same as I do about the base of government function being coercive force.
I am writing a book about what would happen if an independant researcher would make a scientific breakthrough that would give him a technology that rendered him invulnerable to physical threats and arrest. I am assured from those links there will be a market for it.
posted on July 18, 2001 07:15:04 AMgravid: you're too late...there is at least one Twilight Zone & a couple of Outer Limits episodes that already depict that.
posted on July 18, 2001 07:25:26 AM
"Actually I would argue that a well educated person is aware of the oppositions belief's and arguements as well as their own."
Absolutely, I agree 100%. But, I get the sense that parents whose focus is on "Creationism" endorse home schooling, in part, to prevent their children being taught evolutionary science. Terri doesn't say it in quite that way, but the implication is there when she says:
"Suppose you teach Creationism and they score poorly on evolutionary science."
The clear implication here is that they would score poorly on evolutionary science being they're not being taught evolutionary science.
posted on July 18, 2001 08:18:23 AM
bunnicula - That's OK most general plot outlines have been in place since the Greeks. You just get to change the details.
I read a story once that had the interesting idea that a few hundred thousands years in the future no new music would be available because every pleasing combination of notes would have been copy righted down through the ages. The main character writes a song and finds out it is note for note the same as a Beatles song and commits suicide in dispair.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:03:00 AM
We do expose to the ideas of evolution as one scientific theory. Later when we dig into it deeper we will cover the scientific arguments against it as well. We will (and have already to some degree) get in to old earth new earth Creationism theories, etc. At least one family member adheres strongly to old earth Creationism. At least one family member prefers young earth Creationism. I plan to cover ALL the bases. Public education fails to provide the arguments and scientific evidence against their one elected theory. What I oppose about schools is that ONLY one one view is taught and it is taught as fact rather than theory.
There are Christian colleges and scientific communities who do adhere to Creationism.
Creationism as a belief does not equal scientific failure. Francis S. Collins, the head of the public portion of the Human Geonome Project, was homeschooled witout any formal curriculum and is a Christian. Astronaut Sally Ride is another example.
Further reading:
Younger kids:
Parker. A Christian father (a professional paleontologist) teaches his family about fossils from a creationist perspective. Written in a dialog format. X Hb, pen-and-ink illustrations, 70 pp.
Richards. A winsome look at the evidences for special (non-evolutionary) creation. Beautifully written, well-illustrated. Richards rejects theistic evolution and shows that the young-earth option is reasonable (though he does not argue for it). Pb, illus, 232 pp.
High school to adult:
Hayward. A British physicist draws evidence solely from non-Christian researchers to discredit gradual evolution and Darwinism, yet then turns right around and demolishes the idea of a young (6,000-10,000-year-old)
earth. Through historical research, he also proves that many stalwart evangelicals down through the years have held to a non-evolutionary, old-earth view. (In other words, he seeks to demonstrate that old-earth
creationism is both possible and responsible.) He concludes with a surprising interpretation of Genesis that argues for both a literal historical Adam and for creation over eons of time. Fascinating, and written by a master wordsmith. Pb, 232 pp including indices and endnotes. Diagrams.
Whitcomb & Morris. This text, more than any other, launched the young-earth creation science movement. Whitcomb and Morris set out to present a paradigm that could uphold a recent, or young-earth creation (sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years) and explain the generally-accepted data in the field of geology. Footnoted, indexed, and
well-documented, this book requires significant work on the part of the reader, but we believe it is a must read for any educated Christian from late high school up who wants to understand the current reigning model of creationism among evangelical Christians. Pb, illus, 518 pp.
Refuting Evolution
Sarfati. A carefully written, easy-to-read reply to the National Academy of Sciences' anti-creationist book Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (TABNS). TABNS was directed at public school teachers in hopes that it would persuade and assist them to present the theory of evolution as fact and, at the same time, discredit the entire "creation science" movement. Sarfati marshals lots of recent data -- with footnoted references -- to counter the NAS blast. Powerful. Pb, illus, 143 pp.
Creation Evolution debate is for another thread and I don't have time for it at the moment. Just offering sources for anyone interested in exploring the alternatives.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:21:31 AM
Terri, we were taught evolution by its name; the Theory of Evolution. Also, every year we were exposed to the same boring "scientific method" lecture in which "theory" was fully explained (albeit you had to be awake to catch it).
There are many creation myths. By law, why then aren't all of them required to be taught? You know that I do believe in the special creation of the universe by God but my opinion doesn't change. Public schools are public schools. You know what they are and what their limitations are.
If we want to give our kids a religiously oriented perspective then that's what we should do.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:52:09 AM
An outfit called "sonlightcurriculum.com" just tried to lay a cookie on me. Is that from some link in your post, Terri?
posted on July 18, 2001 10:02:07 AM
Laugh!! I wondered how long it would be before this little piece of "proof" would be presented, and it didn't take long.
"Francis S. Collins, the head of the public portion of the Human Geonome Project, was homeschooled witout any formal curriculum and is a Christian."
And that's pretty much taken straight from John Taylor Gatto's website, isn't it? From that website:
"Francis S. Collins, the head of the public portion, was homeschooled, never followed any type of formal curriculum, and is a born-again Christian;"
In fact, that's a blatant mistatement of the truth. The truth is he was homeschooled only through the 6th grade, (then presumably went into a conventional education system). At 16 he entered U.Va (where, I assume, there's such a thing as a *gasp* formal curriculum), and then received additional formal education. This Gatto's website makes it sound like this guy *only* received home schooling, never received any formal education, and suddenly got up from the kitchen table to become a leading scientist. Not hardly.
"Raised on a small farm near Staunton and home-schooled until the sixth grade, Collins entered U.Va. at 16 and received his undergraduate degree in chemistry. He earned his Ph.D. in chemistry at Yale and then, sensing a revolution was under way in molecular biology and genetics, enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina."
That's from a more credible source, the University of Virginia.
posted on July 18, 2001 11:46:25 AM
Here in Oregon, homeschooling is a good option. The State supplies you with the books you need to teach your students and the other materials and once a year, your students are tested to see if they've been able to keep up with enrolled school children. If not, it's back to school for them!
What I think that homeschooling argues for is not the introduction of religious education as a solution to better education, but smaller classroom sizes and the willingness of the educator to spend one-on-one time with a student to help them out.
posted on July 18, 2001 01:53:21 PM
People homeschool for many different reasons, not just religious ones. In my area there are a *lot* of homeschooling families, and I deal with them every day as they use the library as a resource. Some families do it on their own. Others join together to form groups.
As with public schools, homeschooling varies in quality. Some of the kids are getting good educations--others are getting pathetic ones. Though I must say, that quite a few of the kids getting poorer educations come from families who homeschool for religious reasons. Their parents limit them to a narrow range of material. They aren't allowed to access some things "because that's connected with Satan" or because "we disagree with that" or because "we don't approve of that."
Funny anecdote: I had one homeschool mother ask me to recommend some biographies for her 12 year-old son to read. I was pointing out bios for all kinds of famous people, among which was Tchaikovsky. "Oh no," the mother said. "Tchaikovsky was a flaming homosexual!" I explained that juvenile biographies don't tend to go into detail about things like that, focusing instead on the person's achievements. "I don't care--I can' let my son read about someone like that," she said. At that moment her son came up and began proudly telling about the biography he'd just finished reading...on Alexander the Great. I pondered on whether to enlighten his mother, but decided to be merciful & leave her in ignorance.
edited cuz there is only one "s" in resource.
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 18, 2001 01:54 PM ]
posted on July 18, 2001 01:57:21 PM
NO where do I argue that public schools should be changed to meet our needs. Only that "Opt out" should always be an option.
In two generations, we have utilized public education for 1 year. It was a horrible. My family has been paying taxes to school other people's children for 29 years so nothing lost by the educational system.
Borillar, There are as many reasons for homeschooling as there are families homeschooling. Your ideas are valid but there are many many others also valid. If the state forces the curriculum then all educational and religious and moral freedom is lost. Requirements vary a great deal from state to state. What state are you in?
Thank you for the Collins correction Donny. My error to mention it then. I should have researched it further.
T
posted on July 18, 2001 02:39:42 PM
I hope you will pardon me if someone else has already posted some or all of what I am about to say. I have not had time yet to completely read every post, and perhaps I will update what I have to say when I have had a chance to catch up on the reading. There are many problems in public education, but from my perspective (as a teacher of 12 years) most of the problems come from the fact that theories of education are as common as bellybuttons. Everyone has one, and worse, since everyone has spent 13 years in a classroom getting their High School Education, they think they have enough information to be an expert in the field. Let me be the first to tell you that being on the other side of the lecturn is completely different, and offers perspective that someone who has not been in a classroom as a teacher can never know. Becoming a teacher is a long process, that has very little to do with getting a credential. By and large, the classes I took in my year of student teaching had a great deal to do with theory, and gave almost no help in real life teaching. It takes 3 steps to become a "Good" teacher.
1) You have to get 35 to 40 kids that are 12 or 13 years old to sit in their seats and work. Those of you who are parents, think of what it is like to get a kid to sit at the table when they want to do something else, and then multiply that by 40, and you can start to imagine what is going on.
2) Once you have mastered this (which will normally take 2 to 3 years), you then have to get the students to TRY. Sounds simple, but if I had a dollar for each child who did not do his homework, did not do his class work, did not do anything... I would never have to put anything up on ebay. It took me 3 or 4 years after stage one to learn how to do stage 2.
3) Once you get the kids to try, you then have to get the kids to succeed. For many of them, trying leads directly to success, however, many students need extra help. My classes average 35 kids, I teach 5 classes a day. It comes out to less then 9 minutes for each kid per week. Then you have to take out time for roll, agenda, basic lesson (teaching the 3rd grade material so they are sure to be ready to try the material they are supposed to work on), the real lesson, keeping your kid in his or her seat (I know your kid is too good to be out of his seat all the time, I must be a lier if I tell you otherwise) and so on. Most weeks, I will not speak with about half of the kids other then to say hello. This stage usually requires about 5 years, but may never happen, depending on the area you teach in. I teach in one of the most difficult areas of Los Angeles, and many of our students have difficulty speaking english. Many teachers never succeed in getting the children to succeed.
posted on July 18, 2001 02:43:39 PM
Bunnicula -- I literally laughed out loud on that one!
Ignorance is as ignorance does!
Reminds of all of the "religous" people who used their religion as an excuse as to why they were so ignorant. I used to joke with them that they ought to put a bumber sticker on their cars "Ignorant, and Proud of it!"
posted on July 18, 2001 02:44:39 PM
Let me add one more thing. I have never met a parent that did not care about education. Everyone does. Many parents do not know how to express that care, that desire to their children, beyond the standard, "Do your homework."
It's really unfortunate that you have found teaching so difficult. Maybe it's time to change careers both for your own well being and for that of the students in your classes.
I can assure you that most parents are interested and involved in their children"s education and that "homework" is not a primary priority.
<quote>
. "Many parents do not know how to express that care, that desire to their children, beyond the standard, "Do your homework."
<end quote>
posted on July 18, 2001 04:43:51 PM
So many teachers are opting out of the system. That is why the teacher shortage. Unless you spend time in a teacher's shoes, you have no idea what they do.
posted on July 18, 2001 04:47:33 PM
The main problem from public schools around here is the lack of homework and parents do not even need to prod their kids about it. I guess that since they [school officials] couldn't pass students for not doing their homework, they just stopped giving out any to the students. Even high school students get next to no home work in this state's public education system. now there's a real prepartory way to get your kids ready for the best colleges and universites!
posted on July 18, 2001 04:57:59 PM
I'm sorry, Dejapooh, to point this out, but, since you're offering your perspective as a teacher, I'm moved to ask - What is it you teach? Your post is peppered with spelling and grammatical errors such as misused commas and errors of pronoun/verb agreement, and that's only what I, with my less than expert grasp of the rules of grammar, spotted on a quick reading. Mrs. Monroe, my high school English teacher, would be aghast.
posted on July 18, 2001 05:46:36 PM
"I suspect that somebody is telling a tale...in "stages"..."
Huh? Who, me?
I dunno. I don't think I'm one who usually picks apart other's post to pounce on spelling or grammatical errors. I sure can't stand on the strength of my own posts, I make lots of mistakes. Some, I realize and, I'm sure, some I don't.
But if someone speaks "as a teacher," I think it's valid to hold him or her to a higher standard than I would myself or others, especially in writing, which is stricter.
I pondered on whether to enlighten his mother, but decided to be merciful & leave her in ignorance.