It’s at Faith and Theology, with hat tip to Metacatholic. Enjoy!
Also, I’ve added Metacatholic to my blogroll, and my RSS subscriptions. I’ll probably be linking there more in the weeks to come.
Tag: Education Policy
-
Practical Ideas for Teacher Training
Well, Clix went and got all practical on me after she commented on a previous post here. She expressed some discomfort with my call for teachers to be one of the highest paid professions. What about people who are just in it for the money?
Her post is about practical ideas for better teacher training and for teachers who want to make themselves better. I think it would be great to have quite a number of such posts and to see a discussion of improving teacher education, teacher quality, retention, and respect.
In my professional life I deal mostly with volunteers, such as Sunday School teachers and small group leaders. It’s nice to have those who are professionally involved speak out!
Go check it out.
-
Stupid Actions in Church-State Cases
Ed comments on a bizarre church-state case on which he agrees with the ADF, as do I.
There are cases in which there is some significant doubt about the correct set of actions. I sympathize with school administrators who must deal with close calls. But most of these cases are very clear, and I have a hard time understanding the motivation of the school administrators. Perhaps there is an overreaction to the perceived law. I know that many, many Christians I come in contact with truly believe that it is illegal for children to pray at school. They are surprised when someone points out that it is quite legal for their children to pray–student led, voluntary, non-disruptive times of prayer, worship and study.
It would be very valuable for both parents and educators around the country to educate themselves on what the law actually is. Most of the litigation could be avoided with a little care and attention. I know that one way to challenge the law is to push the edges, but one should be aware of where those edges are and have some hope of accomplishing their goal before spending taxpayer money in that fashion.
One document giving general guidelines can be found here, along with contact information for organizations that can provide more detailed and up-to-date information.
-
Education as a Priority and Teacher Quality
Way back in the pre-blog days for me (April, 2005), I wrote an essay for my Energion.com web site titled Make Education a Priority. You can type that rather uncreative title into a search engine and you’ll find that many dozens of politicians are using it as a slogan, but I don’t see that priority on the campaign trail being translated into real improvements at the classroom level. In that article I put first on the list of my suggestions: High quality, motivated, and informed teachers.
I want you to understand that I don’t believe in minor, incremental changes in education. I think that we need to recognize that education is an investment in infrastructure–people. Spending on good education is not money down the drain. It is going to produce in less costs in other areas, such as welfare and crime, and it’s going to pay in greater economic productivity. Unfortunately, the American people generally don’t want to pay for good education, so they don’t get it.
Now I know some folks are going to talk to me about waste, or lack of accountability. Those are good topics. Unfortunately, the people who talk about them generally (not always) don’t want to pay for a top notch educational system. They want to get the biggest apparent bang for the smallest investment possible. I believe strongly that we should make teachers one of the highest paid professions, that we should make schools be among the best built and best maintained facilities, and then and only then we should hold the educators responsible for providing us what we pay for.
Right now we’re treating our teachers much like our soldiers overseas. We argue about their funding, we send too few of them to accomplish their mission, we can’t make up our minds about the goals, yet we expect them to produce. In both cases, our military and our teachers, they do produce to a remarkably high standard despite the problems.
I still believe that this high quality educational system, led by highly trained, motivated and compensated teachers would be the most important single thing we could do for the future of this country. Thus I was gratified to encounter the article The Blackboard Bungles, subtitled “Three authors take us inside today’s classroom. These flies on the wall reveal how we might fix our schools” on MSNBC/Newsweek.
From the first author, a teacher writing about his rookie year:
It’s not good for kids. (“I would not want my kid in my class,” Brown writes.) It’s not good for teachers or the school. Brown does try, but struggles to control his class and resigns after a year. In his book, we see that good teachers are the linchpin to solid reform. Too often, poor schools become dumping grounds for green teachers. And children are the ones who pay the price.
From the second, a journalist:
Teachers spend most of the year drilling kids in order to help them perform well on exams.
I believe we need teacher accountability, but there’s a key to effective accountability–you need to test the results you want to have. If you want your kids to be good a multiple choice tests, training them for the tests is a good idea. But life rarely comes at you in the form of multiple choice tests.
I commend this entire article. This is a topic we really need to get working on. We need to insist that “make education a priority” becomes not just a campaign slogan, but a reality in government.
-
Teach the Controversy about Geocentrism
In my previous post The Danger of Teaching the Controversy, I suggested that one of the problems with teaching the controversy was just which controversies one should teach. There are always plenty of crackpot theories floating around not to mention sound attempts to modify existing theories. These need to be tested by scientists using scientific methods with accountability through peer review.
In discussing this, I said the following:
More importantly, however, lets consider how this teach the controversy principle would work in public schools. Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism? I know some people are just about to explode on that one. Nobody believes that any more, or at least only a few kooks. Well, that may be true, though I believe theres even a kook with a PhD who tries to teach geocentrism. But this does illustrate the problem. We argue for teaching the controversy on creation and evolution or on intelligent design and evolution, but we are unwilling to invoke the same phrase for all controversial issues.
And to prove my point, one Mark Wyatt posted this comment:
Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism?
Yes.
And Here are the recommended text books.
Mark
Well, well, well. Though I will often debate with people who probably should be ignored, even I will not bother debating geocentrism. But I think my point is made. Theories need to be tested scientifically before becoming part of the curriculum. No exceptions should be made, even for especially controversial ones, or we will dilute education. There really isn’t any idea so stupid that it can’t find advocates somewhere!
For those who believe someone is being suppressed here, note that even a person so far out there as to advocate geocentrism has two books published and a web site. It’s getting very difficult to suppress ideas. The problem that creationists and others have is that it is also getting extremely difficult to blunt criticisms of dumb ideas.
-
Boys Being Boys Should be Treated as Boys
. . . or girls as girls.
One of the things that makes me go “hmmmm” is that so many people are troubled by corporal punishment, but can somehow manage to accept the idea of a 13 year old tried and sentenced for a crime as an adult. To me that’s just weird. I do think occasionally crimes committed by juveniles need to get outside the juvenile justice system. But we also need to have effective, consistent discipline in schools and communities. My intention is not to propose draconian measures, but rather a consistent response to indiscipline.
A good example of a reaction that is way out of proportion is this case in Oregon. I don’t normally agree with Michelle Malkin, but this, to me, is a clear case of something that should be handled as a juvenile issue, by school and hopefully parental discipline–serious discipline, needless to say, but not criminal.
We have made it harder and harder to keep order in schools, while at the same time we have gotten more radical in juvenile justice. A measure of personal responsibility and good judgment all around would be useful.
HT: Pursuing Holiness.
-
Boot Camp Accountability
I saw this story about a 15 year old girl dragged behind a van at a Christian boot camp several places, but I don’t remember where first, so no hat tips.
It should go without saying–but I’ll say it anyhow–that this type of brutal punishment, assuming that the story proves to be correct, fails the “what would Jesus do” test. Of course there are always those who somehow discover that Jesus would always do whatever they want to do.
What I wanted to call attention to is the simple matter of accountability. I think people who do this sort of thing don’t expect to be called to account by others. They take a radical approach and they find people to manage their ministries who will tend to say “yes” rather than challenge them. There is a need for disciplined environments for some young people, though I personally doubt that the “boot camp” approach actually has any lasting value. But such environments should have more accountability and more observation than other environments simply because the leaders and teachers of such programs are in a position of tempting power over others. If they have a tendency of any kind to tyranny, anger, or sadism, they will be provided with opportunities, and since they are working with kids who have been labeled “bad” such people will believe they can get by with things they would not otherwise. History shows that they can.
There is a dangerous tendency amongst Christians today to look toward fast, brutal methods of restoring discipline. I would suggest that a much more Christ-like approach would be much longer term, consistent, non-violent, and loving. I’m not saying delinquent young people do not require punishment at any time, but the boot camp craze, which thankfully seems to be dying down, was the penal equivalent of fast food.
-
Sneaking God into Public Schools
I have previously written about my opposition to including specific Bible classes in public schools, and to the NCBCPS curriculum in particular, if one chose to have such a class in any case. Now in a column on WorldNetDaily Chuck Norris talks about using this curriculum as “Your first step to get God back into your public school.” It’s nice to know that this was your goal all along, Chuck. I must admit that I was certain of that from the moment I read about this curriculum.
I know many people who would like to get God back into public schools, and who admit it openly. I can respect their stated position, though I disagree very strongly. But to try to sell a curriculum to school boards as constitutionally safe, while at the same time proclaiming it to be a means of getting God back into the classroom–that’s deceptive, and I don’t think it’s an appropriate approach for Christians to take. While I did not actually see this, Ed Brayton reports that that the NCBCPS web site initially posted Chuck Norris’s column, and then removed it. The obvious reason would be that they would not like that column quoted in court when their curriculum is challenged.
Personally, I would simply say again that there are quite a number of things I don’t trust the state to do properly, and teaching religion is high on that list. Let’s provide appropriate religious education in our homes and churches. I don’t ever recall my parents having problems over prayer or Bible study in school–Oh, that’s right, I was homeschooled! Problem solved.
-
The Danger of Teaching the Controversy
The Florida Citizens for Science blog has a post, Best practice with an integrated curriculum?, which looks at some approaches teachers might take to including both creation and evolution in the classroom. The FCS blog does a pretty good job of pointing out the discrepancies. (I should disclose here that I am a board member of Florida Citizens for Science.)
I just want to look at one aspect: teaching the controversy. Despite different vocabulary, that is, in fact, what these suggestions amount to. The question on many people’s mind is this: Why not teach the controversy? Isn’t that just simple fairness?
But that is the wrong question. Why? Because we must first ask just how one should determine the curriculum for public school classrooms. Without some sort of standards for that, it’s very hard to answer such a question. I know it annoys people to have their principles applied to different situations, but that is an appropriate test of a principle. Will it work, for example, when the shoe is on the other foot?
Should Christian schools, for example, teach the controversy? If the issue is fairness and sound education, both of which are given as reasons for teaching the controversy, should it not be regarded then as unsound educational practice not to teach the controversy in private Christian schools? I know many involved in these schools think they do, and I believe some actually are right, but many do not.
More importantly, however, let’s consider how this “teach the controversy” principle would work in public schools. Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism? I know some people are just about to explode on that one. “Nobody believes that any more, or at least only a few kooks.” Well, that may be true, though I believe there’s even a kook with a PhD who tries to teach geocentrism. But this does illustrate the problem. We argue for teaching the controversy on creation and evolution or on intelligent design and evolution, but we are unwilling to invoke the same phrase for all controversial issues.
And that is actually as it should be, since “teach the controversy” doesn’t express any relevant principle at all. The real question is how much support some scientific view needs to have before it should be included in elementary school, middle school, and high school curricula. I believe the answer would be different in each case.
We don’t just teach controversies in science. We teach methods and how to evaluate results, how to make observations and categorize them sensibly. We also do not have unlimited time in which to teach the things we need to teach. Thus we pick and choose. And that is where I get my principle for determining what should be taught: consensus science. What has undergone testing, evaluation, and acceptance in the scientific community? Leading edge theories need not apply at these levels. Let them be evaluated first, then include those that make the grade.
There is, of course, prioritizing amongst those things which are consensus science, but considering that a large amount of well-established material will likely not get taught, those priorities need to be set for scientific reasons in order to prepare our children to understand their world.
Intelligent design doesn’t meet the criteria. It should not be offered in high school classrooms. There is no theory of creation, either old or young earth, that has met this kind of testing. They don’t belong in the high school and lower science classroom.
Now I don’t believe that discussion of these ideas should be cut off. There should be a free exchange of ideas. But a free exchange involves vigorous criticism, and as appropriate, even ridicule of ideas that are ridiculous. People today often complain about censorship because other people don’t like them. But I’m writing this blog entry on a very low cost web site using free blog software. It’s not hard to make ideas available. Getting people to pay attention? That’s more work–as it should be!
And on that note one more point about the science classroom. People who want religious ideas included in the science curriculum often don’t think of the fact that these young people need to learn to evaluate, and that means criticizes ideas. Do you want your high school science teachers offering a critique of your religious ideas?
My personal commitment to openness involves including discussion of these ideas in church programs and in the material that I publish.
. . . there is considerable scientific evidence against the theory that everything occurred simply by chance, and in favor of the theory that there was some sort of intelligent design involved. (Source: Hushbeck, Elgin L. Christianity and Secularism. Gonzalez, FL: Energion Publications, 2006, page 28.)
What is the importance of that quote? Well, I’m the publisher of the work in question. I do believe these ideas should be made available and should be discussed, especially those ideas with which I disagree. I’ve put my dollars into action in making that so.
But not in high school science, unless the scientific community arrives at a consensus.
-
More on the Cheri Yecke Story
Wesley Elsberry has posted some additional information on this story on The Panda’s Thumb, and on his blog in which he states he believes the story is confirmed.
. . . As far as I am concerned, the Princeton Union-Eagle is vindicated in this matter; at the time that they reported, Cheri Pierson Yecke was indeed saying that teaching intelligent design was a decision that local school districts could undertake. Both the quote from the Princeton Union-Eagle and the subsequent criticism I made of Yeckes position on the issue are upheld by this source.
Wesley is quite right to point out that Yecke has only to hold a press conference and state her change of view if she no longer supports teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms. If she does still believe it should be taught, that is information the public has a right to know.
Since this whole issue resulted from Yecke’s use of ReputationDefender to look for negative material, I would like to call attention to this article on MSNBC, which reports on the other side of such activity. There can be a problem with negative information overwhelming the positive. It’s also quite possible for positive information to overwhelm necessary and important negative information. Search providers such as Google are right to battle spammy methods that try to get positive information into the highest search slots.
There is an apparent bias in the MSNBC story toward “cleaning up” negative information. But there is no guarantee that the negative information someone wants to clean up is actually inaccurate. Accurate negative information, especially for those involved in the public sector, is important. The search engines cannot guarantee accuracy; they can only aim for relevance.
In an age when information can be readily disseminated by just about anyone, and accessed just as easily, each reader needs to beware of lies.