Nations Report Card For Science 25
quakeaddict writes: "The US Dept of Education released the Nations Report Card for Science. Compared to 1996, it seems as if we as a nation are doing worse.The site also has cool tools to see how various states performed in other subjects.. There is also a very cool interactive tool that provides a wealth of information about how well kids did in all the subjects crossed with all sorts of questions (e.g. What was Johnnys score if he says he watched 1, 2 or 3 hours of TV a day etc...)."
Creationism (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you expect in a country where many states outlaw the teaching of science in favour of mythology?
Re:Creationism (Score:1)
From a scientific perspective that makes perfect sense, because every scientific theory needs to be refutable -- you invalidate this principle if you reject the possiblity that Darwin's theory is incorrect. According to Karl Popper, a theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.
In other words, people who fervently believe that Darwin's theory is correct, are mistaking science with religion, which is just as ignorant and short-sighted as confusing religion with science.
Re:Creationism (Score:2)
Everyone needs to stop for a moment and reevaluate their thoughts on the issue. I do not "believe" in evolution. Instead, I consider it to be the most plausible explanation, which I have heard, of how humans and other creatures came about.
Don't *even* tell us about English then... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nation's report card. Johnny's score.
If we can't teach English properly so we can communicate consistently, then what's the use of worrying about science?
Re:Don't *even* tell us about English then... (Score:1)
Re:Don't *even* tell us about English then... (Score:2, Interesting)
- Female students had higher average scores than their male peers.
- Students eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program had lower average scores than students not eligible for this program.
- Generally, the higher the level of parental education reported by students, the higher the average writing scores.
- Students who reported saving, or whose teachers saved, their writing work in folders or portfolios had higher average scores than students whose work was not saved.
- Students at grades 8 and 12 who were always asked to write more than one draft of a paper had higher average scale scores than did their peers who were sometimes or never asked to do so.
Now, when I was in school, my report card never said "he writes much better when he's had chocolate frosted sugar bombs for breakfast," or "he writes like a girl." Grades are grades, and the above clearly are not. After looking through the report on English, I know just as little as before about whether kids can write. Something interesting to do might be to conduct a writing test on an international level, much along the lines of what was done for maths a year or two ago (in which, by the way, the US failed miserably). This could be used to compare writing levels in different English-speaking countries and actually give us a more objective idea about where we stand compared to the UK or Singapore or South Africa, and so forth.Not that, were I in charge of education, I'd know what to change based on those results...
It might still be interesting to see the long-term trend assessment [ed.gov] that's planned for next year.
Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:3, Insightful)
The religious right has failed at the national political level, but has had great success at the local level. It is CRITICAL that we stop this trend. Their plan to remove evolution from school curriculums, or if that fails, to force the teaching of creation science (which is a ridiculous idea, to say the least) would cause unbelievable harm to science education.
Teaching people to think is the best goal of a basic science education. The theory of evolution is so important to our lives now, and if it is properly taught, biology/evolution can form the nucleus of a healthy skeptical and scientific thinking process.
Re:Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:1)
Do I smell a hint of fascism here? This reminds me of something out of 1984, the government controlling our thoughts and what our children are taught in school.
Whatever happenned to presenting the facts, presenting the theorems out there and letting people decide on their own. Do you feel that we are too stupid to make our own decisions?
I don't like the tone of your argument, restricting the right to speak and believe as we choose.
Re:Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:1)
You may try to claim that Evolutionary theory and the Creation myth are on the same level, that they are properly taught along side each other. They aren't. One is a scientific theory, one is a myth, a religious dogma, a fairytale, that a bunch of people happen to believe and sometimes try to treat like a scientific theory.
The poster you responded to said NOTHING about state mandates backing the teaching of evolution, but did talk about the fact that the 'religious right... has had great success at the local level.' certainly meaning in a political context. Since it should be entirely clear that in the scientific realm the Creation myth is held to be just that, a myth.
It seems to me that the Creationist are the ones that are not succeeding in convinicing the scientific community and therefore the education community, so they are attempting to use force via politics.
Who, then, is the one that is behaving most like a fascist?
I will never tell someone that they should not have certain thoughts. I will occassionally tell someone that I believe their thoughts or beliefs on a topic are incorrect. I will also occassionally tell someone that their thoughts are likely to bring them into conflict with the world around them (e.g. they believe that the world is a safe place, and so never lock doors, always walk alone in dangerous parts of town... etc.). It is a frequently a choice, then, what the individuals do about the information, and I cannot and will not force them to a certain decision.
Re:Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:1)
You may try to claim that Evolutionary theory and the Creation myth are on the same level, that they are properly taught along side each other. They aren't. One is a scientific theory, one is a myth, a religious dogma, a fairytale, that a bunch of people happen to believe and sometimes try to treat like a scientific theory.
Please note that I never made any statement about what level I believe Evolution and Creation lie on. All that I stated is that facts should be presented and people should make their own decisions.
The poster you responded to said NOTHING about state mandates backing the teaching of evolution, but did talk about the fact that the 'religious right... has had great success at the local level.' certainly meaning in a political context. Since it should be entirely clear that in the scientific realm the Creation myth is held to be just that, a myth.
The line I made about 1984 and government mandates was meant to show where the kind of thought that he was presenting would lead. Sure he accepts the plausibility of the Theory of Evolution, but would he be open to a new controversial theory with backing that was completely opposite evolution? This was also a little sarcasm and frustration on my part because it is a reference that has been overused so much in the last two months.
It seems to me that the Creationist are the ones that are not succeeding in convinicing the scientific community and therefore the education community, so they are attempting to use force via politics.
Can you fault someone for pushing for something they believe in deep in their hearts? Would you have the same scorn for EFF or FSF for pushing their political agenda?
Who, then, is the one that is behaving most like a fascist?
You are absolutely correct, there is no need for name calling.
I will never tell someone that they should not have certain thoughts. I will occassionally tell someone that I believe their thoughts or beliefs on a topic are incorrect. I will also occassionally tell someone that their thoughts are likely to bring them into conflict with the world around them (e.g. they believe that the world is a safe place, and so never lock doors, always walk alone in dangerous parts of town... etc.). It is a frequently a choice, then, what the individuals do about the information, and I cannot and will not force them to a certain decision.
I commend you for allowing others to think for themselves. I try to follow this rule of thumb myself. Trust me, I have gotten in plenty of arguments involving evolution and creationism, specifically with a close friend of mine who is a biological engineer and a creationist. I accept the plausibility of evolution and do think that creationism is only a myth, but I also believe that people have the right to believe as they would and attempt to have their children taught in schools that do not preach evolution as absolute.
Re:Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:1)
I agree, you did not state explicitly what level Evolution and Creation lie on. However, by asking them both to be presented you are implying that a certain standard is met. That is, schools don't teach the "Flat Earth theory", nor the "Holocost denial theory", nor teach the "Moon landing hoax theory". Why? Because lots of someones have made a decision that there is not sufficient evidence that support those theories. Your claim that both should be presented suggests that you believe there IS sufficient reason to believe the Creationism warrants being taught in schools.
Any indication of sarcasm and frustration was completely lost on me... sorry.
I do not know the prior poster, but I personally would not accept a controversial new theory as 'correct' until a lot of other scientists started to accept it. (As an aside, it shouldn't be the place of highschools to teach about revolutionary new theories.... they should be teaching stuff that is currently widely acceptable by the scientific community. Let the scientists sort it out... and let the college students know where controversy lies.)
Can you fault someone for pushing for something they believe in deep in their hearts? Would you have the same scorn for EFF or FSF for pushing their political agenda?
I'd not fault them for being true to their beliefs. Although, in Evolution vs. Creation, I might fault them for other things... ;/
I accept the plausibility of evolution and do think that creationism is only a myth, but I also believe that people have the right to believe as they would and attempt to have their children taught in schools that do not preach evolution as absolute.
Personally, I believe that Evolution should be taught exclusively, in public schools. Private schools are altogether different. I believe evolution should be taught in just as absolute terms as anything else in science. Just like the theory of gravity, the electromagnetic theory, the superstring theory or any number of biological theories (which I can't name...).
The biggest difference between Evolution and Creation is that scientists believe that the evidence points to Evolution, and that insufficient evidence exists that discredits evolution, but they do not deny that they could find such evidence.... i.e. Most scientists realize that evolution COULD, at least in principle, be wrong.
Are there ANY Creationists that believe creationism is even POSSIBLY wrong? I certainly don't know, but I'd expect they are very very few.
There is the difference between science and religion. And why I believe Evolution should be taught and Creationism should not.
While I disagree with your specific position, I think we agree with our general position on encouraging people to make their own choices... and I hope that I'm not coming across as antagonistic as my prior post, (although I may still come across as strongly opinionated! ;) ).
Re:Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:2)
It's been overused for a lot longer than the last two months.
Re:Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:2)
Evolution is a science, that's why it is taught. No other theory of life's origins are accepted by science, not because of political reasons, but because the other theories fall flat on their ass.
Science class is not a place where the lie of creation science should be given an iota of respect. It does not deserve it.
Conjecture and Refutation. (Score:1)
Any agreement of a conclusion with an actual observation does not itself prove the correctness of the hypothesis from which the conclusion is derived; it simply renders the hypothesis that much more plausible. The scientific process begins when observations clash with existing theories or conjectures; then a new theory is proposed and the logical consequences of the theory (hypotheses) are subjected to rigorous empirical tests. The objective of testing is the refutation of the hypothesis.
According to Karl Popper:
- Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
- A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
- Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it.
An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could refute the theory. When a theory's predictions are falsified, new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges. Those theories that survive falsification are said to be corroborated and are tentatively accepted.Re:Conjecture and Refutation. (Score:1)
Re:Conjecture and Refutation. (Score:1)
Mind you, this is all in respect to critical thinking itself; I'm not proposing anything in regards to the biology curriculum. Hope that clears things out.
Re:Conjecture and Refutation. (Score:2)
You won't find disagreement here that Popper needs to have serious coverage. That should form the basis of a course, DEFINITELY included into the teaching of evolution and biology in high school.
And I would also add that in college, it should be a requirement that all students take an in-depth course covering scientific philosophy. The deliverable should be more than one term paper examining specific topics in depth, and only essay tests should be allowed. That course should be really hard so that people understand the most important thing about an education - learning to think.
Re:Theory of evolution critical to this (Score:3, Interesting)
The real truth is, theres an uneducated underclass in the US. Its the *underclass* thats getting larger and dragging down test scores.
Ignorance breeds ignorace, and ignorance breeds quickly. There is alot of things wrong with our educational system -- but one thing people don't want to admit is the old addage is true for education *garbage in, garbage out.* In america we have the freedom to be ignorant, and people are excercising that option en masse (sp?). Teachers are not miracle workers, they can't make up for bad parents, and a bad socio-economic condition. Plus, we've handicaped teachers in every way, they're not allowed to discipline students, teach science like evolution, or in some cases in a langauge that students understand! In california it is now *illegal* to teach classes in anything but english
One of my family members (we have 5 teachers in my immediate family) assigned a report to his class, a particular black girl drew the subject "apples." When it was due the girl had nothing to turn in, he called her mother, and she came down to the school and screamed her head off about the assignment being racist because "black people don't eat apples." she also said, "she'd be happy to do a report on sweet potatos because black people eat those." *TRUE STORY*
Teachers have to deal with the *shit* of society, and someones is going to reply to me and ask why private schools can give consistent good educations -- its because private schools can *kick students out*, they don't have to take the crack babies, the ADD kids, the kid who my mother taught who had a habit of sitting under the lunch benches asking girls to touch his penis (in the second grade!).
America's future (Score:2, Interesting)
America will not be able to sustain its present level of wealth or technological growth in the long term. Technology is the only reason we still have growth and wealth at all. It is the reason we decide to pay $7 an hour to flip burgers, while in many other countries you would get the equivalent of 2 cents an hour. The same goes for many other menial jobs that somehow people make careers out of, very little education, skill, or talent is required. This is why there are illegal immigrants en masse.
We can only support a limited number of these type of people, dependant of the creative output of the scientists and engineers. If we are in short supply of these producers, we have a definite problem.
This state has existed for a few decades, this is why you see so many asians that are scientists, engineers, and doctors. 2+ billion poor but educated and hard-working people, the few that can afford to come to america do. This trend cannot last forever, China and India are on the verge of becoming powerhouses, they have the same talent we have, X 100 for the same cost we pay for it!
This is all ignoring the fact that government won't work properly with these mal-educated people, shown by local governing bodies banning evolution. It is only a matter of time until this spreads to higher government, at which time we will filter out all important but secular information out of the internet. All scientific books will be banned because they can enable a person to question god, create explosives, toxic gases, or drugs. That is of course if current trends continue.
Re:America's future (Score:2)
It is only a matter of time until this spreads to higher government, at which time we will filter out all important but secular information out of the internet. All scientific books will be banned because they can enable a person to question god, create explosives, toxic gases, or drugs. That is of course if current trends continue.
But then, after we have banned all the "dangerous" books (Harry Potter included), melted all the guns, GPS tagged all the citizens, filtered all the email, had the bible be the only officially allowed carry-on, and surrounded ourselves with missle defence shields, FINALLY we will be 100% safe from ALL the Bad Things...
French Education (Score:3, Insightful)
Compared with other countries, American education is a joke. I attend a public school ranked 33rd in the nation, and I take the AP/Enriched courses whenever possible... and I still am able to slack off. French foreign exchange students soon become drunkards and party animals here - because it's such a letdown from their previous education. They no longer have to work for their grades. This cannot be sustained. We've become used to being on top of the world, but comparing the sad state of our education to that of other countries, eventually the power balance has got to shift.
Evolution is an important theory (Score:1)
One of the things I found interesting in the detailed reports on the individual states was this. I only checked for Louisiana, where I am from, and Alabama, where I live, but both of these states that had scored below average on a whole did have increases from their scores in 1998. I look at that as a big victory for two states that have had poor educational systems, but are attempting to fix it. I need to check for Mississippi, where I went to college, now.
The numbers look pretty constant to me (Score:3, Informative)
The score changes [ed.gov] from the 1996 test show only a statistical difference in the 12th grade results, and these differences [ed.gov] are marginal at best. Even within the statistically different 12th grade results, the only statistical change [ed.gov] was in the group that scored in the 50-percentile (a promising stat from that figure is that there was a statictically significant increase in the top performing 8th graders).
One graph that I found troubling was the one showing the numbers above and below basic proficiency levels [ed.gov] for the 12th graders, where the numbers falling below understanding the basics increased. We can hope that this is a statistical fluctuation and not the start of a trend.
By the way, the web site is very impressive in how much information is presented from the test question to the error on the test results. My biggest beef with statistics reported in the media is that they either never give error bars, or they'll ignore the errors; they'll report political poll results as one candidate ahead in the polls even if that person is ahead by less than the margin of error (this leads to the whole topic of basic ignorance of relative risk [psandman.com] and you don't want to get me going on that rant!).
TV makes you smarter? (Score:2, Interesting)
As a parent, I wasn't surprised to see the dip with 5-6 hours (or more) - how are they supposed to homework? But, given what my children watch, I'm surprised it has any positive influence. Or is this a side effect of the socio-economic factors - kids whose families can afford a TV score better than those who can't? (How many families don't own a TV any more? I'd have thought that was vanishingly small!)
Re:TV makes you smarter? (Score:1)