Re: Art Burke & Creationism in Minnesota

[Scott Hays <shays@telis.org>]

Art Burke writes:

"I don't doubt that the Minnesota IDers were behind the changes you quoted.  I
just doubt that this victory adds up to very much because I doubt that ID's
bad ideas will chase the good ones out of most science classrooms.  We see
this
over and over in education (and on this list): people spend enromous amounts
of energy fighting rearguard actions to protect the purity of one model or
another.  Advocates of "whole language" get up in arms if somebody says
that some
kids need intensive instruction in phonics;  advocates of "inquiry"
approaches get up in arms if somebody says some kids need really structured
approaches
- and on on and on.  It must be exhausting always watching out for a falling
sky."

You oversimplify and understate admiringly.  I am now relaxed ... there is
nothing to worry about.

When my self-created literature-based language arts program was ineffective
with some students, I offered them intensive support through Direct
Instructional programs (Morphographs, Distar).  Unfortunately, some people
confused success for some students using DI with success for all students
-- hence "choice" is gone and Open Court reigns (legislated, in many
cases).  Reading Police make sure teachers are on the "right page" on the
"right day", and require documentation that the pacing of the program is
maintained.

Similarly, not all students in my science class thrived in an inquiry-based
classroom.  I therefore pick and choose lesson design from a continuum of
totally teacher-directed to totally open-ended, student-directed, dependent
upon the objectives of the lesson and other significant variables (student
background, student interest, available time, to name but a few).
Unfortunately, some people confused success for some students using a
traditional, text-based approach with success for all students -- hence, in
California we had proposals to legally limit the amount of hands-on
instruction to be LESS THAN 20% of the instructional program.

I agree ... keeping your eye on a falling sky is not particularly
productive.  Still, it's awful hard to prop the sky back up once it has
actually fallen.  Art ... because people did not have the proper response
to the one-size-fits-all bean counter mentalities of policy-makers (perhaps
unduly influenced by the manufacturer's and distributors of instructional
materials) ... I, for one, think the sky HAS fallen.

I have no scientific evidence to support the following claim, but
conservatively I would estimate that fully 50-60% of all elementary
teachers do not teach any concepts related to evolution (although most DO
teach "diversity", because that seems pretty safe).  Of course, a
frightenly large percentage of elementary teachers don't teach science at
all (and many many more than the one you cited do things like refer to the
National Enquirer -- or worse -- as a part of their "science" program).
This is a rather daunting number to address, in and of itself.  This new
strategy of ID will make it even harder for elementary teachers to lay the
necessary conceptual foundation that is required for more advanced studies
in middle and high school.

Certainly you recognize this difficulty?

Scott Hays