David Lawrence's post is a cheap shot at most teachers and serves to once again perpetuate the "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" mythology. Here in Pennsylvania (I can't speak for Virginia) teachers are required to complete a content major in addition to education courses (fewer in number) to become certified. All of the teachers that we graduate at my institution have full (9 biology courses + 4 chemistry courses + 2 math courses) majors in biology are are required to have a minimum 3.0 GPA in both their major and overall.
And...as a member of several committees that have developed and review science curricula it is a vast overstatement that "Primary and secondary school curricula are often designed and approved by political committees--many of whose members have little expertise (or interest) in either education or the topic areas covered." I have yet to serve on a curriculum committee in which this was the case. Perhaps this is the way they operate in Virginia. Perhaps the "solution" is for more practicing scientists to become involved in working with teachers and curriculum committees to "cure" this perceived problem. And...perhaps if the scientific and academic communities (along with more parents) started to feel that teaching was as noble and valuable a profession as, say medicine, we would begin to see more of our better students attracted to that endeavor. ************************************************ Frank T. Kuserk, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences and Director, Environmental Studies Program Moravian College 1200 Main St. Bethlehem, PA 18018-6650 610-861-1429 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************ On May 4, 2007, at 1:49 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: > There is considerable agreement among scientists about evolution. > It's > there if you want to see it. If you don't want to see it, you > won't. Are > you recommending that we all filter our work through some kind of > thought > police to ensure we present the "correct" message? > > The scientific community does not do the bulk of the teaching in this > country, so don't lay the blame at its feet. The bulk of the > education is > done by so-called "educators" -- many of whom take a lot of courses in > education, but relatively little in the topic areas in which they > teach. > (Don't get me wrong, I don't blame most teachers -- they didn't > design the > educational programs they had to follow in order to get properly > "trained" > and certified.) Primary and secondary school curricula are often > designed > and approved by political committees -- many of whose members have > little > expertise (or interest) in either education or the topic areas > covered. > > What people need is better education in the process and mechanics of > science, not in evolution per se. They need this education in > primary and > secondary schools, where there are few scientists actually doing any > teaching. In this day of trivia games marketed as standardized > tests, I'm > not optimistic that most will get that education. > > Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Showalter > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:15 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International > Journal of > Creation Research (IJCR). > > In response to David's comments, I think the assumption that most > individuals enter > our education system with their minds already made up about > evolution (or > any idea for that matter) is false. It may be true for some but > believing > that it is true for the majority undermines the entire point > of improving science education and public relations with the > scientific community. Why try to educate > people if their minds are already made up? The scientific community > has done > an abysmal job of demonstrating the validity and utility of > evolution to the > public. The appearance of disagreement within the scientific > community only > confuses the public and turns many off to really understanding the > underlying concepts of evolution. The public needs straightforward > dialogue and agreement between > scientists. While even this will not convince some, it will surely > educate the individuals confused by current discussions of evolution. > > > Ann
