"Kansas is hurting science!"
by KrauzeMatt Patterson has written a disturbing article about Kansas' adoption of new science standards (HT: Stranger Fruit). Patterson believes that the standards, which contain material about "the controversy over evolution", will harm the students' chances of being accepted for selective colleges outside Kansas. He explains that "moderate voices have been raised", and that the school board might meet the same fate as that in Dover. But by then, it'll be too late:
Unfortunately, the damage could be all-too imminent for some. In particular, students from Kansas who apply to selective colleges out of state may suffer the results of curriculum changes before science teachers alter a single word they say in the public high school classroom.
He goes on to explain that even though colleges prefer to have students with varying beliefs, he suspect that they will reject "applicants from the state that includes in its science curriculum ideas and attitudes that are not based on the scientific method". Maybe I'm the only one wondering how a student's application can be affected by changes that haven't even been carried out by the school, but that's probably my non-scientifcally-based thinking that's confusing me.
Moving on, Patterson notes:
Already in the letters to the editor in The New York Times there has been talk of a remedial science requirement for students who come from states with problematic science curricula. The trouble is that selective colleges - from St. Olaf to Skidmore to Harvard - don't offer many remedial courses. These colleges are for students who excel. Can you excel when what you are being taught is, according to globally accepted professional standards, fundamentally erroneous?
Whether students from Kansas can excel should be a very simple question to answer: Treat them as you would students from any other state, and in 5 or 10 years, see if students from Kansas are doing significantly worse than students from other states. Indeed, this would be the scientific way of answering the question, as opposed to relying on fears and prejudices.
But if the speculations about excluding Kansas students become reality, we'll never find out. In fact, if being from Kansas endangers your ability to get a science education, the ID critcs will be right: Teaching students about "problems with evolution" will hurt science. It just won't be in the way they imagined.
November 13th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Krauze…the frightening truth is that these people sincerely believe what they say AND they believe that what they believe is obviously true.
Quite scary.
Comment by bipod — November 13, 2005 @ 10:46 am
November 13th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Okay, can someone please tell me what the Kansas curricula now states so I can determine of it merits discrimination?
Comment by MikeGene — November 13, 2005 @ 10:52 am
November 13th, 2005 at 10:56 am
What Matt doesn't realize is that his ignorant diatribe & lies do more to hurt the people of Kansas then any change could possibly accomplish.
But this begs the question- How is the dogmatic indoctrination to NDE in any way helpful to students?
Comment by Joe G — November 13, 2005 @ 10:56 am
November 13th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Hi Bipod,
"Krauze…the frightening truth is that these people sincerely believe what they say AND they believe that what they believe is obviously true."
To me, this would only be frightening if I thought there was a real chance of it happening. Remember when the editor of Scientific American wanted university presidents to refuse "admission to high school graduates who were not taught evolution as a fact in their preparatory curricula" They blew him off. I have difficulty imagining these presidents turning down students (a.k.a. paying customers), because of what Kansas high schools are teaching.
Comment by Krauze — November 13, 2005 @ 11:02 am
November 13th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Hi Mike,
"Okay, can someone please tell me what the Kansas curricula now states so I can determine of it merits discrimination?"
Actually, I have a post coming up about this.
Comment by Krauze — November 13, 2005 @ 11:03 am
November 13th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Krauze:
Exactly. Perhaps the critics are afraid to approach this as a scientific problem because they are afraid their rhetoric will be unsupported by the data. For example, the ACT has a science test and here are the 2005 results.
The avg Kansas score has been 21.6 and 21.5 for 2005 and 04, respectively. If Patterson is correct, those scores should begin to plummet. We could also compare Kansas to neighboring states (Nebraska, Oklahoma and Missouri) whose scores are similar. If Patterson is correct, the scores in those states should hold steady while Kansas plummets.
BTW, didn't Ohio make some similar change a few years ago? Their ACT science scores have not changed (although we only have two data points thus far).
Comment by MikeGene — November 13, 2005 @ 11:36 am
November 13th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
LOL. Get a load of this guy fulminating in his own delusions.
If it is true that the "Kansas board has now flung its students straight into the yawning maw of irrationality," rather that spew rage and rhetoric, try thinking like a scientist. Use this "observation" to develop a testable hypothesis about the Kansas student population. Then test. But why expect the self-appointed "pro-science" crowd to think like scientists.
Comment by MikeGene — November 13, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
November 13th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Patterson seems to be admitting that the elite schools are going form some sort of "policy" of discrimination based on where the students come from.
Comment by macht — November 13, 2005 @ 1:38 pm
November 13th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Mike:
The standards are located on the Kansas State Department of Education website here at link
I have only glanced at the 123 pages. On that cursory glance, I note that there is indeed a fair amount of criticisms/questions about evolution in the additional specifics under the benchmark indicators, at least in grades 8-12.
There is one reference in the standards to irreducible complexity, which is located in the paragraph that questions whether microevolution can be extrapolated to explain macroevolution and the existence of systems that "appear irreducibly complex."
The only reference to the term "intelligent design" is a specific disclaimer on page ii that the standards do not include intelligent design and that the standards neither mandate nor prohibit teachers from discussing intelligent design.
As with all state standards, I am sure there are a number of weaknesses in the way the standards were drafted and a number of things that could be improved, and I will probably try to read through them in more detail at some point, but on a quick review it doesn't look to me like the sky is falling.
Eric
Comment by Eric Anderson — November 13, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
November 13th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Does Patterson also think that colleges are looking askance at students from Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico? Kansas was not the first but the fifth state to adopt similar science standards.
And does Patterson really think that Kansas has decided to avoid teaching evolution? You would think a journalist would check his facts first.
Comment by TomG — November 13, 2005 @ 10:54 pm
November 14th, 2005 at 12:50 am
What these guys are ignoring is that students from non-public and homeschools already have a record of excelling and being admitted to places like Harvard. The best students probably pay no attention to politics or state-approved science standards, and their ability to grasp concepts and learn science probably goes beyond (or around) the typical curriculum aimed at the average high-schooler.
Comment by jon_e — November 14, 2005 @ 12:50 am