Why is it that proponents of the Next Generation Science Standards want to inject religion into the discussion of the standards?
In response to my op-ed in the Herald-Leader today, Pete Landfield, who is involved in Information Systems at the University of Kentucky, says, "Let's all remember that the "family foundation" is a religious group comprised of right wing evangelical 'christian' dominionists."
Really? Is he talking about me? I'm a Catholic, which makes it theologically impossible for me to be a "dominionist."
Amazing the strange bedfellows that reckless stereotyping can make.
But Landfield, the informationally challenged information systemetizer, goes on: "What Mr. Cothran fails to remember is that there is a separation of church and state in this country, and teaching religion in the public sphere is prohibited. If Mr. Cothran were to get his way and have right wing evangelical 'christian' version of creationism taught and climate science ignored, then I say we should also teach Satanism, Voodoo, Hoodoo, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wiccanism, paganism, and lest I forget, Flying Spaghetti Monstorism in school. After all, isn't that the jist of religious 'freedom'?"
And I recommended teaching religion ... where?
Had Landfield paid attention to the informational aspect of what I said he would have noticed a curious fact: That I not only made no recommendation to teach religion, but made no reference to religion whatsoever. So what exactly is he referring to? It's hard to say.
In pondering the kind of intellectual care Landfield and other commenters on the article take in interpreting what I actually said in the article, I'm seeing some interesting things in our scientific future.
I'm thinking of alchemy and leechcraft here.
Monday, September 30, 2013
My article on the sham approval process of state science standards in today's Herald-Leader
Here is an excerpt of my op-ed on Kentucky's science standards in today's Lexington Herald-Leader:
This is the problem with science education, we are told: students have memorized too many facts. Their heads are bursting with them. There is not enough room in their tiny little brains for an understanding of how these facts should be applied because all the room is currently taken up by facts. There is simply no space in those fact-crowded little heads for scientific applications.
This may be the first time anyone has argued that the problem with our schools is that students know too much.Read more here.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
New JCPS Slogan: "Not as bad as we used to be, but almost"
Jefferson County Public Schools have reportedly (in stories that were the journalistic equivalent of happy faces) improved under Kentucky's new "Unbridled Learning" assessment system, but not much, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal:
All this after having adopted Common Core standards in 2010. But the important thing is that the school unions are still in control and that teachers colleges are still the gatekeepers of teacher training.
Have a nice day.
In Jefferson County, 41 percent of the district’s elementary students, 42 percent of middle-schoolers and 52 percent of high-schoolers scored proficient or better in reading, compared with last year’s rates of 42 percent, 38 percent and 51 percent, respectively.And behind these lackluster numbers was this little tidbit:
Overall, JCPS saw a decline in three areas — elementary reading, middle school science and high school math.If you can't teach students to read in elementary school, then the future is not bright. And high school math? It's not pretty:
Math proficiency fell slightly, ranging by grade level from 33 to 41 percent proficiency, compared with 33 to 46 percent last year.In fact, some schools tanked altogether:
All of the district’s high schools scored worse this year in algebra II end-of-course exams. Nine schools — Butler, Doss, Manual, Fern Creek, Iroquois, Male, Pleasure Ridge Park, Southern and Western — posted double-digit declines in the subject.Double digit declines. And, overall, only 23 percent of schools in Jefferson count scored proficient.
All this after having adopted Common Core standards in 2010. But the important thing is that the school unions are still in control and that teachers colleges are still the gatekeepers of teacher training.
Have a nice day.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Florida governor orders state out of Common Core tests
The War on Knowledge just ran into more opposition.
Just days after former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush excoriated opponents of the Common Core for defending ignorance (as opposed to actually implementing it, which is what he recommends), current Florida Gov. Rick Scott issued an executive order calling for the state to lop off the testing tentacle of the Common Core, called "PARCC":
HT: Michelle Malkin
Just days after former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush excoriated opponents of the Common Core for defending ignorance (as opposed to actually implementing it, which is what he recommends), current Florida Gov. Rick Scott issued an executive order calling for the state to lop off the testing tentacle of the Common Core, called "PARCC":
Gov. Rick Scott is directing the state Education Board to withdraw from the national consortium creating tests to accompany the new Common Core State Standards.
Scott sent a letter to state Board of Education Chairman Gary Chartrand Monday recommending a six-point action plan for pursuing higher standards in education.
His first recommendation: pull out of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, and start the competitive bidding process to select the state's new assessment.Read more here.
HT: Michelle Malkin
Is STEM a SCAM? Are all those predictions of future technology jobs really legit?
There are two kinds of economic obsessions and both involve attempts at prophecy: The first involves predictions that the economic End is Near; the second involves someone telling us what the economy will need in the future. The STEM movement is an example of the latter.
We are now in the midst of the STEM craze. We are told, with religious zeal, that the economy will need STEM jobs in the coming years. Millions of dollars are now being spent to promote STEM education--just like I was told in college that your future job prospects were in learning Fortran and Pascal.
Watch for the 21st century economic equivalent of the 17th century tulip craze in Holland.
In a recent article in IEEE Spectrum (as well as in several other articles), Robert N. Charette points out a few facts about STEM that its advocates aren't talking about:
We are now in the midst of the STEM craze. We are told, with religious zeal, that the economy will need STEM jobs in the coming years. Millions of dollars are now being spent to promote STEM education--just like I was told in college that your future job prospects were in learning Fortran and Pascal.
Watch for the 21st century economic equivalent of the 17th century tulip craze in Holland.
In a recent article in IEEE Spectrum (as well as in several other articles), Robert N. Charette points out a few facts about STEM that its advocates aren't talking about:
You must have seen the warning a thousand times: Too few young people study scientific or technical subjects, businesses can’t find enough workers in those fields, and the country’s competitive edge is threatened.
... And yet, alongside such dire projections, you’ll also find reports suggesting just the opposite—that there are more STEM workers than suitable jobs. One study found, for example, that wages for U.S. workers in computer and math fields have largely stagnated since 2000. Even as the Great Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at every stage of the career pipeline, from freshly minted grads to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to find employment as many companies, including Boeing, IBM , and Symantec , continue to lay off thousands of STEM workers.
... Another surprise was the apparent mismatch between earning a STEM degree and having a STEM job. Of the 7.6 million STEM workers counted by the Commerce Department, only 3.3 million possess STEM degrees. Viewed another way, about 15 million U.S. residents hold at least a bachelor’s degree in a STEM discipline, but three-fourths of them—11.4 million—work outside of STEM. The departure of STEM graduates to other fields starts early. In 2008, the NSF surveyed STEM graduates who’d earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in 2006 and 2007. It found that 2 out of 10 were already working in non-STEM fields .And 10 years after receiving a STEM degree, 58 percent of STEM graduates had left the field , according to a 2011 study from Georgetown University. The takeaway? At least in the United States, you don’t need a STEM degree to get a STEM job, and if you do get a degree, you won’t necessarily work in that field after you graduate. If there is in fact a STEM worker shortage, wouldn’t you expect more people with STEM degrees to be filling those jobs? And if many STEM jobs can be filled by people who don’t have STEM degrees, then why the big push to get more students to pursue STEM?Read the rest here.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Where is Common Core's thinking skills program?
One of the reasons given by proponents of the Common Core, for not requiring particular content knowledge is that they are teaching kids "critical thinking skills." But merely repeating the phrase doesn't constitute a program. In spite of the fact that Common Core proponents like to shake their pom-poms and cheer it on, they don't seem to even know what "critical thinking skills" means, much less have any actual program to teach it.
The first problem is that Common Core proponents don't seem to even know what "critical thinking skills" are. If you want to talk about "critical thinking skills," you should at least be able to define what they are. In all the reading of done on Common Core, I can find a single definition of the term.
You can require that students exercise thinking skills, but how are they going to be able to actually employ them if they never learn them? And how are they going to learn them unless there is some kind of systematic program to teach it to them?
A case in point is a recent post from Susan Weston at the Prichard Committee, who is running a series of posts on the Common Core standards. In her most recent post, she reblogs Stu Silberman's post in Education Week on three of the Common Core reading standards.
The first problem is that Common Core proponents don't seem to even know what "critical thinking skills" are. If you want to talk about "critical thinking skills," you should at least be able to define what they are. In all the reading of done on Common Core, I can find a single definition of the term.
You can require that students exercise thinking skills, but how are they going to be able to actually employ them if they never learn them? And how are they going to learn them unless there is some kind of systematic program to teach it to them?
A case in point is a recent post from Susan Weston at the Prichard Committee, who is running a series of posts on the Common Core standards. In her most recent post, she reblogs Stu Silberman's post in Education Week on three of the Common Core reading standards.
One of them reads: "Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence."
Sounds great, doesn't it?
Here is Silberman, commenting on this section:
There are certain specific things a student has to know in order to deter the validity of an argument. In categorical reasoning, one has to know how many terms an argument has and that they are not equivocal. He has to know the four kinds of logical statements and whether the terms are distributed in each subject and predicate. He then has to know the rules for validity and be able to apply them to actual arguments.
If the reasoning is hypothetical, then he has to know, given the particular structure of the argument, which term (the antecedent or consequent) he can affirm or deny in order to derive the correct conclusion.
Where in the standards are these things required of students so that they would actually have the capability to determine the validity of an argument? Where is this process taught to teachers who will be implementing the standards? And is it reasonable to expect a K-5 student to be able to do this, much less a 6-12th grade student who has never had any training in logic?
The only way to determine validity of an argument is to use logic, and no mention is made in the standards of whether or how it is going to be taught. Unless there is some procedure for teaching students how to actually determine validity of arguments, then all the talk about "validity" is meaningless and ineffectual.
Sounds great, doesn't it?
Here is Silberman, commenting on this section:
With a parent or citizen audience, I'd emphasize two points.
First, Standard 8 is my very favorite part of the whole Common Core process, because it asks students to track the evidence and check whether each author's positions are well grounded in reliable facts and sensible reasoning. To me, that sounds like the basics of citizenship preparation, and close to the root of why America has public schools.
And second, Standard 8 is my inspiration for this set of blog posts. For those who are wary about Common Core, I urge them to start by reading Common Core. If you think they're wrong for the kids of your state, say which part you think is wrong, quoting from the actual text. Wrestle the real document and the real evidence, and don't settle for anyone else's summary.Okay, fine. So maybe Stu or Susan can tell me how the Common Core is going to teach this ability to "delineate and evaluate" an argument? How is a student going to learn how to "check whether each author's positions are well grounded in ... sensible reasoning." And what is "sensible reasoning"? Most importantly, where in the standards does it outline the method by which it is going to teach students how to determine "validity"?
There are certain specific things a student has to know in order to deter the validity of an argument. In categorical reasoning, one has to know how many terms an argument has and that they are not equivocal. He has to know the four kinds of logical statements and whether the terms are distributed in each subject and predicate. He then has to know the rules for validity and be able to apply them to actual arguments.
If the reasoning is hypothetical, then he has to know, given the particular structure of the argument, which term (the antecedent or consequent) he can affirm or deny in order to derive the correct conclusion.
Where in the standards are these things required of students so that they would actually have the capability to determine the validity of an argument? Where is this process taught to teachers who will be implementing the standards? And is it reasonable to expect a K-5 student to be able to do this, much less a 6-12th grade student who has never had any training in logic?
The only way to determine validity of an argument is to use logic, and no mention is made in the standards of whether or how it is going to be taught. Unless there is some procedure for teaching students how to actually determine validity of arguments, then all the talk about "validity" is meaningless and ineffectual.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
War on Knowledge to be discussed on Mike Allen Show today
I will be appearing on the Mike Allen Show on Real Life Radio 1380 in Lexington, KY today at 5:00 est to discuss the War on Knowledge.
As state funding for KY schools declines, performance improves
The announcement by Kentucky education officials yesterday of alleged improvements in the state's school system over the last few years may be the fulfillment of the prophecy of a famous Kentuckian.
After I introduced Wendell Berry last year at the CiRCE Institute Padeia Prize banquet, he said, "I think our education system is too big to fail, but I also think it's too big to fix—without a lot less money. Perhaps poverty will do them some good."
With this in mind, did anyone happen to notice that the day after all these great improvements in Kentucky schools since 2010 were announced (reduction in dropout rates, greater college and career readiness), the Lexington Herald-Leader, in an impeccably-timed editorial today, complained about the decline in state education funding since 2008?
Now it's rather humorous that the Herald-Leader editors would be complaining about something having a negative effect that actually had a direct correlation with education improvement!
And furthermore we could give this correlation scientific legitimacy by merely conferring an acronym on it and using scientific lingo to describe it. Let's call it the FREIE (The Funding Reduction Education Improvement Effect) which represents the research-based conclusion of the correlation which we observe in the data indicating the need for a repurposing of our cognitive presumptions given the fact that decreases in education expenditures seem to contribute to the conclusion that educational infrastructures problematize the cognitive outcome that increases in expenditure generate critical proficiencies.
(Why is it that I feel like taking a shower after I say something like that?)
Think about it: If a decline in educational funding of ten percent correlates with the kind of improvement Kentucky officials are now claiming, just imagine how much Kentucky schools could be improved by, say, a 20 percent or even 30 percent funding cut.
It's worth a try.
After I introduced Wendell Berry last year at the CiRCE Institute Padeia Prize banquet, he said, "I think our education system is too big to fail, but I also think it's too big to fix—without a lot less money. Perhaps poverty will do them some good."
With this in mind, did anyone happen to notice that the day after all these great improvements in Kentucky schools since 2010 were announced (reduction in dropout rates, greater college and career readiness), the Lexington Herald-Leader, in an impeccably-timed editorial today, complained about the decline in state education funding since 2008?
Now it's rather humorous that the Herald-Leader editors would be complaining about something having a negative effect that actually had a direct correlation with education improvement!
And furthermore we could give this correlation scientific legitimacy by merely conferring an acronym on it and using scientific lingo to describe it. Let's call it the FREIE (The Funding Reduction Education Improvement Effect) which represents the research-based conclusion of the correlation which we observe in the data indicating the need for a repurposing of our cognitive presumptions given the fact that decreases in education expenditures seem to contribute to the conclusion that educational infrastructures problematize the cognitive outcome that increases in expenditure generate critical proficiencies.
(Why is it that I feel like taking a shower after I say something like that?)
Think about it: If a decline in educational funding of ten percent correlates with the kind of improvement Kentucky officials are now claiming, just imagine how much Kentucky schools could be improved by, say, a 20 percent or even 30 percent funding cut.
It's worth a try.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The next battle in the academic left's War on Knowledge: Social studies standards
Another tentacle has reportedly grown on the Common Core monster that promises to suck even more knowledge out of the minds of your children.
We go now to Frederick M. Hess at the Enterprise Institute for an update:
I have said before that the people who talk the most about "critical thinking skills" are the least able to explain exactly what they are. But we may now have a breakthrough.
What the permissivist educational establishment appears to mean by "critical thinking skills" is the process of eliminating content knowledge from the minds of children. So when you hear them using contentless expressions such as "critical thinking, collaboration, and inquiry," pack up the minivan and flee to the hills before your children's minds are turned into mush by the Common Core monster.
We go now to Frederick M. Hess at the Enterprise Institute for an update:
Yesterday, on Constitution Day, a coalition of social studies organizations issued their “College, Career and Civic Life (C3) Framework for State Social Studies Standards.” One of the partner organizations was the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools co-chaired by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Now, the exercise had more than a little irony, given that the organizations went out of their way to ensure that these “social studies standards” make no mention of the U.S. Constitution—or other historical events, dates, or persons.
Susan Griffin, executive director of the National Council of Social Studies (NCSS), explained, “Many state standards in social studies are overwhelmed with lists of dates, places and names to memorize – information students quickly forget.” Instead, she said, the new framework would help states establish “fewer, higher, and clearer standards for instruction in civics, economics, geography, and history,” the standards emphasize “critical thinking, collaboration, and inquiry.” Without delving into what students should actually know, the new C3 framework, explains an accompanying fact sheet, “Intentionally envisions social studies instruction as an inquiry arc of interlocking and mutually reinforcing elements that speak to the intersection of ideas and learners.”
...Frederick? Frederick? Are you still there? Well, we've lost Frederick. But you can get the rest of his report on the new social studies standards here.
I have said before that the people who talk the most about "critical thinking skills" are the least able to explain exactly what they are. But we may now have a breakthrough.
What the permissivist educational establishment appears to mean by "critical thinking skills" is the process of eliminating content knowledge from the minds of children. So when you hear them using contentless expressions such as "critical thinking, collaboration, and inquiry," pack up the minivan and flee to the hills before your children's minds are turned into mush by the Common Core monster.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
BREAKING NEWS: Give up your guns, but ignore our violent programming
BLANDERSON STUPOR: We interrupt this program to bring you a special report wherein we tell you about the recent shooting in the naval yard in Washington, D.C. and lecture everybody about how we need new laws banning guns in order to eliminate violence about which we are very schocked and appalled.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled violent programming which we vehemently deny has anything to do with glorifying and promoting the violence about which we profess to be shocked and appalled (largely because it would cost us money).
Thank you.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled violent programming which we vehemently deny has anything to do with glorifying and promoting the violence about which we profess to be shocked and appalled (largely because it would cost us money).
Thank you.
In Defense of Facts: Students know too much, say science standards advocates
While most of us think that it is ignorance that needs to be stamped out, advocates of Kentucky's new unapproved and forcibly implemented science standards are targeting ... knowledge.
Just take a gander at the responses to my opinion piece in the Louisville Courier-Journal which were published on Monday. According to Brad Matthews, former director of curriculum and assessment for the Jefferson County Public Schools, one reason we need these unapproved and forcibly implement standards is to extirpate that bane of all modern permissivist educators: memorization.
"Science education has moved away from the memorization of many facts," says Matthews, "and toward understanding how the laws and principles of science are applied."
That's right: students have memorized too many facts. Their heads are bursting with scientific facts. There is not enough room in their tiny little brains for an understanding of how these facts should be applied because all the room us currently taken up by scientific facts which these students have memorized. There is simply no space in those fact-crowded little heads for scientific concepts.
The solution is obvious to people like Matthews: clear all that knowledge out of there so they will be able to apply the knowledge they will no longer have under these standards.
Just check out some of those Jefferson County schools Matthews had a hand in overseeing and you'll see the extent to which kids are overstuffed with memorized factual knowledge.
What exactly is it that modern educators have against memorized knowledge of facts? And why is it that they are always pitting facts against application and concepts? Is the possession of memorized facts really inconsistent with an ability to apply scientific procedures and an understanding of scientific ideas?
Just take a gander at the responses to my opinion piece in the Louisville Courier-Journal which were published on Monday. According to Brad Matthews, former director of curriculum and assessment for the Jefferson County Public Schools, one reason we need these unapproved and forcibly implement standards is to extirpate that bane of all modern permissivist educators: memorization.
"Science education has moved away from the memorization of many facts," says Matthews, "and toward understanding how the laws and principles of science are applied."
That's right: students have memorized too many facts. Their heads are bursting with scientific facts. There is not enough room in their tiny little brains for an understanding of how these facts should be applied because all the room us currently taken up by scientific facts which these students have memorized. There is simply no space in those fact-crowded little heads for scientific concepts.
The solution is obvious to people like Matthews: clear all that knowledge out of there so they will be able to apply the knowledge they will no longer have under these standards.
Just check out some of those Jefferson County schools Matthews had a hand in overseeing and you'll see the extent to which kids are overstuffed with memorized factual knowledge.
What exactly is it that modern educators have against memorized knowledge of facts? And why is it that they are always pitting facts against application and concepts? Is the possession of memorized facts really inconsistent with an ability to apply scientific procedures and an understanding of scientific ideas?
Since we're now abandoning memorization, we can apparently look forward to the prospect of Kentucky students knowing fewer facts than ever before.
What a relief.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Perpetual Childhood: Are parents too involved in the lives of their grown children?
When I was in high school, there was a very popular surfing movie called, "Endless Summer." It was about surfers who traveled the world in perpetual pursuit of the perfect wave. But what our children can now look forward to, apparently, is "Endless Childhood."
I heard somewhere recently (NPR, I think) that college professors are getting more and more calls from the parents of their students who are dissatisfied by the grades they [their children] are receiving or the nature of instruction and so forth. And the first thought I have, after hearing of this, is to ponder just how perpetually adolescent our culture has become that a person needs the assistance of his parents into adulthood.
By the time a person has graduated from college, he should be able to assist his parents, his parents should not be having to assist him. At bottom, he should not have to have his parents still managing his affairs.
But here is John Hayword, waxing anxious on a recent Wall Street Journal article on parental involvement in the employment life of their grown children, including the interview and recruitment process and the process of advancement:
I heard somewhere recently (NPR, I think) that college professors are getting more and more calls from the parents of their students who are dissatisfied by the grades they [their children] are receiving or the nature of instruction and so forth. And the first thought I have, after hearing of this, is to ponder just how perpetually adolescent our culture has become that a person needs the assistance of his parents into adulthood.
By the time a person has graduated from college, he should be able to assist his parents, his parents should not be having to assist him. At bottom, he should not have to have his parents still managing his affairs.
But here is John Hayword, waxing anxious on a recent Wall Street Journal article on parental involvement in the employment life of their grown children, including the interview and recruitment process and the process of advancement:
I don’t want to come off like an old fuddy-duddy here, but it seems to me that some of the traits employers value – independence, resourcefulness, initiative – are undermined by bringing parents into the office, not to mention involving them in job interviews. I’m a big proponent of the importance of family, and its value for putting young people on the road to success, but at some point you’ve got to leave the nest.
It’s also not a good idea to encourage the new social trend of extended adolescence. The current American culture is quite impatient with childhood - they’re working on sex-ed classes for five-year-olds in Chicago – but it wants to drag adolescence out as long as possible. The life of the college student will now extend into the early years of career life, where company functions increasingly resemble PTA meetings. Couple this with the growing trend of young people living with their parents for an uncomfortably long time, and it’s getting hard to see where “adulthood” really begins.It will be interesting to see, in modern culture, just how long we can extend childhood.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Unapproved but forcibly implemented state science standards advocate misrepresents my arguments
Robert Bevins, a former professor of biology at Georgetown College who is probably the most widely-quoted supporter of Kentucky's unapproved but forcibly implemented new science standards, said at a recent legislative hearing that Kentucky would be seen as a "backwater" if it didn't approve the science standards.
The problem is that if the science standards are passed, Kentucky students won't know what a backwater is.
In the legislative committee meeting in which the standards were rejected, Bevins gave testimony asserting that my word counts were incorrect when I asserted, in my Lexington Herald-Leader article, that climate science terms were used 130 times while other terms one would expect to be more common in a set of science standards were far fewer--or absent altogether.
I made some notes while Bevins was speaking, just before I gave may own testimony on Bevins' attempted refutation of my argument. Then, I discovered his more extensive response to my arguments on the website of the group he heads, Kentuckians for Science Education.
Here is what he says in the post on his site responding to my arguments: "An examination of the Next Generation Science Standards by word count and context regarding claims of excessive focus on climate change." He then goes on to give his own findings about what he found in the NGSS document.
First problem: Bevins misrepresents the document I claimed to have analyed
The first thing to note about his response is that he completely misrepresents what I claimed. He says I claimed to have done a word search on the Next Generation Science Standards document: "Mr Cothran’s initial analysis of the NGSS document," he says, "vastly overestimates the importance of anthropogenic climate change in the NGSS document, especially in elementary and middle school grades."
Mr. Bevin's assertion is simply false.
I said very specifically in my op-ed that I did the word search on the Kentucky Core Academic Standards document, which is the actual document in question in this debate. Here are my exact words: "If you do a simple word search through the Kentucky Core Academic Standards document, the problem becomes apparent ..." [Emphasis added]
In other words, Bevins' entire attempted refutation is based on a mistaken understanding of the document at issue.
Now obviously the Kentucky Core Academic Standards includes the Next Generation Science Standards as well as a number of other subject areas. In addition, I have not done a careful comparison between the science sections Kentucky standards document and the NGSS document. I suspect they are substantially the same, although Kentucky Department of Education officials said at the legislative meeting last Wednesday that they had made some modifications which sound minor.
In any case, I never claimed to have done any kind of content analysis on the Next Generation Science Standards document itself, as Bevins claims, and therefore the word counts he claims as corrections of my word counts are irrelevant.
Second problem: Bevins overstates what I said the document emphasized
He also asserted that my word count involved terms related to climate change and that, in fact, the terms I found in my word search were related to climate science in general, but not climate change in particular. What I in fact said was that these were terms related to climate science.
Again, Bevins misrepresents what I said. Here is what I said: "If we had only Kentucky's science standards to go by, we would have to conclude that climate and weather issues are more important than gravity, photosynthesis, electricity, genetics, radiation and quantum mechanics." [Emphasis added] I then said, very specifically, exactly which terms I was counting: "...the terms "climate," "weather" and "global warming" are together mentioned over 130 times."
I did say, prior to those specific claims, that there was "an avalanche of terms related to climate change." I said that because my assumption was that the reason for having all of those climate and weather related terms in the standards was because of the recent interest in climate change. In other words, the prevalence of climate science terminology was my evidence for an emphasis on climate change in the standards.
Now I suppose someone could argue with my assumption that the reason for the inclusion of all the climate science emphasis in the standards is not due to the interest in climate change (and Bevins tries to do this), but that would be rather hard to believe. It would also not square with the responses by standards supporters to my argument, which was not that I was wrong about the emphasis on climate change, but rather that the standards were, in fact, correct in emphasizing it (through an emphasis on climate science). Just see the two responses that appeared to my article in the Herald Leader two weeks later.
In any case, my claims about the data itself had to do specifically and explicitly with climate science terminology.
So the two chief assumptions of Bevins refutation are mistaken.
And in regard to his claim that Kentucky will be seen as a backwater if it doesn't pass the standards, so what? We should mis-educate our children in order not to look bad?
The problem is that if the science standards are passed, Kentucky students won't know what a backwater is.
In the legislative committee meeting in which the standards were rejected, Bevins gave testimony asserting that my word counts were incorrect when I asserted, in my Lexington Herald-Leader article, that climate science terms were used 130 times while other terms one would expect to be more common in a set of science standards were far fewer--or absent altogether.
I made some notes while Bevins was speaking, just before I gave may own testimony on Bevins' attempted refutation of my argument. Then, I discovered his more extensive response to my arguments on the website of the group he heads, Kentuckians for Science Education.
Here is what he says in the post on his site responding to my arguments: "An examination of the Next Generation Science Standards by word count and context regarding claims of excessive focus on climate change." He then goes on to give his own findings about what he found in the NGSS document.
First problem: Bevins misrepresents the document I claimed to have analyed
The first thing to note about his response is that he completely misrepresents what I claimed. He says I claimed to have done a word search on the Next Generation Science Standards document: "Mr Cothran’s initial analysis of the NGSS document," he says, "vastly overestimates the importance of anthropogenic climate change in the NGSS document, especially in elementary and middle school grades."
Mr. Bevin's assertion is simply false.
I said very specifically in my op-ed that I did the word search on the Kentucky Core Academic Standards document, which is the actual document in question in this debate. Here are my exact words: "If you do a simple word search through the Kentucky Core Academic Standards document, the problem becomes apparent ..." [Emphasis added]
In other words, Bevins' entire attempted refutation is based on a mistaken understanding of the document at issue.
Now obviously the Kentucky Core Academic Standards includes the Next Generation Science Standards as well as a number of other subject areas. In addition, I have not done a careful comparison between the science sections Kentucky standards document and the NGSS document. I suspect they are substantially the same, although Kentucky Department of Education officials said at the legislative meeting last Wednesday that they had made some modifications which sound minor.
In any case, I never claimed to have done any kind of content analysis on the Next Generation Science Standards document itself, as Bevins claims, and therefore the word counts he claims as corrections of my word counts are irrelevant.
He also asserted that my word count involved terms related to climate change and that, in fact, the terms I found in my word search were related to climate science in general, but not climate change in particular. What I in fact said was that these were terms related to climate science.
Again, Bevins misrepresents what I said. Here is what I said: "If we had only Kentucky's science standards to go by, we would have to conclude that climate and weather issues are more important than gravity, photosynthesis, electricity, genetics, radiation and quantum mechanics." [Emphasis added] I then said, very specifically, exactly which terms I was counting: "...the terms "climate," "weather" and "global warming" are together mentioned over 130 times."
I did say, prior to those specific claims, that there was "an avalanche of terms related to climate change." I said that because my assumption was that the reason for having all of those climate and weather related terms in the standards was because of the recent interest in climate change. In other words, the prevalence of climate science terminology was my evidence for an emphasis on climate change in the standards.
Now I suppose someone could argue with my assumption that the reason for the inclusion of all the climate science emphasis in the standards is not due to the interest in climate change (and Bevins tries to do this), but that would be rather hard to believe. It would also not square with the responses by standards supporters to my argument, which was not that I was wrong about the emphasis on climate change, but rather that the standards were, in fact, correct in emphasizing it (through an emphasis on climate science). Just see the two responses that appeared to my article in the Herald Leader two weeks later.
In any case, my claims about the data itself had to do specifically and explicitly with climate science terminology.
So the two chief assumptions of Bevins refutation are mistaken.
And in regard to his claim that Kentucky will be seen as a backwater if it doesn't pass the standards, so what? We should mis-educate our children in order not to look bad?
Friday, September 13, 2013
Kentucky children are not stupid
For Immediate Release
LEXINGTON, KY—The Family Foundation today decried what it called "ugly rhetoric" from supporters of the state science standards. "Supporters of the science standards need to tone down their criticism of Kentucky students before they make the standards more unpopular than they already are."
Comments made by a liberal blogger and supporters of the standards who testified before a legislative committee in favor of the standards prompted the group to speak out. After the science standards were rejected by a legislative panel yesterday, Jake Payne, who runs Page One, Kentucky, said in response to the vote, "Wondering why Kentucky kids tend to be the dumbest mother****ers on the planet these days? That’s why."
Cothran said the current science standards are not better than previous standards and leave out even more science content. "If Kentucky students were as stupid as Payne thinks they are," said Cothran, "then it would be the result in part of the last set of standards we passed in this state. Remember them? The ones that were supposed to make everything better? The people who are now telling us that the Next Generation Science Standards will fix things are the same people who told us that the Last Generation Science Standards were going to solve our problems. "
"Kentucky children are not stupid. But they are ill-served by an education establishment that ignores basic content knowledge as the new science standards do. And people like Payne should stop blaming children."
September 13, 2013
LEXINGTON, KY—The Family Foundation today decried what it called "ugly rhetoric" from supporters of the state science standards. "Supporters of the science standards need to tone down their criticism of Kentucky students before they make the standards more unpopular than they already are."
Comments made by a liberal blogger and supporters of the standards who testified before a legislative committee in favor of the standards prompted the group to speak out. After the science standards were rejected by a legislative panel yesterday, Jake Payne, who runs Page One, Kentucky, said in response to the vote, "Wondering why Kentucky kids tend to be the dumbest mother****ers on the planet these days? That’s why."
Cothran said the current science standards are not better than previous standards and leave out even more science content. "If Kentucky students were as stupid as Payne thinks they are," said Cothran, "then it would be the result in part of the last set of standards we passed in this state. Remember them? The ones that were supposed to make everything better? The people who are now telling us that the Next Generation Science Standards will fix things are the same people who told us that the Last Generation Science Standards were going to solve our problems. "
"Kentucky children are not stupid. But they are ill-served by an education establishment that ignores basic content knowledge as the new science standards do. And people like Payne should stop blaming children."
###
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Media coverage of legislative rejection of Next Generation Science Standards
Below is a list of media outlets carrying my remarks on the rejection by the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee of the states new science standards which are based on the Next Generation Science Standards:
Kentucky panel to review state's new science standards | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
...new standards would be a horrible embarrassment for the state. Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation, said the standards should not be approved because they neglect basic science knowledge... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09/11/13 12:39 | United States | courierpress.com
|
PRESS RELEASE: Governor’s action “crisis in educational legitimacy”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 12, 2013
LEXINGTON, KY—"This creates a crisis of educational legitimacy," said a spokesman for The Family Foundation after Gov. Steve Beshear said he was going to ignore the decision of a legislative panel that voted down controversial new state science standards on Wednesday.
"The Governor has basically told parents to take a hike," said Martin Cothran. "We told the committee that the approval process for these standards was a sham and now the Governor has proven our point." The Kentucky Department of Education had not made a single change to the standards in response to criticism, Cothran had told the committee.
"If there is any doubt that the approval process for education standards is a joke, the Governor has dispelled it." Cothran said that there has only been rag-tag opposition to the standards up to this point. "What was ripple could now turn into a tsunami," said Cothran.
The Family Foundation opposed the standards because they lack an emphasis on basic science knowledge about nature while overemphasizing climate change and other trendy science topics.
September 12, 2013
LEXINGTON, KY—"This creates a crisis of educational legitimacy," said a spokesman for The Family Foundation after Gov. Steve Beshear said he was going to ignore the decision of a legislative panel that voted down controversial new state science standards on Wednesday.
"The Governor has basically told parents to take a hike," said Martin Cothran. "We told the committee that the approval process for these standards was a sham and now the Governor has proven our point." The Kentucky Department of Education had not made a single change to the standards in response to criticism, Cothran had told the committee.
"If there is any doubt that the approval process for education standards is a joke, the Governor has dispelled it." Cothran said that there has only been rag-tag opposition to the standards up to this point. "What was ripple could now turn into a tsunami," said Cothran.
The Family Foundation opposed the standards because they lack an emphasis on basic science knowledge about nature while overemphasizing climate change and other trendy science topics.
###
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Kentucky state science standards rejected by legislative committee
LEXINGTON, KY—The state’s science standards were defeated today in a bipartisan vote in a legislative committee. “This is a sign of the level of discomfort many people in this state have with science standards that ignore basic aspects of science in order to make room for trendy topics like climate science.”
In his testimony before the vote, Cothran criticized the standards for ignoring basic scientific knowledge about animals, plants, rocks and minerals. “Half of science is left out of the science standards,” he told the members of the Administrative Regulations Review Subcommittee.
Cothran also criticized the approval process for the science standards and said that, despite all the criticism and comment, the Kentucky Department of Education hadn’t made a single change. “The Department has never intended to change anything. Even the Commissioner of Education said yesterday that there is no way to change them. If that’s correct, then why did we spend all this time going through an approval process?”
The vote seemed to come as a shock to educational officials who seemed simply to assume the legislature would give a rubber stamp. "This is a huge victory for families in Kentucky who want to know that their schools are teaching what they say they are teaching. This was a battle over educational integrity and educational integrity lost."
In his testimony before the vote, Cothran criticized the standards for ignoring basic scientific knowledge about animals, plants, rocks and minerals. “Half of science is left out of the science standards,” he told the members of the Administrative Regulations Review Subcommittee.
Cothran also criticized the approval process for the science standards and said that, despite all the criticism and comment, the Kentucky Department of Education hadn’t made a single change. “The Department has never intended to change anything. Even the Commissioner of Education said yesterday that there is no way to change them. If that’s correct, then why did we spend all this time going through an approval process?”
The vote seemed to come as a shock to educational officials who seemed simply to assume the legislature would give a rubber stamp. "This is a huge victory for families in Kentucky who want to know that their schools are teaching what they say they are teaching. This was a battle over educational integrity and educational integrity lost."
###
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
State can't do anything about problems in science standards, says KY commissioner of ed
In today's Lexington Herald-Leader story on Kentucky's science standards, Commissioner of Education Terry Holiday acknowledges that at least some of the criticisms Dick Innes and I have made are valid. The problem is, he says, it's too late to make any changes:
And what about this whole process of public comment on the regulation we are going through right now and which includes tomorrow's vote on the regulation concerning the standards in a legislative committee? Was this process supposed to just make us feel good--or bad, as the case may be?
Sheeez.
Read more here.
"We certainly recognize that the Bluegrass Institute and Martin Cothran and those folks have some valid concerns," he said. "We want to address the concerns, but we can't go back and revise the standards because they are a 26-state collaboration."We can't revise the standards? We just sign on to the Next Generation Science Standards project and we sign our educational integrity away to the feds? Really? You mean we could determine that these standards have problems but we are not allowed to do anything about it?
And what about this whole process of public comment on the regulation we are going through right now and which includes tomorrow's vote on the regulation concerning the standards in a legislative committee? Was this process supposed to just make us feel good--or bad, as the case may be?
Sheeez.
Read more here.
Monday, September 09, 2013
My "Science without Nature" appears in the CJ today
My op-ed on on Kentucky's science standards, based on the Next Generation Science Standards, appears in today's Louisville Courier-Journal here: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130909/OPINION04/309090007/Martin-Cothran-School-science-standards-fall-short
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Are Conservatives Still Conservative: A talk at the McConnell Center Tuesday night
Political scientist Lee Cheeck will give a talk titled “The Conservative Mind at 60:Russell Kirk’s Continuing
Relevance in American Politics” a the McConnell Center’s 2013 “Milestones of the 20th Century: Democracy in America” public lecture series.
In this free lecture, Cheeck will discuss the continuing relevance of Russell Kirk, the so-called “Father of Modern Conservatism,” and his most influential book, “The Conservative Mind.” This discussion marks the first of four free and public events. For more information go to www.mcconnellcenter.org
In this free lecture, Cheeck will discuss the continuing relevance of Russell Kirk, the so-called “Father of Modern Conservatism,” and his most influential book, “The Conservative Mind.” This discussion marks the first of four free and public events. For more information go to www.mcconnellcenter.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)