Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, April 26, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Kennedy lectures on challenges facing K-12 science education

by Chelsea Anne Young

Reposted from:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april11/kennedy-041107.html

Thanks to Graham Dolby for sending this to us.

High school students who are taught creationism instead of evolutionary theory lack the critical thinking skills that are necessary for college, according to Stanford President Emeritus Donald Kennedy.

His comments came during an April 4 lecture delivered to a packed house in Cubberley Auditorium. The talk, "Teaching Science: How, What and Who Decides?" was part of the Cubberley Lecture series sponsored by the School of Education to encourage dialogue about current affairs.

A member of Stanford's biological sciences faculty since 1960, Kennedy is a longtime advocate of improving science education. He served as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from 1977 to 1979 and as Stanford president from 1980 to 1992. In 2000, he was named editor in chief of the journal Science.

In his speech, Kennedy addressed several challenges facing K-12 education in the United States, including the teaching of creationism—a religious concept that attributes the creation of life and the universe to a supernatural deity. In recent years, advocates of creationism and a related concept known as intelligent design have challenged school districts throughout the country over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, the scientific theory that life on Earth descended from a common ancestor and that diverse species arose through natural selection and random genetic mutations.

Kennedy argued that teaching creationism discourages students from applying the scientific method, which emphasizes conducting experiments with reproducible results and drawing logical conclusions from observable, measurable evidence. "What the creationist alternative does to students is to intercept and deaden curiosity," he said. "If relationships or correlations can be simply allocated to the cleverness of a designer, there's very little incentive to think up an experiment or undertake an analysis."
Critical thinking

Kennedy is currently serving as an expert witness for the University of California Regents, who are being sued by a group of Christian schools, students and parents for refusing to allow high school courses taught with creationist textbooks to fulfill the laboratory science requirement for UC admission. After reading several creationist biology texts, Kennedy said he found "few instances in which students are being introduced to science as a process—that is, the way in which scientists work or carry out experiments, or the way in which they analyze and interpret the results of their investigations."

Kennedy said that the textbooks use "ridicule and inappropriately drawn metaphors" concerning evolution to discourage students from formulating independent opinions. "Even with respect to the hypothesis that dominates them—namely, that biological complexity and organic diversity are the result of special creation—critical thinking is absent," he added.

Science education has two tasks, he said: "to produce a thin layer of outstandingly brilliant innovators" and "to produce a level of scientific literacy in the general population that can help our society apply better judgments to policy issues in which science and technology play crucial roles." A good program, he argued, should cater to both objectives, but the current system is falling short.

Even when innovative ideas are introduced, school systems often are reluctant to change, he noted: "In the education space, there is a strange barrier to the infectivity of good ideas and models."

At the root of the problem, Kennedy said, is a failure to attract and retain qualified teachers. To illustrate this point, he told the audience, "There is a rather sad, old joke that asks, 'What is the first name of the average high school physics teacher in Texas?' The answer is 'Coach.'"

Although he opposes paying math and science teachers higher salaries than their peers, Kennedy did express approval for some sort of "national certification system with a salary differential" as an incentive for bright minds to consider careers in education.

Despite all of the problems, Kennedy said, some positive efforts have been made in recruiting and training teachers. He cited the tutoring program at the Haas Center for Public Service, the Stanford Teacher Education Program in the School of Education and the New York-based Teach for America program, which brings young teachers to underachieving urban and rural regions of the country.

Kennedy encouraged Stanford to take the lead in education reform by increasing dialogue and collaboration between the university faculty and researchers and primary and high school teachers. In closing, he challenged the audience and Stanford to take an active role in solving the problem, asking, "If not here, where?"
K-12 Initiative

Prior to Kennedy's speech, university President John Hennessy introduced the audience to the Stanford Initiative on K-12 Education—a multidisciplinary, cross-campus effort to find novel ways of improving primary and secondary school education in the United States. The $125 million initiative is part of The Stanford Challenge, the university campaign dedicated to finding solutions to the most pressing challenges facing society.

Hennessy said that during a tour of the United States last year, he observed a "crisis of K-12 education in every city." Noting that science and math education seemed most in need of reform, he pointed to the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress, which found that less than 25 percent of American 12th-graders tested proficient in math, and only 18 percent were proficient in science.

However, Hennessy maintained that the low scores have more to do with faults in the educational system than with the students themselves. "We have the ability to be successful here," he said. "What we need to do is to put together the resources and the commitment as a country to be successful, and Stanford needs to be an important part of that."

Comments 1 - 12 of 12 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #35256 by HappyPrimate on April 26, 2007 at 6:10 pm

 avatarInteresting article. I do not think anyone here would dispute the crisis we have in our public (and religious private) schools. I graduated HS in 1970 and received very little science education. I had to take it upon myself as an adult to learn. Fortunately people like Carl Sagan were writing books for the general public. Reading those books sparked my interest in science. History and geography needs a good boost as well.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

2. Comment #35298 by WalkingARazor on April 26, 2007 at 7:53 pm

 avatarI would love to be a high school science teacher, but the pay is quite terrible for a job that isn't all that easy. So I'm thinking I may become a professor instead.

Other Comments by WalkingARazor

3. Comment #35299 by maton100 on April 26, 2007 at 7:57 pm

 avatarEducation go up, education go down...O'Reilly

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #35303 by amazeen on April 26, 2007 at 8:03 pm

 avatarMore mathematics is what is needed.

Other Comments by amazeen

5. Comment #35307 by Bremas on April 26, 2007 at 8:10 pm

I'm going to respectfully disagree on this one. I believe the problem is a little more complicated.

The comment was made on another thread a while back that as a creationist you can be a good scientist, but you will never be a great scientist.

I'll have to think a bit more about it, all I know is that something is nagging me on this one. I agree at one level but I feel that there is more to it.

Other Comments by Bremas

6. Comment #35308 by SwordOfDiplomacy on April 26, 2007 at 8:19 pm

i'm only a sophomore in college, but there's a strong possibility of me becoming a math teacher...then again i'm an econ major and i can probably make more money somewhere else...hmmm, hopefully i'll be part of the solution

Other Comments by SwordOfDiplomacy

7. Comment #35309 by Bremas on April 26, 2007 at 8:22 pm

@Sword

Make the money and then fund the math. :-)

Do what makes you happy.

Other Comments by Bremas

8. Comment #35353 by Veronique on April 27, 2007 at 1:13 am

 avatar6. Comment #35308 by SwordOfDiplomacy

Please do economics and make a change. Here is a letter I wrote this week to our newspaper:

Facts and figures regarding the un-sustainability of our present mode of living are mind-boggling. Peak oil, water diminution, topsoil erosion, ocean acidification, fish-stock collapse, habitat destruction, species' extinction: the list is enormous and keeps growing.

This overburdening of the environment means economic growth can't continue for long: maintaining current living standards long-term, let alone universalising affluence, is impossible.

Traditional economics ignores economy's relation to environment and assumes that environment is a subset of economy. This is a problem for Howard and Costello's mind-set of dry economics.

The economy is actually a subset of the ecosystem, which is both 'source' of the economy's resources and 'sink' for its wastes. Energy and matter enter the economy as inputs, are transformed into goods and services, and leave as wastes. It's a finite, closed system. Not hard to comprehend.

The longer we pursue affluence and population growth, the more we deplete resources and overload environment with wastes. Sources and sinks available for the future diminish accordingly, so the sustainable future living standard and population must drop too. The longer we keep overshooting carrying capacity, the more we lower it and mortgage the future.

The more we grow now, the more we must shrink later to arrive at a sustainable economy and population. If we don't address this now, it makes it ever more difficult later; a hideous predicament. This may not be a pleasant message, but it is real.(With thanks to Herman Daly)


Think sensible money. Think sensible economics. Learn heaps and quizz your lecturers, make them address your concerns. Howard and Costello and there's another one called Turnbull are Australian Liberal Federal Parliament dry economists and set the agenda. Hopefully they will be wiped out in November. We can no longer afford such manifest blindness.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

9. Comment #35384 by davyB on April 27, 2007 at 3:35 am

What is the news on the law suit against the University of California Regents? It was brought almost two years ago. Did it just come to trial? I can't find anything new on it.

Other Comments by davyB

10. Comment #35388 by Ichneumonid on April 27, 2007 at 3:43 am

 avatarVeronique

Brilliant! I do disagree slightly though. We have plenty enough economists, just not enough informed economists that see the world the way that you and I do (i.e. as it really is as opposed to how their textbooks say it is!).

As a scientist I can say we still desperately need more scientists and a more scientifically literate public (and that especially includes politicians and economists) - a better education system where science is compulsory throughout would help.

Hear, hear to the demise of Howard, Abbott and Costello (those two just have to go together!) and Turnbull!

Other Comments by Ichneumonid

11. Comment #35399 by Rtambree on April 27, 2007 at 4:05 am

Economics is a pseudo-science. It's based on false assumptions (humans as rational utility maximising entities).

Humans and society are too complex to reduce to a set of laws in a textbook. It's the three-body problem, the butterfly problem (sensitivity to initial conditions), and the billiard ball problem.

The history of science is the history of discovering the simplest things (geometry first) steadily getting more complex.

By the time you get to brains or society, we haven't a clue (distant stars and quantum particles are easier to model). Freud was wrong. Marx was wrong. Every economist who's had some grand scheme to rescue socity has been wrong - it hasn't worked. There are too many exceptions to the rules, too many hidden variables, too many unforseeable events.

Agreed about Howard & Costello in government - far too many lawyers and beancounters in parliament.

Other Comments by Rtambree

12. Comment #35515 by AndyD on April 27, 2007 at 12:22 pm

@ Comment #35399 by Rtambree on April 27, 2007 at 4:05 am
"Economics is a pseudo-science. It's based on false assumptions (humans as rational utility maximising entities)."

Admittedly there have been quite a few miserably incorrect economists, many of whom have grasped onto ideals to perfect a society (communism among others). However, this is an injurious claim to a field which has had tremendous success today solving many problems, and has the potential to answer many more.

It is an incorrect characterization to say that economics has had all of these pitfalls but 'regular science' has not. For example, Lamarckian evolution which said that characteristics were inherited (strength, wit, etc). The entire rise of Social Darwinism. Geocentrism. The age of the Earth (6000, 200000, 100000, 1000000000). Physics mechanics prior to Einstein and quantum. Just like science has thrown out theories which do not hold and added onto existing theories to provide a fuller explanation, so has economics.

Economics, while I will definitely agree is of a slightly different nature than something like chemistry, also has a huge amount of similarities. Also, a simple understanding of economics on behalf of our present decision makers could solve a plethora of the world's hunger and environmental problems. A good intro book into economics and an insight into many of its potential uses is Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan. It is written assuming almost no prior economics knowledge and is absolutely fascinating.

So you are correct in saying that general 'grand schemes' fail, but they fail in every subject, and it is simply ill-informed for you to say that economics is a pseudo-science or imply that it has no value (in fact, it has ENORMOUS value).

Other Comments by AndyD
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: