Monday, November 9, 2009 | Reason : Education | print version

Print | Comments |

Scientists win place for evolution in primary schools

by Polly Curtis - guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/08/evolution-primary-school-curriculum-education

The government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists.

The schools minister, Diana Johnson, has confirmed the plans will be included in a blueprint for a new curriculum to be published in the next few weeks.

It follows a letter signed by scientists and science educators calling on the government to make the change after draft versions of the new curriculum failed to mention evolution explicitly.

The open letter sent in July to Ed Balls, the children's secretary, was signed by 25 leading figures from science and education, who urged the government to rewrite the curriculum before it was finalised.

Among the signatories were the Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, three Nobel laureates and Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, the professor of science education at the Institute of Education in London.

The letter expressed alarm that the theory of evolution through natural selection, which it describes as "one of the most important ideas underlying biological science", was ignored in the revamped curriculum.

"We consider its inclusion vital," the letter said.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/08/evolution-primary-school-curriculum-education
________________________________________________________________
[UPDATE] - Thanks to LWS for the link.

A birthday present for Darwin

The teaching of evolution in primary schools will be an important defence against the ignorance of intelligent design
It's a great birthday present for Darwin in his 200th anniversary year. For the first time, evolution will be on the national curriculum for primary schools when the new version is published later this year. It was initially excluded from the draft curriculum when it was published for public consultation but sometimes, if not always, it seems government will listen to scientists and experts, many of whom were signatories to an open letter (pdf) to Ed Balls organised by the British Humanist Association in July which called for evolution to be included.

Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/09/evolution-primary-schools-science

Posted: Monday, November 9, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 39 of 39 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #430552 by PERSON on November 9, 2009 at 1:35 pm

About time.
But it's good that Labour did this before the Tories get in. It's an open question whether they would want to upset the fundie and fundie-influenced parts of their base (if they didn't, why wasn't it included in the original NC?). But removing it would create a very bad impression, not to mention widespread objection.

Other Comments by PERSON

2. Comment #430553 by phasmagigas on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 pm

perhaps one of the reasons why so many fail to grasp evolutinary ideas as adults is precisely because they have had no explanations other than those given towards the end of the school years almost as a tag along topic in genetics (UK).

most people can at least add up and subtract and theres a good reason for that, hopefully they will also be able to actually know what evolution even is if taught early.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

3. Comment #430554 by jeremynel on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Wonderful news! A quick question: when do British scholars start to narrow down their subject choices?

In my country we all did "everything" in primary school, but we could eliminate some subjects after only the first year of high school. The result for me was that I did 6 months of high school biology - which astoundingly didn't include evolutionary theory at all. I was almost totally ignorant of it until I studied at university. (From then on I didn't look back, and I've more than made up for lost time!)

I ask because I think that evolution is both (i) one of the most important ideas in science and (ii) actually quite simple to understand in its basic form. Thus it should definitely be included at a stage before students can miss exposure to it by (accidentally) not choosing to do biology.

I also think a basic foundation could prove to be a nice bulwark against any later anti-evolution nonsense that children might come across.

Other Comments by jeremynel

4. Comment #430555 by Inside centre on November 9, 2009 at 1:46 pm

This is good news. The the underlying evidence for evolution can be quite interesting to kids anyway so it makes sense to give them a start on this while they're young and enthusiastic. It's what religion has been doing for centuries.

Other Comments by Inside centre

5. Comment #430557 by Ygern on November 9, 2009 at 2:01 pm

I'm a little bit surprised it had to be lobbied for.
Imagine a headline that read:

"Mathematicians win place for addition in primary schools"

Great news though, and congratulations to all involved in this project.

Other Comments by Ygern

6. Comment #430558 by tobybarrett on November 9, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Excellent news. Some schools, however, have been covering evolution anyway. My wife's primary did a whole term covering the topic to coincide with the Darwin anniversaries. This included a visit from a local natural historian, in character as Charles Darwin, explaining his findings on the Galapagos Islands. Another series of sessions covered discovering a new species on an island with the children making predictions as to how it would be adapted to its environment. By all accounts, a great success.

What next: a push to end compulsory Christian worship in UK Primary Schools? Thought not.

Other Comments by tobybarrett

7. Comment #430559 by crookedshoes on November 9, 2009 at 2:10 pm

NICE!!!!
But, ED BALLS? Really? ED BALLS the children's secretary...sounds vaguely catholic.

Other Comments by crookedshoes

8. Comment #430562 by Sally Luxmoore on November 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Thank... er... Goodness!

As tobybarrett has said, some schools and individual teachers have already been doing this. Even with very young children it is possible to explain that the Earth is very very old and that human beings are only late arrivals. All children are fascinated by dinosaurs and there are plenty of opportunities when talking about them to explain that there were no humans around at the time and that a lot happened in between.
There are plenty of well educated teachers who have been quietly doing their bit in this way.
Now, it will be possible to ensure that all children have the same opportunities to learn.

How is that insane Christian 'Academy' up north going to deal with this, I wonder? How do Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark fit in with what they're supposed to teach?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

9. Comment #430563 by BeyondBelief on November 9, 2009 at 2:50 pm

jeremynel wrote:

Thus it should definitely be included at a stage before students can miss exposure to it by (accidentally) not choosing to do biology.

Even more important, IMO, is that young kids be exposed to a rigorously constructed, scientifically presented definition and course of study early in life to counter, or "inoculate against," the myriad mis-representations of the theory they will encounter from Creationists.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

10. Comment #430565 by DeusExNihilum on November 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Excellent news! My primary school did not mention evolution at all when I was a wee boy, but we did pray and sing hymns everyday...I can only hope that future generations will express the exact opposite sentiment; that evolution was taught with great enthusiasm and prayer was not mentioned at all.

Other Comments by DeusExNihilum

11. Comment #430566 by Opisthokont on November 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Just as important, at least from an American perspective, is the portrayal of evolution as solid science. The article gave no time to "dissenting voices", and thus neither the explicit impression that there is actually any scientific controversy over the fact of evolution, nor implicit validity to creationism. Of course, this is the British press, whose public is not as saturated with creatioinists as the American press, but it is still good to see.

Other Comments by Opisthokont

12. Comment #430578 by mixmastergaz on November 9, 2009 at 3:36 pm

I'm reminded of The Onion's scandalised "Are Facts Being Taught In Our Schools£" headline...

This is good news obviously. I also cannot recall being taught anything about evolution at school, and I would remember. But I do remember an R.E. teacher parading around in front us with a limp wrist in a homophobic parody of a gay man when he was supposed to be teaching us about safe sex. On the plus side he did show us how to put a condom onto a banana. Odd the things that stick in one's mind.

I'd be interested to see if there's any advice on how to deal with awkward questions regarding the incompatibility of evolution with Genesis. I do hope they don't allow the opt-out for the children of creationist parents that's curently permitted for R.E. classes.

Edit: For our next fight I propose the compulsory inclusion of 'critical thinking' in the curriculum.

crookedshoes:-

Seriously! And his 2IC is affectionately known as Old Scrotum the wrinkled retainer. True story...

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

13. Comment #430582 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 9, 2009 at 3:47 pm

That's great - I've been praying for this for ages.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

14. Comment #430596 by flying goose on November 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm

mixmastergaz

For our next fight I propose the compulsory inclusion of 'critical thinking' in the curriculum.

To be honest, this is more important than the teaching of evolution, not that that is not important. But teaching children how to evaluate arguments put before them would have a much wider effect.

As to evolution, my seven year old hated science 'Its so boring,' until that is, she learn't all about a certain Mr Darwin last year. She was particular drawn to the fact that in him she had a fellow Salopian. (someone born in Shrewsbury).

Science is far more interesting now. Why they don't teach natural selection, I don't know, I was never taught the mechanics of it. I have 'The Blind Watchmaker' to thank for explaining that.

I don't think the reasons are religious though, certainly not in my school late 1970's early '80's. We don't have a religious right to appease here. No really we don't.

I can only think that some other ideology was at work, though I can't think what.

Put it this way I did not learn any grammar either, as you can see.

Or perhaps being in the 'B' stream didn't warrant giving you a proper education.

Shameful.

Other Comments by flying goose

15. Comment #430599 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 9, 2009 at 4:37 pm

OK - I gave my flippant comment but now my real thoughts. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and several years of research behind me, and still didn't realize the importance of evolutionary biology until I read TGD. So even someone like me with a career in science could miss the essence of where we come from, and I now know this is probably the most profound thing one could tell a young person as part of their education.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

16. Comment #430606 by Lucas on November 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm

[applause]

Other Comments by Lucas

17. Comment #430616 by Stafford Gordon on November 9, 2009 at 5:46 pm

I'm amazed to learn that it isn't already on the National Curriculum; I assumed it must be!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

18. Comment #430617 by PeterNoSaint on November 9, 2009 at 5:47 pm

RE: Comment #430552 by PERSON on November 9, 2009 at 1:35 pm

>> "But it's good that Labour did this before the Tories get in. It's an open question whether they would want to upset the fundie and fundie-influenced parts of their base"

The British Conservative Party are not American Republicans.

If anything, it is New Labour who have been allowing religious fundamentalism to encroach into UK education by backing 'faith' schools, religiously funded 'city academies', and courting support from highly religious immigrant communities. Tony Blair's 'Faith Foundation' shows the true sympathies of one of the chief architects of New Labour.

Also happening on New Labour's watch is the financial sponsoring of various UK university groups or faculties by such organisations as the 'Templeton Foundation', or by wealthy Islamic patrons, for the dubious purposes of 'religious research' or 'promotion of religious understanding'.

New Labour's track record is religion-friendly. I would place little trust in their steering the UK away from increasing religious influence.

Other Comments by PeterNoSaint

19. Comment #430619 by crookedshoes on November 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm

I have been lobbying, here at my high school, to bring in Richard's "The Ancestor's Tale" and "The Greatest Show on Earth" as text books for a course entitled "Evolutionary Biology". So far unsuccessful. But, my fingers are crossed. i pitched it to our curriculum director. I also let him know that we should not call any class "BIOLOGY" any longer. Biology should simply be called "EVOLUTION" because that is what Biology is.

Other Comments by crookedshoes

20. Comment #430620 by Kmita on November 9, 2009 at 5:53 pm

"The government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists."

This first sentence felt very general. Here in the states the curriculum is determined by local government, not the federal government. After this first sentence my immediate thought was "WHERE is this?!". Then I checked where the article came from. Blasted brits... getting my hopes up.

Other Comments by Kmita

21. Comment #430622 by Stafford Gordon on November 9, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Sorry; I misunderstood; it is already on the Secondary Curriculum; this concerns Primary Schools only.

I was going to say! After all, this is Darwin's nation.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

22. Comment #430626 by Gruff Mckenzie on November 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm

I teach primary, so bloody good news.
I have taught evolution specifically and always make sure the idea comes up somewhere in the year as we always inevitably cover growth, plants etc.
Also, I have a piccie of Darwin on my wall.

Unfortunately one of my colleagues is a denier (well ignorant)...this should fuel the conversation!

Other Comments by Gruff Mckenzie

23. Comment #430632 by SaintStephen on November 9, 2009 at 6:59 pm

19. Comment #430619 by crookedshoes on November 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm

Sorry to lapse into the vernacular again, but that's fucking awesome, dude! Keep up the great, courageous work. Might have to get back into teaching me-self, soon -- the front line of battle.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

24. Comment #430634 by Enlightenme.. on November 9, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Michael Reiss also signed the petition.

He who proposed that children should be taught only science for 37 years, giving time to consider the Theory of Evolution and all of its alternatives!

..Probably.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

25. Comment #430636 by Stonyground on November 9, 2009 at 7:11 pm

I attended primary school in the late sixties and evolution was taught to us although it was the fact that animals changed over time rather than the actual mechanism that made it happen. Not only that it was taken as read that it was true, there was no "controversy" that I was aware of.

Religious education was also totally brilliant. There was no one in the school who was qualified to teach RE so once a week the local vicar would pay a visit. He seemed to think that the best way to bring young souls to Jesus was to make them copy out long passages in Latin. As you can probably imagine, it worked for me.

Other Comments by Stonyground

26. Comment #430656 by phil rimmer on November 9, 2009 at 8:47 pm

For mixmastergaz and fg and others concerned about teaching critical thinking-

Don't forget the philosophy for children movement, P4C. P4C builds strong roots for critical thinking, presenting children with the raw data of each others opinions and the task of finding a common way forward. Its results have been spectacularly good in the limited studies done, with reports of substantial general academic uplift from those schools adopting the program. Much more work is needed to validate the idea, but the P4C programs is out there being done in a few pioneering schools and just needs more pressure for more studies, to give others the confidence to adopt the program.

In the UK, teachers can go to-

http://sapere.org.uk/

and generally-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P4c

EDIT Brilliant news about evolution formally getting into primary education. Why did it take so long? FG may be right that it was not for overt religious reasons, but then for what reason?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

27. Comment #430658 by prolibertas on November 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm

Every creationist argument I've ever heard has been based on completely wrong ideas of what evolutionary theory actually says, so if kids are taught what it says early on, then they won't fall for a creationist argument later.

Other Comments by prolibertas

28. Comment #430659 by kev_s on November 9, 2009 at 9:06 pm

Out-Jesuited it seems :-)

Other Comments by kev_s

29. Comment #430670 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 9, 2009 at 10:02 pm

So glad to hear that at least one place in the world came to its senses. It seems that when you wait until high school to teach evolution, you might as well be teaching calculus before teaching the basic 4 math operations...

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

30. Comment #430680 by Mr DArcy on November 9, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Like other posters, growing up here in Britain, I've never had a problem with ToE. I didn't know it was evolution, but we had the pre-cambrian with trilobites and then the cambrian with fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. And that was at about age 8-9? No problem, it fitted the known facts. Trilobites died out but something else took their place. Another thing I remember was that whilst the amphibians ruled the animal kingdom, all those swamps and wet forests very nicely turned into the fossil fuels we love to burn so much these days.

As long as the confusionists don't get in the way, the basics of evolution are very simple.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

31. Comment #430695 by shaunfletcher on November 10, 2009 at 12:14 am

At age 9 I had a wonderful teacher (Thanks Miss Brown!) who had the entire room wrapped in a giant timeline mural (which we made) covering everything from th e big bang to today, with all the geological ages and the evolution of life laif out.. It would literally never have crossed anyones minds to object to this at the time (england 1970s), because who would object to educating and informing children about the world?

It was inspirational, and I new more about natural history and even basic cosmology (Im sure it was all over simplistic and wrong in many details but who cares?) at 10 than most now seem to in adulthood.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

32. Comment #430712 by godlezz on November 10, 2009 at 1:33 am

GREAT NEWZ!!! Big steps at a time!

Other Comments by godlezz

33. Comment #430722 by Border Collie on November 10, 2009 at 3:05 am

Stony ... Good point. I remember something of the same here in the US. I wrote a high school paper on it in a very small fundamentalist, conservative town and don't remember any repercussions. And, I don't remember the rabid religious resistance to it back then.

Other Comments by Border Collie

34. Comment #430726 by outwitted by fish on November 10, 2009 at 3:39 am

Mr Darcy:

Another thing I remember was that whilst the amphibians ruled the animal kingdom, all those swamps and wet forests very nicely turned into the fossil fuels we love to burn so much these days.

Pedant point: Petroleum generation is not really relevant to evolution, and it is not entirely clear that the bulk of the reduced carbon is biological in origin. It may well be even more ancient than you think. In my opinion, "fossil fuel" is something of a misnomer (unless one is referring to the root word "_fossa_", meaning "ditch.")

Other Comments by outwitted by fish

35. Comment #430748 by The-bleeding-obvious on November 10, 2009 at 7:10 am

This is long overdue, I dont remember evolution and Darwin being pushed to any extent at all at school. If ID is going to be taught in science classes (hopefully no more than a mention!) then surely evolution should be taught in RE classes. Should go a long way to nipping ID in the bud, as metioned above, a kind of innoculation.

Other Comments by The-bleeding-obvious

36. Comment #430777 by Tagred on November 10, 2009 at 11:51 am

Comment #430726 by outwitted by fish on November 10, 2009 at 3:39 am

Pedant point: Petroleum generation is not really relevant to evolution, and it is not entirely clear that the bulk of the reduced carbon is biological in origin. It may well be even more ancient than you think. In my opinion, "fossil fuel" is something of a misnomer (unless one is referring to the root word "_fossa_", meaning "ditch.")

It's not a misnomer at all.

Can you point me to the evidence for the bulk of oil not being biological in origin£ Admitedly i havent sampled many oil fields but those i've visited are always associated with biological processes.

Other Comments by Tagred

37. Comment #430785 by sittingbourne_hatter on November 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Jeremynel,

British Children narrow down their choices at year 10 (14-15). But I believe Science is part of the Core Curriculum that every child must keep doing up to GCSE (Year 11, 16)

Other Comments by sittingbourne_hatter

38. Comment #430797 by Follow Peter Egan on November 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Excellent news. Makes me hopeful for the future of Britain, which currently suffers from staggering levels of scientific ignorance. As well as general ignorance.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

39. Comment #431071 by MagratGarlick on November 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm

"Wonderful news! A quick question: when do British scholars start to narrow down their subject choices?"

British pupils don't get to drop any subject until age 14, when they start the two years leading to their GCSE qualifications.

However, even then they cannot drop Maths, English or Science, which are compulsory to age 16. So biology, as part of science, is studied by all British pupils throughout their compulsory years of school.

Other Comments by MagratGarlick

Reload Comments | Back to Top