Evolution Stickers Become Extinct From Science Textbooks in Georgia

In today’s Marietta Daily Journal and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it was reported that the Cobb County School District (one of the largest districts in Georgia) was in the process of removing stickers from more than 34,000 science textbooks that included the topic of evolutionary theory. The stickers were placed in the books some two years ago by the school board, and stated: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” The adhesive remover “un-du” was used along with a putty knife to remove the stickers! The stickers got on the books because of the efforts of a group of parents (claiming to be creationists) who pressured the school board by presenting a petition signed by several thousand residents of Cobb County. A small group of parents sued the district; in January 2005, a federal judge ruled that the stickers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, and ordered them removed. Amazingly, the school board has appealed the ruling. On a positive note, students were hired to remove the stickers, and are being paid $10 per hour. Total tab for the district: $25,000. Quite an episode in the evolution-creationist debate on the teaching of evolution in the public schools. For more information on the issue, you might visit The Panda’s Thumb, which is one of the Blogs that I’ve included on the Blogroll.

About Jack Hassard

Jack Hassard is a writer, a former high school science teacher and Professor Emeritus of Science Education, Georgia State University. His most recent book is Science as Inquiry, 2nd Edition.

http://www.artofteachingscience.org

Tags: Cobb County Schools, creationists, evolution, evolution stickers, Marietta Daily Journal, theory

7 Responses to Evolution Stickers Become Extinct From Science Textbooks in Georgia

Orange June 2, 2005 at 5:56 AM

Hi! Found your site through BlogShares. Very interesting, especially for a grad student who’s hoping to teach chemistry one day.

I was curious, though, about your comments on this. If the stickers placed on the books said that the material “should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered”, this doesn’t sound like a bad thing — regardless of the parents’ motivation. In fact, it sounds like a very good thing, and I’d like to see similar stickers on all other textbooks.

Or was it the idea that “evolution is a theory, not a fact”? I’ve often seen this argument as an example of how “evolution skeptics” (to use a hopefully-objective term) don’t really understand science — they think that “theory” means the same thing as “tentative and unproven”. But on the face of it, isn’t the basic idea of macroevolution precisely that — a theory that seems to explain quite a lot of what we can observe? And, as a useful theory… surely it can survive being “critically considered” by a bunch of high school students.

Besides, there’s value in suggesting an idea is dangerous or controversial. Think of all the classic and modern literature that’s been labeled too risque for students… and the students that then went to the library to see what all the fuss was about, and read the books a lot more carefully than they would’ve if they’d been required for freshman English.

So, whether the parents who suggested the stickers were creationists, or “evolution skeptics”, or even if they just wanted their students to actually *think* in school — how are these stickers a bad thing?
Charles Hutchison June 6, 2005 at 4:30 AM

Orange,

I am glad you raised this issue here. Charles Darwin was clever in seeing connections, and was therefore a great theorist in the loose sense of the word. Granted that he had strong insights into how that possibilities could have converged into the origination of new species, we must be careful not to put words in his mouth. That is, we must not absolutize his useful notions into what could theoretically not be proven.

Students ought to be granted the latitudes to understand the elegant possiblities as per Darwin, and yet embrace other possibilites not yet understood.
jack June 13, 2005 at 8:26 PM

Orange and Charles,

Great comments by each of you. I really do not believe the stickers were put on textbooks to enhance “critical thinking” in the Cobb schools. The wording was developed by the school board after they agreed to the parents’ petition regarding the teaching of evolution. No other topic, in science, or any other school subject was challenged. Controversial topics surely exist in the teaching of literature and social studies, yet none were challenged. To me, the issue had very little to do with thinking per se, but more with some people in the community wanting to impose their beliefs on the curriculum, and how (science) should be taught. So one issue is: Who should determine the nature of the school science curriculum?, and another: Should there be some restraint on imposing one’s religious views in a public school setting?
Orange June 25, 2005 at 10:44 PM

Surely it’s “the community” that should determine the curriculum, since they’re the ones paying for the schools. “The community” should also decide for itself how this decision is to be made — whether it’s all in the hands of local school boards or state Dept. of Education or a committee of concerned parents or what.

Could this lead to school districts, or even whole states, deciding to teach their students material which the NEA and NSTA object to? Sure!

Could it be said that the community shirked their responsibility to the students if the education they get there keeps them from getting into college/job/career of choice? Sure!

If parents are concerned that their children aren’t learning to accept evolution without question, or aren’t reading Faulkner, or aren’t studying calculus, or any other detail of the curriculum… is there anything they can do to make sure that their children *are* taught these things? Sure!

Is it a federal judge’s responsibility to override the community’s decision in response to the concerns of a few parents who are sure they know what’s best for everyone’s children? Absolutely not. Yet that is, once again, what’s happened here.

As far as the second issue you pointed out — that presupposes that the only critiques of evolutionary theory are religious. There’s a significant number of scientists, in a wide variety of fields, who would agree that evolution (certainly the watered-down version in most public school textbooks) should indeed be “studied carefully and critically considered”. (I know, I know, the dominant fashion at Panda’s Thumb is to paint everyone who disagrees as a fundamentalist nutjob out to prove the earth is flat and that pi = 3. It ain’t necessarily so.)
jack June 28, 2005 at 12:05 AM

Orange,
The question of who determines the curriculum is not as simple as one might suspect. The local public school districts, in practice, have to implement curriculum is developed at a distance. In this country, each state has developed a set of content teaching standards in each subject, science, mathematics, social studies, etc., that quite often are based on “national” standards that have been developed by committees appointed by organizations such as the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC developed the National Science Education Standards, and by-and-large, they have been the major determinant of curriculum at all levels of education. And funding is not such a simple factor. Educational funding for local schools also varies by state. In Georgia for instance (as well as at least 25 other states), the state government pays for textbooks, the major portion of the teacher’s salary,and other services. You have raised powerful questions, and I hope this dialog continues.
Pingback: THE ART OF TEACHING SCIENCE » Blog Archive » Closing Arguments (in the Dover Case)
Pingback: Closing Arguments (in the Dover Case) – The Art of Teaching Science