There was an article (Evolution’s Lonely Battle in a Georgia Classroom) in the New York Times online edition on June 29 about a middle school teacher by the name of Pat New. She stood alone in her small north Georgia school district of Lumpkin County, which is located in the mountains, and decided not to give into parental and administrative pressures questioning why she was teaching evolution in her 7th grade life science class. Hopefully, the mountains gave her some peace.
One day a parent would write emails and question why she was wasting time on evolution when more factual stuff could be taught. Her principal on one occassion asked her if she believed every thing in the Bible. She said she felt uncomfortable about him asking that question. Given the fact that she was teaching in a very small North Georgia town, it was not unusual that such a question would be asked. But by her principal?
Even her curriculum director wondered why she was spending so much time on evoloution. Even after explaining that evolution the central concept in modern biology, and was “taught” in each chapter, the administrator sighed, and just didn’t get it.
Even though I’ve questioned Standards-Based Teaching, and the over-emphasis on testing, Ms. New was able to inform her administrators and parents that she was simply “following the state standards. They backed off. Fortunately for Ms. New, Kathy Cox, the Georgia Superintendent of Education didn’t get her way when she wanted to removed evolution from the state curriculum, but was over-ruled by national and state organizations, and even the governor and a former president.
The teaching of evolution in the science curriculum has been a recurring issue in school districts and states across the USA ever since the 1925 trial of John T. Scopes, who was accused of breaking a Tennesee state law against teaching evolution. You might want to refer to Chapter 3 of The Art of Teaching Science, which explores the history of science education.
Teachers such as Pat New are courageous. They respect their students, and feel that they have a responsibility to be truthful about the nature of science, and science teaching, and not be influenced by dogma.
No related posts.
Sounds like a good example of a teacher standing firm on teaching the best content she could in (one hopes) the best way possible, even in the face of local pressure. Of course, what she was doing was strongly supported by very large and well-established organizations. And in their eyes, what she was teaching was “dogma”: “an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.” (This is not to get into the question of whether it’s true or not, just that it’s broadly understood to be “authoritative”, and to involve ideas that are “considered to be absolutely true”.)
In that sense, then, wasn’t she simply going with the crowd? even though she happened to be surrounded, in that small Georgia town, by people who didn’t have much use for “the crowd”.
Just trying to stir things up a bit
Orange, great to hear from you again. I think you are right on a number of things here. I would agree that teaching evolution is the orthodoxy of the day. It’s prominent in all textbooks sold and bought by the public schools in America. And, especially since, most teaching is didactic, then one might agree with you that evolution, then becomes dogma. So do Newton’s Laws of Motion, the Big Bang, Plate Tectonics, and so forth.
This teacher also had the advantage of experience and age. She is a well respected teacher in the state of Georgia, and even though her principal and superintendent did not appreciate the fact she taught evolution, she still had to deal with the stigma of being viewed in that small north Georgia community of teaching such content.
Please note that the Georgia State Superintendent of Education is “Kathy with a K” Cox, not Cathy Cox as indicated in your article. “Cathy with a C” Cox supports the teaching of evolution in science class, and believes that the teaching of creationism should remain in courses on religion or the Bible. Cathy Cox is the Georgia Secretary of State who is presently (2006) running for Governor on the Democratic ticket.
Suzanne,
Thank you for pointing out the incorrect spelling of Kathy Cox, the Georgia State Superintendent of Education. She might claim that she supports the teaching of evolution of today, but recently thought evolution was a “buzz word” and wanted it removed from the Georgia Standards. Do you work with her? It appears you know her position on these issues. Thanks so much for your contribution. Jack
“…. evolution, then becomes dogma. So do Newton’s Laws of Motion, the Big Bang, Plate Tectonics, and so forth.”
So too did the geocentric theory, alchemy, the notion that it was good for doctors to enter sickrooms with the infected blood of their previous patient on their hands, and the “truth” that moldy grain turns into rats. Which is not to say that any dogma from your list is wrong, just that neither “everybody knows it’s so” nor “science has said this for the last two hundred years” is really a conclusive argument.
I suspect that students would be far better off, and far more engaged, by a science class that teaches them to be curious and observant, rather than a class that makes sure they learn the current orthodox position with respect to Plate Tectonics. Pity that it’s so much more difficult to do a standardized test for creativity than for rote knowledge of whatever is vital to learn in some particular grade.
Well, we agree, but that is not good for discussion. As I said, most teaching is done from a didactic point of view, and most school districts base their curriculum on the current crop of textbooks and the state curriculum which is based on current textbooks, which is….its goes round and round. That said, the science education community has tried to encourage teaching in which students are more engaged, “being curious and observant,” but with little or no success. Teachers that really try this are discouraged by administrators who really (like a business) look at the bottom line, and that is did his/her school pass the test. The pity is that there is evidence to support (in studies and anectodal reports) the engaged, inquiry approach to teaching.