The Littlest Godwin and Other Education Stories

A week or so ago, a panel of three judges of a California appellate court ruled unanimously over a child welfare case that parents in California needed teaching or tutoring credentials in order to homeschool their children. Now, I don't know much about this specific case or homeschooling in general, but on the face of it this seems perfectly rational intuitive to me. Requiring parents to have teaching credentials before they be allowed to teach? What a novel idea!

Homeschooling parents, however, are apparently up in arms. SNL's Weekend Update included a little blurb lampooning the protests (hat tip Crooks & Liars):

Many California parents who homeschool their children are upset by a California court ruling that may force their children to be taught by a credentialed teacher. Said one angry parent, "This is just like what the Nazis did to the Eskimos in the 1850s."

Ha ha! Oh, the hyperbole! So amusing!

But wait. Since homeschooling is so often used by evangelicals to protect their children from reality, it's only natural that a Christian "news" site like One News Now would pick up the story:

"We will not give up home schooling our child," she states. "If it means moving from out of state, however we have to do that, we will do it because that is what we feel that God has called us to do." Kathleen says she and her husband have not had much chance to discuss the issue beyond that basic decision.

Even Kathleen's nine-year-old son understands what is happening to parental rights in his home state. "He said to me, 'This is like that bad man,' which he couldn't think of his name, 'in Germany. That's what it reminds me of,'" she continues. "And I was surprised at his perception, that he actually considered that a comparison.

Adolf Hitler outlawed home schooling in Germany in 1938. The practice is still illegal in re-unified Germany to this day.

Many of the commenters on that article applaud Kathleen's son for having such insight on world history, and hail this as a victory for homeschooling. But I'm guessing he didn't come up with the Hitler comparison on his own; either he was taught it directly, or he overheard his parents talk about it in that context, or he had already been primed to invoke der Führer to smear his opponents in a different context (maybe against us evil-utionists! just one month 'til "Expelled" is released!). In any case, his mother/educator clearly approves of the comparison, which bespeaks ill of the education he's receiving.

Greg Laden links to some less Godwin-y articles on the homeschooling controversy here.

In other news...

A CDC study indicates that one in four teenage girls has an STD, with HPV being the most prevalent. Naturally, fundies see this as indication that we need more abstinence-based sex education. Never mind the fact that ignorance-only sex ed DOES NOT WORK, and more than likely is partly to blame for the current teen infection rate. I especially liked this quote in the article from National Abstinence Education Association official Valerie Huber:

"When we learn that one in four teen girls is infected with [an STD],
it becomes clear that the contraception-based approach taught in 75
percent of U.S. schools is failing young people."

Gee, one in four teen girls has an STD, and one in four teen girls isn't getting education about contraceptives? Hmmmm.... ;-)

Meanwhile, via Americans United, a recent study has revealed that students at Catholic schools perform no better than public school students in reading, and actually do worse in math. Just one more piece of evidence that government vouchers for private schools are NOT the way to improve education in America. Instead, we need to reform and reinforce public education.

And boy, could public education use some reinforcements. For instance, the Disco 'Tute is trying to push an "academic freedom" bill through the Florida legislature as a countermeasure to the recent inclusion of evolution (and exclusion of intelligent design) in the state science standards. All is not lost, though. Ben Stein tried to peddle his propaganda to Florida lawmakers, but the event tanked. And Casey Luskin has let slip that the academic freedom bill is about intelligent design after all, and the press noticed... oops! (As a side note, Luskin appears to be trying to make amends for his indiscretion by churning out
another article on how ID isn't creationism, this time with the help of
Mike LaSalle of right-wing site Men's News Daily. I'm not about to give MND a close read, but somehow I'm not
inclined to trust it as a source of commentary.) Here's hoping that the Academic Freedom Act withers and dies. This isn't about academic freedom, this is about academic integrity and responsibility.

But the real humdinger is going on in Oklahoma, where House Bill 2211, the "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act," threatens to undermine all that is education. In short, the bill is intended to make it so a student can get credit for a wrong answer, so long as that wrong answer is based on the student's religious beliefs. Teachers who ask the age of the Earth on a test would be required by law to mark answers of "6,000 years" as correct. Maybe it would work that way, maybe it wouldn't... there's a law like this already on the books in Texas, and it's just begging for a federal case. Bullshit like this makes me want to fly down to Oklahoma and apply as a science teacher; I'm mad as hell, and an angry letter to the Oklahoma legislature isn't cathartic enough. Sometimes you feel the need to inject a little reality right at the source.

This bill and others are being promoted by state Representative Sally Kern, a "hate filled, backwards bitch" (I really can't put it better than that) who (surprise, surprise) has been hiding a gay son.

This bill seems to be getting a fair share of attention, which is probably the best way to snuff it out. And snuffed out it must be.

Is our children learning? Not if some people can help it...

Texas Education Threatened By Creationists

[This entry was originally written as a diary for the Daily Kos. It goes into more detail than my last post regarding education in Texas, so I'm reposting it here as well.]

The Houston Chronicle reported on 24 August that a majority of the current members of the Texas State Board of Education opposed requiring Intelligent Design be taught in public classrooms. This report comes a little over a month after Texas governor Rick Perry (R) appointed Don McLeroy, a vocal creationist, to chair the SBOE. According to the Chronicle, of the 15 members of the board, ten claimed they "wouldn't support requiring the teaching of intelligent design." One member, Pat Hardy, said she would be open to teaching ID. Four members (Rene Nuñez, Cynthia Dunbar, Terri Leo, and Ken Mercer) declined to be interviewed. Many people see this report as a sign of hope for science education in Texas. But I don't buy it for a minute.

What we're seeing now is a word game; the new name for creationism is going to be "evolution" (with the modifier "strengths & weaknesses").

It's a game the creationists have played before. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism (or "creation science") was founded in religion, not science, and was therefore unconstitutional to include in public school science curricula. The creationist movement responded by rebranding creationism as "intelligent design." However, in 2005 Judge John E. Jones III ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design was also unconstitutional to include in school curricula. Expert witnesses like Barbara Forrest successfully demonstrated (using evidence such as the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy" and the Foundation for Thought & Ethics' "textbook" Of Pandas and People) that intelligent design was rehashed creationism, promoted with the intent to drive a wedge between scientific materialism and education to the benefit of a religious worldview. Now, once again, they're changing their rhetoric instead of reanalyzing their argument.

The Discovery Institute, the creationist "think-tank" responsible for the Wedge Strategy, is now promoting a new book entitled Explore Evolution: the Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. They also issued a video in 2005 entitled "How to Tech the Controversy Legally." The video offers five strategies for teachers who want to criticize evolution:

1. Keep the focus ON science

This is the creationists' most basic and most dangerous tactic. Creationists are desperate to have their views accepted as part of the scientific discourse. But any hack can write a book. Real science means having your research and interpretations pass peer review. Not one creationist claim has passed scrutiny by the scientific community. They're trying to bypass that process and gain scientific legitimacy by taking their false facts straight to the impressionable minds of students.

2. Keep the focus OFF religion

Creationists know they need to distance themselves from the religious rhetoric, which means covering their tracks and denying connection to terms like "creation science" and, in the wake of Dover, "intelligent design."

3. Teach MORE about evolution, not less

Here we see the strategy of rebranding the same old creationist talking points, not as a separate hypothesis of creation or design, but rather as supposed "weaknesses" of evolution.

4. Link the teaching of evolution to existing school district policies about teaching controversial issues

This is the "present both sides and let the kids decide" approach favored by those who don't count on students to be well enough trained to see through the false facts being presented by the creationist side.

5. Defend the academic freedom of teachers who want to teach the controversy

And when all else fails, threaten legal action against any school administration that gets in your way.

The Discovery Institute isn't the only one pushing this strategy. Sal Cordova of the major ID weblog Uncommon Descent writes:

As much as I advocate that ID is correct, it is not the time to teach it in the public schools. Creationist Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas School board, agrees.
. . .
There are individuals who may be pro-ID out there who want to lobby to teach ID in the public schools. I think this is ill advised. I encourage rather than lobbying for the teaching of ID or creation science, one should lobby for teaching MORE evolution, and in the way Darwin would have wished it taught. The was beautifully accomplished in the book: Explore Evolution.

But do we have to worry about this strategy coming from the Texas SBOE? I fear we do. McLeroy is certainly in on the strategy; let's look at the rest of the board.

The Texas textbook curriculum was last up for review in 2003. At the time, McLeroy and others were fiercely advocating replacing the biology text with one more critical of evolution. The board eventually voted 11-4 to approve the existing text. The minority vote consisted of McLeroy, David Bradley (the current vice-chairman of the board), Gail Lowe, and Terri Leo, all of whom still sit on the board. (Note that McLeroy, Bradley, and Lowe all claimed not to advocate teaching ID in the Chronicle interviews.)

However, according to a CNN article, the textbooks for all subjects were approved in a batch vote. McLeroy wanted to vote on each textbook separately, presumably because he felt other members' disapproval of the treatment of evolution was outweighed by approval of other texts. In 2005, McLeroy gave an address on intelligent design at the Grace Bible Church in Bryan, TX. In his speech, he was quite open about the association between intelligent design creationism and religion, and said of the 2003 textbook decision:

[Quoting Phillip Johnson] "This is not to say that the Biblical issues aren’t important, the point is the time to address them will be after we have separated materialistic prejudice from scientific fact."

And let me say it again: in the 2003 biology book adoption in Texas this principle was followed strictly. There wasn’t a board member that wasn’t trying to get the weakness of evolution into the debate. We never brought up religion. We never brought up intelligent design. All we brought up was evidence.

"Evidence," of course, meaning creationist talking points--anything from gaps in the fossil record to slow mutation rates--refuted by the scientific community.

Besides the four minority voters in the 2003 decision, six other current board members were also serving in 2003: Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, Mary Helen Berlanga, Mavis Knight, and Bob Craig (all of whom said "no" to advocating teaching ID); Pat Hardy (who is open to teaching ID); and Rene Nuñez (who declined interview). According to McLeroy in 2005, any or all of these members could be sympathetic to the creationist strategy of highlighting "weaknesses" in evolution.

The next round of textbook review for Texas is scheduled for 2011. With McLeroy now chair of the Texas SBOE (and Bradley vice-chair), it's entirely possible that creationists will manage to smuggle their agenda into public schools. We'll have to be on guard. The real danger of the creationist movement isn't in terms like "creation science" or "intelligent design", but rather in the false facts that these terms encompass and their corruption of the scientific method. Science means unbiased, reproducible research and rigorous, continuous peer review. We need to be prepared to repel not just the creationist name, but their false facts. As Darwin himself wrote:

"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened."
--Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man p. 385

Creationists rule the Texas Board of Education

It's been two whole weeks since I've had to write about creationists. But duty calls.

From the Houston Chronicle: The Texas State Board of Education appears to be against including Intelligent Design in school curricula. 10 of 11 board members interviewed (the board has 15 members) claim they "wouldn't support requiring the teaching of intelligent design." The 11th interviewee, Patricia Hardy, openly advocated teaching ID.

Phil Plait (of Bad Astronomy) thinks this is good news.

In fact, [McLeroy's stance] is standard creationist rhetoric, and it’s a lie. This is all part of the leaked Wedge plan to get religion taught as science; first they try to show the weaknesses of science, then they make the "if not A then B" argument, which is bad logic (the only kind most promoters of creationism are capable of). If one scientific explanation is weak, why then, creationism must be right!

Feh.

But let’s be positive here: Other board members who said they believe the curriculum should continue to include evolution and not be changed to accommodate intelligent design were:

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, R-Dallas; Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands; Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas; Bob Craig, R-Lubbock; Mavis Knight, D-Dallas; Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio; Lawrence Allen, D-Houston; and Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi.

Show them your love, folks. They need our support, for surely they have an uphill battle.

But as much as I admire Phil's optimism, I don't buy for an instant that these school board members are really opposed to ID.

Case in point: Sal Cordova (of UncommonlyDense) also thinks this is good news:

As much as I advocate that ID is correct, it is not the time to teach it in the public schools. Creationist Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas School board, agrees.
. . .
There are individuals who may be pro-ID out there who want to lobby to teach ID in the public schools. I think this is ill advised. I encourage rather than lobbying for the teaching of ID or creation science, one should lobby for teaching MORE evolution, and in the way Darwin would have wished it taught. The was beautifully accomplished in the book: Explore Evolution

Don McLeroy, the creationist appointed to head the Texas SBOE, said the following in his 2005 lecture at Grace Bible Church in Bryan, TX:

According to Johnson, the first thing to do is to get the Bible out of the discussion. Remember, even if you don’t bring the Bible into the discussion, the naturalist has already put it into the discussion. And Johnson states “it’s vital not to give any encouragement to this prejudice and to keep the discussion strictly on the scientific evidence and the philosophical assumptions. This is not to say that the Biblical issues aren’t important, the point is the time to address them will be after we have separated materialistic prejudice from scientific fact.”

And let me say it again: in the 2003 biology book adoption in Texas this principle was followed strictly. There wasn’t a board member that wasn’t trying to get the weakness of evolution into the debate. We never brought up religion. We never brought up intelligent design. All we brought up was evidence.

That's the same speech wherein he quite plainly connected ID to religion, asserting (among other things) that evolution must be wrong because it contradicts the Bible.

Note that remark in the second paragraph: there "wasn't a board member" in 2003 who wasn't trying to highlight the weakness of evolution. Of the current board members, who was serving on the board in 2003? Don McLeroy (current chair), Geraldine "Tincy" Miller (chair in 2003), Rene Nuñez, Mary Helen Berlanga, Patricia Hardy, Mavis Knight, Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, David Bradley, and Bob Craig. 10 out of 15 current members, 8 of whom were interviewed by the Houston Chronicle.

So I'm sorry, Phil, but these other people are not on our side. Texas is doomed.

This is further warning that the new name of creationism and intelligent design is going to be "evolution." (These people have some serious legitimacy envy!) But as one of Phil's commenters pointed out, maybe it's a good thing this is happening in Texas. The success of actions to keep creationism out of schools thus far has largely been leveraging of the separation between church and state. And though the creationists try to play linguistic games, their religious motivations are ever-present, especially in Texas.

Cordova has linked to a Discovery Institute video about circumventing the law to teach ID. So I'm going to have to watch that next... if you don't hear back from me within the next few days, don't worry, the brain hemorrhaging probably won't be too severe.

UPDATE: New post up with more details on the 2003 textbook vote.

Ignorance-Only Sex Ed DOES NOT WORK

Time and again, abstinence-only sex education has been shown to reduce neither unwanted pregnancy nor spread of STDs. But Jane Jimenez at One News Now wouldn't have you believe any of that:

Opponents of abstinence education have spent the past ten years denouncing these important health education programs. Their attacks are relentless and ignore the fact that abstinence education works.

Funny, she doesn't give any evidence that it works. Lucky for her, commenter Barbara Ferraro came through with critical evidence:

As a member of CWA, I too have been working to promote the fact, that Abstinence Education is working. I have talked to at least one person who has actually used abstinence in her personal life along with her fiance before they married; she also knows of many others that have done the same.

Ah. Anecdotal evidence. Of "at least one person." I don't know about you, but I'm instantly convinced.

It can't be said often enough: Yes, it's important to inform teens that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy/STDs, but that's not enough. They're going to engage in sex anyway, and we need to make sure they're prepared to deal with it intelligently and maturely. Abstinence-only sex education is ignorance-only sex education. And ignorance will screw us over.

I never cease to be amazed by this degree of fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-I-can't-hear-you denial of reality. How can you reason with people who have built up such a strong resistance to reason?