1. Should we trust the State of State Science Standards 2012 Report by the Thomas Fordham Institute?
Zack, in your March 6, 2012 post, entitled, 75 Nobel laureate scientists call for repeal of Louisiana Science Education Act, you write:
Earlier this year the conservative Thomas Fordham Institute released a report that said Louisiana’s science standards suffer from a "devastating flaw" because of the Louisiana Science Education Act.
The report said:
"The Louisiana science standards are reasonably challenging and comprehensive, but they suffer from a devastating flaw: Thanks to the state’s 2008 Science Education Act, which promotes creationism instead of science, the standards (especially for biology and life science) are haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state."
"This year the Governor has asked the Louisiana legislature to focus on education," said Senator Peterson. "If this Legislative session is truly about improving Louisiana’s education system, then the first place to start is to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act."
I've had a look at the report, and I'd like to make a few comments. First, the Thomas Fordham Institute is committed to school choice and more options for parents, but it's not ideologically conservative, as the American Heritage Foundation is, for instance. Second, three of the six authors of the report are notoriously skeptical of religion: two are atheists and one's an agnostic. And finally, Louisiana's grades are actually pretty good - and they'd be even higher if it wasn't for the ideological bias of the grade assessors.
(a) Is the Thomas Fordham Institute conservative, or just economically liberal?
Zack, you claim that the Thomas Fordham Institute is "conservative." Most people would define conservatism as "a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society." That's Wikipedia's definition. The conservatism of the Thomas Fordham Institute is of a somewhat different kind. In a 2011 article, Conservative group slams Texas education standards by Gary Gutting on San Antonio's home page, www.mysanantonio.com, Amy Fagan, the Institute's Public Affairs Director from September 2008 until August 2011, clarified her organization's political position:
"We could be described as right-of-center," institute spokeswoman Amy Fagan said. "We support education reform and are definitely critical of the status quo. We support school choice and more options for parents — including high-quality charter schools and voucher programs. And we are particularly big on smart accountability and high-quality standards."
I guess I'd call that small-l economic liberalism, or belief in individual choice - a belief held by many conservatives, but not a conservative ideology as such. (Merely believing that you should be free to choose doesn't make you a conservative; rather, it's how you choose that defines you as a conservative.) If you'd like to see what a conservative institution really believes, Zack, I'd suggest you have a look at the Web site of the American Heritage Foundation:
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution — a think tank — whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. (Bold emphasis mine - VJT.)
Now that's what I call conservative.
(b) Three of the six authors of the State of State Science Standards 2012 Report are atheists or agnostics
Zack, you failed to mention that no less than three of the report's six authors - namely, Ursula Goodenough, a professor of biology at Washington University; Paul R. Gross, professor emeritus of life sciences at the University of Virginia; and Lawrence S. Lerner, professor emeritus in the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at California State University, Long Beach - are notorious atheists or agnostics. Here's Professor Ursula Goodenough on religious naturalism:
Goodenough on religious naturalism - "I profess my Faith. For me, the existence of all this complexity and awareness and intent and beauty, and my ability to apprehend it, serves as the ultimate meaning and the ultimate value. The continuation of life reaches around, grabs its own tail, and forms a sacred circle that requires no further justification, no Creator, no super-ordinate meaning of meaning, no purpose other than that the continuation continue until the sun collapses or the final meteor collides. I confess a credo of continuation. And in so doing, I confess as well a credo of human continuation"... (Bold emphases mine - VJT.)
I think it's fair to say that Professor Goodenough is an atheist.
Professor Paul R. Gross is a co-author, with Barbara Forrest, of the 2004 book, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, which is highly critical of what it refers to as "intelligent design creationism." Here's what he writes about religion in a hostile review of David Berlinksi's The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions:
Religion, on the nature and history of the cosmos, is not even wrong. And the biblical myth is unoriginal: it is a pastiche of origin myths of the surrounding cultures at the time of writing.
Gross is also the author of a critical but positive review of Robert Wright's book, The Evolution of God (New York: Little, Brown, & Co., 2009). Gross's review is titled, The Devolution of God. In his review, Gross takes issue with Wright's conciliatory claim that "we are no better acquainted with the electron than we are with God." Gross responds by drawing an unfavorable contrast between what he regards as the totally nebulous religious concept of God and the difficult-to-grasp but relatively precise scientific concept of the electron, pointing out that "every part of the standard description of
the electron’s properties has been tested, tested at vast pains and expense, continuously, and quantitatively." He concludes:
Therefore, although it is not easy to conceive of the electron, there is no doubt whatever that such an entity exists. And its description is agreed upon throughout the world of science, independently of geography and local tradition. The same cannot be said about God three millennia after the idea of Him was first bruited. There are no stable properties associated with the idea of God that have been measured and tested, with results thereof commanding universal agreement among all qualified students of religion and science. In fact the idea of God has devolved, has lost most of its original complexity and its internal disparities, rather than evolved.
In the last sentence of his review, however, Gross acknowledges the possibility that some day, a convincing case for the truth of the idea of God could conceivably be made. In my book, that makes him an agnostic.
Professor Lawrence Lerner is a long-standing member of the Bay Area skeptics. He is also highly critical of religion. In a 2007 review of astronomer Victor Stenger's book, God: The Failed Hypothesis―How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York 2007), he wrote:
Does Stenger achieve his purpose, proving that God does not exist? In one sense, he does. He shows that the natural universe can be understood in increasing depth as scientific knowledge progresses, without recourse to supernatural explanations which, he argues, are really no explanations at all. (Bold emphases mine - VJT.)
Lerner then goes on to point out that Stenger's argument will probably not convince people who believe in God regardless of whether there is any evidence for His existence. From the way he writes, it is quite clear that Lerner does not regard himself as one of these people, so I think it's fair to conclude that he's an atheist, like Victor Stenger, whose book he evidently thinks highly of.
(c) Louisiana's grades are actually pretty good
If readers take the trouble to consult Appendix B-1 of The State of State Science Standards 2012 report, which is on page 212, they will be pleasantly surprised to find that Louisiana's overall science grade of "B" places it near the top of the list of 50 states. In fact, only six states (California, Indiana, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia and New York) and the District of Columbia do better than Louisiana.
But wait - there's more. Louisiana's overall score of 7 out of 10 is broken down into two components: Content and Rigor (score: 5 out of 7), and Clarity and Specificity (2 out of 3). And when we turn to page 80, which gives the report card for Louisiana, we see that the score for content and rigor (4.7 out of 7, to be exact) is averaged over several science subjects, which are graded as follows (all scores are out of 7):
Scientific Inquiry & Methodology 2
Physical Science 5
Physics 4
Chemistry 6
Earth & Space Science 5
Life Science 6
Wait a minute. Life Science [along with Chemistry] got the best grade?! Doesn't this completely give the lie to the report's ideologically motivated claim that "Thanks to the state's 2008 Science Education Act, which promotes creationism instead of science, the standards (especially for biology and life science) are haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state" (p. 80, bold emphasis mine).
But I haven't finished yet. Readers might be wondering why the subject, Scientific Inquiry & Methodology, only gets a score of 2 out of 7. Partly, this is because the standards are nebulous, with no grade-appropriate examples. Another reason is that students are not taught the history of science in this course subject. But an additional reason is that the authors of the report consider the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008 to pose a threat to biology teaching in the State:
Equally troubling, another global statement asks students to "explain how skepticism about accepted scientific explanations (i.e., hypotheses and theories) leads to new understanding." This cracks the door open to an invasion by creationists, particularly in light of the state's Science Education Act (discussed above). (p. 82)
In other words, encouraging skepticism in the science classroom is bad. Funny. I could have sworn that Carl Sagan promoted something which he called scientific skepticism in his novel, Contact (Orbit, 1997, p. 306). And I could have sworn, too, that the motto of the Royal Society, founded in London in 1660, was, "Take nobody's word for it" (Nullius in verba). "Take nodody's word for it" entails that we shouldn't blindly accept the say-so of the 99+% of the world's biologists who believe in Darwinian evolution. We can and should ask them to justify their views to high-school students. Or do the authors of the The State of State Science Standards 2012 report want to take the skepticism out of science?
I remarked earlier that Louisiana got an almost-perfect 6 out of 7 score for Content & Rigor in biology. The reader may be wondering: why didn't Louisiana get a perfect 7 out of 7? Here's why: because it doesn't try to indoctrinate kids from Kindergarten to Grade 8 in evolution. It simply tells them that life has changed over time, which isn't enough for the beady-eyed authors of the report, who are most upset that the magic "E" word is missing from the Louisiana's Life Science curriculum standards for Kindergarten to Grade 8. Indeed, Louisiana doesn't teach students about evolution until Grade 10, but apparently it does a pretty good job when it finally introduces the subject. To quote from the report:
The most significant drawback to the standards covering Kindergarten through eighth grade is the omission of evolution. Indeed, the term evolution doesn't appear at all. Instead, eighth graders are asked only to:
Compare fossils from different geologic eras and areas of Earth to show that life changes over time. (grade 8)
Asking students to understand that life changes over time is not the same thing as asking them to learn the building blocks of evolutionary theory.
Fortunately, the high school coverage of evolution is reasonably strong. Tenth graders, for example, are asked to:
Analyze evidence on biological evolution, utilizing descriptions of existing investigations, computer models, and fossil records. (high school biology)
In addition, the comprehensive curriculum provides useful and rigorous supplemental material that further clarifies what the state expects students to know about evolution. (p. 82.) (Italics mine - VJT.)
Personally, I think it's a very good thing that students from Kindergarten to Grade 8 are not informed about evolution. Why should they be told something is true when they are too young to understand the scientific grounds for thinking that it's true? Isn't science about not taking things on faith? Understanding the case for evolution is not easy: it requires a sophisticated grasp of abductive logic, or inference to the best explanation. Indeed, a case could be made for not teaching evolution until university, because if it is taught at a lower level, it is likely to be taught wrongly. If readers wants proof of that, I would invite them to ask their friends why they believe in evolution, and listen to the confused and contradictory responses they will receive. That's what comes of not teaching a subject critically to students.
I conclude, them, that the The State of State Science Standards 2012 report has turned into a political football, controlled by militant advocates of Darwinism who seem hell-bent on penalizing states that don't explicitly incorporate evolution into their curriculum. It is a great pity that the word "evolution" has become a shibboleth.
2. Is the Louisiana Science Education Act killing jobs?
On your Web page, Zack, you claim that the Louisiana Science Education Act is a job-killing law. This claim is easily refuted. If you have a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web page showing unemployment rates for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, for the month of January 2012, you will see that Louisiana's unemployment rate is the 16th lowest in the nation, at only 6.9 per cent. The median value (number 26 on the list) is 7.6 per cent.
But the good news doesn't stop there. If you have a look at the one-year U.S. job growth forecast made by the economic consulting firm Moody Analytics at the end of May 2011, you will see that the forecast change for the United States as a whole is 2.0%. However, for the state of Louisiana it's 2.4%, which is higher than the national average. All I can say is that if the Louisiana Science Education Act is having an effect on jobs in Louisiana, it doesn't appear to be a negative one.
"What about bio-tech jobs?" you might ask. It's true that there were no new biotechnology jobs in the state of Louisiana in the month of April 2011, according to Biohealthmatics.com. But guess what? There were no new biotechnology jobs in April 2011 in these states either: District of Columbia, Delaware, Idaho, Hawaii, Arkansas, Arizona, Alaska, Alabama, Maine, Mississippi, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Nebraska, Montana, Vermont, West Virginia, Washington, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina and New Mexico. The vast majority of these states, I might add, teach evolution in their high school science classes. In other words, Louisiana is hardly exceptional. It turns out that most of the new biotechnology jobs in April 2011 were in just three states: California (53 jobs), North Carolina (23 jobs) and Pennsylvania (18 jobs). Only two more states made double digits: New Jersey (18 jobs) and Massachusetts (15 jobs).
You claim that Louisiana's failure to teach evolution in high schools will have all manner of dire effects:
Colleges both at home and across the country may question our science education and withhold admission because of our dubious science background. In addition, Louisiana students may lose out on cutting edge science jobs to kids from countries like China and Britain where they teach accurate science and the theory of evolution.
This law gives Louisiana an anti-science reputation, which hinders the state's ability to attract scientists who can help find innovative solutions to rescue the Louisiana seafood industry from disasters such as the BP oil spill and stop our coast from disappearing. The LSEA also handicaps our bio-tech start ups and efforts to attract investment in companies that do scientific research.
Where's the evidence, Zack? Show me. This is pure speculation.
And how do you account for the fact that biology is one of the five most popular majors for 2009 graduates from Louisiana State University, according to U.S. News College Rankings and Reviews for 2010, Zack? Here's the breakdown:
Biological and Biomedical Sciences 9%
Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services 19%
Education 8%
Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies and Humanities 9%
Social Sciences 9%
By comparison, here are the five most popular majors for 2009 graduates from Stanford University, in the state of California (where there are lots of biotech jobs):
Biological and Biomedical Sciences 7%
Engineering 14%
Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies 17%
Physical Sciences 5%
Social Sciences 23%
Check out the figures for Biological and Biomedical Sciences: 9% for Louisiana State University versus only 7% for Stanford University. That makes Louisianans look like a bunch of science geeks. So, is the Louisiana Science Education Act hurting science education at university level? I submit that it is not.
3. Is the Louisiana Science Education Act hurting education?
Zack, in your post of May 24, 2011, you wrote:
According to the 2009 survey of 8th grade students' science education by the National Center for Education Statistics, Louisiana was at the bottom of the list, ranked lower than all but one state. Do not let Michele Bachmann drag the rest of the country down to Louisiana's level.
When I read that, Zack, several things went through my mind:
1. What were science scores like in Louisiana before the Louisiana Science Education Act was passed? Were they any higher?
2. What are science scores like for 4th grade students in Louisiana? Are they low too?
3. What are reading and mathematics scores like for students in Louisiana? Is Louisiana near the bottom in these subjects too?
4. Is there any discernible trend in education scores in Louisiana, relative to other states, over the past few years? Is Louisiana falling further behind, moving ahead, or staying in the same position?
5. Could the poor education scores in Louisiana be related to the level of household income in that state?
Well, I did a bit of sleuthing, and this is what I came up with.
Poverty:
Sure enough, Louisiana is a relatively poor state. According to 2007 figures, Louisiana ranked 46th out of 51 states (including the District of Columbia) in median household income. That tells me that one should expect reading, mathematics and science scores to be low. The reason is simple: poor families don't have as much money to spend on educating their children as affluent families, so other things being equal, poor families will be educationally disadvantaged.
State Comparisons:
State education comparisons are available from this Website here. Louisiana State Education Data profiles can also be obtained here.
The results below show that Louisiana is near the bottom in State comparisons in all key subjects (mathematics, reading and science) for Grade 4 and Grade 8 students. NAEP Scores for Louisiana students in Grade 4 and Grade 8 are six to thirteen points below the national average in these subjects. The relatively poor science scores are therefore not exceptional. Grade 4 science students in Louisiana are eight points below the national average, which is not very different from that ten-point gap for Grade 8 science students.
The gap between Louisiana and the national average in reading and mathematics was at its narrowest in the first few years of the 21st century, but it is now gradually widening again. However, I was unable to find out whether this is the case for science, due to the introduction of a new NAEP science assessment framework in 2009, making comparisons with past years an "apples and oranges" exercise.
A COMPARISON OF LOUISIANA NAEP SCORES IN MATHEMATICS, READING AND SCIENCE WITH THE U.S. NATIONAL AVERAGE
Mathematics:
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
Fourth grade:
NAEP scores are available here.
In 2009, the average score of fourth-grade students in Louisiana was 229. This was lower than the average score of 239 for public school students in the nation. The gap between Louisiana and the nation as a whole was at its narrowest in 2000.
In 2009, the average score in Louisiana was lower than those in 44 states/jurisdictions, higher than that in 1 state/jurisdiction and not significantly different from that in 6 states/jurisdictions.
Eighth grade:
NAEP scores are available here.
In 2009, the average score of eighth-grade students in Louisiana was 272. This was lower than the average score of 282 for public school students in the nation. The gap between Louisiana and the nation as a whole was at its narrowest in 2007.
In 2009, the average score in Louisiana was lower than those in 40 states/jurisdictions, higher than that in 2 state/jurisdiction and not significantly different from that in 9 states/jurisdictions.
|
Reading:
Fourth grade:
NAEP scores are available here.
In 2009, the average score of fourth-grade students in Louisiana was 207. This was lower than the average score of 220 for public school students in the nation. The gap between Louisiana and the nation as a whole was at its narrowest in 2005.
In 2009, the average score in Louisiana was lower than those in 45 states/jurisdictions, higher than that in 1 state/jurisdiction and not significantly different from that in 5 states/jurisdictions.
Eighth grade:
NAEP scores are available here.
In 2009, the average score of eighth-grade students in Louisiana was 253. This was lower than the average score of 262 for public school students in the nation. The gap between Louisiana and the nation as a whole was at its narrowest in 2002.
In 2009, the average score in Louisiana was lower than those in 41 states/jurisdictions, higher than that in 1 state/jurisdiction and not significantly different from that in 9 states/jurisdictions.
|
Science:
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
Fourth grade:
NAEP scores are available here.
In 2009, the average score of fourth-grade students in Louisiana was 141. This was lower than the average score of 149 for public school students in the nation.
In 2009, the average score in Louisiana was lower than those in 38 states/jurisdictions, higher than that in 2 state/jurisdiction and not significantly different from that in 6 states/jurisdictions. (5 states/jurisdictions did not participate.)
Eighth grade:
NAEP scores are available here.
In 2009, the average score of eighth-grade students in Louisiana was 139. This was lower than the average score of 149 for public school students in the nation.
In 2009, the average score in Louisiana was lower than those in 37 states/jurisdictions, higher than that in 1 state/jurisdiction and not significantly different from that in 8 states/jurisdictions. (5 states/jurisdictions did not participate.)
|
As far as I can ascertain, there is no evidence that the Louisiana Science Education Act bad for education in Louisiana.
