This all boils down to one factor: proselytizing creationists. It's sickening, really. Maybe I'll move to Japan.

From Huffington Post

"Very few students have the advanced skills that could lead to careers in science and technology, according to results of a national exam released Tuesday that education leaders called alarming.

Only 1 percent of fourth-grade and 12th-grade students, and 2 percent of eighth-graders scored in the highest group on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federal test known as the Nation's Report Card. Less than half were considered proficient, with many more showing minimal science knowledge.

"It's very disappointing for all educators to see students performing below the level we'd like them to be," said Bonnie Embry, an elementary school science lab teacher in Lexington, Ky. "These low scores should send a message to educators across our nation that we're not spending enough time teaching science."

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the results mean students aren't learning at a rate that will maintain the nation's role as an international leader in the sciences. He and others expressed concern that more students aren't prepared for careers as inventors, doctors and engineers in a world increasingly driven by technology.

"Our ability to create the next generation of U.S. leaders in science and technology is seriously in danger," said Alan Friedman, former director of the New York Hall of Science, and a member of the board that oversees the test.

The results also show a stark achievement gap, with only 10 percent of black students proficient in science in the fourth grade, compared to 46 percent of whites. At the high school level, results were even more bleak, with 71 percent of black students scoring below the basic knowledge level, and just 4 percent proficient.

Fifty-eight percent of Hispanic 12th-grade students scored below basic, as did 21 percent of whites.

"These are really stunning and concerning numbers," said Amy Wilkins, vice president for government affairs and communications at The Education Trust. She noted that minority and low-income students are the fastest growing parts of the youth population, making the need to increase their achievement levels all the more urgent.

The exam tests knowledge and understanding of physical, life, Earth and space sciences. Examples of skills students need to demonstrate to perform at the advanced level include: designing an investigation to compare types of bird food in fourth grade; predicting the sun's position in the sky in eighth grade; and recognizing a nuclear fission reaction for those in 12th grade.

Overall, 34 percent of fourth-graders, 30 percent of eighth-graders and 21 percent of 12th-graders scored at the proficient level or above. Seventy-two percent of fourth-graders, 63 percent of eighth-graders and 60 percent of 12th-graders showed a basic level or above of science knowledge and skills.

"I'm at least as concerned, maybe even more, about the large number who fall at the low end," Friedman said. "Advanced is advanced. But basic is really basic. It doesn't even mean a complete understanding of the most simple fundamentals."

The results also indicated there are significant differences between states.

Twenty-four states had scores that were higher than the national average at fourth grade, and 25 had higher scores at eighth grade. The achievement gap was also more notable in certain states. In Mississippi, for example, 68 percent of black fourth grade students scored below basic, and just 4 percent were proficient.

The test was given to more than 150,000 students in both fourth and eighth grade, and a nationally representative sample of 11,100 high school seniors. The last time it was given was in 2005, but the test was significantly updated in 2009, making a comparison between years unreliable.

Results from the 2005 exam were also concerning: Only 29 percent of fourth and eighth-grade students scored proficient or better, as did just 18 percent of 12th-graders tested.

Friedman said the 2009 exam tested students more on how well they understand and know how to apply scientific knowledge, rather than memorization of scientific terms and formulas.

He and others said that while there are too many differences between the 2005 and 2009 exams to make a comparison, the overall trend is one of stagnation. He pointed to the Programme for International Student Assessment, a key international assessment, which shows U.S. students trailing many other nations in science.

The 2009 PISA results placed U.S. students within the same range of countries including Poland, France, and Portugal. The average U.S. score was 502, far below the average score of 575 for students in Shanghai, China.

Duncan said President Barack Obama has called for an "all hands on deck" approach and set a goal of recruiting 10,000 new science and math teachers over the next two years.

"Our nation's long-term economic prosperity depends on providing a world class education to all students, especially in mathematics and science," Duncan said.

Experts pointed to a variety of factors that likely contribute to the lackluster results.

Friedman said one unintended side effect of the No Child Left Behind law has been less emphasis on science, history, arts and other subjects in order to emphasize performance in math and reading.

Wilkins was skeptical of that explanation, noting that strong reading and math skills are the underpinnings for a strong science education as well. Schools that are doing well in reading and math are also doing well in science, she said.

"Yes, we have to be intentional about science education, and we have to ensure that all schools have working science labs, but you can't introduce a kid to a science lab and expect them to do well if they can't read the text," she said."

Interbane:


Are you serious?

About moving to Japan? No, I'm not serious. I sometimes consider moving to Canada, but that's for political reasons.

I saw a graph that showed the situation is about the same for math. The highest scoring U. S. state, Massachusetts, lagged behind about a dozen countries, some of them far less prosperous than we are.

With either math or science, I think the article is right to pin the biggest part of the problem on disparities in achievement between racial groups, caused by lack of opportunity and cultural factors. That doesn't explain the entire deficiency, of course. Why are so few of the students with access to opportunities reaching the elite level? For this group, fundamentalism wouldn't seem to be a retarding factor, so we'd have to look elsewhere. Fundamentalism/creationism must be in there somewhere, though.

Interbane, I suspect Lady of Shallot may have been referring to your causal theory for the woes of the USA.

I think you have a point that people underestimate the effect of poisonous error within a body politic. We see this analysis in the Islamic context, where restriction of education to the Koran creates a sort of furious imbecility, where people do not comprehend their own backwardness.

The bullying of the US education system by even the limited legitimacy that creationists now enjoy is certainly an important factor in producing the antipathy towards evidence and enquiry that is so culturally prevalent. Where the society does not care about evidence, the fish rots from the head, and the message filters down to children that there is no point in study.

This is why I find America so confusing, spending the best part of a trillion dollars a year on national security but failing to realise that security is primarily a cultural product of human capital. You don't want to turn into Upper Volta with rockets.

Look at the statistics of when the US started to lose its students.

Well it might be helpful of you to link us. I don't believe that religious fundamentalism is a major culprit here.

I don't believe it is either. The state of education has been in decline for decades and I believe it has to do with many disparate cultural elements.

Certainly fundamentalism is somewhat of a retarding factor (thanks for the word, by the way). Many high school teachers are reluctant to endorse evolution in class. Is this good old-fashioned political correctness at work?

High School Biology Teachers in U.S. Reluctant to Endorse Evolution in Class, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2011) — The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they
"Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms," write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in the January 28 issue of Science.

The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.

In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.

Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said.

The researchers found these teachers commonly use one or more of three strategies to avoid controversy. Some teach evolutionary biology as if it applies only to molecular biology, ignoring an opportunity to impart a rich understanding of the diversity of species and evidence that one species gives rise to others.

Using a second strategy, some teachers rationalize the teaching of evolution by referring to high-stakes examinations.

These teachers "tell students it does not matter if they really 'believe' in evolution, so long as they know it for the test," Berkman and Plutzer said.

Finally, many teachers expose their students to all positions, scientific and otherwise, and let them make up their own minds.

This is unfortunate, the researchers said, because "this approach tells students that well established concepts can be debated in the same way we debate personal opinions."

Berkman and Plutzer conclude that "the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments." As a result, "they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists."

The researchers note that more high school students take biology than any other science course, and for as many as 25 percent of high school students it is the only science course they will ever take, even though a sound science education is important in a democracy that depends on citizen input on highly technical, consequential, public policies.

Berkman and Plutzer say the nation must have better-trained biology teachers who can confidently advocate for high standards of science education in their local communities. Colleges and universities should mandate a dedicated undergraduate course in evolution for all prospective biology teachers, for example, and follow up with outreach refresher courses, so that more biology teachers embrace evolutionary biology.

"Combined with continued successes in courtrooms and the halls of state government, this approach offers our best chance of increasing the scientific literacy of future generations," they conclude.

I have to say that this presents a situation that is worse than I thought.

Robert Tulip:


Yes, that is what it is. When my daughter and her husband were going to buy a house they researched the towns in the area and chose one based on its school district. How many parents do that or are able to do that? Taxes in this town are very high but the kids get an excellent education. Even so none of the students that graduated with my granddaughter got into. . . Yale, Harvard or Princeton or Williams. These are kids with high 90 averages and many college level courses. So either the bar is being set higher or even in the best of circumstances the educational system here is seriously broken. (I actually think my grandkids are getting an excellent education with concerned faculty and parents and school administration in a pretty good environment, where the kids either walk to school or the parents drive them since there are no school buses)

One of the last things I would look to is religious fundamentalism. Strict religious groups like the Amish don't send their kids to college. Mormons have their own schools and colleges.

Surely, broken families, poverty, alcoholism, indifferent parenting, bad school districts are more to blame. Also I don't think you can overlook the disruption that difficult students create in school environments. Every area (like a school in the Bronx that is famous) and a new high school here in Portland, has schools that do not fit the usual model but are very successful in creating a strong learning environment with great success in the student population. In other words, it isn't the bodies or their intellects it is the conditions and the circumstances, but I would think, rarely the religious influence.

Lady is right. There are too many variables to pick one culprit. I do think fundamentalism is one of the variables. The amount of influence it has it the question. Unless you live in Texas, most of the other variables are more apparent. I think fundamentalism has an impact on a cultural level, which impacts education.

For example, these days it seems like there is a debate going on between two equally valid explanations for the existence of human race. Even amidst polarization, most people see either creationism or evolution as a valid answer from their neighbor, even if they disagree. Polarization happens in other areas too. The obvious one is Science versus Religion. A more ambiguous one is critical thinking versus faith. If you see faith as an acceptable path to take to arrive at answers, you then must be open to faith as a stronger tool(in some cases) than critical thinking.

I'm referring more to the teachers than I am to the students. Yes, funding can help to pick more qualified and better educated teachers, but even some of the best teachers may accept creationism over evolution. I can't see that any teacher could hold such a view and also keep it from affecting their performance on some level. At some point, faith must be held higher than critical thinking. Not to say that a creationist can't also be a great critical thinker, but there will be cognitive dissonance. At the same time, we are dealing with large numbers. So regardless of the exceptions, the trend would be toward's a lack of or poor critical thinking.

Which, in the middle of the population(the country's average) of teachers, there are a great many who would rather teach creationism than evolution. Most of what I'm saying here is speculation, I understand. Here is a bit more speculation, if you'd oblige. The subtle conveyances of teachers can have a huge impact on it's students. I'll go out on a limb and say you won't find a teacher that believes in creationism to then turn around and teach evolution without at least dropping subtle hints or general distrust of the topic. At the very least, bias will show through.

For the majority, such as the teacher of one of my wrestlers, they will successfully implant the idea that creationism is a valid alternative. Even if they never come right out and say it, there are ways to instill that perception. What sort of impacts does that have on how seriously students value science education? I would think it would have a massive impact. Look at the article geo posted in this thread.

How seriously would students then perceive the other sciences; physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, etc? If science failed to answer the question of human existence, it can't be taken seriously. Some students of course wouldn't allow this perception shift to impede their studies. They'd plow through it like the soldiers they are. On the other end of the spectrum, there would be students who view science with disdain, which translates to all the fields under it. Of course, the average lies somewhere in a middle. Judging by the extremes presented, the impact of creationism on education would at least have some impact, and only negatively. Most likely it would be a large factor, as the country is split in half on the most influential study topic.

Wow, I just heard some disconcerting news. Just got a phone call from my friends daughter who used to teach at the h.s. in our town. I asked her if they taught evolution and she said no because the parents objected to it. She said the town lost three valuable science teachers immediately because of that policy.

This town is the wealthiest in the state. 31.9 percent of the population has graduated from college and 26.5 have advanced degrees. The average salary is $77, + and the average price of a home is 395,400. Now if this town (highly liberal . . . always votes that way) is reluctant to teach evolution, what school system in the country does?

So there is an actual policy against teaching evolution? If so, that would be very disturbing. Wasn't there any kind of community discussion?

Maybe Lady needs to start a letter campaign in the local newspaper.

That does seem strange for a town like that.

Where's the news media? That should be a big story.

Not too many journalists hunt around Booktalk for scoops.

It reinforces the point I made earlier about creationist bullying. It is useful to have Stahrwe posting here on Booktalk because he displays the bully mentality with the expectation of getting his own way. His latest suggestion to Tat to be quiet was a classic. The fact that Stahrwe is systematically ridiculed with pretty well every response he gets, but with hardly any abusive comments directed towards him, shows that it is possible to respond to bullying in a polite and clear way.

The information provided here about the quiet boycott of evolution in the American school system shows that bullying does not need to be overt. Just the hint 'parents won't be happy' is enough to corrupt and pervert the educational process.