Lee Wagstaff, science teacher, took a day off to say he's FOR the S&W language. Good science and practical technology has come from questioning established science. So he wants to keep the language, for all disciplines.
Cargill asks him how the new TEKS will affect how he teaches theory and hypothesis. He said he wants to preserve teh S&S language.
?? Asked him about the argument that teachers don't have time to teach the S&W of every theory. Is that true? And how does this affect hs students? Can they understand all this?
Wagstaff - Students bring up questions that are important to them. The kids are genuinely interested in it. They get at each other and they ask my opinion.
Debbie Wisling (sp?), middle school teacher, focuses on an organized middle school science TEKS, but wants more content focus for each grade level. She feels we sprinkle the grass, but we never water the roots. No topic goes in depth at the middle school level. She sees kids losing interest in science because of this. She advocates each grade level having content focus that doesn't repeat over the 6-8th grade years, and that allows topics to go more in depth.
She implores the board not let evol overshadow the consideration of more comprehensive issues.
Patricia ??, retired teacher, is FOR S&W. It works. She does not believe it's a religious issue - it's about good science. We must differentiate between theory fact and law. Don't limit students' quest for knowledge. There will be questions from students. As a Christian I believe what the bible says, but that does not conflict with my understanding and commitment of teaching evolution. Don't take the language out; the teachers need it for protection.
Hmm... I'm not understanding that - "protection"? What does she mean by that?
The board members keep saying it's not about religion. I wonder how that makes the religious people here feel? Like the person who shouted out many times "Fear God not man" during the press conference. I wonder if that man is as angry at the board member right now as scientists are.
Julie Berwald (sp?), ocean scientist, textbook editor. Publishers will be influenced by your decisions. Textbooks chosen must cover all the TEKS. She is AGAINST S&W. She does not want to write stuff for textbooks that is not scientific, that are not scientific facts.
Dunbar asks which publisher? McGraw-Hill. Without S&W, I feel I would not need to include alternative theories to evol. With just the A&E language, would you feel an onus to present evidence that supports and doesn't support? No. So without S&W, it wouldn't be clear what to include in the book.
?? Teacher. It scares me to imagine no S&W language. It would effect how I teach. I need to include the W in any theory I cover. Critical thought is of utmost importance.
I agree with what she says. I'd be totally behind her IF I didn't know what creationists were saying, and why they wanted the S&W language in, and the changes to textbooks they will insist on.
Cargill - Most new discoveries come from looking at weaknesses of things.
?? agrees.
I do, too. Except... McLeroy suggests bringing supernatural explanations in.
?? - Has S&W language ever made you or other teachers feel pressured to teach ID?
No.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment