Stupid in America / Federal Science-Education Framework Document Contains Scientific Errors

Some of you may be interested in watching this
program - "Stupid in America -- Why your kids are
probably dumber than Belgians" - it airs tonight on ABC.

One comment: "American parents bear a lot of the blame."

I agree that is the root of the problem.

A friend of mine, single mother of three, is home
schooling her kids. Her oldest, 16, has just been
accepted to Harvard on a scholarship and the next
oldest, 14, is currently taking college level
classes and also is shooting for Harvard. This
lady lives in rural Tennessee and does not come
from a big money family, either.

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1557274/posts?page=49#49>49
posted on 01/13/2006 8:12:23 AM EST by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1557274//~thermalseeker/>Thermalseeker

I'm linking to two threads below.

My posts are # 81 & # 82 in the first thread - for those interested:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1557274/posts?page=81#81
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1557274/posts?page=82#82

~ Janice

Refresh browser.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557274/posts>Stupid
in America -- Why your kids are probably dumber than Belgians
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557274//^http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml>Reason
^ | January 13, 2006 | John Stossel
Posted on 01/13/2006 6:34:41 AM EST by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557274//~jtn/>JTN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557274/posts

For
"<http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1491217>Stupid
in America," a special report ABC will air
Friday, we gave identical tests to high school
students in New Jersey and in Belgium. The
Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks.
The Belgian kids called the American students "stupid."

[snip]

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523132/posts>Federal
Science-Education Framework Document Contains Scientific Errors
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523132//^http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200511160851.asp>National
Review Online ^ | 11/16/05 | Paul R. Gross
Posted on 11/16/2005 11:11:25 AM EST by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523132//~jacksonvillepatriot/>Jacksonville
Patriot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523132/posts

Science Standards We can’t afford to go light.

Science education in America is already a hot
topic, but it's about to get hotter. A federal
committee you may not have heard of is set to
vote on a document that could do it long-term
damage to the teaching and learning of science in
U.S. primary and secondary schools, just when it
needs to be strengthened. The timing couldn't be
worse, nor could the signals that this decision
will send into states and schools across the land.

As Thomas Friedman shows in his best-seller, The
World Is Flat, there is ample reason to worry
that America's longstanding lead in science is
slipping away. This could be a calamity for our
economy, our security, and our role in global
affairs. A recent National Academy of Sciences
report concludes that "Without high-quality,
knowledge-intensive jobs and the innovative
enterprises that lead to discovery and new
technology, our economy will suffer and our
people will face a lower standard of living."

To reverse this alarming prospect, we must do a
better job of teaching students real science
content and skills so as to assure that there
will be a next generation of scientific
leadership ­ and that everyone else is
scientifically literate as well. The first step
is to set clear expectations for what
schoolchildren should learn, linked to reliable
assessments that tell us whether they are learning it.

America's most respected gauge of student
achievement is the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), a.k.a. "the nation's
report card." It's a federally funded testing
program that tracks knowledge and skills in
specific subjects in grades 4, 8, and 12, and
reports progress in relation to three benchmark
standards ("basic," "proficient," "advanced.")

Every 15 years or so, NAEP revises and updates
its tests and standards, as it should. Overseeing
this process is a 26-member panel called the
National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB),
appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Education and
currently chaired by long-time Bush education
ally Darvin Winick, from Houston.

Science's turn has come, and we had hoped that
NAGB would refurbish this important assessment to
take account of key developments in scientific
knowledge and understanding. Instead, NAGB is
expected later this week quietly to adopt a
watered down, generally mediocre and
error-riddled "framework" for the design of tests
by which K-12 science education is to be tracked for years to come.

These are not "high stakes" exams like those
required by the No Child Left Behind Act and
conducted by the states. Yet NAEP tests, and the
frameworks on which they are built, are
enormously influential in shaping America's
expectations for K-12 teaching and learning and
in determining how good is good enough. Many
states and school systems pattern their curricula
on NAEP's frameworks and strive to align their own tests with them.

Along with several colleagues expert in all the
relevant sciences, I have reviewed NAGB's new
draft science framework. It's simply not good
enough. This basic science education document, in
its draft form at least, earns a grade of "C."
The main problem is its lack of ambition: The
focus is on science that students might be
expected to remember ten years after leaving
school, rather than what they should learn while
they're in school. It is also thin on science
content and short on mathematical reasoning ­
which is integral to modern science. Just as
troubling, the "framework" draft contains
scientific errors and misleading statements.

We can surely do better. Some states already
have. California, arguably one leader of the
scientific world, and Massachusetts, certainly
another, have developed excellent science
standards. The Nation's Report Card shouldn't
expect anything less. If we continue to demand
too little in science of young Americans, how
long before China and India (and other
hard-charging competitors) leave us behind? We
should do everything in our power to stay in
front. This draft NAEP framework moves in the wrong direction.
Received on Fri Jan 13 12:55:53 2006