Somehow, with the help of today's political environments and radical fundamentalism, it has become a courageous thing to be a teacher, where it appears that fighting for fair rights and the rights of the children, and keeping religion out of the schools has become a criminal act. In the latest episode of Lab Out Loud "Episode 59", science educators and Wisconsin natives Dale Basler and Brian Bartel address what might be considered two of the hottest topics in education today - stripping teachers of their bargaining rights and teaching intelligent design in the classroom.
While Dale and Brian don't go too deeply into the current attack on public worker's right to collectively bargain, this episode was released right on the heals of Wisconsin being on the national stage for their governor's attempt to break down the public unions, so they are both right smack in the middle of this controversial legislation that is sweeping the mid-west at the hands of Republican Governors, and the Lab Out Loud hosts justifiably share their discernment with the situation.
Their guest for this episode, Dr. Eric Plutzer, a political science professor at Penn State University and co-author of “Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom”, gives us a better look into the dangerous realm of science teachers and the ongoing battle to keep evolution in the curriculum of public schools without having to offer the only opposing alternative to the origins of life, intelligent design, which is steeped in subjective speculation rather than sound scientific processes. What's more up-hauling than trying to offer a religious explanation for the origins of life in public school science classes, says Plutzer, is that while there are 13% of active teachers who voluntarily offer ID as a scientific alternative to evolution in their classrooms, 60% do not offer evolution and in fact skirt around the subject entirely when possible because of outside and local opposition. He calls this "The Cautious 60." Plutzer offers this very strong statement about those being so cautious:
The cautious 60% may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists. The strategies of emphasizing microevolution, justifying the curriculum on the basis of state-wide tests, or "teaching the controversy" all undermine the legitimacy of findings that are well established by the combination of peer review and replication. These teachers fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments, even if unintentionally.
Some will continue to view the efforts to keep ID out of the classrooms as part of the ongoing assault on religion in schools, when it's actually just a simple argument against bad science. This is an ugly and ongoing battle in various states and districts, but what's worse is that along with the battle to weaken unions that is being carried out, comes the weakening of protection for those teachers who rise up and try to do the right thing, including science teachers. As we can see from Plutzer's findings, teachers are already afraid to teach evolution because of the "hastles" that it could present. And that's WITH the protection of the union. Without the protection of the union in controversial situations such as this, science teachers are doomed to unfair treatment by administrators and parents and possible job loss because of teaching something as simple and commonly agreed upon as evolution. Even better, a science teacher could be fired without due process because of refusing to offer creationism as a valid counter argument to evolution.
The attack on public unions comes as a ploy to lower state's budgets at a time of financial crisis, claiming that it will give districts more control over their finances and better equip them to deal with states' large budget cuts. While public educators and workers have always been regarded as noble and respected necessities to the health of society, it appears that they now have targets on their backs for being the bad guys responsible for state budgets gone wild. In an article by David Leonhardt, he strongly disagrees that state employee salaries are the cause OR the fix to state budget problems. He points out that in 30 years worth of studies and academic papers, that government workers receive somewhat lower salaries than their counterparts in the private sector with similar qualifications. Rather, Leonhardt offers that the government at both the state and federal level is wasting tens of billions of dollars on programs that accomplish very little, which would lead to the conclusion that efficiency is an issue of high regard that's given little attention.
let this information benefit your own investigation into the truth.
Lab Out Loud Episde 59
