- The Bible was never referenced in class, or in school, for that matter.
- Creationism was never taught.
- Accurate scientific information was presented that posed challenges for a scientific theory. The theory in questions is the biological Theory of Evolution.
- No laws were broken.
- He introduced supplemental material, as do most teachers, that helped explain certain subject-matter content. He cited sources of the information. The sources were included so students could identify the bias (as there is bias in everything written by men).
Emalman
3 comments:
As a veteran teacher, let me clear up your misconception. It is indeed against the law to violate a contract, and every teacher who signs one agrees not to deviate from the curriculum, as well as agreeing to this in principle by the teaching code of ethics in their state when they are certified. I have seen one of the Power Points presented in his class, and it is not related to Oregon biology curriculum. His presenting it was a thinly veiled attempt that is currently (and mistakenly) being attempted by creationists and ID'er to get their agenda in science. They are sadly mistaken in thinking that they can just talk about anything they want and then say, "I'm fostering critical thinking."
Thanks for the note. Your analysis is interesting. As a veteran teacher, you must also be familiar with the concept of supplemental material. In Helphinstine's class, the theory of evolution was the topic of his first two weeks. All teachers, to my knowledge, introduce supplemental material, and in fact, many districts require supplemental material be introduced. What was considered the "curriculum" by the Sisters school board apparently was the book. As a veteran teacher, did you ever introduce material that was not from the book? If so, then apparently by the Sitsers school board standard you deviated from the curriculum. I have poured over the presentation this biology teacher presented. The fact of the matter is (and a fact of history), eugenics is an aberrant form of science that has was rooted in evolutionary theory (the assigned curriculum).
As for the Oregon biology curriculu, take a look at the current teaching standards (as have I). For example, the Pass Criteria on analyzing an interpreting results, which states, "Analyze and interpret data and relationships, evaluate investigations, and develop supported explanations." Or, a better one might be "Understand and correctly use essential principles, organizations, concepts, terminology, and notations from a field of science." Eugenics is a field of science that explored the possibility of strengthening the human species through artificial selection (an ongoing investigation for many years). Its basis was the theory of evolution. Should we not look at this "concept" of science and decide how to correctly use it? Was eugenics a correct application of the evolutionary theory? Or is this one exempt from analysis? Can we not evaluate eugenics, a black mark (from an ethical perspective) in America's history and the history of science?? There are many other standards that could encompass a presentation on eugenics. It is the teacher's discretion as to how these objectives are met. This is not a matter of "agenda" (by this do you mean history, or truth, or ethics?). It is a matter of science, history, and it certainly raises legitimate, moral questions as to the extent science should proceed at the cost of humanity--very important issues in science considering the amazing advancement of cloning, stem cell research, and our current understanding of genetics.
Thanks for your comment.
One other thing, lynn's daughter. Do teachers only teach to standards? What do you mean by the state's biology curriculum? Perhaps you can direct me to their curriculum, which provides handouts, lecture notes, labs, etc. If you mean the state's Common Curriculum Goals, well...for organisms that would mean "Understand the characteristics, structure, and functions of organisms." State goals and benchmarks, as far as I understand, are purposely vague to allow teachers the freedom to teach to a variety of student interests, learning styles, etc., as well as the teacher's own areas of expertise.
Post a Comment