Treating kids like criminals

In Alternet there is a rather disturbing article about how kids are treated as criminals for even the smallest infractions

Arrested for Doodling on a Desk? "Zero Tolerance" at Schools Is Going Way Too Far

Not only are kids treated as criminals for doing stuff like doodling on desks, there have also been cases of invasion of privacy (strip-searching and spying on kids through webcams), and even a case of breaching a kid's civil rights (refusing to stand up and recite the pledge of allegiance).

Each of the case reported in the article are hopefully isolated cases, but given the fact that there are no statistics on the number of kids arrested, it's hard to say how widespread the problem is.

In New York, the criminalization of schoolkids seems to be particularly bad, as a NYCLU report (.pdf) explains. The problem seems to have become particularly bad after the New York Police took over the security of New York public schools back in 1998.

"Zero tolerance" laws were panic reactions to some very troubling incidents, but like all such reactions, they were not thought out properly, and do more harm than good. A school with harassment from security guards/police, body searches, and metal detectors is not a good learning environment. Instead, much more gentle, and targeted, measures should be used.

Last year, NYCLU released another report, this time about how one could provide safety for students, without criminalizing them: Safety with Dignity: Alternatives to the Over-Policing of Schools

Hopefully this report will convince the people in charge of school security to change their methods, and allow the kids to be kids, without fear of getting arrested for even minor infractions.

In case the report is not enough, perhaps the class action lawsuit by ACLU and NYCLU will help instead.

NYPD personnel assigned to New York City’s public schools have repeatedly violated students’ civil rights through wrongful arrests and the excessive use of force, according to a class action federal lawsuit filed today by the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

The landmark lawsuit challenges the conduct and behavior of police officers and school safety officers (SSOs) serving in the NYPD’s School Safety Division. It was filed on behalf of five middle school and high school students who were physically abused and wrongfully arrested at school by NYPD personnel. The plaintiffs seek system-wide reform in New York City’s middle schools and high schools.

Either way, the current system got to change.

Discovery Institute opens mouth, lies

I am sure that most of my readers are aware of the latest embarrassment going on in Texas, where the Texas School Board have passed a science standard including the following

"In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students."

When taking at face value, it doesn't sound too bad. Who would be against encouraging critical thinking? Well, the problem is the phrase "including examining all sides of scientific evidence", which is a loop-hole for teaching neo-Creationism as an alternative to proper science.

The fact that this is the real purpose of the new standard can be figured out by the reaction by the Discovery Institute.

Texas Now Leads Nation in Requiring Critical Analysis of Evolution in High School Science Classes

The headline is in itself very telling. The resolution doesn't actually explicitly mention evolution, yet the DI (correctly) leaps to the conclusion that this is about evolution. Also, notice "critical analysis" - high school students don't have the proper tools for critical analysis of any scientific theory. Instead it will be used as a tool by neo-Creationists and Creationists for making claims about non-existing problems with evolution.

-In a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution, Texas today moved to the head of the class by requiring students to "critique" and examine "all sides of scientific evidence" and specifically requiring students to "analyze and evaluate" the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations.

Every time the Discovery Institute says something, it's one long string of lies, distortions and half-truths, and this time is no exception. Before this new requirement there was no issue in teaching the scientific evidence for and against any given scientific idea in science class, so it doesn't do anything to help those who wants that to happen.

And then there is the small fact that there isn't scientific evidence against the Theory of Evolution. The very fact that it's a scientific theory, shows this. Had there been compelling scientific evidence against evolution, it would not be considered a scientific theory - it would be considered a working hypothesis which would be modified over time.

As it stands now, the Theory of Evolution is the most tested, and probably the best supported scientific theory there is.

"Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. "Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board did promotes 'creationism' or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period."

No scientist would have a problem with others analyzing and evaluating the scientific evidence for anything, but the simple fact is that high school students are not able to do that. For people to be able to do that, requires a vast body of knowledge about not only biology, but also of related fields like biochemistry.

What will happen instead, is that the high school students will be presented by the lies of people like the John West, as if they were real problems with the science behind evolution. Incidentally, the DI press release refers to John West as "Dr.", perhaps in an attempt to confer some kind of authority to him. His Ph.d. is in political science, and of not relevance to this discussion.

The rest of the press release are just lies in the same vein, so I won't continue fisking it, but I can't let this claim go by

Discovery Institute has long endorsed the idea that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, including its unresolved issues.

This is probably the most blatant lie I've seen since George W. Bush's claims about WMD in Iraq. The DI was founded with the explicit purpose of getting intelligent design taught instead of evolution, and only after the Dover trial where Judge Jones rightfully found that intelligent design is Creationism wrapped in different languages, has the DI tried the new track of teaching the "holes" in evolution. The DI is an enemy of science, and trying to claim that they are for evolution being taught is such pure bullshit that it threatens to flood the world market for bullshit.

Defend science teaching in Texas

Came across this piece of news which I thought should be shared.

Longtime incumbent faces challenge from former educator in Board of Education race

The candidates running for the District 2 seat of the Texas State Board of Education want students to have the best education possible. But their views on what students should be taught in school differ greatly.

I expect that anyone reading my blog will quickly figure out what this is all about. Someone wants to introduce Intelligent Design (or neo-Creationism as I usually prefer to refer to it) in science class.

And keeping that in mind, I'll say that it's not true that both the candidates wants the students to have the best education possible. One of the candidates wants the students to receive proper education, while the other one wants to peddle nonsense to the students, possible disqualifying them from studying science, if they were so inclined.

So, who are the people involved.

Longtime board member Mary Helen Berlanga, a lawyer from Corpus Christi, faces opposition from Peter H. Johnston, a former educator from Wharton County, about 60 miles southwest of Houston. Johnston now owns The Joseph Group, a research firm that studies legal and public policy issues.

Berlanga is for proper science teaching, while Johnston (perhaps unsurprising given his background) has this to say about science:

Johnston, 55, a former school teacher and interim principal of Living Water Christian School in Rosenberg, said he believes schools should teach the strengths and weaknesses of all theories.

"By law (schools) have to teach the strengths and weaknesses of (all) scientific theories," he said. "A movement to take out the weaknesses, I think, would be a tremendous mistake and detrimental to students to compromise facts. Intelligent design is a bona fide scientific theory."

Scientific theories doesn't have any weaknesses. Otherwise they wouldn't be scientific theories. There might be issues that's unclear, but the overall ideas and concepts have been tried and tested true, and is not only supported by evidence, but have no evidence against them. It's true that there are certain scientific theories which are known to be unable to explain certain aspects, which tells us that there are still some adjustment to be done, but evolution is not one of these. The theory of evolution has been challenged for 150 years, and while it has been expanded, the fundamental idea still remains the same.

Intelligent design on the other hand, has no strengths nor weaknesses, as it's not a scientific theory. Since it explains everything by claiming that a non-defined intelligent designer did it in some non-defined way, it explains nothing. As such, it has nothing to do in science class (nor in philosophy class as some people seem to think).

So, if you're an Texan living in District 2, I urge you to vote for Berlanga.

Science's Waterloo!

Okay, couldn't resist taking a dig at a well-known neo-Creationist claims about scientists meeting their Waterloo (phrased differently, but that was the essence).

Why this dig? Well, because the following story takes place in the Waterloo Region (wherever that might be - there are quite a few Waterloos out there).

Anyway, I think that this is a great idea.

Science Superheroes and Explorations

Technology served up to young minds by local organizations

Teenagers love technology. In malls, on buses, in school yards, there is hardly a young person who isn't plugged into a cellphone, digital music player or video gadget.

But most young people don't see the connection between science and the technology that they are immersed in, David Yach, chief technology officer for Research In Motion, told school teachers this week during the launch of a Science Superheroes program for teachers.

"Kids don't grasp the link between the science and technology," he said.

Science Superheroes is the newest program of the Business and Education Partnership of Waterloo Region, an organization managed by the Communitech technology association that works to connect educators and students to businesses.

The partnership's program manager, Alayne Hynes, said Science Superheroes involves a series of lectures designed to connect teachers and department heads to "real-life" technology and science experts.

While it seems that the focus is somewhat narrow (no Earth sciences it sounds like), I still think it's great that they try to explain to people how technology and science is connected. There seems to be a blind spot on many people, so they don't realize that you need science to make technology better and better. Much like you need science to make medicine better and better. Tragically, some of the people who don't realize this, are engineers and doctors, who are some of the very people applying the science in their fields.

M.Creo?

I see that Texas is seriously considering approving a master's degree program for science education offered by the Institute for Creation Research, which is basically a master's degree in Creationism.

If I had a degree from any Texan institute of learning, I would certainly oppose this, as it totally negates the quality of all other educations approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. How can one trust any education approved by them, when they obviously don't have any understanding of what sound education consists of.

Another reason to oppose the education, is that it does the students a disservice. They can only use the education in a very narrow field (creationist institute), and won't be able to use it in society in general. If they change perspective at a later stage (e.g. become theistic evolutionists), they would end up with having no job prospects.

Anti-science should never be approved as an education.

People obviously prioritize differently

The ScienceBloggers are holding their annual fund-raising for DonorsChoose, trying to help underfunded schools give their students a better education.

Like last year, people have been generous in donating money (though I'm sue DonorsChoose could get more if they opened up for international donations). It's sad that it's necessary for such fund raising, but it's good that people are willing to give money to further these students' education.

Today I came across a good article on Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum. While reading that, I was once again struck by the cost of that museum.

It was funded through private donations, and cost $27 million. That's $27 million used to combat science and sound education.

Think of what those money could have been used to, if donated to organizations like DonorsChoose.

Currently the ScienceBloggers have raised $45,168 - an impressive amount - and funded projects that impact 10,654 students. In rough numbers, that $4.5 for every student impacted. Now, it obvious that such numbers don't scale, but let's say that it take ten times as much to impact a student when looking at a greater scale, i.e. for every $45 used, a student gets a slightly better education.

Now, using those numbers, if those $27 million had been used to help kids get a better education, they would have impacted 600,000 students. Heck, if we think it would take a hundred time as much to impact a student ($450), it would still have helped 60,000 students. That's sixty thousand students!

That's pretty sickening numbers. And it gets worse. AiG claims that the museum has had 200,000 visitors. According to the article, the entrance fee is $19.95. It's doubtful that everyone have paid the full price to get in, but if just half the claimed visitors have done so, it would still mean that the museum would have gotten approximately $2 million in revenues. That money could have funded another 45,000 or 4,500 students' education.

Instead those $29 million have gone towards teaching 200,000 people lies and anti-science. Some of those people are not going to buy into them, but too large a number will.