Letters: Teaching the Teachers

Teaching the Teachers

One important component of school reform was missed ("What Works: Using Our Time Wisely to Support and Improve Public Education," June/July 2005), and that is university-level preservice teacher education. The experiences, projects, and requirements that a student receives in training impact the way he or she will teach. Many universities are going to Web-based courses as part of teacher education. I'd like to see more information on such courses -- their rigor, faculty training to teach in this manner, and student reaction to the quality of the experience.

Dr. Molly Wilson

Scientific Questions

Christopher Scott wants to keep students in the dark ("Stand By Science: Creationism Crowds the Curriculum," June/July 2005), because of a false fear that teaching intelligent design, or scientific criticisms of evolution, will harm their learning. Yet such arguments betray National Science Education Standards, which recommend that students engage in "identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations."

Teaching students critical and logical thinking or exposing them to alternative explanations of evolution will only better enable them to become skeptical thinkers capable of solving scientific questions faced by our society. It was Charles Darwin who wrote that "[a] fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." What would Darwin do?

Casey Luskin

Science must be open to examination and criticism -- just as education is. We can't let any of our beliefs influence what we teach. Though I'm not a biologist, I do know that both geology and astronomy have abandoned old ideas in the face of new discoveries by new technologies. All are met initially with disbelief, then the fight ensues to let the facts speak for themselves.

The major dispute between the evolutionist camp and intelligent-design advocates is in defining those "facts." Scott writes, "There is no scientific debate about evolution." But there are scientists throughout the world debating that very thing. Science can stand the scrutiny.

Sharon Jeffery

I thought education was about acquiring the ability to think for oneself. Christopher Scott apparently disagrees. While disparaging Stalin for squashing the teaching of an idea he opposed, Scott's entire article calls for that very action.

Though I was tempted to cancel my subscription, I realized I would be doing what Scott calls for by trying to rid from my education any ideas I don't agree with.

I believe high school students deserve access to a variety of ideas, not controlled exposure to a single idea. Which one sounds like communism to you?

Christopher McBride

As a biology teacher, I find it hard for anyone to write about science when they intentionally refuse to practice it. I challenge my students to test and experiment and observe what is going on around them. Science has flourished because men and women have been willing to look at the evidence and let it drive them to a conclusion, not form a preconception and then find (or create -- er, evolve) evidence to support that bias.

We sell our students short if we train them to blindly follow down the path of all those around them who are just blindly following someone else -- whether they are evolutionists or creationists.

Both evolution and creation are presented as undisputed religious ideas that are not open to any scrutiny or challenge of any kind. We should be ashamed of ourselves if we call ourselves science teachers and yet practice anything else in our classrooms.

Andrew Paradis

Those of us both inside and outside the scientific community who consider ourselves among the educated resent the idea of being lumped into a group of nonprogressive bigots who apparently didn't pay attention in class because we have the audacity to suggest that there is intelligence behind the incredible complexity of the universe.

It is a logical step to assume that if design rather than chance is an essential element of all that exists, then perhaps Darwin and his theoretical descendants may have at some point missed the boat. No doubt it would be considered a stumble of tectonic proportions to find out evolutionary theory was flat wrong after a century of being told the opposite.

But perhaps that, too, is why those who defend it as fact do so with such vehemence rather than give alternative theories of origin a cursory glance.

It is no more correct for scientists of this century to throw out morality and spiritualism as an element of our worldview than it was for philosophers of old to do the same with the scientific method. To suggest that evolutionary theory doesn't lead to a major paradigm shift of who or what is in charge and that isn't an important detail of what's taught in our schools is ludicrous at best.

John Oathaut

Dispatched

I was shocked by the anecdote written by Jennifer Corn in "The Visitors: By Invitation Only" (June/July 2005). She is correct in stating that school officials often are "troubling and disrespectful" in their interactions with teachers.

However, I was disappointed that Corn left the impression that the Open Court reading program is not one that can be successfully used with elementary schoolchildren. In fact, the OC program, when conducted in the manner it is designed to work, is one of the most time-effective means to teach children to read.

In this regard, Corn maintains that use of the OC program "stripped me of my ability to teach the way I know how." Unfortunately, this is a common complaint of teachers who refuse to adjust their reading instruction methodology so it is in keeping with the science of this teaching. When that happens, students' objective reading test scores usually plummet.

Patrick Groff

I was very saddened to read that Jennifer Corn is contemplating leaving teaching due to closed-mouthed administrators doing a Gestapo-like visit to her classroom.

This sort of visit, brought on by the Williams Act, was inflicted on thousands of California teachers. I got criticized for using social studies books that my English language-development students can actually read instead of the state-approved text that is above the reading level of 90 percent of my class, not to mention historically inaccurate. As described in the article, these days conformity has gotten to the point that kids must be marched through material whether or not it is appropriate to their needs.

I'm escaping into early retirement in another year. But it is so sad when obviously talented teachers who could have had many years ahead of them are being lost to the profession and to the students they'll never teach.

Susan Weikel Morrison

Time to Keep Learning Fresh

I enjoyed "Go Year-Round: A Push for True Summer School" (June/July 2005), but the problem with year-round school lies not with education; it lies with business and industry. Many states have tried for years to change the school calendar to one more suited to modern life, but the tourism industry continually lobbies against it. Texas has had the tourism industry pressing for years to, by law, have a school year from Labor Day to Memorial Day, and it looks like they may finally succeed for 2006.

Students and teachers do better with shorter, more frequent breaks. For seven of the eight years I taught in an alternative high school, we were on a year-round schedule of four nine-week blocks with two- to three-week breaks in between. Both students and teachers returned refreshed and excited. With a shorter summer break, there was much more continuity and retention of learning from spring to fall.

The three-week breaks in fall and spring allowed us to offer compacted courses for students to earn additional credits toward graduation, and it was highly successful. A fall break and longer spring break would present all schools with more effective tutoring opportunities for students who had fallen behind.

Barbara Paciotti

We in Arizona have numerous year-round schools that run nine weeks on, two weeks off, for the year, with about a month off for summer. What does this do? It gives students and staff a break every nine weeks, which keeps learning fresh and free from monotony, and gives some flexibility in the schedule. Plus, the students don't forget half of what they learned by having a long summer.

I am sure any change in the school year will be met with resistance from those who think it will cost money. Sometimes, we need to think of the cost if we don't do something.

Thank you for publishing opinions that make us think.

Tom Pasinski

At one time I would have agreed with Milton Chen on year-round schools, but that was when I didn't work in a school. Now that I have been librarian in a borderline inner city school for two years, my viewpoint has changed.

The leaders in the Long Beach School Librarians met recently for a relaxing backyard picnic, and the topic of year-round school came up. One commented that all year she was a vessel pouring out what students need, and it is imperative that there is some time to refill that vessel. She is an outstanding librarian and leader, and she is right. We all felt it. If we don't have some time to recharge our batteries, we won't make it through a year of 40 to 150 students at a time every period -- some of us get that from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. We must have some downtime.

Additionally, districts that have year-round schools are discovering there is no time to clean and repair the buildings. Some are changing back to the standard schedule so they can do just that. There are many things that can't be done when students are present, from using sprays and detergents to more physical repairs. If someone can come up with refilling vessels and making repairs while adhering to a year-round schedule, let us look at it.

I think anyone who has a voice in making rules and policy for education should spend a semester teaching in the classroom periodically. It really lets people see what truly goes on in a school.

Barbara J. Duffy

Letters to the editor are a vital part of the conversation. Send your thoughts, corrections, or even complaints to letters@edutopia.org, or Letters to the Editor, Edutopia magazine, P.O. Box 3494, San Rafael, CA 94912. Be sure to include your name, affiliation, and contact information. Letters may be edited for length and clarity prior to publication.