18 States have adopted Next-Generation Science Standards for teaching

[klnOmega]

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curr...eration_science_standards.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-TW

Hawaii is the most recent one.

For those who don't know, the curriculum designed for grades K-12 (Found here: http://www.nextgenscience.org/get-to-know) emphasises dogma and idealogy over fundamental science. The whole thing is clogged from front to back with politically charged buzz topics at the expense of fundamental science.

Kids will spend huge amounts of time on climate change, "green" energy, the big bang theory, macro evolution, and other controversial topics, as fundamental and basic science is relegated to increasingly small sections of the curriculum.

If you have kids in any of these 18 states, pay close attention to what they are being taught, and make sure you supplement their classes with home teaching basic physical principles to prevent their learning from being stunted, and them being placed at a disadvantage against international students.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

Not sure what you mean by macro-evolution, but evolution is accepted everywhere in the developed world outside of America. Not teaching evolution would put American kids way behind the curve in terms of biological sciences. Everything from DNA (and genetics in general) through cell structure/biochem/organic chem to the development of species is in evolution, you're basically shutting out bioscience if you ignore it.

I agree that teaching physical principles is more important than teaching climate change and the big bang theory (when did the big bang theory become controversial - variations of it are accepted scientific theories, controversial early universe theories involve membrane multiverse theories etc). The big bang theory comes out of basic physical theories (everything from Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics through turbulence, general relativity, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, the standard model etc), and it can be mentioned as consequences of fundamental physics rather than as a topic in itself. And again, most of the world's top physicists will tell you that the fundamental physics behind variations of the big bang theory are pretty uncontroversial and tested. There is the problem of quantum mechanics and general relativity being ultimately contradictory (gravitation gives an infinite number of mathematical singularities when we try to quantize it), so they cannot both be simultaneously true - one of the attractions of string theory is that it doesn't have this problem, a spin-2 boson (ie a graviton) pops out of it naturally, but that's probably a bit involved for K-12 students.

I agree climate change is politically (though not scientifically) controversial. Green energy isn't about science, its about social policy (for good or for bad - just as every other energy policy is).

 

[sloppypie]

Kids will spend huge amounts of time on climate change, "green" energy, the big bang theory, macro evolution, and other controversial topics, as fundamental and basic science is relegated to increasingly small sections of the curriculum.

these aren't controversial topics except for right wing religious nuts.

 

[Skip Reming]

these aren't controversial topics except for right wing religious nuts.

it is making science in school political which it should not be. We all learned about the greenhouse effect and acid rain in school. They are day subjects not as important a say parts of an atom and etc.
Large chunks of the curriculum should not be based off what he listed

 

[klnOmega]

Not sure what you mean by macro-evolution, but evolution is accepted everywhere in the developed world outside of America. Not teaching evolution would put American kids way behind the curve in terms of biological sciences. Everything from DNA (and genetics in general) through cell structure/biochem/organic chem to the development of species is in evolution, you're basically shutting out bioscience if you ignore it.

I agree that teaching physical principles is more important than teaching climate change and the big bang theory (when did the big bang theory become controversial - variations of it are accepted scientific theories, controversial early universe theories involve membrane multiverse theories etc). The big bang theory comes out of basic physical theories (everything from Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics through turbulence, general relativity, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, the standard model etc), and it can be mentioned as consequences of fundamental physics rather than as a topic in itself. And again, most of the world's top physicists will tell you that the fundamental physics behind variations of the big bang theory are pretty uncontroversial and tested. There is the problem of quantum mechanics and general relativity being ultimately contradictory (gravitation gives an infinite number of mathematical singularities when we try to quantize it), so they cannot both be simultaneously true - one of the attractions of string theory is that it doesn't have this problem, a spin-2 boson (ie a graviton) pops out of it naturally, but that's probably a bit involved for K-12 students.

I agree climate change is politically (though not scientifically) controversial. Green energy isn't about science, its about social policy (for good or for bad - just as every other energy policy is).

How many American highschoolers do you think know what a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian is? How many know what the concept of an ensemble in statistical mechanics is? These are the things we should be teaching instead of climate change and big bang theory.

 

[klnOmega]

these aren't controversial topics except for right wing religious nuts.

I guess the hundreds of journal articles that come out every month claiming different things are all done by those nutty right wing religious scientists.

 

[klnOmega]

it is making science in school political which it should not be. We all learned about the greenhouse effect and acid rain in school. They are day subjects not as important a say parts of an atom and etc.
Large chunks of the curriculum should not be based off what he listed

Exactly, we are teaching them that CO2 is a greenhouse, without teaching them what makes a greenhouse gas. Students don't know about vibrational modes and ir spectroscopy. It would be much better to teach them that, and then they'll have the skills to evaluate claims about climate change and greenhouse gases themselves.

 

[ultramanhyata]

How many American highschoolers do you think know what a Hamiltonian is?

"Here's the bash. You got the Hamiltonians, brah?"

 

[StannisTheMannis]

its been going on for a long time. math is becoming dumbed down. i was checking my cousins physics book for 9th graders it basically had no math at all. i have no problem with it. less competition for us older engineers.

 

[IDL]

I think as long as the kids adhere to the politics of those financing whoever puts the education package together, that is most important.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Teaching green energy in Hawaii is the smart thing to do.

 

[Dayman1984]

The NGSS are much better than the common core standards in my opinion. They are much more coherent and in depth. For those that are worried about your kids being brain washed, please don't.

The information about global warming and such are minor parts of the science curriculum. And for people that talk so much about exchanges of ideas, what is so wrong with your kid learning some alternative ideas? You as a parent are free to debunk those ideas at home if you'd like; it's a perfect way to teach your kid about how people who have differing opinions don't have to be silenced and buried. Also, as a science teacher, I've yet to talk down to a kid because of their religious beliefs. Not only is it wrong to do, but you will probably get canned so fast you won't know whether to shit or wind your watch. Don't forget, there are still large swaths of the population in supposedly Godless left-wing areas that are still quite religious (African-American and Latino students, Korean Presbyterians).

Science is important. It is vital to learn, and the depth and breadth of science knowledge is extraordinary. Having your child miss out on that is sad. The excitement, and dare I say, joy, of learning about the natural world is something that every kid should experience.

 

[Thunderflash500]

It's similar to logic not being taught. It should be a fundamental class taught to anyone. It is the most basic and crucial class needed for a liberal education.

People get confused and think learning pop science makes them smart. Sure, believe in evolution. It won't help your life in any meaningful way and you're still an un-educated idiot. Repeating other people's discoveries doesn't make you smart or educated. That's why liberal college students just yell buzz words and when confronted they can't actually explain themselves. They know Pop science, Pop history, Pop sociology. But don't actually understand any of the fields of study on any real level.

They are like the guy from Breaking Bad praising science, the younger dumb drug dealer. When in reality they have no actual knowledge of it. They are brain dead morons with a lot of college debt. They are just being trendy idiots.

 

[Dayman1984]

It's similar to logic not being taught. It should be a fundamental class taught to anyone. It is the most basic and crucial class needed for a liberal education.

People get confused and think learning pop science makes them smart. Sure, believe in evolution. It won't help your life in any meaningful way and you're still an un-educated idiot. Repeating other people's discoveries doesn't make you smart or educated. That's why liberal college students just yell buzz words and when confronted they can't actually explain themselves. They know Pop science, Pop history, Pop sociology. But don't actually understand any of the fields of study on any real level.

They are like the guy from Breaking Bad praising science, the younger dumb drug dealer. When in reality they have no actual knowledge of it. They are just being trendy idiots.

I share your disdain for annoying college students, but it's not likely the chemical engineering, physics, and biochemistry majors are "yelling buzz words." They're too busy for that shit and if confronted probably could explain themselves.

 

[Thunderflash500]

I share your disdain for annoying college students, but it's not likely the chemical engineering, physics, and biochemistry majors are "yelling buzz words." They're too busy for that shit and if confronted probably could explain themselves.

Is it STEM field students in the news protesting Halloween? I of course support the study of the fields you mentioned. In those areas you need to have an understanding of something real. Physics isn't based on feeling and believing your answer is right. 2 + 2 does not = 5 no matter how much you believe it does. That's the difference.

Even people in those fields can be somewhat easily confused with out formal study of fallacies and logic.

 

[klnOmega]

The NGSS are much better than the common core standards in my opinion. They are much more coherent and in depth. For those that are worried about your kids being brain washed, please don't.

The information about global warming and such are minor parts of the science curriculum. And for people that talk so much about exchanges of ideas, what is so wrong with your kid learning some alternative ideas? You as a parent are free to debunk those ideas at home if you'd like; it's a perfect way to teach your kid about how people who have differing opinions don't have to be silenced and buried.

There is a time and place for everything. Schools shouldn't be about indoctrinating people into political ideologies. They should be learning fundamental facts, how to think/reason, and how to deal with adult life.

 

[Dayman1984]

There is a time and place for everything. Schools shouldn't be about indoctrinating people into political ideologies. They should be learning fundamental facts, how to think/reason, and how to deal with adult life.

I happen to agree with that. I guess what I'm trying to say is I have no interest in indoctrination as a teacher. I respect the views of my students and their families. I know I'm only one teacher but I think there's more like me than people realize.

 

[sloppypie]

it is making science in school political which it should not be. We all learned about the greenhouse effect and acid rain in school. They are day subjects not as important a say parts of an atom and etc.
Large chunks of the curriculum should not be based off what he listed

There's nothing political about those issues. Only to the religious right bc they have some serious mental problems.

To normal people it's just science. Maybe you need to go back to school or something - oh wait you can't do that, the liberals might get you there too.

Seriously dude, you seem too smart to talk so stupidly so often. Try learning stuff that isn't from a right wing blog, it's really nice here in reality.

 

[Thunderflash500]

There's nothing political about those issues. Only to the religious right bc they have some serious mental problems.

To normal people it's just science. Maybe you need to go back to school or something - oh wait you can't do that, the liberals might get you there too.

Seriously dude, you seem too smart to talk so stupidly so often. Try learning stuff that isn't from a right wing blog, it's really nice here in reality.

I don't think you understood his point. Maybe read before you tell others to read.

 

[sloppypie]

I don't think you understood his point. Maybe read before you tell others to read.

. I hate this shit like you guys have really complex points. You don't, I know exactly what he was talking about and you are all being idiots in this thread. No nice way to put this.