XplanaZine

Science teachers have a reason to pout. In 2004, Popular Science ranked teaching public school science as the 13th worst science job. The culprit generally cited for this dubious distinction is the No Child Left Behind Act and its relatively lenient science standards–students are required to pass math and reading tests every year, science only every three years. This policy leads to decreased funding for programs that typically cost more because of their need for lab materials and supplies.

Politics are increasingly playing a role in modifying–some say in diminishing–science education policies and standards. Controversial science topics continue to come under assault by advocates who don’t want them taught in public schools.

Eugenie Scott is the Executive Director for the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE looks to promote the teaching of evolution and “to keep the religiously based ideas, like the various creationisms, out of the science class.” Being no stranger to the politics of controversial science, Ms. Scott weighs in on the situation.

QUESTION: Test results suggest that American students lag behind in science education when compared to their foreign counterparts. What role is the political pressure playing?

ANSWER: K-12 teachers can be reluctant to teach controversial issues, such as evolution and ecology. And believe it or not, ecology can be controversial; in some districts it’s considered anti-capitalist. The reluctance of teachers to tackle controversial issues is detrimental to science education. But if I were to be honest, in the big scheme of things there are more important issues in science education in this country.

QUESTION: What is the effect of modifying the teaching of controversial issues?

ANSWER: If you want a population that understands how science works and understands why the topic of evolution is important to science, then the reluctance to teach evolution at the K-12 level has a very strong effect on science literacy.

But the overall institution of public school education in America is so vast that this one component–I would say any single component–has very little to do with the overall problem. If you corrected any single issue, you probably would not have a strong effect upon the overall teaching of science in the United States.

QUESTION: It’s no surprise that evolution is the focus of constant debate, but many would be surprised to hear that ecology is sometimes controversial. Are there any other areas we do not necessarily consider controversial?

ANSWER: Sex education is the classic. Those are the big three–sex ed, ecology, and evolution. There are any number of subsidiary areas–stem cells, cloning, all kinds of brave new discoveries in biology. But those aren’t really as important in terms of a high school student’s understanding.

QUESTION: Does the cap on stem cell research affect the bigger picture?

ANSWER: That particular area of science literacy doesn’t show up in the high school level. The controversy over stem cells has little to do with the science behind it. Both proponents and opponents of using stem cells agree you can produce stem cells. They agree you can get them from bone marrow and can do this or that with them. But their argument is not about whether you can but whether you should. So the actual science itself is not the issue. The issue is the use of the science.

That’s different from evolution. The opponents of evolution don’t like its implications in terms of what it means for human futures. Are you a moral person if you accept evolution?–that kind of stuff. The argument over evolution deals with the actual science behind historical events. Was the Grand Canyon cut by Noah’s flood? It’s the science itself that’s debated.

QUESTION: Could policies regarding the teaching of controversial science topics create a chilling effect, ultimately suppressing scientific curiosity in both high school students and their teachers?

ANSWER: If teachers feel they’re going to get beaten up by parents or administrators for broaching certain subjects, they’ll soft pedal or avoid those subjects. That does hurt the overall understanding of science by high school kids. A lot of people don’t get any science after they leave school. That is, if they don’t go to college, don’t read magazines, or don’t watch the Discovery Channel.

QUESTION: What role can popular culture play in rejuvenating scientific interest in kids?

ANSWER: I would like to see more pop science. We don’t treat science like other cultural components of our society, and that’s too bad. On the other hand, you wouldn’t want all understanding of science to come from pop culture. Young people get much of their understanding about sex from pop culture, but we sure wouldn’t want them to rely on it. That’s why some of us try to get sex ed in the schools.