What can we do to help improve science education in the US?

I've got a lot more empathy for kids than you exhibit.

I think kids should be guided in their aspirations to be doctors, engineers, inventors, writers, historians .........

........not NBA players, NFL players or MLB players.

Do the math.

How many slots are open in the country for major league sports players? Maybe a few thousand at best. They have careers that average 2-3 years in the sport and they are out.

How many opportunities are there for kids who can read, write, know their math, their history, achieve in science? Millions of opportunities.

You do a great disservice to kids if you are encouraging them to consider pro sports as a profession, POM.

Teach them to read. Spend school money on teaching something that will benefit them.

If they want to play sports, perform music or act then let them do it after school.

Try this with a kid: Ask him, 'Tell me about the University of Florida (or any big university) ' and see if the first thing 8 out of 10 (or more ) mention is the sports program.

We give students the wrong perspective on education, POM. The University is not there just to field a football and basketball team.

Why can't a kid's heroes be those who are bright, creative, and educated? Because we steer them the wrong way. 'School spirit' is all about supporting the Homecoming Game, not the Science Fair.

Teachers and admins kowtow to athletes and send the message that kids who study hard are window dressing because what really excites us is going to State Championships in (name the sport).


btw I did not advocate ending recess or PE, so maybe you can brush up on your reading comprehension before you blast off next time.

real life wrote:

I've got a lot more empathy for kids than you exhibit.

I think kids should be guided in their aspirations to be doctors, engineers, inventors, writers, historians .........

........not NBA players, NFL players or MLB players.

Do the math.

How many slots are open in the country for major league sports players? Maybe a few thousand at best. They have careers that average 2-3 years in the sport and they are out.

How many opportunities are there for kids who can read, write, know their math, their history, achieve in science? Millions of opportunities.

You do a great disservice to kids if you are encouraging them to consider pro sports as a profession, POM.

Teach them to read. Spend school money on teaching something that will benefit them.

If they want to play sports, perform music or act then let them do it after school.

Try this with a kid: Ask him, 'Tell me about the University of Florida (or any big university) ' and see if the first thing 8 out of 10 (or more ) mention is the sports program.

We give students the wrong perspective on education, POM. The University is not there just to field a football and basketball team.

Why can't a kid's heroes be those who are bright, creative, and educated? Because we steer them the wrong way. 'School spirit' is all about supporting the Homecoming Game, not the Science Fair.

Teachers and admins kowtow to athletes and send the message that kids who study hard are window dressing because what really excites us is going to State Championships in (name the sport).


btw I did not advocate ending recess or PE, so maybe you can brush up on your reading comprehension before you blast off next time.

This is complete bosh. When and where did I ever encourage kids to go into professional sports.

Where do baseball/football/basketball players come from without school sports and fitness programs?

When I read your second to the last reply, I decided you were crazy. You have just confirmed it.

My own orientation is extremely academic. I was in the National Honor Society and an award winning writer,

not a member of any sports team and I do not encourage kids to aim for professional sports.

You've gone on a tear for nothing.

As for kids who know how to read and write making a great deal of money, well, that is far from true.

Try responding to what people post hear and not to the products of your imagination.

I am advocating for recess, music, art, journalism.

Don't go away angry, just go away. You're completely unable to follow the thread.

Most of our schools are failing to adequately educate a sizable percentage of students in math, science, history, reading and writing. Would you agree with that?

Most of our schools are failing to adequately educate a sizable percentage of students in math, science, history, reading and writing. Would you agree with that?

Why can't a kid's heroes be those who are bright, creative, and educated? Because we steer them the wrong way. 'School spirit' is all about supporting the Homecoming Game, not the Science Fair.

plainoldme wrote:

Where do baseball/football/basketball players come from without school sports and fitness programs?

I am not too concerned 'where the football players' of the future will come from. Perhaps you are. But I don't see it as one of the critical missions of our schools to insure an adequate supply of trained entertainers for the NFL, NBA and MLB.



Most of our schools are failing to adequately educate a sizable percentage of students in math, science, history, reading and writing. Would you agree with that?

real life wrote:

Why can't a kid's heroes be those who are bright, creative, and educated? Because we steer them the wrong way. 'School spirit' is all about supporting the Homecoming Game, not the Science Fair.

plainoldme wrote:

Where do baseball/football/basketball players come from without school sports and fitness programs?

I am not too concerned 'where the football players' of the future will come from. Perhaps you are. But I don't see it as one of the critical missions of our schools to insure an adequate supply of trained entertainers for the NFL, NBA and MLB.



Most of our schools are failing to adequately educate a sizable percentage of students in math, science, history, reading and writing. Would you agree with that?

Intellectuals were lionized at the high school I attended. The prom court was made up of members of the National Honor Society.

If kids fail to look up to bright, creative people, maybe it is because they're parents are losers who have no respect for anyone and who ridicule achievers constantly.

The second group of quotes has a context, something you obviously fail to recognize. Reading comprehension poor, eh?

Finally, you can not say "most" of our schools. Did your school fail to teach you or did you fail to learn?

BTW -- real life, how ridiculous of you to suggest that I -- of all people -- am defending the status quo. Try to figure out what I am saying and have said for a life time.

Get you lot off the case and put some professionals in charge.

Well ros- when professional footballers get in a mess they get in some fresh ones in the hope, often disappointed I'll admit, of getting out of the mess.

Assuming it is a mess which I don't necessarily do. That's your idea. In pro football they know how to measure it. It's scientific.

You are the only Superpower left. How can that be a mess?

spendius wrote:

Get you lot off the case and put some professionals in charge.

The professionals are in charge. It's a mess. Now what?

The momentum of the 50's and 60's makes us a superpower. The mess we have now in education could make us a super-powerful loose cannon in the not too distant future.

rosborne979 wrote:

spendius wrote:

Get you lot off the case and put some professionals in charge.

The professionals are in charge. It's a mess. Now what?

Ros you do a good imitation of me on occasion.

Some would say the United States is already a loose cannon.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Some would say the United States is already a loose cannon.

I know. And this is our first taste of a born again christian president who wants to "teach the controversy". Just think how much fun things are going to be when there are more of them.

The whole world should be worried about the US education system.

The places where schools produce the poorest results are mostly large cities where the mayor and school boards are predominantly liberal Democrat.

Possibly you would want to contend that the Bush presidency 'predicted' the poor performance of public schools since it was already a long established fact before he showed up.

Kansas gives science a rare political win

By Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor

The election that captured headlines last month was Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut, but the race that interested us was in Kansas, where voters ousted two state school board incumbents, tipping the balance on the board back toward teaching evolution in the public schools. It was a rare victory for science in the realm of politics.

Sadly, the integrity of science doesn't count for as much as it should where politicians are involved -- and not just on state school boards. The Bush administration and its conservative allies in Congress and industry have routinely and systematically curbed scientists' independence by reshaping, rewriting and suppressing scientific analysis that is inconsistent with the heavily political agendas of special interests, from chemical and oil companies to the religious right.

A case in point is the Food and Drug Administration's recent but long-delayed approval of Plan B -- the ``morning-after pill'' -- for over-the-counter sales, in response to a petition several years ago from the drug's manufacturer.

The FDA's various professional and scientific arms, including the advisory panel in charge of reviewing the safety and efficacy of over-the-counter medications and reproductive drugs, recommended approval. Yet the FDA's political officials ignored the final, overwhelming vote by those scientists, instead rejecting the petition at the behest of religious fundamentalists.

Only under intense pressure did the political appointees finally get out of the way of the scientists and medical professionals and approve the petition.

Other examples of the administration's disrespect for science and the scientific community are legion. They include:

• Editing, by White House staff, of a scientific assessment of global warming in an Environmental Protection Agency report to Congress.

• Revising a National Cancer Institute Web site to suggest that women who have had abortions are more likely to have breast cancer (an assertion unsupported by science).

• Stacking government agencies' various scientific advisory committees with pro-industry scientists or with candidates with scant scientific experience but impeccable ideological credentials.

Meanwhile, some administration allies have taken to harassing scientists whose findings threaten industry profit.

One internationally recognized global-warming expert, Professor Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, had to spend hundreds of hours away from his research when Rep. Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, demanded detailed responses to a lengthy series of questions drawn from a critique of his research produced not by scientists but by an economist and a businessman. The National Academy of Sciences and others protested Barton's demand, but the expert, whose work had been replicated and peer-reviewed, still had to submit to Barton's congressional subpoena.

With the powers-that-be showing such disrespect for science, Kansas-style victories for science over ideology are all the more important. But cleaning up the damage done to science over the past few years requires more than sending a few school board members packing. The problem goes beyond the White House, the executive agencies and Congress; in the courts, scientific research and analysis are increasingly subject to interference and ideological assault.

Fixing the problem requires, first and foremost, a new commitment from all players to quit treating uncertainties in scientific research as justification for inaction on public health, environmental protection, worker safety and the approval of new drugs. Science informs policy decisions, and research must be as good and complete as possible. But decision-makers should take responsibility for what they do or fail to do, and stop hiding behind claims that ``the science isn't there yet'' to defer action.

Specific reforms are in order, too. They include the insulation of research from inappropriate pressure from interested parties, including political appointees and industry; legal reforms to protect scientists from baseless litigation aimed at punishing them for their findings; increased funding for research so that important but under-researched issues (such as the effects of pesticides) are explored even if industry would rather they not be; and insistence by regulatory agencies that scientists submitting research for rule-making procedures disclose any conflicts of interest -- paychecks from the regulated industry, for example.

Many of the immediate risks from politicizing science are clear: chief among them, harm to public health and the environment because of the failure to adopt needed safeguards against a variety of hazards. But the long-term threat is that by treating scientific findings as if they were just another piece of political rhetoric -- something to be attacked, suppressed and abused rather than respected -- we devalue the importance of scientific exploration. Kansas voters sent an important message in that regard this summer. Let's hope others follow suit. is a law professor at the University of Maryland. They are the editors of ``Rescuing Science from Politics.'' They wrote this article for the Baltimore Sun.