When policy-makers and education experts devise standards or make recommendations, they too forget local contingencies relevant to implementation. Focus is given to children’s developmental capabilities as they relate to the conceptual building blocks of important ideas.
For example, Catley and his colleagues recommend a learning progression for teaching
biological concepts, where basic ideas are learned in earlier grades and later concepts are built on top of those (Catley, Lehrer and Reiser 2005). Though theoretically such plans rest on sound logic and good research, they necessarily leave out important considerations. Local situations are not only relevant for the implementation of standards; they are also relevant when standards are actually being produced. In Tennessee, teachers are involved in the standards development process, and they have their own concerns.
Considerations based on practices in larger districts, such as Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, can have impacts on the process as well. For example, MNPS includes a course for eighth grade students who test above average for their grade level, which is called Physical Concepts. Students in this course do not take eighth grade science, and their curriculum is not based on the 8th grade science framework. In order to ensure that these students can perform adequately on the standardized test, the teachers of Physical Concepts teach an abbreviated version of the standard 8th grade curriculum. In light of this situation, many of the 8th grade science teachers who weighed in on the Science Framework advocated for more physical science topics to be included for the grade, so that they would have less additional material to cover for the test. Mostly for this reason, the Science Framework implemented in 2009 included 3 standards for 8th grade science, two of which were physical science related, and only one of which related to the life sciences.
If the draft discussed in the last chapter had been approved as written, eighth grade science teachers would presumably dedicate one third of class time throughout the year to
covering evolutionary theory. However, that draft was based mostly on expert recommendations.
When the draft was submitted to the Tennessee Board of Education on August 10, 2007, the Board requested that it be posted to allow for public feedback. The Department of Education posted the draft on the state’s web site to give the public an opportunity to review the Framework over a three month period before a revised draft would be due to the Board.
During that public review period, Linda Jordan and her editors received emailed
comments from sixty people regarding the draft of the Framework54. Slightly over half (32) were basically positive. Five of the comments, including two from higher education faculty in
Tennessee, complimented Dr. Jordan on the changes to the Framework. Another 8 reported errors, ranging from typos and duplications to technical inaccuracies. Nineteen of the comments asked for clarifications of specific standards or asked questions about when the new Framework would take effect. One question concerned one of the Course Level Expectations in Standard 5 of high school Biology I. The teacher was uncertain how to interpret a phrase—“Associate structural, functional, and behavioral adaptations with the ability of organisms to survive under various environmental conditions”—and requested clarification.
54 Dr. Jordan gave me records of all of the emails she received during this period of public review. My discussion in this section is based on these records.
131
The other 28 emails registered complaints about the new standards. Nearly all of these came from teachers and district curriculum specialists. The most frequent kind of complaint criticized the new Framework for giving teachers too much to cover or for requiring students to learn concepts that were too advanced for their age, based on ideas about mental development. A few were more general complaints about the fact that teachers had purchased course materials and invested time learning to teach concepts from the old standards. By shifting content from one grade level to another, these efforts are wasted, forcing teachers to “start all over” with new content. In one case, a school district had formed a committee made up of teachers and administrators, who conducted a review of the draft that resulted in several pages of
recommendations. While the Grade 8 standards were referenced, there was no indication that teaching evolutionary concepts in middle school was a problem they perceived.
Only four of the sixty people who commented were critical of the inclusion of evolution in the draft of the Framework. These were the only messages from parents and others outside of systems of education. The first message was sent on August 27, 2007 from an anonymous citizen using an email server that could be traced to Morristown, in eastern Tennessee. The message follows:
As a Christian parent, I am curious about whether evolution will be taught my daughter and when? Also, from the information I have read, the unit on Earth sounds like the Big Bang theory. Will this theory be taught as well? Is this being taught from K-12, in bits and pieces along the life of their school years, so they too will never acknowledge that God is the creator of all life? If this is so, count my girl absent for those days because we believe in Jesus!! Also, why confuse a child anymore than they already are. (I recall being confused and did not “sort” this stuff out until my early 30s. I could not understand why God created us from monkeys.) I loudly applaud those teachers who will not teach this in their classrooms. Concerned TN parent
Several observations can be made. First, the message from Concerned TN Parent communicates several ideas about evolution education that have historically concerned fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. The letter-writer expresses concern about “the Big Bang theory” along with evolution. Though the scientific community regards the two theories as completely distinct, concerning entirely different phenomena, time periods and matters, in the minds of many evangelicals, these the Big Bang is closely associated with evolution because both theories posit naturalistic accounts of origins, of the universe and of human beings,
respectively, which contradict a literal interpretation of the creation account in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.
The effects of teaching these ideas are imagined to be twofold. On one hand, they are confusing for Christians who are taught that God created humans and the world. Concerned TN Parent recalls “being confused” about “why God created us from monkeys.” On the other hand, they are naturalistic explanations of origins, and thus do not “acknowledge that God is the creator of all life.” Both of these issues stem from a belief that such ideas are intrinsically incompatible with Christian faith. After all, the letter-writer indicates that “we believe in Jesus”
is sufficient explanation for opposition to withholding a child from school when they are taught.
Second, the letter-writer gives no indication that s/he has actually seen the draft of the Framework. The comments are phrased as questions about “whether evolution will be taught and when.” S/he alludes at one point to “the unit on Earth,” but does not identify anything in
particular from the draft. Instead, she says that her impressions come “from the information I have read.” Because the writer gives no indication of grade level or specific standards, it is
132
impossible to determine which of the units “sounds like the Big Bang theory.” In the Science Framework, Standard 6, grouped under “Earth and Space science,” concerns the Universe and has the following guiding question: “What big ideas guide human understanding about the origin and structure of the universe, Earth’s place in the cosmos, and observable motions and patterns in the sky?” No specific theories are ever mentioned under Standard 6 for any grade level so it does not appear that she was basing her impression on the draft itself. In noting the unlikelihood that the letter writer read the draft of the Framework, it is not my purpose to detract from the comments. Instead, it reveals something about the manner in which s/he was motivated to publicly comment on the Science Framework.
Finally, the writer expresses disapproval without ever requesting the Department of Education to change the standards in the draft. Certainly it is clear that the writer does not believe that evolution and the big bang should be “taught from K-12, in bits and pieces along the life of their school years.” Instead of suggesting changes, Concerned TN Parent alludes to two forms of action available to resist the standards. One form of resistance is that parents may withhold their children from school during the days such ideas are taught. The other form of resistance noted is that teachers may elect to simply not cover these topics in their classrooms.
This approach is perhaps surprising. Concerned TN parent is writing the state of Tennessee on a forum designated for comments on the Science Framework, but uses the opportunity not to request the state to modify policy, but instead to remind state actors that the citizens of Tennessee have tools at their disposal to invalidate those policies that do not conform to community sensibilities.
The second letter-writer was Mitch Carter, a 7th grade science teacher in Williamson County, though he did not mention his profession or position in his letter55. His entire message follows:
Dear Dr. Jordan,
Thank you for allowing public review and comment on the revisions to the state K-8 science curriculum standards. It is this step in public policy changes that achieves the very best for all concerns and groups of people. Also, thank you for the thoughtful approach that is evident in the revised curriculum standards.
I am a taxpayer and voter in the fifth Congressional District. I am interested in what is being promoted taught in Tennessee public school with my tax money.
I must take exception to the revisions to Standard 5: Diversity and Change. The revisions, as written, are an obvious explanation of only one view of the natural world – an
evolutionary worldview. The curriculum is missing a balanced viewpoint. The
evolutionary viewpoint is not the only explanation concerning this benchmark. Tennessee students are not being taught the whole story.
The problem with teaching a single viewpoint is that it begins to give the impression that it is the only viewpoint. No matter the intentions of the teacher, without a balanced
approach, it comes across that the evolutionary explanation is fact. The fact is that genetic variability is a result of the recombination of the encoded information that existed the beginning of the population. Organisms adapt and respond to their environment in the way in which they were designed to respond.
I am also very interested in the report Commissioner Dr. Lana Seivers will give to the General Assembly in response to S.R. 17 by Senator Finney: A resolution to request the
55 I recognized his name and email address, having already been in contact with him regarding a related incident.
133
Commissioner of education to provide answers to questions concerning creationism in public school curriculum’s in Tennessee.
I propose that the revised K-8 state science standards reflect a balanced worldview in regards to Standard 5: Diversity and Change. A revision of this sort will give Tennessee students a more complete understanding of this curriculum standard.
Sincerely, Mitch Carter56
(Email sent 9/5/2007)
It is important to note that his message was sent not only to Dr. Jordan, but also copied to Gary Nixon, the chair of the Tennessee Board of Education.
Another letter was sent by a woman affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Foundation, an investment institution for the Tennessee Baptist Convention. Her letter was noticeably similar in format to the last letter:
Ms. Jordan,
I am a parent of two elementary age children. My children attend Shayne elementary in South Nashville. I have been very pleased with Shayne, the administration and especially the teachers. My boys have had a positive experience thus far and hope to continue thriving in Metro schools.
It has come to my attention that the state is revising the science curriculum. As I read the standards. I was glad to see that the state has been very thorough in the review. I am very concerned, however, about standard five: diversity and change. This revision overlooks facts that disprove evolutionary theory. Please reconsider this standard.
I am very interested in the report Commissioner Seivers will give to the General Assembly in response to S. R. 17 by Senator Finney: A resolution to request the commissioner of education to provide answers to questions concerning creationism in public schools, curriculums in Tennessee.
Thank you for your time.
Bonnie Sneed
(email sent 9/14/2007)
It is difficult to miss the fact that both messages have similar organization and wording in certain places. Both begin with a general compliment about the standards, and a personal
introduction that identifies the message writer as affected by them. Both then explain why they are opposed to the treatment of evolution in the standards. Most strikingly, both include nearly identical statements regarding interest in “S. R. 17.”
Senate Resolution 0017 was a bill proposed in February of 2007 by Tennessee Senator Raymond Finney. At the time, Sen. Finney represented the 8th District, comprising Blount and Sevier counties in the northeastern part of the state. His resolution was “to request the
commissioner of education to provide answers to questions concerning creationism and public school curriculums in Tennessee.”57 Had it passed, it would have requested the education
commissioner Dr. Lana Seivers to submit, in writing, responses to a series of questions. Because any summary of this resolution would fail to capture appropriately its tone, rhetoric and logic, the entire resolution is quoted here:
(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?
56 “Mitch Carter” is a pseudonym. When I interviewed this teacher, I promised not to identify him by name.
57 http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/105/Bill/SR0017.pdf
134
Understand that this question does not ask that the Creator be given a name. To name the Creator is a matter of faith. The question simply asks whether the Universe has been created or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences.
Further understand that this question asks that the latest advances in multiple scientific disciplines –such as physics, astronomy, molecular biology, DNA studies, physiology, paleontology, mathematics, and statistics – be considered, rather than relying solely on descriptive and hypothetical suppositions.
If the answer to Question 1 is “Yes,” please answer Question 2:
(2) Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?
If the answer to Question 1 is “This question cannot be proved or disproved,” please answer Question 3:
(3) Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?
If the answer to Question 1 is “No” please accept the General Assembly’s admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others.
According to the Tennessee government’s records online, the proposed resolution did not even make it through the Senate Education Committee, and so was never voted on by the General Assembly.58 It was pronounced dead before June of 2007 following considerable negative press and a lack of support even within the Republican-controlled Tennessee Senate.59
Given its moribund status, it is odd that both letter-writers seemed to believe that it had or would be adopted when they wrote their letters in September of that year. However, the fact that they mentioned it suggests two things. First, their nearly identical phrasing along with the overall similarity of their letters suggests the two letter-writers were somehow in contact, or part of a larger campaign intended to affect the standards. As will be noted below, there seems to have been such a campaign among citizens in Williamson County at the time, though it is puzzling that the campaign would have resulted in only two emails sent to Linda Jordan. Second, it suggests that S.R. 17, and its rhetoric, was an important motivating factor for the writers. The logic it presents—that any uncertainty over the ultimate origins of the universe ought to
necessitate teaching creationism in science classrooms—must have seemed compelling to them.
Reference to Senator Finney’s proposed resolution is interesting as a window into the logic behind opposition to Standard 5. The resolution represents what its authors and supporters must have believed to be an airtight case. This case rested on two logical steps. First, that there is a possibility that a supreme being created the universe and everything in it. This step follows from any of the three possible responses anticipated for the first question. If the commissioner had responded that the universe was not created by a supreme being, her certainty about the answer to a question that is arguably impossible to determine would have been regarded as hubris and arrogance. Any naturalistic account of origins was thus destined to be impugned and doubted. Had she responded that the universe was created by a supreme being, the resolution’s response would not have been to highlight the uncertainty intrinsic to such a question. Indeed, if she had answered that it was created or if she had answered that it was impossible to know, the
58 http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SR0017&ga=105
59 http://ncse.com/news/2007/06/tennessee-creationist-measure-is-dead-now-001112
135
next logical step was basically the same. The commissioner’s answer would have been followed by what the authors must have intended as a rhetorical question: “Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?” Whether there was a creator, or there simply might have been a creator, the implication seems to be that creationism ought to be taught in Tennessee public schools, at the very least, as an alternative to evolution. In other words, any doubt about naturalistic explanations automatically implies that a supernatural explanation ought to be included as well.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that, had the resolution passed, the Education Commissioner would have had a number of options for handling it other than to agree to the allow creationism to be taught. Since it was merely a request, the Commissioner may have chosen not to comply. The Commissioner may have answered the first question in some way other than “Yes” or “No” or “The question cannot be proved or disproved,” and then would have answered the question to the full extent that was requested (since no follow-up questions are indicated for any other response). A different response is not difficult to imagine, especially since the third option does not make any sense: How could a question be proved or disproved?
Had the Commissioner chosen to answer the second or third question, she may have pointed out that creationism actually may be taught in Tennessee public schools, in a social studies course or a Bible literacy course. She may have pointed out that teaching creationism in science classrooms has been determined by courts to violate the Tennessee Constitution and U.S.
Constitution. She may have stated that creationism is a religious rather than scientific account of origins and thus is not appropriate for science classrooms. She may have noted that time in classrooms is limited, and it is not practical to give time to every possible explanation for the origin of the universe, particularly since the possibilities are far more than those mentioned in the resolution. Regardless of the possibilities (and the reader may wish to add to this brief list), the point is that the author of the resolution and its supporters, including these two letter-writers, must have imagined that the only logical conclusion based on the premises—either there is a creator, or we do not know with certainty that there is not a creator—is that creationism ought to be taught in public schools.
The science coordinator Dr. Linda Jordan responded to each of these three messages without referring to Senator Finney’s resolution. Because the responses were extremely similar, it serves to treat all three simultaneously. First, she expressed gratitude for the comments, but then points out that the standards are aligned with national standards developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Resource Council. All of these authorities establish evolution as a topic that ought to be included in K-12 standards. She emphasizes, by invoking specific publications and authoritative bodies, that the Framework ought to be accepted. She then writes:
The national standards document takes the position that science is taught in science class, therefore, the state science standards only reflect science concepts. If the student desires to study religious thought, there may be other courses available within a school district that can serve this purpose. Most science teachers do not receive any religious training in their teaching preparation courses. Because religious beliefs vary greatly from one religion to the next, religious viewpoints are best taught in the home or in the respective churches where highly trained, educated professionals are able to answer all of the