[Previous Article] | [Next Article]

[Back to Inside]

By Amy Geiszler-Jones

David McDonald, who does research in genetics, is among several WSU professors who are concerned about the impact of the Kansas Board of Education’s decision to eliminate evolution and related subjects from state science standards.

Science thrives on experimenting to test a hypothesis. But several WSU scientists are hoping a hypothesis they’ve formed over the past several weeks isn’t put to the test.

In the aftermath of the Kansas Board of Education’s decision to omit macroevolution, the big bang theory and related subjects from the state’s science standards, several WSU professors in the natural and social sciences say Kansas students may be shortchanged when it comes to getting a well-rounded education.

A small number of WSU professors say the decision is being blown out of proportion and what counts is that beliefs be respected.

While it applies only to K-12 education in Kansas public schools, the BOE’s decision has the potential to affect what happens in WSU’s classrooms in the future, said J. David McDonald, chair and associate professor of biological sciences.

"If this (decision) is taken to the local level, we can no longer assume that students know some things that we now assume that they know when they get here," said McDonald. "We’ll have to do some remedial education." McDonald suggested an entrance exam, similar to math and English placement tests, may also need to be considered. Remedial classes "will make higher education more expensive," McDonald said, noting students pay for those non-credit classes.

"(The decision) minimizes science," geology chair and associate professor Collette Burke said. "That minimization has to be made up somewhere along the line."

Everett Johnson, chair and professor of electrical and computer engineering, agrees that remedial instruction and entrance exams may be needed if evolution is that critical to certain fields. It happens already in math and English, subjects taught extensively in public schools, he said. In engineering, a field requiring a solid knowledge of math, students often need to take a remedial class. The same situation could apply to students entering fields where evolution is essential, he said.

He’s among the few WSU professors who thinkthe reaction to the BOE decision is out of proportion. He said never during his academic or professional career has he been asked if he understood the theory of evolution.

"Here in Wichita we produce some pretty effective aircraft and a lot of other things, too, and I’m sure a lot of these employees are not asked specifically what their belief in evolution or non-belief is," Johnson said, downplaying evolution’s significance outside the realm of natural sciences.

Psychology professor Gary Greenberg doesn’t agree. "You’re probably never asked about the meaning of literature but that shouldn’t stop you from reading it."

The BOE’s decision may also affect another segment of WSU’s students — those who intend to teach in public classrooms.

A WSU student teacher was caught by surprise when 12 students in an Abilene middle school asked to be excused from class when he mentioned the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Those who literally interpret the Bible’s creation story say it can’t be more than 10,000 years old.

When news broke about the BOE’s decision, e-mail messages were zipping across the globe, packing the mailboxes of WSU faculty.

Greenberg heard from colleagues in England, Poland and Scotland expressing disbelief in such an action.

"I haven’t even been able to open all the mail from one of the listservs I’m on," said Cathy Yeotis, an associate professor in curriculum and instruction who specializes in science education for teachers.

McDonald is concerned that students with degrees from Kansas universities will draw unfair speculation about the quality of their education when they enter the job market.

"The perception is that Kansas might not be committed to a full-featured education," he said. That perception could also hurt faculty recruitment. Biological sciences is readying for a new faculty search, and McDonald hopes the department won’t get the same response Kansas State University did when searching for two faculty last month. The president of the Carnegie Institution told them, in the ruling’s aftermath, that she would not recommend anyone to teach in Kansas where students may be ill prepared.

Collette Burke, who teaches paleontology and history of the Earth classes, will offer a new class covering evolutionary processes in geology, this spring semester in response to the Board of Education’s decision on science requirements. She’s holding an 1840s book about evolution and the Bible.

Proponents of the BOE decision point out that the board hasn’t banned the teaching of macroevolution or the big bang theories, but instead no longer requires it. The decision on whether to teach the theories will be left up to the state’s 304 local school districts.

WSU professors who work with science teachers say that may be the theories’ death knell.

If students don’t have to be tested on these theories, a number of teachers won’t teach them, they say.

"I think assessment drives the instruction," said Yeotis.

WSU alumnus Tyson Yager, who has taught science at Wichita East High School for seven years, said while he views the standards as "guidelines to focus instruction, not a specified set of rules to adhere to," new teachers might rely on them more heavily.

And if local school boards are left to decide the teaching of evolution, they may not be the best judges of what is legally permissible, according to a study Yager did last year.

Realizing the controversial nature of teaching evolution, Yager surveyed superintendents and local BOE presidents in Kansas on evolution and creationism for his thesis at WSU.

As part of his study, he presented various legal situations, asking, for instance, if it was "legally defensible" to give creationism equal time. (The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that banning the teaching of evolution and giving creationism equal treatment is unconstitutional.)

"In general, they didn’t have much of a clue," he said. "Superintendents were a little more knowledgeable on legal aspects but both groups missed a lot of those questions." On the equal time question, 24 percent of the BOE presidents got it right, while 35 percent of the superintendents knew the answer.

The level of education seemed to indicate tolerance, he found. The more educated an individual was, the more likely they were to support the teaching of evolution.

He also found larger school districts were more favorable to the teaching of evolution than the smaller districts.

"If any policies are to be changed, it will be in the smaller districts," Yager predicted.

If the general public doesn’t seem to understand the fuss being made about evolution, scientists may be to blame, said McDonald and Burke.

"We are vulnerable (in the sciences) because we are willing to admit we are wrong and are willing to throw out hypotheses that don’t work," Burke said. In a society where failures are not often seen as successes, the general public may not understand that’s how science works.

"Science has become so technically sophisticated and science education has lagged so far behind that the average citizen is often helpless in making sound distinctions between competing ideas such as evolution and creationism," McDonald wrote in a letter on his department’s Web site.

Scientists may have spent so much time buried in labs that they’ve not paid enough attention to the teaching of science or the public’s perception of science, he said.

Voter apathy also had a role in this decision, Burke said. When her students asked how such a ruling could have come about, she reminded them the BOE is an elected board.

Twyla Sherman, a professor in curriculum and instruction who specializes in elementary science education, said it’s possible more than just theories have been thwarted by the BOE decision.

She was part of a 27-member team that prepared the initial science standards later altered by three board members. The standards had relied heavily on copyrighted materials of three national science groups who recently denied copyright permission to the state BOE.

"The national standards are fairly new. They’ve been updated to reflect that students learn science better with hands-on experience," said Sherman. Most of the state’s standards had used passages from the national standards when referring to "full inquiry."

If the state BOE strikes those passages, that will deal another blow to science education, said Sherman.

"Students are going to come with us without the ability to do inquiry," she said.

The board is expected to look at how the groups’ action changes the standards at its October meeting.