Zack Koppelin is a hero of public education.
Zack is the first student to join the honor roll.
Zack is 17 years old. He opposes the use of public funds for voucher schools that teach creationism.
He is outspoken. He is fearless. He is smart. He is courageous.
He is a model for the adults who wring their hands and say, “what can we do?”
While Governor Bobby Jindal has been coddling the fundamentalists, Zack has stood up to them.
Jindal is prepared to destroy not only public education, but science education.
Zack says the Governor is wrong.
If every state had 100 students like Zack Koppelin, our nation would be a different place.
Here is today’s press release about his latest activism:
October 25, 2012
Contact:
Zack Kopplin
Zack Kopplin, evolution activist to appear before the Louisiana State Board of Education to urge reforms to Louisiana’s creationist school voucher program.
Who: Louisiana State Board of Education and Zack Kopplin
What: Per the request of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, the Louisiana State Board of Education will allow public comment on Louisiana’s tuition voucher program. Science advocate Zack Kopplin will urge the removal of 20 schools he identified that are teaching creationism in the program.
When: Today, Thursday, October 25, 2012 AT 2:00 PM
Where: Louisiana Department of Education, Claiborne Building, Louisiana Purchase Room
The meeting will be streaming online at http://streaming.louisiana.gov/viewerportal/vmc/home.vp
Testimony, video, and background material are available upon request.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, I respectfully and completely disagree with you. I think Zack is wrong. Why are you so opposed to teaching the world views of millions of people? I think it is healthy to have discussions about these matters. I don’t think the public school should be the thought police of everyone, as people, even students have an interest in learning and discussing about the beginning of the world issues.
Again, you should look into the Finnish curriculum. There kids learn about the different world views without sensorship. I think American kids are missing out on these important topics.
It’s one thing to learn *about* these topics. It’s quite another to have taxpayer money funding the teaching of these topics as *fact*.
Teach your children your religious views at home and in your place of worship. In school, children should learn valid science in science classes, not Biblical ideas about the origins of the world.
I think students need to be educated on cultures and religions as well as scientific theories. Just because you disagree with the faith based theories does not make them invalid.
@Kirsi – You are correct, especially when a scientific theory purportedly aims at retelling where human beings came from. Religions have taken their shot at this controversial problem for years, and they have the tools to do it. Investigating where humans originated is automatically a religious question as our bias about who or what, or lack thereof, got us here.
Science does not have the tools for such an investigation, that is unless you want to use science as a religion. Evolutionists have done a very fine job of this and have erected a god that is more stupidnatural, in his/her/its approach, than supernatural. The god of evolution strikes me as a lazy ignoramus that may have got the whole thing going with a big bang, and then got too drunk to actually take part in order that natural selection run its course.
Evolution has succeeded in one thing, and its not very scientific – creating a new god that works like science says.
Many people do not believe in this new god, yet they send their public schools and support those schools unequivocally. I’d say they are the most open-minded people in this country.
The First Amendment restricts the government from getting excessively entangled with religion. Putting religion in science classes would certainly be an entanglement. It also seems obvious that teaching of religion does not belong in science class any more than you’d want the scientific method applied to religious texts.
I didn’t submit that creation ought to be taught in biology class – only that evolution may be as religious as creation.
“I think American kids are missing out on these important topics.”
Being a free thinker who accepts neither religious or political labels/categorizations I consider “these important topics” (and what an obfuscating and deceptive way to describe what more likely than not are “christian” topics) to be quite trivial and absurd. Human societies would be better off if “these important topics” were taught to be the trash thinking that they are.
Keep your “important topics” to yourself.
nor not or
Thanks for the correction. How many languages do you speak or write besides English? 😉
Kirsi,
I’ll reply here to your question as if I reply to your post it will end up being very narrow-1-2 words per line.
Hablo dos lenguas. Y no hay duda de que es muy importante aprender de otras lenguas y culturas porque “cultura es lengua y lengua es cultura”. En contraste de lo que piensas, sí, si una teoría se basa en las creencias religiosas, no es válida la mayoría de veces.
The science behind evolution reminds me of the ‘science’ behind VAM.
Without the ability to observe, repeat, and control phenomena, science is sacrificed. VAM is junk science because we cannot pinpoint a teacher’s effect on student learning, even if we use standardized testing as a source of measurement (standardized testing outcomes are a piss poor way of measuring teacher effectiveness). There are too many variables involved to control experimentation, and the social context of teaching makes it very difficult to observe and repeat exactly what a teacher does to help kids learn.
In terms of evolution, we have no ability to observe and repeat one-time historical events, and therefore, any ‘evidence’ that we ‘collect’, involving one-time historical events, is more storytelling than actual science. Evolution is a shot at retelling history, and real, hard science does not act in such a way, and real science does not tell stories.
VAM tells stories about a teacher’s effect that are neither true or logical unless someone is predisposed to believe the stories with an adverse agenda in mind. Evolution tells stories about where humans came from that are neither true or logical unless someone is predisposed to believe the stories with an adverse agenda in mind.
ME,
You have me “confundido”. Not quite sure what you are getting at. That “evolutionary theory” is no more scientific than, let’s say, christian biblical creationism??
The last paragraph confused me even more. Please, if you would succinctly state what you mean.
Gracias,
Duane
What I’m getting at is that VAM and evolution are junk science. There is no way to observe, repeat, and test their claims, other than in the words of stories. Storytelling is not science; explanation of observable, repeatable, and testable phenomena IS science.
It is a story to believe that living organisms today evolved from a single life form billions of years ago in the same scope as believing that linear regression accurately predicts a future event (predicted score of student) that hinges on what could amount to thousands of unknown and uncontrolled variables. Evolution makes post-diction (backwards prediction) statements involving one-time historical events (evolutionary events) for which it is impossible to observe, repeat, or test. VAM makes predictive statements involving future events for which it is impossible to observe, repeat, or test. It is impossible to lay claim that a student should, or even could, post a score on a standardized test based on historical scores given the innumerable amount of uncontrollable variables that affect the event – the same thing holds true for evolution going backwards. Nobody taped up the earth with crime tape billions of years ago to ensure what we observe on earth today accurately reflects what we think occurred millions of years ago (see uniformitarianism)
The last paragraph simply means that it takes a prerequisite agenda to believe VAM or evolution.
Well, no the scientific theory that most people mean when they say “evolution” is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is the theory that explains the observable fact of evolution. You can see it in fruit flies or bacteria because generations are so short lived.
“Natural selection is the theory that explains the observable fact of evolution.”
There is nothing “observable” about something that supposedly occurred millions of years ago.
And “natural selection” is not a theory, it is a mechanism. The theory of evolution IS the theory.
“You can see it in fruit flies or bacteria because generations are so short lived.”
What I can “see” in fruit flies or bacteria has nothing to do with what happened in the past.
That’s like saying that a student should post a score on a future standardized test based on what happened in the past – same concept, just backwards. Evolution and VAM do the same things, just in different direction of time. Evolution tells stories about what supposedly happened in the past, and VAM tells stories about what purportedly happens in the future (based on linear regression).
Of course, VAM was derived from economists, and they use a brand of science (economics) that is questionable in and of itself – it relies on forward looking statements which are impossible to observe, repeat, or test.
And creationism is NOT science, it is religion with a pebble’s size splash of history. Just so there’s no confusion there.
…I’m just not sure how much better evolution is.
Evolutionary science is the best explanation we have for the origins and development of the universe and of life. It is responsible for the great advances we have made in astronomy, biology, and medicine in the last one hundred years. It is based on the highest evidence from the empirical collection of data ranging from the fossil record to discoveries about the life cycle of stars and galaxies. It is based on following the evidence, not human hopes and fears about the universe.
Creationism, on the other hand, is based on human hopes and fears. It is one story among many in the history of human civilization. It was never intended to be based on scientific evidence because it originated in a pre-scientific period. Such a study tells us much about human psychology. It therefore does not belong in a science curriculum, but in a comparative religion curriculum.
“Evolutionary science is the best explanation we have for the origins and development of the universe and of life.”
Which doesn’t make it correct.
“It is responsible for the great advances we have made in astronomy, biology, and medicine in the last one hundred years.”
Just like RttT has doubled reading achievement in turnaround schools, right?
Red Herring.
“It is based on following the evidence, not human hopes and fears about the universe.”
It’s easy to eradicate “human hopes and fears about the universe” when there is no God, or the god designed by such a system doing the eradication is a lazy bum that lets natural selection do his work. I surely fear no such god.
And following historical evidence from fossils, and piecing a story together, is altogether different than observing and testing gravity. Different science breeds different veracity. Hard science vs. soft science – look into it.
“Creationism, on the other hand, is based on human hopes and fears. It is one story among many in the history of human civilization. It was never intended to be based on scientific evidence because it originated in a pre-scientific period. Such a study tells us much about human psychology. It therefore does not belong in a science curriculum, but in a comparative religion curriculum.”
Agreed.
Just one question: do you have any credentials in biology?
Appeal to authority.
And, I have taught more science, including biology, than I’d even like to take credit for.
It makes me tired just thinking about it.
So which makes me unqualified – the fact that I believe creationism is not science, or that I believe evolution is not science, or at least not very good science?
The “appeal to authority” argument only applies to opinion based subjects, not fact based ones. Sorry, but when it comes to evolution, I’ll trust those who have spent their lives studying biology over someone who’s taught science classes.
You are appealing to authority by claiming that evolution is science and fact because scientists say so.
And you can TRUST evolutionists, but you have no idea how science works.
Theories in science are not factual when they demand “trust” in a group of people. Theories in science are factual when they follow the methodologies and philosophies of science when they are tested, they generate data that fit predictions, and they are based on conclusions from data (without bias).
The theory of evolution follows none of those prerequisites, therefore it is not science – not because I said so, but because of logic and the scientific method.
Science is never settled. It is always testing the evidence. To say evolution “is the best” explanation based on the evidence is not a weakness, it is its strength. It too is evolving. We will descend into another Dark Age is we go back to basing life on hopes and fears rather than evidence.
Evolution has taken science into the dark ages, right along with VAM.
People believing in things that are not true.
How does one tell a “hero of public education” from a mouthpiece of Barbara Forrest?
FWIW:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eNYOmlbrbJEC&pg=PA231&dq=greenberg+%22Science,+Money,+and+Politics%22+evolution&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7eaJUNmeOsXDygH9koD4Aw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=greenberg%20%22Science%2C%20Money%2C%20and%20Politics%22%20evolution&f=false
What about Nihil Goyal?? He is also 17 and wrote a book on education. He opposes standardized testing and merit pay for teachers.
http://vimeo.com/49114442
Instead of debating the merits of creationism vs. Evolution, I think the bigger picture here is that we have a student who is willing to look at two sides of an issue, critically evaluate them, and advocate for change. We want all our students to have these skills. This is how a democracy continues. How many of our future students will be able to do this after years of mind-numbing standardized tests and narrowing curricula?
So true.
Although you probably would not willingly accept the critical evaluation of evolution.
Just as the reformers are not willing to accept the critical evaluation of VAM – its full steam ahead.
I am not religious and not really much of a scientist, so the question of how we got here doesn’t concern me much, although evolutionists have presented a better argument for their side than creationists have. I’d rather not debate the merits of either side. The fact is that we’re here on this planet and we need to somehow work together for the common good.