Archives for category: Curriculum

Is it possible that a math test could be dangerous? This teacher educator, Kassia Omohundro Wedekind, says yes. She says the iReady Assessment is dangerous.

She explains:

This school year Fairfax County Public Schools, the 10th largest school division in the United States, adopted the iReady assessment as a universal screener across all of its elementary schools. Students in grades K-6 take these assessments individually on the computer three times per year, and the results are made available to both teachers and parents.

According to Curriculum Associates, the company that makes iReady, these assessments are an “adaptive Diagnostic for reading and mathematics [that] pinpoints student need down to the sub-skill level, and [provides] ongoing progress monitoring [to] show whether students are on track to achieve end-of-year targets.”

The Fairfax County Public Schools website further asserts that iReady is a “tool that has the potential to streamline Responsive Instruction processes, promote early identification and remediation of difficulties and improve student achievement.”

While I have found this assessment deeply troubling all year, it has taken me a while to be able to articulate exactly why I think this assessment is so dangerous, and why I think we need to use our voices as teachers, administrators and parents to speak out against it.*

So, let’s get back to the claim in the title of this blog post. iReady is dangerous. This might sound like hyperbole. After all, this is just a test, right? In this era of public schooling, children take many assessments, some more useful than others, so what’s the big deal with iReady?…

Based on the scores, iReady generates a report for each student for each of the domains. The report offers a bulleted list of what the student can do and next steps for instruction. However, if you take a look at the finer print you’ll learn that these reports are not generated from the specific questions that the child answered correctly or incorrectly, but rather are a generic list based on what iReady thinks that students who score in this same range in this domain likely need.

The teacher can never see the questions the child answered correctly or incorrectly, nor can she even access a description of the kinds of questions the child answered correctly or incorrectly. The most a teacher will ever know is that a child scored poorly, for example, in number and operations. Folks, that is a giant category, and far too broad to be actionable.

But above all else, the iReady Universal Screener is a dangerous assessment because it is a dehumanizing assessment. The test strips away all evidence of the students’ thinking, of her mathematical identity, and instead assigns broad and largely meaningless labels. The test boils down a student’s entire mathematical identity to a generic list of skills that “students like her” generally need, according to iReady. And yet despite its lumping of students into broad categories, iReady certainly doesn’t hesitate to offer very specific information about what a child likely can do and what next instructional steps should be.

Read on. See her examples. What do you think?

The Walton family, which controls most of Arkansas, invested in the purchase of the Pulaski County School Board. At a recent meeting, the board voted 3-2 NOT to purchase new science textbooks to replace obsolete ones. The majority said the district could not afford the $1 million cost, even if stretched out over three years.

The School Board for the Pulaski County Special School District voted 4-2 Tuesday against the immediate purchase of new science textbooks to replace books that are more than a decade old and do not match the state’s new science standards or the district’s science curriculum.

A committee of district teachers, school administrators and others had recommended earlier this year that the district purchase new science books for kindergarten-through-12th grades.

Jennifer Beasley, science program administrator for the district, returned to the board Tuesday with that recommendation but at a newly discounted cost of slightly more than $1 million, and with an alternative option that would spread the purchase of the new science books over three years.

In the first year of the three-year plan, classroom sets of textbooks and digital subscriptions to those books would be purchased for high schools at a maximum cost of $409,544.

Textbooks for middle schools would then be purchased for the 2019-20 school year and for the elementary schools in the following year.

“The committee’s rationale for allowing the high schools to be first to adopt books was that all of our high schools have a D on the state report card,” Beasley told the board, “and committee members agreed it is important for students and teachers to have resources aligned to the new standards.”

The high schools will be teaching to the new state science standards for the first time in this coming school year. The elementary schools incorporated the new standards in the previous two years, Beasley said, and the elementary teachers feel they are better prepared to continue with the instructional materials and lessons they’ve developed. Additionally, the elementary schools typically earned A’s and B’s on the state report card.

The Walton members should have asked their patrons to help out.

Kate Raymond of the University of Oklahoma challenges the claim by Mate Weirdl of the University of Tennessee that the Common Core is deeply flawed in the early grades.


As a mathematics educator, I was disturbed by recent comments made by Dr. Mate Wierdl on your blog site and felt the need to contact you to respond, educator to educator.

It is interesting to me that Dr. Wierdl ended this comment by saying he is not an expert on ELA; implying that he is an expert on the teaching and learning of mathematics. While Dr. Wierdl is a mathematics Ph.D., nowhere could I find any reference to education he has received or research he has done on teaching and learning.

Perhaps if he had such an education, he might have avoided some elementary mistakes he made in his critique of the common core. While I am by no means a proponent of, or an expert in, common core mathematics, the baseless and inaccurate assumptions Dr. Wierdl only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to a discussion of standards, curriculum and assessment in mathematics education. In large part, this is because Dr. Wierdl fails to distinguish between standards (which can generally be thought of as goals), curriculum (the experiences of students) and assessment (a measure of students’ understandings). Most fundamentally, Dr. Wierdl has conflated Common Core Standards with the standardized tests referred to in the article that compares Finland and the US. The tests referred to in that article were not written by the creators of common core, and the literature in mathematics education already documents that they are not well aligned with the intentions or the content of common core; the article itself references this problem when it speaks to the fact that Pearson, a for profit company, developed both textbooks series and standardized tests for the state of New York. So to critique the common core based on these tests is simply illegitimate.

More disturbing however, Dr. Wierdl makes several assumptions that, had he had an education in teaching and learning, he might have avoided. For example, he states that young children can intuitively understand the difference between 12 and 21. While I am sure this was intuitive for him as a young student, research shows that for the vast majority of students, this is not at all intuitive. Young children often see the difference between these two numbers as akin to something like * # verses # *.

Would you necessarily see these two as fundamentally differently? Would you intuitively know that one is larger than the other? As the article that Dr. Wierdl points out, students are just learning to read in grade one; that includes learning to read numbers. Many mathematics standards, including Finland’s, as it turns out, place an emphasis on “properties of numbers” and “the use of manipulatives to break down and assemble numbers” (language I quote from a description of the Finnish mathematics standards, see http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/countries/finland/the-mathematics-curriculum-in-primary-and-lower-secondary-grades/) in order to help students build a schema for understanding numbers. While many (but not all) students may be able to successfully add relatively small numbers without such a schema, those who do not begin to have difficulty in adding and/or multiplying large numbers. For example, if asked to add 3472 and 1248, students without such schema struggle to remember when to “carry” (or “borrow”, for subtraction), because they have not build the concept that 2 and 8 make one whole ten (so that they can carry a one to the tens place) or that that carried ten, the 70 in the first number and the 40 in the second number combine to be one whole hundred and two extra tens, so that a 2 should be placed in the tens column while a 1 is carried to the hundreds column.

The difficulties become even more pronounced when students are asked to multiply 54 times 19. I would imagine Dr. Wierdl, like many mathematicians, is fluent enough to understand that he can multiply this in a number of ways, including multiplying 54 by 20 (which is a much more simple problem due to the round number) and subtract 54 to get 1080-54= 1026, rather than a long step by step procedure which often makes very little sense to young children. I imagine that Dr. Wierdl finds such flexibility with numbers intuitive, but research shows most students do not. However, students’ ability to be flexible with numbers can be greatly improved if they learn to communicate mathematical thinking. Vygotsky’s social constructivist theories of learning have been proven time and again in mathematics education research; students learn by reflecting on their own thinking and the mathematical thinking of others. This is reflected in Common Core and other standards by emphasizing the development of students abilities to communicate mathematically, a skill by which Dr. Wierdl makes a living. However, contrary to Dr. Wierdl’s assertion, I challenge anyone to find a set of standards that requires students to “explain the difference every time they see it”.

Given all of that, I do agree that “fake” real life questions are a significant problem in US mathematics instruction. However, while standards promote application of mathematics to real problems, nowhere do the standards promote the use of contrived “fake” real life scenarios. Those scenarios are largely the result of textbooks (which are generally not developed by writers of standards) and teachers who do not have the educational background or mathematical strength to apply mathematics in more authentic and interesting ways. This is again a problem with the curriculum, not the standards, and one that is being addressed by many leading experts in mathematics education (see https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover, for example).

While I have a Master’s degree in mathematics, I would not presume to present myself as an expert in the field of mathematics. Since Dr. Wierdl has no background in education, I would respectfully ask that he do the same and that the community at large be wary of opinions put forth by ‘experts’ who have no background in teaching and learning.
Sincerely,
Dr. Kate Raymond

Kate Raymond, PhD
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
Mathematics Education
University of Oklahoma
Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education
820 Van Vleet Oval, ECH 114
Norman, OK, 73071
kate.m.raymond@ou.edu

 

It wasn’t enough for Bill Gates to finance the Common Core, which survives butis held in contempt by many.

Now he wants to write curriculum for the nation.

Apparently he knows nothing about the Math Wars, the History Wars, the Wars in other subjects in the 1990s.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2018/02/06/with-new-focus-on-curriculum-gates-foundation-wades-into-tricky-territory/

Ignorance is bliss.

Marion Brady is a veteran educator who is now 90 years old. He does not give up hope that a better education is possible.

He shared these quotes with me, and he invites you to contact him to discuss his views about curricular fragmentation. He has written often for Valerie Strauss’s Answer Sheet.

Curricular Fragmentation

John Goodlad: “The division into subjects and periods encourages a segmented rather than an integrated view of knowledge. Consequently, what students are asked to relate to in schooling becomes increasingly artificial, cut off from the human experiences subject matter is supposed to reflect.” A Place Called School, McGraw-Hill, 1984, p.266

Thomas Merton: “The world itself is no problem, but we are a problem to ourselves because we are alienated from ourselves, and this alienation is due precisely to an inveterate habit of division by which we break reality into pieces and then wonder why, after we have manipulated the pieces until they fall apart, we find ourselves out of touch with life, with reality, with the world, and most of all with ourselves.” Contemplation in a World of Action, Paulist Press, 1992, p.153)

Theodore Sizer: “The fact is that there is virtually no federal-level talk about intellectual coherence for [a student]. The curricular suggestions and mandates leave the traditional “subjects” in virtually total isolation, and both the old and most of the new assessment systems blindly continue to tolerate a profound separation of subject matters, accepting them as conventionally defined … The crucial, culminating task for [the student] of making sense of it all, at some rigorous standard, is left entirely to him alone.” School Reform and the Feds: The Perspective from Sam. Planning and Changing, v22 n3-4 p248-52 1991

Neil Postman: “There is no longer any principle that unifies the school curriculum and furnishes it with meaning.” Phi Delta Kappan, January 1983, p. 316

David W. Orr: [Formal schooling] “…imprints a disciplinary template onto impressionable minds and with it the belief that the world really is as disconnected as the divisions, disciplines, and subdivisions of the typical curriculum. Students come to believe that there is such a thing as politics separate from ecology or that economics has nothing to do with physics.” Earth in Mind, Island Press, 1994, p.23

Leon Botstein: “”We must fight the inappropriate fragmentation of the curriculum by disciplines . . .” The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 1, 1982, P. 28

Peter M. Senge: “From a very early age, we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole.” The Fifth Discipline, Currency Doubleday 1990, p.3

Harlan Cleveland: “It is a well-known scandal that our whole educational system is geared more to categorizing and analyzing patches of knowledge than to threading them together.” Change, July/August 1985, p. 20

Thomas Jefferson: “…every science is auxiliary to every other.” Extract from letter to Thomas Randolph, 27 August, 1786

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. “The things other people have put into my head, at any rate, do not fit together nicely, are often useless and ugly, are out of proportion with one another, and out of proportion with life as it really is outside my head.” Preface to Breakfast of Champions

Buckminster Fuller: “American education has evolved in such a way it will be the undoing of the society.” (Quoted in Officer Review, March 1989, p.5)
Rene Descartes: “If, therefore, anyone wishes to search out the truth of things in serious earnest, he ought not to select one special science; for all the sciences are conjoined with each other and interdependent…” Rule 1, Rules for the Direction of the Mind, 1628.

Alfred North Whitehead: “[We must] eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of the modern curriculum.” Presidential Address to the Mathematical Association of England, 1916

Felix Frankfurter: “That our universities have grave shortcomings for the intellectual life of this nation is by now a commonplace. The chief source of their inadequacy is probably the curse of departmentalization.” Introduction to Alfred North Whitehead’s The Aims of Education, Mentor 1948
John Muir: “When we try to pick up anything by itself we find it is attached to everything in the universe.”

Ernest Boyer: “All of our experience should have made it clear by now that faculty and students will not derive from a list of disjointed courses a coherent curriculum revealing the necessary interdependence of knowledge.” (Paraphrased by Daniel Tanner in his review of Boyer’s book High School. Phi Delta Kappan, March 1984, p. 10)

Robert Stevens: “We have lost sight of our responsibility for synthesizing knowledge.” (Liberal Education, Vol. 71, No. 2, 1985, p.163)

Jonathan Smith: “To dump on students the task of finding coherence in their education is indefensible.” Quoted in Time, April 20, 1981, p. 50

John Kemeny: “The problems now faced by our society transcend the bounds of the disciplines.” Quoted by William Newell in Liberal Education, Association of American Colleges, 1983, Vol. 69, No. 3

Arnold Thackeray: “The world of our experience does not come to us in the pieces we have been carving out.” Quoted in The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 1987, p. A 14

David Cohen: “Testing companies, textbook publishers, teacher specialists, associations representing specific content areas, and other agencies all speak in different and often inconsistent voices…The U.S. does not have a coherent system for deciding on and articulating curriculum and instruction.” (Phi Delta Kappan, March 1990, p. 522

Frank Betts: “Learning begins as an integrated experience as a newborn child experiences the world in its totality.” ASCD 1993, 13.7

Greg Stefanich and Charles Dedrick: “Learning is best when all of a student’s educational experiences merge to form an integrated whole, thereby transforming information into a larger network of personal knowledge.” Science and Mathematics, 1985, Vol.58, p.275

James Coomer: “Our educational systems . . . are now primarily designed to teach people specialized knowledge — to enable students to divide and dissect knowledge. At the heart of this pattern of teaching is . . . a view of the world that is quite simply false.” (Texas Tech Journal of Education, 1982, p.166)

Thích Nhất Hạnh: “People normally cut reality into compartments, and so are unable to see the interdependence of all phenomena. To see one in all and all in one is to break through the great barrier which narrows one’s perception of reality.” The Miracle of Mindfulness, Beacon Press, 1975, 6

David Bohm: “I think the difficulty is this fragmentation. All thought is broken up into bits. Like this nation, this country, this industry, this profession and so on… And they can’t meet. That comes about because thought has developed traditionally in a way such that it claims not to be effecting anything but just telling you the way things are. Therefore, people cannot see that they are creating a problem and then apparently trying to solve it… Wholeness is a kind of attitude or approach to the whole of life. If we can have a coherent approach to reality then reality will respond coherently to us.” Wholeness: A Coherent Approach to Reality (Presentation in Amsterdam, in 1990, documentary Art Meets Science & Spirituality in a Changing Economy.

Leonardo Da Vinci: “Learn how to see—realize that everything connects to everything else.”

Paul DeHart Hurd: “There are neither philosophical nor psychological grounds for compartmentalizing knowledge into islands of information as school subjects are currently conceived.” Middle School Journal, Vol. 20, No.5, p.22

James Moffett: “[It is essential to integrate] learning across subjects, media, and kinds of discourse so that individuals may continuously synthesize their own thought structures.” Phi Delta Kappan, September 1985, p. 55.

Tsunesaburo Makiguchi: “Through their studies, children must be brought to that point of awareness wherein . . . [they] get some sort of total picture of it all . . . In advancing level by level through the curriculum, students should be internalizing an overall idea structure of means and ends.” Education for Creative Living, 1989, p. 196

Stephanie Pace Marshall: “The natural world is now understood as an interdependent, relational, and living web of connections.” (The Power to Transform, Jossey-Bass, 2006, p. xii)

Richard A. Gibboney, “The atomized chop-chop of the high school curriculum has filtered up to higher education.” The Stone Trumpet, State University of New York Press, 1994. p. 9

Roger Schank: “Academics designed the school system. To them, it seemed natural that subjects that they were experts on should be taught in high school. Such a simple thought has created a major problem. Education ought not to be subject-based but, in a sense, we can’t help but think of it that way because we all went to schools that were subject-based.” (Teaching Minds, How cognitive science can save our schools). Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2011

Arthur Koestler: “…all decisive events in the history of scientific thought can be described in terms of mental cross-fertilization between different disciplines.” The Act of Creation, Penguin, London 1964

Albert Einstein: “I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole.” Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983)

Association of American Colleges: “We do not believe that the road to a coherent education can be constructed from a set of required subjects or academic disciplines.” (“Integrity In the College Curriculum, A Report to the Academic Community,” Project On Redefining the Meaning and Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees, 1985)

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: “The disciplines have fragmented themselves into smaller and smaller pieces, and undergraduates find it difficult to see patterns in their courses and relate what they learn to life.” Prologue to “College: The Undergraduate Experience in America,” November 1986

Marion Brady’s homepage: http://www.marionbrady.com/
His email: mbrady2222@gmail.com

Mother Jones earlier reported that the state of New Mexico had written science standards intended to placate climate change deniers and creationists. The state took modern science out of the science curriculum

Now, Mother Jones reports with satisfaction that the state was embarrassed by the outcry against its cave-in to special interests and has restored science to the science curriculum.

Andy Kroll writes:

The whole saga began last month when, as Mother Jones first reported, the state’s Public Education Department unveiled a set of draft standards for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education spanning grades K-12. New Mexico’s proposal largely followed the Next Generation Science Standards, a highly regarded model for teaching STEM that has been adopted by 18 states and the District of Columbia. But the state also made several baffling changes of its own, as we explained:

[T]he draft released by New Mexico’s education officials changes the language of a number of NGSS guidelines, downplaying the rise in global temperatures, striking references to human activity as the primary cause of climate change, and cutting one mention of evolution while weakening others. The standards would even remove a reference to the scientifically agreed-upon age of the Earth—nearly 4.6 billion years. (Young Earth creationists use various passages in the Bible to argue that the planet is only a few thousand years old.)

“These changes are evidently intended to placate creationists and climate change deniers,” says Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit group that defends the teaching of climate change, evolution, and other scientific-backed subjects in the classroom. The proposed changes, Branch added, “would dumb down New Mexico’s science education.”

A backlash ensued, with science experts, teachers, and others who were stunned by the state’s anti-science proposals voicing their displeasure with state education officials. New Mexico’s two US senators, both Democrats, wrote that they were “disturbed” by the proposed changes.

Ruszkowski, the education secretary, initially responded to critics by saying that his agency had crafted the proposed science standards—including the ones omitting evolution, human-caused global warming, and the age of the Earth—after hearing from “business groups, civic groups, teacher groups, superintendents.” (He declined to name those who helped shape the standards.) The process that went into developing the controversial standards, he added, was “how PED does business.”

However, in an interview with Mother Jones, a former PED official who helped develop the science standards contradicted Ruszkowski’s account. Lesley Galyas, who worked for four years as PED’s math and science bureau chief, said “one or two people” working “behind closed doors” had politicized New Mexico’s science standards. “They were really worried about creationists and the oil companies,” she said. In the end, she quit her job at the agency in protest of the changes sought by her bosses.

Outrage worked. The state reversed course. Read the article and feel some satisfaction in knowing that the voice of the public makes a difference.

Andy Kroll of Mother Jones reports that New Mexico has scrubbed its science standards of anything that might offend the far right.

He writes:

“New Mexico’s public education agency wants to scrub discussions of climate change, rising global temperatures, evolution, and even the age of planet Earth from the standards that shape its schools’ curriculum.

“The state’s Public Education Department this week released a new proposed replacement to its statewide science standards. The draft is based on the Next Generation Science Standards, a set of ideas and guidelines released in 2013 that cover kindergarten through 12th grade. The NGSS, which have been adopted by at least 18 states and the District of Columbia, include ample discussion of human-caused climate change and evolution.

“These changes are evidently intended to placate creationists and climate change deniers.”
But the draft released by New Mexico’s education officials changes the language of a number of NGSS guidelines, downplaying the rise in global temperatures, striking references to human activity as the primary cause of climate change, and cutting one mention of evolution while weakening others. The standards would even remove a reference to the scientifically agreed-upon age of the Earth—nearly 4.6 billion years. (Young Earth creationists use various passages in the Bible to argue that the planet is only a few thousand years old.)”

New Mexico seems determined to dumb down its students.

How can anyone speak about the U.S. standing in global “competition” when many of our students will be ignorant of the basic facts of science?

The example is set in Washington, where the Trump administration has declared war on science, removed references to “climate change” from its communiques and records, and has a person in charge of “environmental protection” who does not believe in protecting the enrvironment?

On Tuesday night, the New York City Board of Education (aka, the Panel on Education Policy) will vote on paying $699,000 for a program called Teach To One. It was developed by Joel Rose, a protege of Joel Klein when he was chancellor of the NYC public schools.

Gary Rubinstein saw this program in action and thought it was dreadful.

Teach To None

To check whether his judgment was right, he reviewed the scores of the schools using this math program. They were abysmal. In one of the schools, 0.0% of the students passed the state math test.

Why would the Department of Education propose to pour more money into this failing program?

By the way, look at the funders: the Gates Foundation, the Bezos Foundation, etc. guess it doesn’t take much other than who-you-know to get their money.

The leaders of KIPP are on their advisory board, but KIPP doesn’t use the program.

This comment by a reader called Montana Teacher continues a discussion of the value of AP courses. My observation: AP courses are a big money-maker for the College Board, which on its face is nonprofit, but aggressively pursues opportunities to generate revenues, like claiming that access to AP courses promotes equity.

Other posts are here and here.

Montana Teacher writes:

“Thank you for all of your comments on AP. I have several observations from my experience in our high school:

–The AP curricula is strong; however, it is not the ONLY curricula. For example, what the College Board has chosen to emphasize in English (such as tone or rhetorical devices) is perfectly fine, but this is just one way to teach English. I find that, in our school, the weight given to AP squelches our abilities to teach in other, creative ways. At my liberal arts college, the beauty was that each professor was stunningly unique, and that made learning so exciting. It makes teaching exciting, too.

–If the AP course is truly being taught at a college level, then the teacher should have a college-type schedule in order to handle the preparation and paper grading. In other words, how can a true college-level course be taught by someone who is teaching six periods, five days a week? This isn’t fair to the students if the teacher can’t keep up–or it’s not fair to the teacher, who is asked to do too much.

–If the AP course is truly being taught at the college level, then these high school kids who take many AP classes are being overloaded and over-stressed. To not be overloaded, students are forced to choose between too-easy classes or too-rigorous classes. Why not have just-the-right-amount-of-rigor classes so students can take every subject at that level, and not be forced to sacrifice one subject for another?

–How can college credit be given in courses that are taught by people who do not have master’s or doctorate degrees?

–Why do colleges accept AP credit? Isn’t this a money-losing proposition for them? How did this ever get started? I suppose that colleges fear losing students.

–The two-for-the-price-of-one mentality is permeating everything. It seems that everyone I know is in favor of dual credit classes, often to improve economic outcomes, not educational outcomes. This must be due to the high price of college . . .

–Lastly, where is the discussion on what is developmentally appropriate for our youth? Freshman English was a marvelous time in my day to read, discuss, and explore at a time when one was away from parents in a new place with a real professor–we were developmentally ready to read and write and wonder and grow. I am saddened that many students will not have this opportunity because they took “college” English as a 16-year-old.”

Annie Waldman wrote this article for ProPublica in January, after DeVos’s confirmation hearing and before she was confirmed. I’m sorry I missed it. Waldman tried to pin down DeVos’s views on creationism. As we have learned, what Betsy is really good at is evasion. She and her spokespersons say she doesn’t take a position on how science should be taught. But: she and her family foundations have given large sums to Focus on the Family, which opposes teaching evolution and supports equal time for intelligent design.

She writes:

“DeVos and her family have poured millions of dollars into groups that champion intelligent design, the doctrine that the complexity of biological life can best be explained by the existence of a creator rather than by Darwinian evolution. Within this movement, “critical thinking” has become a code phrase to justify teaching of intelligent design.

“Candi Cushman, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, described DeVos’ nomination as a positive development for communities that want to include intelligent design in their school curricula. Both the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation and Betsy DeVos’ mother’s foundation have donated to Focus on the Family, which has promoted intelligent design.

“Mrs. DeVos will work toward ensuring parents and educators have a powerful voice at the local level on multiple issues, including science curriculum,” wrote Cushman in an email.

“DeVos has not publicly spoken about her personal views on intelligent design. A more nuanced outgrowth of creationism, the approach lost steam after a federal court ruled a decade ago that teaching it in public schools would violate the separation of church and state. Greg McNeilly, a longtime aide to DeVos and an executive at her and her husband’s privately held investment management firm, the Windquest Group, said he knows from personal discussions with DeVos that she does not believe that intelligent design should be taught in public schools. He added that her personal beliefs on the theory, whatever they are, shouldn’t matter.

“I don’t know the answer to whether she believes in intelligent design — it’s not relevant,” McNeilly told ProPublica. “There is no debate on intelligent design or creationism being taught in schools. According to federal law, it cannot be taught.”

“That assurance provides little comfort to those who worry that DeVos’ nomination could erode public schools’ commitment to teaching evolution.”

Hearing DeVos refer to “critical thinking” was “like hearing old catch phrases from a nearly forgotten TV show that never made prime time,” Michigan State University professor Robert Pennock told ProPublica. Pennock has written several books and articles about creationism and intelligent design, including “The Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism” (2000), and has testified as an expert witness that intelligent design should not be studied in public school science courses.

“She evaded what should have been a simple question about not teaching junk science,” Pennock wrote in an email. “More than that, she did so in a way that signaled her willingness to open the door to intelligent design creationism.”

Just remember that when someone from the far-right praises “critical thinking,” that’s a new code word for intelligent design (I.e., the Hand of God).