Evolution to be compulsory subject in UK primary schools

[Rrose Selavy]

Good, but still some "wiggle room" for "faith" schools:

Quote:

Evolution will become a compulsory subject for study in all state primary schools, the Government announced today.
Darwin’s theory of how life evolved through natural selection will be a legal requirement in science teaching from September 2011, although it will be left to schools to decide how this is done.
The move, which was welcomed by scientists, comes despite a drive to slim down the national curriculum for primary schools and leave teachers greater discretion over what to teach.
Church and other faith schools within the state system will have to comply although officials said the theory of evolution could be taught in a context that reflected a school’s ethos, in a similar way to compulsory sex education for children aged under 15

More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6923157.ece

[metzomagic]

Heh. I was just over reading that Times article you linked to, and the ensuing comments. Of course, the god botherers are all over it. Sad how they deny all evidence of evolution because it disagrees with their Bronze Age book of myths.

On a related note, I just got my copy of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Even reading the first 2 chapters of it would be enough to convince a rational person... oh, wait!

[Darat]

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

[metzomagic]

Originally Posted by Darat

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

I'd assume it would be taught in the latter grades, around age 12 - 13? Agree that it would be a bit of a tough concept for 7-year olds to grapple with, but you're putting up a straw man there.

[Darat]

That's secondary school over here. Primary school is upto 11. Well it was back in my days - you know when the dinosaurs were still roaming around and lions were vegetarians, they may have changed things since then, my nephew was telling me just the other day that he can talk to his friends "wirelessly" when playing a game with them as if that was some great new thing - we called it shouting when I was a kid.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Darat

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

[Darat]

I don't think it is that easy to teach, sure you could go down the "by rote" route but I don't think that is educating the kids - I would much rather they learn about simple but accurate basic science. Educate them about how to approach something in a "scientific way" - that builds a solid foundation that can then be used to introduce more complex concepts and ideas as they get older. I think kids learning that science works at a young age will stand them in much better stead.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Have to agree with Darat here. I suppose it depends how evolution is taught and in what sense. For some kids I guess it could be quite fascinating if taught in the right way but seems a bit heavy going for someone of 10.

Seems like a move more towards making primary school education more of a primer for secondary school rather than trying to get interested and exploring things.

[metzomagic]

My bad. Being originally from the U.S., I forgot that secondary school starts at age 11 over here. In that case, it would definitely be a better idea to make it compulsory in secondary school, when it would be more easily assimilated... but not in a Borg-like way ;-)

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by Darat

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

We covered evolution in my last year of primary school. not in any great depth but I rememebr drawing a learning about amoebas and then into fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, (lots of fun with dinosaurs) mammals and birds, then primates and finally man.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

We covered evolution in my last year of primary school. not in any great depth but I rememebr drawing a learning about amoebas and then into fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, (lots of fun with dinosaurs) mammals and birds, then primates and finally man.

I went through the same stream of animals in high school biology, but it was less about evolution and more about climbing Linnaeus' system. If I remember correctly there was a chapter about evolution at the end, but it certainly wasn't emphasized while learning about worms and fishes. Of course, that was 40 years ago, and clades weren't even a gleam them.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

In response to those who think it would be hard to teach evolution to primary school kids, a teacher at one of my local primary schools did it during Darwin week and it was apparently very successful. My friend is a teaching assistant at the school and said the kids loved it and grasped the natural selection concepts straight away. I think he made a game of it that involved lots of lining up, shuffling around groups, joining and leaving etc based on certain criteria before ending up with a winning 'design'.

I'll try and get a message through to him to post on this thread the details of what he did. I only know him 'third-hand' though so it may take a while.

[dogguy]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

I would agree with this. I am basing my thoughts on a study example of one - my soon to be 8yo old daughter who has been a dinosaur fanatic for a couple of years. She has a basic understanding of the concept that, over the full history of dinosaurs the earlier species either died off or evolved into new species. She thinks it is pretty cool that modern birds are the ancestors of dinosaurs. She has picked this understanding up by herself (they do not teach "dinosaurs" at school) so I think that it would not be difficult for a trained teacher to teach the basic concepts of evolution to children of this age.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

Agreed. How do you talk about the animal kingdom without discussing the relatedness of all life? Or ecosystems without talking about the ways living things adapt to survive?

I wouldn't make it, necessarily, a 2nd grade (7 year old) topic--at least not an in-depth look. Still, you need it for 9,10 &11 year olds at least. Otherwise you can't really talk about biology in any sensible way.

My kids have covered it through the texts I've purchased for home use. No problem so far. They actually think it's pretty "cool" as a matter of fact.

[Rrose Selavy]

It depends how evolution is taught for the age group but you can be sure as Hell that any "religious education" or creationism won't wait to start at 11 -

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

It depends how evolution is taught for the age group but you can be sure as Hell that any "religious education" or creationism won't wait to start at 11 -

Yeah, because we all know that concepts of eternity, extra-universality, souls, and afterlife are much easier to comprehend when you're 11 or younger.

On the other hand, when I was very young we had the 'religious bus' come around and the people would show us pictures and tell stories from that infernal book. At that age they get you with stories and fantasy. When you grow up, they get you with ... stories and fantasy and the promise of eternal life.

[rjh01]

I agree with Rrose. We teach children evolution before their minds are closed by religion. Also teach them a bit of other science.

[doethcaru]

Quote:

In response to those who think it would be hard to teach evolution to primary school kids, a teacher at one of my local primary schools did it during Darwin week and it was apparently very successful.

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds. There were many activities, including watching short videos by David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, investigating a "tree of life" and creating a timeline of life on Earth. But we also included the biggy - evolution through natural selection. I taught this by devising a number of predator and prey games such as the following.

The class were divided into prey and predators. Each animal was "grown" by following a set of instructions (analogous to DNA). The instructions included how they could or could not move, how they could use their limbs, whether they could see etc... The prey had velcro tags attached to belts and the predators had to "eat" them by tearing off the tags.

Some predators were successful and "survived" others did not catch a tag and "died." Similarly some prey "survived" and some did not.
Those who survived after the first round had offspring - except not all offspring were the same - there were mutations (new instructions). Some mutations would be adaptive (remove the blindfold) Others were detrimental to survival (limbs with a more limited movement). We would then play another round and so on. By the end of the game, we had a range of different predators and prey. Evolution before their very eyes!

Incidentally, I am delighted that evolution is to be taught in all schools. It is easily one of the most important ideas in biology, and the one with probably the greatest explanatory force. It is the idea that brings sense to the rest of biology.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by doethcaru

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds.

Brilliant work. I wish there were more teachers like you. And welcome to the forum.

Dave

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by doethcaru

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds. There were many activities, including watching short videos by David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, investigating a "tree of life" and creating a timeline of life on Earth. But we also included the biggy - evolution through natural selection. I taught this by devising a number of predator and prey games such as the following.

The class were divided into prey and predators. Each animal was "grown" by following a set of instructions (analogous to DNA). The instructions included how they could or could not move, how they could use their limbs, whether they could see etc... The prey had velcro tags attached to belts and the predators had to "eat" them by tearing off the tags.

Some predators were successful and "survived" others did not catch a tag and "died." Similarly some prey "survived" and some did not.
Those who survived after the first round had offspring - except not all offspring were the same - there were mutations (new instructions). Some mutations would be adaptive (remove the blindfold) Others were detrimental to survival (limbs with a more limited movement). We would then play another round and so on. By the end of the game, we had a range of different predators and prey. Evolution before their very eyes!

Incidentally, I am delighted that evolution is to be taught in all schools. It is easily one of the most important ideas in biology, and the one with probably the greatest explanatory force. It is the idea that brings sense to the rest of biology.

That sounds great. I might just be being cynical but I doubt the lessons in most cases will be anywhere near as interactive and involving as that. I can picture loads of kids being turned off science by having a boring text taught to them by a teacher who doesn't understand or care the slightest about biology. That's my only worry.

[AvalonXQ]

I would be very upset if a teacher tried to start teaching common ancestry to my kid at that age.

[dasmiller]

I certainly applaud it as a step in the right direction, though I'm a little troubled by the wording. "Darwin’s theory of how life evolved through natural selection" does make it sound a bit like it started & ended with Darwin, when in fact there has been an overwhelming volume of corroborating evidence since then, and Darwin's theories have been refined and elaborated (e.g. the role of DNA).

It would bother me a lot if someone could simply teach it as "Here's a theory about species that Darwin propounded in the 1800s," but that sounds consistent with "officials said the theory of evolution could be taught in a context that reflected a school’s ethos."

[doethcaru]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Brilliant work. I wish there were more teachers like you. And welcome to the forum.

Dave

Thanks for the kind welcome.

[doethcaru]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I would be very upset if a teacher tried to start teaching common ancestry to my kid at that age.

Hello Avalon. I am intrigued about what exactly would upset you and why. I wonder if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by doethcaru

Hello Avalon. I am intrigued about what exactly would upset you and why. I wonder if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

[Rrose Selavy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

At what age are you teaching creationism?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

At what age are you teaching creationism?

Creation as an aspect of history from the Bible -- from a very young age.
Special creation as a scientific theory -- probably the same age or a little older than the earliest I would want the school to tackle origins science.
ETA: But, to address the point I think you're leading toward: I firmly believe that parents get a crack at teaching contraversial issues far before the school system should.

[Rrose Selavy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Creation as an aspect of history from the Bible -- from a very young age.
Special creation as a scientific theory -- probably the same age or a little older than the earliest I would want the school to tackle origins science.
ETA: But, to address the point I think you're leading toward: I firmly believe that parents get a crack at teaching contraversial issues far before the school system should.

Yeah , get your teaching indoctrination in first,
Before your kids can " tackle the subject critically".

How predictable.


-

[athon]

Some basic principles underlying evolution would be useful in primary school, such as diversity, adaptation, some basics of reproduction etc. But 'evolution' is a pretty big topic, and heavy going for most kids under 14.

A more serious concern for me is the limited science literacy of the average British primary school teacher. I'm not confident most teachers could do the topic justice, to be blunt. It would allow a lot of room for mistakes...which doesn't bode well preparing kids to deal with the misinformation anti-evolutionists like to spread.

Athon

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by doethcaru

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds. There were many activities, including watching short videos by David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, investigating a "tree of life" and creating a timeline of life on Earth. But we also included the biggy - evolution through natural selection. I taught this by devising a number of predator and prey games such as the following.

The class were divided into prey and predators. Each animal was "grown" by following a set of instructions (analogous to DNA). The instructions included how they could or could not move, how they could use their limbs, whether they could see etc... The prey had velcro tags attached to belts and the predators had to "eat" them by tearing off the tags.

Some predators were successful and "survived" others did not catch a tag and "died." Similarly some prey "survived" and some did not.
Those who survived after the first round had offspring - except not all offspring were the same - there were mutations (new instructions). Some mutations would be adaptive (remove the blindfold) Others were detrimental to survival (limbs with a more limited movement). We would then play another round and so on. By the end of the game, we had a range of different predators and prey. Evolution before their very eyes!

Incidentally, I am delighted that evolution is to be taught in all schools. It is easily one of the most important ideas in biology, and the one with probably the greatest explanatory force. It is the idea that brings sense to the rest of biology.

Welcome, doethcaru. Thank you for joining in.

That lesson sounds ... absolutely brilliant. I hope that it is shared widely with other teachers.

There are many discussions here where your contributions would be very helpful. I hope to see more of your comments in the future.

[doethcaru]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain Avalon. I agree with you that schools should teach only what is known to be true. Where there are controversies over what is and is not true, schools must be very careful. This is why schools must not come down on the side of any particular religion. They must teach about religion, and not that specific religious claims are true. Schools must teach that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and so on... They must NOT teach that Jesus IS the son of God, NOR that he WAS just a prophet.

However, it is also important that we do not fail to teach what has been established by science and is known to be true by any reasonable person, and has a mountain of evidence to back it up, simply because there are groups of people who still refuse to accept it. This is to take the notion of a controversy too far. We cannot simply rule out matters of fact as 'controversial' merely because some crackpot somewhere, continues to persist in a deluded, ignorant or bloody-minded rejection of them.

Evolution by natural selection and common ancestry are now so well established by the evidence that we are obliged to accord them factual status, and obliged to teach them as such.

[gtc]

I attended an independent but Roman Catholic school and we learnt about evolution before the age of 12.

Mostly it was about dinosaurs and our ape like ancestors. I seem to remember Achaeopteryx was shown as an example of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

Our local museum had some excellent dinosaur exhibits.

[Vic Vega]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry.

Your irrational beliefs are your business and you are entitled to pass them on to your children. You should not, however, be able to negatively affect my children's education.

If you don't want your children to be properly educated in science you should send them to a Christian school.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

I know exactly how you feel. I am a wife beater. The government has just announced that every school pupil in England is to be taught that domestic violence is unacceptable. I think they should leave that to the parents and schools shouldn’t teach the controversy.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Creation as an aspect of history from the Bible -- from a very young age.
Special creation as a scientific theory -- probably the same age or a little older than the earliest I would want the school to tackle origins science.

I can only see one flaw in your otherwise brilliant scheme ---

Edited by Locknar:

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

Remember, it is attack the argument and not the arguer.

Posted By:Locknar

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Yeah , get your teaching indoctrination in first,
Before your kids can " tackle the subject critically".

Yes. Religious indoctrination comes with other core indoctrinations like socialization, language, ethics, discipline, etc.
Science is equally important but has to come after they have the more basic skills down.

doethcaru: Your natural selection game sounds absolutely amazing. I wonder if you would be willing to share the exact details here. I for one would be interested in sharing this teaching tool with teachers I know, and being able to replicate the game.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by doethcaru

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain Avalon. I agree with you that schools should teach only what is known to be true. Where there are controversies over what is and is not true, schools must be very careful. This is why schools must not come down on the side of any particular religion. They must teach about religion, and not that specific religious claims are true. Schools must teach that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and so on... They must NOT teach that Jesus IS the son of God, NOR that he WAS just a prophet.

However, it is also important that we do not fail to teach what has been established by science and is known to be true by any reasonable person, and has a mountain of evidence to back it up, simply because there are groups of people who still refuse to accept it. This is to take the notion of a controversy too far. We cannot simply rule out matters of fact as 'controversial' merely because some crackpot somewhere, continues to persist in a deluded, ignorant or bloody-minded rejection of them.

Evolution by natural selection and common ancestry are now so well established by the evidence that we are obliged to accord them factual status, and obliged to teach them as such.

I consider this to be an entirely reasonable position. Although I disagree with its application in this particular case, I believe the principle to be totally sound.
This may, honestly, be a situation where the proposed pedagogy is appropriate and the correct recourse for parents who believe as I do is homeschool.

ETA: Since the OP is about a UK policy, is homeschool even an option there?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I consider this to be an entirely reasonable position. Although I disagree with its application in this particular case, I believe the principle to be totally sound.
This may, honestly, be a situation where the proposed pedagogy is appropriate and the correct recourse for parents who believe as I do is homeschool.

As long as the people who are home-schooling have the appropriate educational training and follow the national curriculum etc. then I don't think there is anything wrong in principle with home-schooling.

Obviously using anyone trying to use home schooling to prevent a child gaining an appropriate education should be prevented from doing so.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Darat

As long as the people who are home-schooling have the appropriate educational training and follow the national curriculum etc. then I don't think there is anything wrong in principle with home-schooling.

Obviously using anyone trying to use home schooling to prevent a child gaining an appropriate education should be prevented from doing so.

You can understand, and pass tests in, material with which you entirely disagree.
Most of us took classic myths, did we not?

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

Your irrational beliefs are your business and you are entitled to pass them on to your children. You should not, however, be able to negatively affect my children's education.

If you don't want your children to be properly educated in science you should send them to a Christian school.

Or home school them. That's a good way to "protect" your children from "dangerous" ideas.



ETA: I should have refreshed the page before replying. D'oh!