Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Independent Variables



I agree with all who are suggesting it would be best to abandon the
terms independent variables and dependent variables. And when John
Denker advised that "you should gather the villagers, get some torches
and pitchforks, and march on the state offices" this is certainly what
needs done.

The problem is that a large assembly of... what shall I say, pseudo
scientists?... A large assembly of pseudo scientists have decided a set
of guidelines for how scientists behave. They've given us a detailed
description of what "the scientific method" is, and along with that a
whole slew of terms that scientists use to identify what they are doing.
In spite of the fact that real practicing scientists don't follow the
rules these pseudo scientists have said we follow, these rules have
worked their way into the mandated school curriculum.

That being the case, I wonder if the "torches and pitchforks" idea ought
to be taken literally, because without threatening the lives or
livelihoods of some of these people, change is going to be very
difficult.

When my son and daughter each went through the mandatory 8th-grade
science fair, they had to develop a hypothesis, devise some experiments
to support or refute the hypothesis, and then conclude that the
hypotheses was either supported or refuted by the data. If the science
fair project did not fit into that mold of what "the scientific method"
is, then the student would not get a passing grade no matter how well
everything else was done.

Both times (son, then daughter) I argued long and hard with the teacher,
and was told (by the teacher) that I must not be a real scientist if I
did not understand how the scientific method works. This particular
teacher was fully entrenched in the state curriculum, and didn't want to
hear that the state curriculum had problems. When I complained to the
principal, the principal declared that if I had a disagreement with a
teacher, but the teacher was following the state curriculum, then he and
the school board would side with the teacher. If I truly believed there
was a problem with the curriculum then I needed to take it up with the
State of Ohio Department of Education (ODE).

How easy do you think that is? Here's an example:

Last year, during the "high stakes testing" that is done in Ohio and
many states, a Bluffton University graduate teaching in a neighboring
school district noticed a question that made no sense. She did not show
me the question itself, but a month or so after the test was over, she
asked me some general questions about the topic and wondered if a
particular line of questioning could be construed as misleading or
wrong. From what I could understand, it seemed the general line of
questioning was bogus (similar to the independent/dependent discussion)
and I told her so and I explained why. She drafted a letter to ODE
explaining that this question should be retired because it is at best
misleading and at worst outright wrong. She said that she consulted a
former professor about the line of questioning, but did not show the
actual question to the prof. Her mistake was that she wrote this letter
well after the test had been given, but about a week before the test
became available on-line to the public. Therefore, ODE, rather than
considering the merits of the argument, went on a "witch hunt" to get
the teacher fired for breach of security of the test. They said she had
divulged the content of one of the questions on the test before the test
became public (although the test had already been given statewide a
month earlier, and had been graded, and was going to be publicly
available on-line in a about a week). Fortunately the superintendent
supported the teacher, and in direct defiance of ODE (who said the whole
school district would be reported as failing the test if the teacher
were not fired) he refused to fire the teacher. The state then decided
to revoke the teacher's teaching license. Again the superintendent went
to bat for the teacher and told ODE that school lawyers and teacher's
union lawyers would fight this to the Ohio Supreme Court if necessary,
and ODE would come off looking pretty ridiculous. He said that the
teacher was conscientiously trying to improve the test and did not
actually divulge the test, and even if she had, the test was already
well over before she had done anything. Finally ODE backed off and
dropped the charges.

This was a special case because it involved security of a test, but it
shows how stupid the bureaucrats in state departments of education can
get, and how difficult it is to fight them. They have the power. If
the superintendent had been a weaker person, this good teacher would be
history. Before you fight the state department of education, you better
have your torches and pitchforks ready, and have plenty of them.


Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu