Middleschool Science Textbooks Riddled with Errors

[China]

A Textbook Case of Junk Science

By Pamela R. Winnick

Weekly Standard | May 5, 2005

Several centuries ago, some "very light-skinned" people were shipwrecked on a tropical island. After "many years under the tropical sun," this light-skinned population became "dark-skinned," says Biology: The Study of Life, a high-school textbook published in 1998 by Prentice Hall, an imprint of Pearson Education.

"Downright bizarre," says Nina Jablonski, who holds the Irvine chair of anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences. Jablonski, an expert in the evolution of skin color, says it takes at least 15,000 years for skin color to evolve from black to white or vice versa. That sure is "many years." The suggestion that skin color can change in a few generations has no basis in science.

Pearson Education spokesperson Wendy Spiegel admits the error in describing the evolution of skin color, but says the teacher's manual explains the phenomenon correctly. Just why teachers are given accurate information while students are misled remains unclear.

But then there's lots that's puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It's as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science.

Thus, a chapter on climate in a fifth-grade science textbook in the Discovery Works series, published by Houghton Mifflin (2000), opens with a Native American explanation for the changing seasons: "Crow moon is the name given to spring because that is when the crows return. April is the month of Sprouting Grass Moon." Students meander through three pages of Algonquin lore before they learn that climate is affected by the rotation and tilt of Earth--not by the return of the crows.

Houghton Mifflin spokesman Collin Earnst says such tales are included in order to "connect science to culture." He might more precisely have said to connect science to certain preferred, non-Western, or primitive cultures. Were a connection drawn to, say, a Bible story, the outcry would be heard around the world.

Affirmative action for women and minorities is similarly pervasive in science textbooks, to absurd effect. Al Roker, the affable black NBC weatherman, is hailed as a great scientist in one book in the Discovery Works series. It is common to find Marie Curie given a picture and half a page of text, but her husband, Pierre, who shared a Nobel Prize with her, relegated to the role of supportive spouse. In the same series, Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, is shown next to black scientist Lewis Latimer, who improved the light bulb by adding a carbon filament. Edison's picture is smaller.

Jews have been awarded 22 percent of all Nobel Prizes in science, but readers of Houghton Mifflin's fifth-grade textbooks won't get wind of that. Navajo physicist Fred Begay, however, merits half a page for his study of Navajo medicine. Albert Einstein isn't mentioned. Biologist Clifton Poodry has made no noteworthy scientific discoveries, but he was born on the Tonawanda Seneca Indian reservation, so his picture is shown in Glenco/McGraw-Hill's Life Science (2002), a middle-school biology textbook. The head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, and Nobel Laureates James Watson, Maurice H.F. Wilkins, and Francis Crick aren't named.

Addison-Wesley, another imprint of Pearson Education, is so keen on political correctness that it lists a multicultural review board of nonscientists in its Science Insights: Exploring Matter and Energy, published in 1994 but still in use. Houghton Mifflin says it overemphasizes minorities and women to "encourage" students from these groups. A spokesman for Pearson Education blames the states for demanding multiculturalism.

If it's the states that impose multiculturalism, however, they're only doing the bidding of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1995, the academy published the National Science Education Standards, which, according to academy president Bruce Alberts, "represent the best thinking . . . about what is best for our nation's students." The standards (which explicitly place religion on a par with "myth and superstition") counsel school boards to modify "assessments" for students with "limited English proficiency" by, for example, raising their scores. They tell teachers to be "sensitive" to students who are "economically deprived, female, have disabilities, or [come] from populations underrepresented in the sciences." Teachers should especially encourage "women and girls, students of color and students with disabilities."

This "best thinking" of the nation's scientific elite is being used by nearly all the 50 states as they centralize their science standards. With 22 states now requiring statewide adoption of textbooks, big-state textbook markets are the prizes for which publishers compete.

A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001 found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85 percent of the students in the country. One misstates Newton's first law of motion. Another says humans can't hear elephants. Another confuses "gravity" with "gravitational acceleration." Another shows the equator running through the United States. Individual scientists draft segments of these books, but reviewing the final product is sometimes left to multicultural committees who have no expertise in science.

"Thousands of teachers are saddled with error-filled physical science textbooks," wrote John Hubisz, a physics professor at North Carolina State University at Raleigh and the author of the report. "Political correctness is often more important than scientific accuracy. Middle-school text publishers now employ more people to censor books than they do to check facts."

The aim of President Bill Clinton's Goals 2000 project, enacted nine years ago, was to make American students first in science literacy. It didn't happen. A study by the National Assessment governing board in 2000 found that only 12 percent of graduating seniors were proficient in science. International surveys continue to show that American high school seniors rank 19th among seniors surveyed in 21 countries.

Members of the scientific elite are occasionally heard blaming religion for the sorry state of science education. But it isn't priests, rabbis, or mullahs who write the textbooks that misrepresent evolution, condescend to disadvantaged groups, misstate key concepts of physics, show the equator running through the United States, and come close to excising white males from the history of science. Young Americans need to learn science, and they need to distinguish it clearly from Algonquin myth.

[stevenaa]

Thus is the sad state of scientific integrity in education. It is unconscienable that cultural diversity is overriding common sense. And don't even get me started about the inclusion of Indan Folklore (religion).

[Destino]

Oh man, I wish I had not read that. How friggin pathetic.....

:doh:

[Riggo-toni]

Downright frightening.

And the idiots who come up with this stuff will be the same ones 10 years from now decrying the loss of jobs to other nations, even though it will happen because we've produced a bunch of culturally sensitive nitwits who can't handle the science necessary to compete in a high tech world. :doh:

This is what happens when academia are stacked with whacked out leftist ideologues.

[SkinsNut73]

"Downright bizarre," says Nina Jablonski, who holds the Irvine chair of anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences. Jablonski, an expert in the evolution of skin color, says it takes at least 15,000 years for skin color to evolve from black to white or vice versa. That sure is "many years." The suggestion that skin color can change in a few generations has no basis in science.

...Michael Jackson changed in less than 50 years

[Ignatius J.]

this article is junk. It's easy to tell because it uses unscientific methods in a discussion about how poor a job we do teaching kids science.

You don't go around pointing to specific textbooks to get your point across. This is pure anecdotal evidence.

Also, the first point, about the changing skin color, isn't even wrong, it's just horribly unclear.

The worst part is that there are serious problems with the way science is taught in schools, and textbooks are a huge part of the problem. But this article is merely politicizing the problem even more by throwing around names like scientific elite.

The real problem is simple economics. It's easy to produce crap, and even easier to sell it to people whose interest is more politics than teaching.

To my mind the only way to fix this problem is to give more leeway to teachers to choose thier own books.

This diluted junk we serve out is a byproduct of all the standardization laws that limit competition in our classrooms. It's the fault of liberal PCism as well as the anti-science fervor that has been building in conservative america.

edit: I see now that at the very end of the article (by which point it was hard for me to read any more, they actually cite a study, which is good, so my first point may not have been totally accurate.)

[The Evil Genius]

So who else had the over/under for responses as 2 for when this became political mudslinging?

Seriously, this is frightening stuff about the inaccuracies (ie genetics, equator, etc).

[Ignatius J.]

T.E.G.

The good bet was under, since the posted article was a political hatchet job. Look no further than the site that produced it.

If you post political crap, you get politically charged responses.

[endzone_dave]

"One misstates Newton's first law of motion. Another says humans can't hear elephants. Another confuses "gravity" with "gravitational acceleration." Another shows the equator running through the United States."

There's nothing here that the kids won't be able to overcome on their own. Just a bunch of overreaction.

[Kilmer17]

stoopid libruls.

[du7st]

"It is better to be ignorant than misinformed"...therefore the solution is to tell kids not to pay attention to anything in school.

[jpillian]

Kilmer -- top 10 post in my list right there :laugh:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I think to be on the safe side I'll still send my kids to private school... I like the idea of teachers designing their own courses. Not boards of people trying to avoid stepping on peoples toes.

I can still remember the nightmarishly pc things I had to read in public school... :twitch:

[DjTj]

I don't see what the multiculturalism has to do with the junk science. The article seems to try to draw some connection that isn't really there.

There's going to be a reasonable amount of fluff in any grade school textbook, and anything we can do to actually make American kids interested in science is a good idea in my book. You're not going to teach a whole lot of hard science in elementary school anyways - you just need to keep kids interested in it while building up their math skills.

We're not falling behind in science because we're learning about female and minority scientists in elementary school, we're falling behind because our kids can't do math and nobody wants to major in science when they get to college.

I'm much more worried about people trying to take scientific theories out of high school textbooks because they have a political and religious agenda. When I clicked on this thread, I thought it would be about that:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050505-034951-8617r.htm

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by China

A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001 found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85 percent of the students in the country. One misstates Newton's first law of motion. Another says humans can't hear elephants. Another confuses "gravity" with "gravitational acceleration." Another shows the equator running through the United States. Individual scientists draft segments of these books, but reviewing the final product is sometimes left to multicultural committees who have no expertise in science.

I would be interested to know exactly what constitutes "500 pages of scientific error." Are there 500 pages among the 12 textbooks with at least one error? Far too many of course, but that is dramatically different than 500 pages worth of erroneous material.

Being a college student it's tough for me defend the textbook industry. Their product is overpriced and generally not of the quality it should be. I will say however that I can't recall seeing glaring errors like the ones in the article even a single time during my elementary or high school education. There were typos, but not critical errors.

[SnyderShrugged]

Isnt it interesting that those that fight to get this crap IN science texts, are the same who fight against inclusion of creationism?

Why is it that diversity is often not diverse?

[Ignatius J.]

Skin,

what's your point? It's not interesting at all, because people who are interested in seeing the scientific output and overall education of our country increase are doing thier best to encourage such an environment.

You can never have true ideological diversity in science. It's not a democracy, so why paint it to be one? Wou want to include flat earth society on the payroll of major universities for the sake of ideological diversity? That's laughable.

We encourage diversity where it makes sense. Moreover, as long as the theories are presented in a thourough way, who gives a rat's behind about the size of pictures of the curie's?

Political action hatchet magazines like this one make sure that when public schools go to buy textbooks, they pay no attention to the words. These guys are too busy being focused on the sizes of pisctures and the little italic quotes that begin each chapter.

[Cskin]

Seems like more evidence to get the effing govt. out of the school systems. They seem to award projects to the lowest bidder, who in turn creates shoddy work, and than the govt. fails to hold the parties responsible for the mistakes accountable. Sound familiar? <--Political Input of the day.

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Isnt it interesting that those that fight to get this crap IN science texts, are the same who fight against inclusion of creationism?

Why is it that diversity is often not diverse?

Creationism is not a scientific theory, and therefore does not belong in a science textbook. I believe religion should be taught in schools. I don't mean bringing prayer into schools, but I mean teaching students about all of the world's religions. However, a science classroom is not the place to do that.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Skin,

We encourage diversity where it makes sense.

That's all I needed to hear!

I support teaching only fact in science class and elimnate any ambiguity. That includes evolutionary theory because it is as ambiguous as creationism. Theories should be addressed as such and explained to a child what a theory is.

I also support no government in schools whatsoever. All privately funded.

Don't read into what I wrote as a proponant of either theory as a whole I just thought it ironic that the liberal pursuasion wants to be considered "inclusive" when in fact they are not. That's all.

lastly, your venomous response is one reason why I've tended to stay out of tailgate for the past few weeks.

I won't rise to your bait though and I feel pretty good about not getting my bloodpressure here any longer.

that said, have a great one and hope to have honest, intelligent discourse in the future.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Isnt it interesting that those that fight to get this crap IN science texts, are the same who fight against inclusion of creationism?

Why is it that diversity is often not diverse?

Isn't it interesting that those that fight to get this crap OUT science texts, are the same who fight for inclusion of creationism?

Why is it that diversity is often not diverse?

----

IMO one book does not point out a major problem. It shows that one book is flawed. That's it.

[Ignatius J.]

my venemous response?

You came in here with a one liner attacking my beliefs, and I'm the venemous one?

We've also had the evolution debate many times. You cannot tell me

that you support only facts in science class. There are no such things.

If you want to debate that, we can. It's actually really interesting, and the basis of science.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

my venemous response?

You came in here with a one liner attacking my beliefs, and I'm the venemous one?

We've also had the evolution debate many times. You cannot tell me

that you support only facts in science class. There are no such things.

If you want to debate that, we can. It's actually really interesting, and the basis of science.

I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking your beliefs by what I said. Not an intention of mine at all to attack any individual here.

Did I mention you or quote you in some way? No sir, I did not.

Here is an exact quote of what I said. How is this attacking you?

(whoops edit: wrong post quote!)

"Isn't it interesting that those that fight to get this crap in science texts, are the same who fight for exclusion of creationism?

Why is it that diversity is often not diverse?

Is it because I pointed out that many liberals are guilty of not practicing what they preach in regards to diversity and that their brand of diversity includes only what suits their agenda and is fake?

I hope that isnt you, but by your reaction, I fear it may be.

again, no hard feelings and nothing I said here was meant to be directed at any individual on this board.

[Ignatius J.]

skin,

I am against teaching ecreationism in schools as a valid scientific theory.

I am certainly not against making attempts to be more inclusive by making certain pictures bigger.

Therefore, I seem to be exactly the kind of person you are talking about. So I wondered, what was your point? You said it was interesting, to me it seems what I practice and what I preach are in line since I practice and preach both of the things above.

In what way is that agenda fake?

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

skin,

I am against teaching evolution in schools as a valid scientific theory.

I am certainly not against making attempts to be more inclusive by making certain pictures bigger.

Therefore, I seem to be exactly the kind of person you are talking about. So I wondered, what was your point? You said it was interesting, to me it seems what I practice and what I preach are in line since I practice and preach both of the things above.

In what way is that agenda fake?

Ignatious, please read my posts. I've now said for the third time that I had no intention of picking on anyone here.

It seems that you and I are in agreement on not teaching evolution as a valid theory.

I actually don't understand what you are saying about making the "pictures bigger".

Do you mean you support the inclusion of all the views and theories from all walks of life into science texts?

Please, don't take that question as snotty or anything this time, I'm actually trying to understand you stance and you have muddled me now!