The Kansas State Board of Education has scheduled a special executive session Wednesday to discuss personnel, and the speculation is that Education Commissioner Bob Corkins is on his way out.
Some of those to be part of the board’s new moderate majority are not yet in place, but they’ve made it clear that canning Corkins, a conservative activist with scant education or management background, will be high on their to-do list.
If Corkins saw the writing on the wall after the August GOP primary (how could he not?), he probably has been shopping his resume.
Stay tuned. Whatever the outcome, it’s pretty clear that Corkins’ days as commissioner are numbered.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
65 Comments
The travesty of his appointment cannot be corrected soon enough.
Don’t stop at the building, leave the state!
Another victim of unemployment thanks to Bush policies.
It’s nice to see the people that believe in “free-market discipline” getting to enjoy it themselves.
Hey, Bob, Wal-Mart is hiring, dude.
Corkins failed to bring anything to the Kansas education table … so time for him to move on, quick.
I’m wondering if Corkins hasn’t submitted his resignation, with the meeting called for the express purpose of replacing him with someone more attuned to those on their way out?
The military is also hiring, Bob.
Ask for deployment in Iraq . . .
I think Corkins may have been too far ahead of Kansas’s education curve. Vouchers aren’t necessarily a bad idea. Belgium and Norway allow students to take their per-capita funding to any schools they select. Canada, admittedly with a different constitutional system than ours, publicly funds Catholic schools.
People who have only been educated and worked in public schools don’t appreciate the high participation rates in community-building extracurricular activities that private schools proactively foster. They may not have the best teams, for example, but high percentages of kids play and learn to work together. I remember our school having dances after every at-home football game. A modest number of students went to them. Then four of us built light show equipment, and our dances schools became “the place to be” on Friday nights, drawing a lot of public high school students. We created basically a dance-concert format, so people who didn’t dance could be entertained. We didn’t charge for the show, the school made some money, and that was really cool.
As far as people without education backgrounds is concerned, fresh views can be really helpful, if they are not subjected to reactionary intolerance.The Seattle district hired a retired general in the 90s. He made some beneficial changes. LA has just hired a retired vice-admiral to lead its schools. San Diego and New York have former U.S. attorneys at their schools’ helms. In Chicago, the mayor is in charge of schools.
Tom Davis, head of Wichita Collegiate doesn’t have an education degree, he’s got a bachelor’s in industrial engineering, and an MBA.
I’m not saying Corkins is the best “outsider” to have been recruited, but the sentiment that people overseeing education systems need to be “insiders” doesn’t hold water. If you look at Fortune 500 CEO’s, it is as common to find people who have been recruited from other industries, as it is to find same-sector hires. This was not the case 25 years ago, but things have changed. “Cross pollination” can be highly effective.
“I’m not saying Corkins is the best “outsider” to have been recruited, but the sentiment that people overseeing education systems need to be “insiders” doesn’t hold water.”
Thank goodness you aren’t saying something as ridiculous as “Corkins was the best outsider…” He worked for pseudo-think tanks which advocated against public education — just the guy you want at the head of a program that is supposed to advocate for public schools. BTW both of my kids are in 259 public schools and as part of the programs they are in, they have to do community service volunteer hours — and both of them love doing so (well, my 14 yr old boy, maybe not so much, but my 11 yr old loves her volunteer work). Community service is just not the domain of private schools.
In case it is not obvious, “cross pollination” with mindless ideologues like Corkins IS NOT a good idea for Kansas public school children.
Occasionally, a person not trained in a particular field often make the best managers. Some fields don’t need ’super technicians’ to become supervisors. They may know their trade, but can’t manage worth a hoot.
Computer programming is an example. Some of the best programs out there have been coded by non-programmers with very little training in program design or coding.
Lawyers often make good managers because of their long experience in the legal aspect of things along with a long time in school has disciplined them to become acute observationists and practical handlers in a lot of varied situations.
I don’t know Mr. Corkins very well and what the situation actually is where he works. Maybe it was a hostile environment where some ‘teachers’ got their backs up and wouldn’t take any advice from non-teachers. If that’s the case, then someone needs an attitude adjustment.
If Mr. Corkins was incompetent, then there may be a reason. If it is purely political, then there’s the rub. Not much can be done about political shenanigans other than grin and bear it.
Without further information a diagnosis cannot be made.
“Occasionally, a person not trained in a particular field often make the best managers . . . ”
Take Bush (TM) for instance.
He was not trained for any particular field and he quickly showed himself to be the
Worst. President. Ever.
And Bush hasn’t peaked yet! Wait- peaked is going in the wrong direction. This calls for a new word.. depthed.Yeah, Bush hasn’t depthed yet! That’s accurate.
Leave it to libs to trash up a thread.
JM is whining about liberals “trashing” a thread.
How about concerning yourself with how the right-wing has trashed our country, JM?
Take Bush
Please
Capn America,
I was hoping you would behave like an adult when responding to an article.
It seems I was too optomistic.
Bob Corkins should have been put out to pasture a long time ago. Sure, cross pollination may do wonders for flowers. However, you have to have the right BEE to get the desired results. It’s obvious Mr. Corkins was a WASP! He was hired as a hachete man to cut to ribbons this state’s pubic school system. No company in it’s right mind would hire someone who is against the product to run that company. And that’s just what the majority on the Kansas School Board did! When you start messing with people’s kids you are asking for it. It’s a wonder Corkins survived this long. I have two grown children who graduated from USD 259. One has a masters from KU in elementary education. The other is a junior at KU majoring in computer science. Those who go off on public schools need to know one thing. What you put in is what you get out! Kids are a 24-hour exercise. Turning them over to the schools for eight hours is not enough. For when they are leave school for the day they are YOURS! YOU have the power to make sure your kid does well in school and in the community. All those ideas many would like to bring back to schools such as corporal punishment, prayer in school,etc; is just plain bunk. For one,whose prayer are you going to pray? Methodist, Baptist, Muslem? Many are for corporal punishment except when it comes to their kids. Of course, their kids don’t do bad things. It’s those other kids. Right!!! Corkins, Abrams and the rest of that crowd need to go. Matter of fact, a couple are on their way out along with Mr. C!!!
Good post KenWood, enjoyed it from a parent’s view.
Consider freight trains. They serve a useful function, particularly in large-scale non-perishable commodity transport. But they are inadequate on their own.
There’s a need to move goods overseas. Also domestically, using faster and more efficient modes for many goods.
Trains don’t do ocean crossings. They’re inefficient for individual-package transport of things like our online consumer-goods purchases. They work great for transporting coal, but not diamonds.
The executives who manage the railroads, and the workers who drive trains are experts. Does this mean that they should dictate our transportation policies? Their predecessors did, long ago. But things changed. They didn’t want the U.S. to build a transnational interstate highway system, because they correctly predicted that they wouldn’t be driven out of business, but they’d lose business. They tried to block first-class mail being switched to air-transported.
It is always good to examine and test alternatives. If you oppose “outsiders” involvement in education, it’s akin to being the senior railroad people (at all levels) who lobbied against the interstate system, and were not happy about airlines’ incursion on their turf. But who rides a train long distance anymore?
I use the train analogy and mention overseas crossings, because our kids are going to have to compete against, and work cooperatively with people from overseas. Most of our public educators have no idea what schools are teaching in Japan, China, India, nor even Great Britain, France or Germany. It’s okay to ignore international curricula if your kids are learning more than kids are across the oceans. But if your kids are learning less, wouldn’t you want to figure out why this is happening, and correct the deficiencies?
“Not Invented Here” is a counterproductive attitude.
heartlander – “LA has just hired a retired vice-admiral to lead its schools. San Diego and New York have former U.S. attorneys at their schools’ helms.”
Yes, these guys had a track record. Corkins only experience was his little “think tanks” (his home computer)
heartlander, how is Corkins the only answer to the problem (poor Kansas public education)?
What is his mission exactly? If his mission is to serve Kansas school districts statewide with a one-note solution to every problem (charter schools), is this a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars?
Let’s assume you and he are correct in every aspect about charter schools, that they’re the cat’s meow when it comes to delivering a world-class education to all Kansas students. Isn’t hiring a guy who’s only claim to expertise is that he once ran a one-man think tank — and assuming every thought he has about using charter schools to deliver a world-class education (arguable, but we’re assuming here) — isn’t this like hiring Bill Gates to run your abacus factory?
Remembering the assumptions under which we’re operating, how do you judge the man’s performance when, by assumption, his ideas are so far ahead of the curve that they’re completely outside the mainstream?
Note that along with other Great Plains states, Kansas is a state which, by dint of longstanding adherehence to time-tested prairie survival tactics, values the mainstream above all. Being risk-averse is in our civic genes because here on the east slope of the Rockies it’s gotten us through some pretty damn tough times.
Ok, enough with the assumptions. The answer: he’s an ideologue who was nominated by other ideologues. The hiring committee is so ideological, in fact, that they would deign to change the definition of science to fit their opinions. Clearly the hiring committee, and Corkins by extension, are flaming, raving radicals, by ANY standard. Just as this ideology-first strategy played out when the CPA “administered” Iraq, this particular kind of situation fairly begs for clusterfuck as the outcome.
Using in vivo experiements that call first for more in vitro work, plus considerable thought, is criminal when performed on humans. “Not invented here” holds no shame when Bill Gates says he wants to bet Kansas kids’ futures on building a super-computer tomorrow using the only raw materials at hand today, hard wood beads.
Heartlander — Why don’t you petition for the job? I’d read your comments about public schools over the past six months, and I am afraid that you do not understand them as you say. With your vast knowledge and expanded university degrees I am hopeful that you will apply for this post. You, too, could look like the biggest horse’s *ss in Kansas.
I just read an article in my alumni mag that talks about a Nebraska farm-raised boy who went off to Michigan, and then California, to study cutting-edge chemical engineering. Anyway, he’s invented procedures for inserting entire biochemical pathway genes into bacteria, and is working to create a plant protein that cures malaria. Big Pharma took a pass on investing in it, because although malaria kills 1.5 million people a year, most of them are destitute, so the cost of R&D plus production would exceed profit potential for a long time, particularly because Third World bootleggers don’t respect patent laws: they’re happy to steal somebody else’s hard work.
So the Gates Foundation has jumped in. The plan is to sell the drug at cost, plus give a lot away.
So, here we see one of the most devastating and debilitating diseases on the planet, whose cutting-edge treatment isn’t coming from the traditional drug makers, nor doctors. The funding is coming from the computer software sector, and the lead scientist/engineer, Jay Keasling doesn’t come from a family or personal medical background.
Dr. Keasling will get a Nobel Prize, either in chemistry for inventing complex-pathway transpecies genetic engineering, or in Medicine/Physiology if his attempts to synthetically produce this antimalarial are successful.
It’s kind of like Jack Kilby of Kansas and Robert Noyce of Iowa. They had to leave the heartland to study, and invent integrated circuits.
We have inventive talent here, but it leaves, and in the process, other states win, and we lose in economic potential. The education philosophy/ideology here bears a not-insignificant portion of responsibility for this.
Please some of you READ WHAT I HAVE SAID CAREFULLY. I DID NOT ENDORSE MR. CORKINS. I don’t know enough about him to either support or deprecate him. But, in times of monumental societal change, experiments in preparing the next generation to adapt to change are necessary. Charter schools and vouchers represent justifiable experiments. You can reject these. But if they are rejected large numbers of today’s and tomorrow’s Kansas students will pay a heavy price.
Heartlander, thanks for clarifying your non-endorsement of Corkins.
You said “Charter schools and vouchers represent justifiable experiments.”
Corkins’ proposal for charter schools was to eliminate many of the restrictions that public schools must follow, and thus provide flexibility for the charter schools.
Why not give *public* schools that same flexibility? Why place charter schools in a privileged frame, with no accountability whatsoever to the local school district and little to the state?
Corkins was pushing charter schools and vouchers as panaceas for at-risk kids – but refused to consider requiring charter schools or schools that accept vouchers to accept those same kids as public schools must.
No doubt, public education must change for a number of reasons. Along the way, though, we can’t forget that a free public education is crucial for a literate voting population.
Mr. Corkins only error was believing that the Kansas Board of Ed was actually about educating children. Dumb mistake.
Some of us remember the Super of Kentucky admitting in an open KS meeting some time back that the agenda of SBOE’s is to “dumb down” (his actual words) the kids while protecting the “education professionals” jobs.
It seems to me that the KS ED Dept Educrats are as good at keeping the incompetent in place as the Eagle is.
I’ve recently been reading Darwin’s “Voyage of the Beagle” and “The Origin of Species”. Darwin’s thoughts were corrupted by living in a warring society, to the degree that his second tome was titled, by him, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.
But non-human life may be more a matter of cooperativity than individuals’ or individual species’ struggle.
Tuna and dolphins swim together. Interspecies cooperation.
Pelagic seabirds of diverse–and I have personally witnessed this–take up positions about a half-mile apart, and create a “grid”. When small fish are driven to the surface by schools of tuna, dolphins, pelagic jacks, the nearest sentinal birds stop their circling, and fly to the “boil”. The next-neareast birds take this as a signal, and fly to the boil. Birds further out see the second birds fly straight, and so they make a beeline in the nearer-to-the-action birds’ paths. Birds even further out see the third birds do this and follow suit. And so on. They have a cooperative network. Terns, petrels, jaegers. seagulls, shearwaters, gannets, boobies and pelicans participate. They clearly have cooperative interspecies “sentinel agreements”.
Darwin marveled at Tahitians’ absolute comfort in the water. He wasn’t a swimmer, so he never joined them. But nearly three-fourths of our planet is covered in water. I’ve dived in coral reefs, and they are undersea gardens. Is there an intelligent designer behind them. Only someone who has never seen them would argue this is impossible, or so unlikely that it doesn’t merit mention in a biology class. Let’s consider the judges and justices who have struck down Creationism. Do they have scuba certification? I mean really, how much natural-world observation have they personally witnessed?
A lot of pro-intelligent-design Kansans live on farms and personally witness nature on a daily basis.
I’ve used the “French Intensive” system of raising vegetables. It is based on planting different species in the same plot, and creating communities of plants and beneficial insects.
There is no such thing as a free education, public or otherwise. If you want truly free public education, abolish compulsory-school attendance laws.
You can say, “Ain’t gonna happen,” and BINGO, you’re damned straight it aint. But make school attendance VOLUNTARY, give out vouchers to enable parents to send their kids to any school, and I can guarantee you that you will see CHANGE.
Change is destabilizing but that’s the way life should be. Charles Darwin essentially backed British imperialism. But he proved to back the wrong human-evolutionary horse.
“Only someone who has never seen them would argue this is impossible, or so unlikely that it doesn’t merit mention in a biology class. Let’s consider the judges and justices who have struck down Creationism. Do they have scuba certification?”Posted by: heartlander | November 21, 2006 at 09:16 PM
No offense, but this seems to be no more than your own sentimentality, a kind of late-life relevation minimized by being turned into mere anthropomorphic rumination.
If you really do believe in a “Creator,” how do you separate that to which your ascribe to him from that from a sliver of the remembrance of which (apparently) causes your eyes to well a bit?
Whatever your answer, I think you might need to work on your filter. What you’re written is all well and fine and sentimental, maybe even it’s from Disney, but it ain’t logical.
From “it’s so beautiful” to “therefore it must have been designed” is a little embarrassing to read, frankly. To prop it up by writing “A lot of pro-intelligent-design Kansans live on farms and personally witness nature on a daily basis” just makes the reader (this reader anyway) kind of sad that you make it so easy, almost imperative actually, to dismiss your whole argument here. And I’m completely ignoring the scuba thing.
Charles Darwin essentially backed British imperialism. But he proved to back the wrong human-evolutionary horse.Posted by: heartlander | November 21, 2006 at 10:12 PM
More bad logic (natural selection is essentially the result of cognitive dissonance on the part of a politically observant British patriot).
Please try harder, I know you can do better than this.
He is not leaving soon enough…
heartlander…………….I knew you’d be pontificating to the “nth” degree on this thread even before I looked at any of the specific posts. I was correct. Do you have a life outside of trashing public education?I think maybe NE Heartbreak had the right idea. Why don’t you apply for the job Corky is going to be forced to vacate later today? NE Heartbreak might have been wrong about one thing, YOU may already one of the biggest horses a** in Kansas already.
oh, heart…………….it is totally pathetic that you CLAIM to be a “man of science” and still support the ID nonsense. Shame on you!
Apophis: Good to see you back in the fray — we need your point of view expressed here on a regular basis.
I haven’t had much time to read posts lately, little less have the time to countered the foes of public education. The job of actually educating our youth takes a tremendous amount of time. Here’s another interesting tidbit…..heartlander still hasn’t taken up my offer of putting his money where is mouth is: he still hasn’t volunteered to tutor math to “at-risk” students at one of our public middle schools. Thanks for the “WB” JWink.
Darwin said some silly things. For example, he called the marine iguana “ugly” [sic].
“December 30th. — In the afternoon we stood out of the Bay of Islands, on our course to Sydney. I believe we were all glad to leave New Zealand. It is not a pleasant place. Amongst the natives there is absent that charming simplicity which is found in Tahiti; and the greater part of the English are the very refuse of society. Neither is the country itself attractive. I look back but to one bright spot, and that is Waimate, with its Christian inhabitants.”
[Of note, Darwin also extolled the missionary influence in Tahiti, in respect to its reversing grave social ills introduced earlier by the rapacious East India Company. But he could not observe any aboriginal groups in their pre-European-encounter condition.]
New Zealand not attractive? It is one of the most beautiful places on the planet. I shot twenty rolls of film there during a six-week “working holiday”. Granted, the Bay of Islands, the only part of New Zealand that Darwin saw, does not have the awesome natural wonders of the South Island but it’s still a very pretty place, in the same league as Carmel, Santa Barbara, Malibu and Laguna Beach in California, which have some of the highest residential real estate values in America. All in all, New Zealand is kind of like a combination of California, Washington State and British Columbia.
Here’s an idea heartlander…………………..why don’t you do us all a favor and move there?
Apophis, why don’t you take an extended sabbatical and do some biological research, then bring your experiences back to the classroom? Or how about taking a job teaching in Alaska, and see awesome things in nature up close and personal.
An extended sabbatical…………that is hilarious. Who exactly is going to pay for that? Am I to take that time off unpaid? Are you going to support my family?
This is another of heartlander’s asinine ideas for “improving” public education. My students need me in the classroom every day, not out “doing some research”.
heartlander, you claimed not to support Corkins, yet don’t seem to have any problem with his ideas for special treatment of vouchers/charter schools.
A “free” public education is “free,” compared to schooling your kids in a private or parochial school. Public education is available to all who want it – and to many who don’t! – unlike private schools, who would be able to pick and choose their students under Corkins’ proposals.
As far as bringing in outsiders to run the department of education . . . the next time you need surgery, do you want a board-certified surgeon performing the procedure? Or would you be okay with an attorney or a plumber or an accountant slicing you open? After all, we don’t want to eliminate their “fresh ideas” and potential for cross-pollination . . .
Or is it that anybody’s who’s been to school automatically thinks they’re an ‘expert’ on education?
[howdy, Apophis!]
Hey Babe,Have you ever heard of GRANTS? My son is working on a project sending up telemetered instruments via rocket into the Aurora Borealis. He’s heading up to the launch site in Alaska in two weeks. He’s being paid by a federal research grant, like his father was many moons ago.
You’re a union activist. Can the NEA provide support to you for a research sabbatical?
My oldest son has a degree in environmental engineering, my second in physics, and my third is majoring in computer science. The last two were home-educated. I don’t think your diatribes that I am antiscience hold a heckuva lot of water. What are your children doing?
Why would it even remotely the responsibility of a union to fund a research sabbatical for a public school employee? You are so out of touch with reality heartlander, totally.
“I’ve recently been reading Darwin’s ‘Voyage of the Beagle’ and ‘The Origin of Species’. Darwin’s thoughts were corrupted by living in a warring society, to the degree that his second tome was titled, by him, ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’.”
Uhm, are you sure you haven’t been reading much past the title?
“But non-human life may be more a matter of cooperativity than individuals’ or individual species’ struggle.
Tuna and dolphins swim together. Interspecies cooperation.”
(followed by a discussion about cooperation between seabirds)
If you think Darwin’s point was nature red in tooth and claw and every creature out for him or herself, then I have to wonder what “Origin of Species” you’ve been reading. Darwin talked about selection as a process that acted on individuals and within species populations. But discussing selection in such terms makes no presumptions whatsoever about the strategies that account for successful selection. Dolphin who associate with tuna will get more food to eat, which will allow them to leave more offspring. Seabirds who cooperate with one another will do the same thing.
“Darwin marveled at Tahitians’ absolute comfort in the water. He wasn’t a swimmer, so he never joined them. But nearly three-fourths of our planet is covered in water. I’ve dived in coral reefs, and they are undersea gardens. Is there an intelligent designer behind them. Only someone who has never seen them would argue this is impossible, or so unlikely that it doesn’t merit mention in a biology class. Let’s consider the judges and justices who have struck down Creationism. Do they have scuba certification? I mean really, how much natural-world observation have they personally witnessed?”
1) You seem to think that “Darwin is refuted therefore evolution is refuted”. Therefore, if I can find flaws in Darwin’s background relative to (evidently by your logic in this post) your background, you can explain why Darwin came up with natural selection. Never mind the fact that there are numerous marine biologists who study coral reef systems who do it from an evolutionary framework.
2) An appeal to asthetics is really a pathetic attempt to refute evolution and support creationism. Do you really think that if “judges and justices who have struck down Creationism” had had scuba certification they would have ruled differently?
3) “I mean really, how much natural-world observation have they personally witnessed?” Uhm, heartlander, the overwhelming majority of professional biologists and naturalists who study the natural world, including the most beautiful reaches of nature, do so uhder the framework of an evolution theoretical perspective. And the terminology “overwhelming majority” is an understatement. The idea that “natural-world observation” leads people AWAY from evolution and towards creationism is flat out false. Quite the opposite. Observations of nature have provided the evidence that supports and indeed confirms common descent. By the way, remembering the grave flaws in the argument that showing Darwin’s limitations in background can be used to refute evolution, if you think Darwin was not appreciative of nature’s beauty, you are not really reading the detailed and lyrical nature of some of his passages in “Voyage of the Beagle”. Darwin has a meticulous eye for detail and saw beauty in some places that others did and do not.
“New Zealand not attractive? It is one of the most beautiful places on the planet. I shot twenty rolls of film there during a six-week “working holiday”. Granted, the Bay of Islands, the only part of New Zealand that Darwin saw, does not have the awesome natural wonders of the South Island but it’s still a very pretty place, in the same league as Carmel, Santa Barbara, Malibu and Laguna Beach in California, which have some of the highest residential real estate values in America. All in all, New Zealand is kind of like a combination of California, Washington State and British Columbia.”
Darwin was aesthetically wrong about New Zealand, therefore evolution is flawed? Or that Darwin is flawed? What’s really your point here? Yes, Darwin was shaped by being a reasonably well off 19th century citizen of the British Empire, with many of the attendant prejudices of that background. He was also a loving husband, a caring father, and probably the most meticulous, careful, and detail oriented scientist of his age.
You’re support of ID is totally anti-science, so my argument does hold water. What you claim your kids do is irrelevant. Your assertion of the superiority of home school is irrelevant. What my kids do is irrelevant. What is relevant is who has more expendable income, you or I? I work for the public schools, that should answer the previous question. As I stated late last spring heartlander, you are an elitist and therefore irrelevant.
By the way, Pendant’s and Kenwood’s analysis of Corkins are right on point. Corkins was selected on the basis of being an idealogue activists who was anti-spending on public schools. This appealed to the then KSBE majority because they themselves were opposed to the public school systems that they saw as excessively secular and pluralistic (and worse, expensive in their secular and pluralistic nature). From their point of view, they wanted to starve the beast, and so did Corkins.
CSA, for certain technical procedures, such as surgery, of course I want a board-certified surgeon. But consider what this means. It means somebody who was in the top 2% of his or her high school class (if he or she went to public hs). It means somebody who got A’s in college/university science classes. If he or she is under 40, the probability that he or she worked on a research project is very high. It means somebody who put in 80-100 hour work weeks as a medical student and excelled in his or her surgery rotation above-and-beyond his or her highly talented classmates. Then he or she was admitted to a surgery residency program, and performed superbly (i.e. wasn’t cut from the program). Final tally: high honors in high school, high honors in college, demonstration of exceptional diligence and skill in 9 YEARS of POST-COLLEGIATE education.
You don’t have anything remotely approaching these performance standards in teacher recruitment and training.
To get board-certified a doctor has to pass specialized post-doctoral examinations. Since the late 1990’s newly board-certified doctors are required to retest every 7 years to retain certification, i.e. passing the tests ONCE in a lifetime isn’t sufficient.
So your argument, although reasonable to the undereducated, sophistry-susceptible mind, doesn’t hold water.
In medicine, 21st century medical advancements are largely outside the hands of physicians. Molecular biologists, computational biologists, biophysicists, chemists, engineers, and others who have Ph.D., not M.D. after their names, are largely directing medical progress today. Which is why we have seen astonishing progress in medicine. Education could use some of this lesson.
On Corkins, I don’t know the man. But an intelligent observer would notice that he got into our state’s top law school and got through it, so the intelligent observer would notice that Corkins was a significantly-above-average capable and diligent student. He had to successfully surmount higher hurdles than public educators. So looking at him as someone who studied hard, and succeeded, what is the probability that he might want students to learn some of the lessons he did?
No matter, he’s out. Kansas teachers can now breathe a sigh of relief and say, “Oh, good, we’re going back to where we were.” As the Eagles sang, “Take It Easy.” Of course, water’s running out. Most Kansas counties are depopulating. You can teach evolution without ID, but do you know how to teach science? Not exactly.
“No matter, he’s out. Kansas teachers can now breathe a sigh of relief and say, “Oh, good, we’re going back to where we were.” As the Eagles sang, “Take It Easy.” Of course, water’s running out. Most Kansas counties are depopulating. You can teach evolution without ID, but do you know how to teach science? Not exactly.”
What an unjustified slam, and unworthy of the heartlander I’ve seen post here (even though I think you are very, very wrong in your views of evolution and ID, and sometimes church/state issues, I’ve usually admired the way you post). You seem to be attacking Apophis’ education and professionalism as a public school teacher. There are all sorts of public school teachers, some of them are very good at what they do, and some of them are not. Attacking Apophis’ qualifications does not have any relevance to the validity of his arguments.
And by the way, your harping on Apophis’ qualifications and on judges’ personal experiences are total red herrings. In the evolution verses ID debate, you are OPPOSING AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELDS MOST RELEVANT TO BIOLOGY!
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
I congratulate you on your accomplishments as a parent, and your children on their qualifications. But they don’t make you right and Apophis wrong.
Oh, and wouldn’t the members of the AAAS have informed opinions as to what should be taught in science classrooms?
Oooops!
I do owe heartlander a big apology. I see you were replying to CSA, not Apophis. And I have no idea what CSA does for a living, so no impugning of his/her qualifications as a public school teacher can be implied.
However, I still stand by my arguments regarding the irrelevancy of citing personal qualifications to the evolution debate and to the misleading nature of the implication that it is judges and teachers arguing evolution against more qualified scientists.
I’m not saying that Darwin wasn’t brilliant. He was. He was a polymath. He used his surgical skills, gained from apprenticing with his surgeon father and studying surgery at the University of Edinburgh, to establish that iguanas were vegetarians. As a geologist he was the first to conceive of atolls being subsided volcanos. His Galapagos-observational argument that species gave rise to variation is clearly right.
He also procreated a line of brilliant scientists. But, like all of us, Darwin had prejudices. Reportedly, after his 10 year old beloved daughter died, he abandoned the church, concluding that a loving God would not take away his beloved child. But a lot of other people experienced this, and didn’t lose faith. For many, tragedies like this strengthen their faith.
Looking at the earth, one can see that humankind’s power-acquisition impulses represent a “struggle”. But in the natural non-human world, I’m not at all convinced this has been a driving force. I’ve been studying living things since I was five years old. I brought an egg-laden moth home, put it into a perforated lidded jar. Two weeks later, there were tiny caterpillars all over the house. I’ve nursed a wounded meadowlark, baby starlings and bluejays. I’ve run a rubber raft with dolphis, and watched them come up to my boat and do 360 flips in the air to entertain me. I’ve watched dogs and cats PLAY with each other, and PLAY with us humans. I have a well-fed parrot that starts doing a “come here” phew-phew-phew dog whistle whenever I pass by her cage. She loves to have her head rubbed. This doesn’t increase her survival prospects. The life of earth is not incompatible with an intelligent design. Those who disagree need to spend more time with animals.
On the union’s supporting leave-of-absence learning experiences for teachers, EXPAND YOUR HORIZONS. At my PUBLIC university, professors took sabbaticals every seven years. Some took the year to do library and lab research without teaching classes. Many went elsewhere to absorb new ideas.
I think this concept is applicable to K-12 teachers. The NEA should be willing to pony up some money. And Apophis, get the NEA to lobby to fund state and federal grants programs for teacher sabbaticals. Also contact the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If you do these things, and they pan out, you don’t have to credit me. I’m an idea person. Ideas require work to actualize. Do the work. Because if you do, you’ll merit the credit. I’d like to see public education in Kansas succeed.
PS Apophis, if you want me to work with you on this project, email me. I think it would be terrific if our science teachers got to leave their regular classroom duties for a year, and get amazing experiences.
heart, your ideas have merit; however, I fear reality, that is, the ever-increasing shortage of science teachers (and math teachers, as I understand it) in the schools will cause it to die aborning; for how can a school, public or private, afford to lose a teacher for a year in these areas unless there is a pool of qualified replacements available? From a parent’s perspective, I’d be upset if my student lost the opportunity to take Chemistry, e.g., because the Chemistry teacher was on a sabbatical for a year. I’m sure you will have an idea or two to combat this problem; however, I don’t seem to have any this day.
“None are as blind as those who will not see…”
unsure of the source, but all I have to say.
“Looking at the earth, one can see that humankind’s power-acquisition impulses represent a “struggle”. But in the natural non-human world, I’m not at all convinced this has been a driving force. I’ve been studying living things since I was five years old. I brought an egg-laden moth home, put it into a perforated lidded jar. Two weeks later, there were tiny caterpillars all over the house. I’ve nursed a wounded meadowlark, baby starlings and bluejays. I’ve run a rubber raft with dolphis, and watched them come up to my boat and do 360 flips in the air to entertain me. I’ve watched dogs and cats PLAY with each other, and PLAY with us humans. I have a well-fed parrot that starts doing a “come here” phew-phew-phew dog whistle whenever I pass by her cage. She loves to have her head rubbed. This doesn’t increase her survival prospects.”
And you clearly still don’t understand natural selection, for all of your obvious intelligence, if you think that personality and play are incompatible with natural selection. Individual intelligent animals (which dogs, cats, parrots, and dolphins certainly are) do things because of individual preferences and personalities, and some of those preferences and personality traits are commonly found in the species. However, they do have survival value if play helps with skill development, and to cement social bonds (such as in group hunting predators like dogs and dolphins, or social birds like parrots). Indeed, the inclination to play with humans has been very good for the biological success of both dogs and cats. Just because Darwin and his theoretical descendents talk about selection on the basis of individual animals and species, and about competetion, does not imply selfishness or lack of sociability or just those traits which allow one animal to beat or out compete another one. It’s any trait which allows the animal to successfully reproduce and raise offspring. This includes such traits as sociability, agreeableness, and friendliness. Even empathy. Your apparent perception that “play” or “loving to have her head rubbed” is somehow incompatible with natural selection or survival prospects is an expression of a peculiar sort of blindness in this matter.
I find it interesting that this thread has evolved (!) into a discussion of ID v. Evolution. I feel that ID has it’s place in school – in comparitive religion class.
But back to the original point – Corkins. I feel that we have done our Public Schools a great disservice by allowing an opponent of the PS system to be the guardian of that same system.
Corkins had a vested interest in seeing the current system fail, as it would justify his previous opposition. There would be no way that he could be unbiased.
You wouldn’t hire a fox to repair the roof on your chicken coop.
You wouldn’t hire Corkin to manage your school systems.
To clarify when I said this:
“It’s any trait which allows the animal to successfully reproduce and raise offspring.”
In social animals, traits relating to playfulness and bonding, even to members of other species such as cross fostered dogs, cats, and parrots, are going to helpful to a species reproductive success even if they persist in individual animals that don’t reproduce themselves. The ability to socially interact with humans has particularly had survival value to dogs and cats (and indeed, feral cats are actually social if not cooperatively so, often tending to live in “colonies”).
“But back to the original point – Corkins. I feel that we have done our Public Schools a great disservice by allowing an opponent of the PS system to be the guardian of that same system.
Corkins had a vested interest in seeing the current system fail, as it would justify his previous opposition. There would be no way that he could be unbiased.”
Exactly.
Like I said this morning heartlander, my students need me in the classroom. I can not affect theirs lives if I do not teach. Why would I want to to do biology research anyway? My specialty is Earth Science; you know rocks, minerals and the like.
One of the problems I have with the use of school vouchers is about the parents to whom the voucher is issued who want to use it for private school tuition but cannot make up the difference in the tuition for the private school, which has limited to no funds available for financial aid. In such situation, the voucher is an empty promise. For purposes of this discussion, I am considering the amount of the voucher to be no more than the base per pupil funding by the State, without any adjustments.
Another problem I have with vouchers involves the following scenario: the private schools with which I have experience have admission requirements. Again, what use is the voucher to parents whose students are unable to meet these requirements?
Yet another issue is my belief that if a private (nonpublic) school accepts vouchers, then said school must offer all services, transportation, special ed, free or reduced lunch, etc., that public schools offer; there cannot be any admission requirements; and, like public schools, underperforming students cannot be dismissed from the school. I would imagine those criteria would not be acceptable to most nonpublic schools, thus the vouchers would not be accepted.
I feel just as strongly that any student in any USD (using the Kansas nomenclature) should have the right to attend any elementary, middle or high school he or she (along with parents) chooses to attend within the district. Of course, space limitations would have to be considered, as would, in the case of USD 259, such things as the consent decree as to racial makeup of the schools. Transportation would be another issue; leaving it solely to the parents is likely not an answer. I suspect that if free choice among public schools would be offered, the likelihood of increased parental involvement would increase, which also would benefit students.
Corkins has left the building – he resigned today.http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/4723826.html
Good points, ksa and VT.
I think we as a society will need to figure out how to invest wisely in our nation’s children in order to invest wisely in our nation’s future. It is a challenging problem, but it should be solvable.
heartlander, you asked me, “but do you know how to teach science? Not exactly.”
Hmmm. What evidence do you have that I don’t know how to teach science? ;)
The best way to teach science is with as much hands-on as possible. Also, relate it as much as possible with things the students see in the world around them.