Case Notes: res ipsa loquitur

Today May 10, 2016 at 9:00 am, the Kansas Supreme Court will hold a hearing on whether the bill the legislature passed to comply with its order relating to equity in the Gannon case is constitutional. You should be able to watch live http://www.kscourts.org/Kansas-courts/supreme-court/arguments.asp

A bit of history from the Kansas Evolution fights. When the State Board of Education disbanded the K-12 Science Education Standards writing committee (2005), who was in the ordinary process to produce high quality education standards, they want to subvert the process to insert propagandist education standards. On our own, my committee in defiance of the authority of the SBOE completed our work. We worked on our own time, paid out of pocket to do our work. It took until February 2007 (and an election) for those high quality science standards to be adopted.

When the State Board of Education decided that they would have a series of scientific hearings on the validity of evolution as a scientific theory we decided we would not participate – despite threats of retribution. In conversation with Genie Scott from NCSE, we talked about a twist to an antiwar poster from our youth: What if they had hearings and nobody came. The hearings ended up being boycotted by ALL of the scientific community. This resistance now means that very few people even remember these hearings, let alone what was discussed.

Perhaps it time to figure out how we resist the destruction of public schools in Kansas. Our legal systems and protections are also under attack. It is clear that our current political process is failing us. We hope that the legal system will protect us but it seems to be a time to reread Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. The moral power in our system means people only that authority only has the power that we give it. Resistance to authority has a price – sometimes a high price. Civil Disobedience can mean you have to willing pay the price to move us forward. Martin Luther King was jailed in his fight for right. My experience is that it is not so much figuring out what is right – it is more a matter if we are willing to pay the price to achieve it.

Critical literacy is the right of every citizen. What does this mean for this Fall to move Kansas education going forward? I do not know, but I know we can figure it out together. First step, listen to the hearings!

The lessons of history teach us that mixing religion and politics is an exceptionally bad idea.  Oppression and politics is a part of the story of the Messiah in Christianity.  In the 2000 years since, there are many examples of slavery, oppression and general manipulation of the society as people in power try to use religion as a part of their arsenal to maintain their power.  In a stroke of brilliance, the founders of the United States removed religion as a weapon of oppression.  What we have discovered is that this attempt to protect individual liberty also protected religious belief and believers from those who would use and misuse the faith community.

It is time for people of faith to rise and defend their faith against the threat coming from within.  It is not an external threat to faith but those within the ranks of the faithful who seek to subvert the teachings of their faith to a political end.  “But, knowing their hypocrisy, he (Jesus) said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  Rise up and defend your right to live your faith without being told what it should look like in your life.  Keep faith freeing and empowering, not oppressing.

For those of you who are embarrassed by the State of Kansas and what is currently going on here – leaving is not the answer.  Joining us in creating a community that we can be proud of is the only solution.  If you cannot come home, make the community where you have a sense of place the kind of community you can be proud of.

In the old days at Outdoor Education Laboratory (nature and science camp), we used to teach that kids that the credo of “Leave only footprints and take only memories and photographs” was no longer adequate.  We wanted them to understand that our very physical presence in the natural environment had an impact – both good and bad.  The negative impact on the outdoors areas we so loved was becoming so significant that we had to leave these places better then we found them.  It did not mean that have to solve world issues, just tip the scales a bit toward the positive side.

Over time this has grown into a life philosophy – Leave everywhere you go better than you found it; every day and everywhere you go.  Better is defined by each of us but it has to be tangible.  So that is my question for you today; by the end of the day, how is where you are right now, going to be better?

It is with great interest that I read Paul Cancellieri’s blog on Grades as Measurements.  He expresses many of the ideas I have been struggling with in the focus of Grades vs. Learning.  They do often seem to be at odds with one another.

Grades as measurements

Grading students in education is a wide-ranging and frequently discussed issue.  The meaning of a course grades is often defined by a course syllabus, with clearly outlined behaviors that the student must perform to receive a grade of a specific level.  The activities are frequently mechanistic and reflect a simple model of behaviorism in learning.  In fact, what is most remarkable is how rarely learning even figures into the discussion.

What is reflected is most often is  behavioral control that is quite oppressive.  It is critical for a democratic society to have at least functionally literate citizens, this level of literacy is not enough and, in fact, can be dangerous.  In his book, Theory and Resistance in Education, Henry Giroux points out that “literacy has the potential not only to liberate people but to make oppressed people believe that the dominant culture is correct in portraying them as inferior and responsible for their location in the class structure.”  Functional literacy can be a double edged sword.  Although learning to read and write can help people function and think more independently, a lack of complete understanding can also make people more susceptible to being manipulated.   For instance, Tobacco companies seem to want a functionally literate citizen.  They want us to be able to read their marketing and ask for their brands by name.  They do not however want us to think critically about how manipulative their marketing is or to understand what the surgeon general’s warning means to our health.

The promise and challenges of critical literacy is perhaps best illustrated in Pedagogy of the Oppressed  by Paulo Freire (1970).  Freire feels that for critical literacy to exist, there must be a critical understanding and actions combined with the ability to use the language tools of the dominant cultures.  This is not an easy task at any level because an oppressive culture dehumanizes both the oppressor and the oppressed.  Dehumanization precludes education.  Freire defines one difficult problem for the oppressed, “One of the gravest obstacles to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it and thereby acts to submerge human beings’ consciousness.  Functionally, oppression is domesticating.”  He goes on to say, “Given the circumstances which have produced their duality, it is only natural that they distrust themselves. ” The oppressor, experiencing the material benefits of the dominant culture,  also has little reason to change.  In addition, Freire argues that really only the oppressed can free the oppressor to be more human.   “As the oppressed, fighting to be human, take away the oppressors’ power to dominate and suppress, they restore to the oppressors the humanity they had lost in the exercise of oppression.”  Oppression in any form allows for easier social control.

As much as I would like to believe that all of the barriers to critical literacy are external to education, I find that grades and grading are very much a part of the oppression preventing critical literacy.  Freire points out “On the other hand at a certain point in their existential experience the oppressed feel an irresistible attraction toward the oppressors and their way of life.  Sharing this way of life becomes an overpowering aspiration.  In their alienation the oppressed want at any cost to resemble the oppressors, to imitate them, to follow them.  This phenomenon is especially prevalent in the middle-class oppressed, who yearn to be equal to the “eminent” men and women of the upper class.”  Teachers and professors have become self-limiting members of the oppressed middle class.

The dominant disciplinary metaphor for grading is not that of education, an exploration of pedagogy or assessment, but is in the realm of economics. That is clear from the very term “grade inflation,” which is apparently reflect in the chart above is an economic metaphor.  Our feedback to learners on what they know, understanding and are able to do is limited if we confine ourselves to the economic vocabulary of inputs and outputs, incentives, resource distribution, and compensation. Even to propose the existence of an objectively correct evaluation of what a student deserves raises in interesting problem that the true grade can be uncovered and honestly reported. It would be an understatement to say that this reflects a simplistic and outdated view of knowledge and of learning.

The question becomes, is there a better way to provide assessment to learners that reflects what they know and can do?

UKanTeach has be working on both the quantity and quality of STEM teacher preparation. The success of our students is our real measure (below) but we continue to work at a national level on STEM Teacher Development. The announcement below from the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU)  reflects our leadership efforts.  The Science and Math Teacher Imperative (SMTI) has identified promising practices in STEM teacher preparation.

APLU/SMTI Announcement

http://www.aplu.org/page.aspx?pid=2311

We congratulate the first science and mathematics teacher preparation programs selected in this pilot of promising practices. This was a trial as APLU/SMTI turns attention to defining features of quality in science and mathematics teacher preparation programs.

Name of Practices and Institutions

• Colorado Learning Assistant (CO LA) at the University of Colorado at Boulder

• Modeling Instruction: Content & Pedagogy at Florida International University

• Science Teacher Induction Network (TIN) at the University of Minnesota

• Scope and Sequence Matrix for the UKanTeach Program Courses at the University of Kansas

• UKanTeach at the University of Kansas

APLU/SMTI undertook this pilot effort in the summer and fall of 2011 to develop an approach to identifying promising practices. We invited the 25-institution subset of SMTI participants in The Leadership Collaborative to submit nominations of elements of their programs for consideration as “promising practices”. The Collaborative is an NSF-funded RETA, serving as a demonstration project for promoting and sustaining institutional change for advancing the priority of science and math teacher preparation.

We recognize that there is no commonly accepted definition or agreed-upon set of metrics to apply to the term “promising practice” in teacher preparation. So for our purposes, we operationally defined a promising practice as a unique effort or a notable extension of an existing practice for which data exist to support a positive impact on one or more of the core purposes of SMTI: to increase the quantity, quality and diversity of science and mathematics teachers.

The nominated promising practices were required to directly address one section of the Analytic Framework (AF) — a tool designed to identify policies and practices within institutions that support the recruitment, preparation, induction and development of science and mathematics teachers.

Institutional nomination(s) could be for:

An entire science or mathematics teacher preparation program that incorporates one or more of the five Critical Components and Goals of the Analytic Framework (AF); See The Analytic Framework White Paper for more details.
One of the AF Critical Components and one or more of the objectives and strategies under that Component; or
Selected AF strategies.

Seven institutions responded to our pilot, several submitting more than one practice, to give us a total of 13 nominations to review. Each of the nominations was critiqued by three reviewers with extensive knowledge of the research base and practice of science-mathematics teacher preparation. An essential criteria for acceptance as a “promising practice” was submission of evidence supporting the impact on the quantity, quality and/or diversity of teacher candidates. Depending on the practice the desired impact might have been:

Improved academic and “soft” qualities of candidates enrolling in programs;
Increased retention of program graduates as beginning teachers;
Evaluations of the success of program graduates as teachers; or
Demonstrated institutional leadership and cross-college collaboration strongly embedded in policy and practice.

The review process resulted in designation of five of the 13 submissions as promising practices. The Learning Assistants Model at the University of Colorado at Boulder so impressed our reviewers that they dubbed it an ‘exemplary practice’. Although we had no formal criteria, the external reviewers and SMTI staff agreed there was abundant evidence that the CO LA model has transformed undergraduate STEM courses and dramatically increased the interest and engagement of STEM faculty and students in K-12 STEM teaching, and spread the CO LA model effectively across the nation through peer adoption of the model by other institutions.
Through this pilot process, APLU sought to test how to create a potential national network of institutions to implement and assess three transformational strategies:

The use of a rigorously developed, evidence-based tool for institutions to systematically identify and document effective science and mathematics teacher preparation practices;
The development of a formal mechanism for the academy to assess and confirm promising practices in science and mathematics teacher preparation; and
The creation of a respected national platform to share and disseminate promising practices in science and mathematics teacher preparation.

This pilot project will serve future plans as we explore opportunities for expansion. Please stay tuned!

During the academic year of 1999-2000 a faculty task force met to make recommendations to the Chancellor on Science Education at the University of Kansas. Below is the executive summary and the recommendations. This report lead to the founding of the Center for Science Education in the fall of 2000. As near as I can tell, the task force was leading the nation as we were getting our house in order.
The full report can be viewed at http://www.kuscied.org/~kuscied/resources/TFR.pdf

Report of the Task Force on Science Education
15 May 2000
University of Kansas
Executive Summary: Task Force Recommendations

Recent reports by prominent academic and scientific institutions raise concern about the health of science education in our nation’s universities, colleges and public education institutions. Research universities have been chided for not employing their capacity to provide research experiences for undergraduate science majors, for not fully recognizing their key role in preparing future K-12 science teachers, for appearing to tolerate a lower standard of science teaching than is found for teaching in the humanities and for giving students the impression that science is an elitist and insular profession. Nationally, there seems to be a growing mistrust of scientists and, as evidenced by recent events involving the Kansas State Board of Education, a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and what scientists do. This Task Force was charged with examining KU’s current activities in science education, science education scholarship and regional science education outreach, and with making recommendations to improve the university’s activities in these areas. The Task Force is convinced that KU has established programs that are addressing many of the concerns noted above, although, as a major research university, we are not immune from all of these concerns.

This report is a preliminary summary of recommended actions that meet the Chancellor’s charge to the Task Force. The Task Force identified the following core objectives for improving science education at KU. Each set of objectives is linked to a series of high priority recommendations for fostering improvement. The objectives and recommendations fall into the following three broad categories:

1. Initiatives to Foster Science Curriculum Reform Objectives:

Non-science majors should complete their years of study with a clear understanding of the nature of science, the process of science and how science influences the environment and human society. The scientific community should seek opportunities to improve the content and pedagogy of our science and mathematics content courses. Opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in scholarly scientific research should be broadened. Faculty whose scholarship focuses on science education and learning should be valued within the promotion and tenure and merit salary systems in their departments and schools. Existing science, mathematics and education faculty should be empowered to participate in the reform of science curricula and programs at the university through a clear commitment from the university to value these activities in the promotion, tenure and merit salary review processes.

Recommendations:
A. Modify introductory courses (e.g. principal courses for majors and non-majors within the College) in the physical, natural, social, and behavioral sciences to emphasize scientific inquiry along with the factual content of that science. (Short-Medium Term)

B. Change the Principal Course Distribution requirement within the College so that students are required to take one course in each of the biological, physical and earth sciences. (Short Term)

C. Work to establish an endowment for science curriculum reform that will generate $50,000 per year to support curriculum reform projects. (Short Term)

D. Acknowledge educational research and curriculum reform as scholarship in considerations of promotion and tenure and merit salary within departments and schools across campus. (Short Term)

E. Identify new resources for adding full-time instructional coordinators to science departments with major service loads. (Short-Medium Term)

F. Identify new resources for GTAs or undergraduate assistants to improve the quality of science lecture instruction. (Short-Medium Term)

G. Expand access to research experiences for science and science education majors at the University. (Short Term)

2. Initiatives to Support Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Objectives:
The science disciplines should awaken to their key role in producing tomorrow’s leaders in science and mathematics education, and partner with education faculty to implement improved programs in teacher preparation.

Recommendations:
A. Establish a cooperative working relationship between the School of Education and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences to explore the development of new curricula and courses needed to serve pre-service science teachers. (Medium Term)

B. Provide the School of Education with the resources to complete the Teacher Education Division (TED) design and implement TED in a manner that provides opportunity for recognition and career enhancement for those who undertake this significant task. (Medium Term)

3. Initiatives to Foster Science Education Scholarship and Public Education Objectives:

The entire scientific community should look for opportunities to expand the university’s excellent record of science education scholarship, public education and outreach. The scientific community should seek opportunities to improve the physical environment in which science courses are taught.

Recommendations:

A. Establish a university-recognized center or institute to promote science and mathematics education scholarship, reform and public education. (Short-Medium
Term)

B. Seek the addition of several new science content and new science education faculty members who have proven records of scholarship and leadership. (Short Term)

C. Establish a new science teaching building project as a key component of the upcoming endowment drive, and seek support for this project from major foundations and other potential financial donors. (Medium-Long Term)

D. Pursue the acquisition of new resources, facilities and properties that increase the university’s opportunities to engage in science education and science outreach in regional communities and school districts. (Medium Term)

This self-analysis of science education at KU coincides with a related national climate of introspection. In response to concerns raised by scholarly and policy organizations over the past five years, federal agencies and private foundations have introduced new funded initiatives to 1) improve the science component of general education, 2) develop new fundamental knowledge about how students learn, 3) improve the delivery of science to underserved and underrepresented students, and 4) reform programs for preparing science and mathematics teachers. KU is competing actively for external resources in all of these areas. The Task Force feels that the university has a window of opportunity to build a nationally competitive research focus in science and mathematics education.

Report of the Task Force on Science Education
University of Kansas
Prepared for Chancellor Robert Hemenway
15 May 2000

Joseph Heppert, Chemistry
Helen Alexander, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Richard Givens, Office of the Provost
James Ellis, Teaching and Leadership
Donald Steeples, Geology
Marylee Southard, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
Sally Frost Mason, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Kris Krishtalka, Director, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center
Jim Woelfel, Humanities and Western Civilization Program
Thomas Schreiber, Psychology
John Hoopes, Anthropology
Stephen Shawl, Physics
Susan Gay, Mathematics and Teaching and Leadership
David Darwin, Civil and Environmental Engineering
Valentino Stella, Pharmacy
Keith Russell, Dean, Libraries

Two really interesting studies on brain structure and social interactions reported in science this week.

The Brain’s Social Network

Greg Miller

On page 697 of this week’s issue of Science, neuroscientists report that housing macaques in larger groups increased the amount of gray matter in several parts of the brain involved in social cognition. Previous research has implicated these regions in a variety of tasks, from interpreting facial expressions and gestures to predicting what other individuals intend to do. The researchers also found correlations between gray matter volume and a monkey’s dominance rank within its group, suggesting that beefing up neural circuitry in certain areas somehow promotes or enables social success. The work may help to resolve a quandary raised by a handful of recent studies that have correlated variations in human brain anatomy with social network size, some experts say.
Full Story at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/334/6056/578?sa_campaign=Email/sntw/4-November-2011/10.1126/science.334.6056.578

The Domineering Brain and Its Synapses

Social hierarchy is a fundamental organizing principle in many animal societies. The social status of an individual strongly affects its health and quality of life. Yet the underlying mechanisms determining social hierarchical status are unclear. Wang et al. (p. 693, published online 29 September; see the Perspective by Maroteaux and Mameli) determined the social hierarchy within groups of mice by using multiple behavioral tests and discovered that the social hierarchical status of an individual correlated with the synaptic strength in medial prefrontal cortical neurons. Furthermore, the hierarchical status of mice could be changed from dominant to subordinate, or vice versa, by manipulating the strength of synapses in the medial prefrontal cortex.

A recent report released by the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas School of Business reveals that unless drastic changes are made to the structure of KPERS, the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, the system will be unable to pay out promised benefits.  KPERS is a defined-benefit retirement plan that covers state employees as well as teachers, police and fireman retirement, and retirement for Kansas judges. There are 250,000 Kansans who are using the KPERS system. In a defined-benefit plan, benefits are determined by a formula and guaranteed by law.

Currently there are  321 secondary mathematics teachers teaching over the retirement threshold of 85 in Kansas– meaning that 12% of the secondary mathematics teachers are in this situation with 46 of these teachers are over the age of 65. Along with the 321 mathematics teachers currently eligible to retire, an additional 1108 will reach the threshold for retirement in 15 years. Statewide mathematics teacher data further indicate: An average of 73 secondary math teachers will be eligible to retire each year through 2030, 569 secondary math teachers 21% will be eligible to retire over the next five years.  The average number of secondary mathematics and science teachers that are eligible to retire (already over 85) is 641.  An average of 140 mathematics and science teachers become eligible to retire each year for the next twenty years.

One issue that jumps out of these numbers and the KPERS issue is that if retirement benefits were to be changed, would all 641 math and science teachers all retire at once to avoid the benefits change”

The reports on math and science teacher retirement elgiblity  can be downloaded at http://www2.ku.edu/~kuscied/sp-pdf/

Fiery attacks on biologic evolution by proponents of intelligent design have created a great deal of smoke, gnashing of teeth and colorful language. Scientists and the public have been taken by surprise by the sophistication of the tactics used in these discussions and are often left in a cloud of smoke, unsure what direction the public discussions are going. It is important to see through the smoke because, in the background, the religious faith of many is being hijacked.

Some of the smoke comes from the genuine need for science education reform. The National Science Education Standards were developed so that the nation could share a common vision of scientific literacy. This critical literacy makes it possible for every American to share in the richness and excitement of comprehending the natural world and to help drive our economic productivity. Here in Kansas, reform has swept across the state like a prairie fire. Promoting the idea that there is a scientific controversy, intelligent design proponents are using slick marketing and marginally acceptable scientific language to reject the National Science Education Standards in favor of State level science standards.

Allowing for the teaching of intelligent design principles in Kansas science classrooms, arguments framed as “science” and using pseudo-scientific language, camouflage an underlying theology/philosophy. For example, in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe coined a term: “Irreducible Complexity” which he defined as: “A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” This principle sounds very scientific, although it’s not. The bigger and more serious problem is that philosophically, irreducible complexity is theologically problematic; inferring that God resides in the ‘gaps’ of our knowledge.

Science students who are introduced to the idea that God is only present in what we don’t understand, i.e. the mysteries of the universe, are left with difficult issues to resolve. If God is found in the mysteries, as their understanding of the natural world grows, then God (the mysteries) gets smaller. Faced with this appalling conflict, many students will reject knowledge. Others have a crisis that causes them to lose their faith and beliefs. This completely contrived conflict should not be going on anywhere in public education.

The idea that those in religious authority need to think carefully before making statements of science, is not a new. St. Augustine was one of the most productive Christian intellectuals with lasting impact on Christian theology, western psychology and political philosophy. In Confessions, Augustine describes his journey from a life of great sin to that of a great saint. He recounts how early in his journey, instead of turning to God in simple faith (he did not trust or read scripture at this time) he accepted the invented scientific theories of a religious group. These scientific theories explained away conflicts and problems with their faith. In Chapter five, Augustine unequivocally states that a spiritual person speaking on matters of science, who relies on his sanctity for authority for support of these matters, runs the very profound risk of being proven wrong on his science. The risk is that the followers will not only question the science but question the spiritual leadership as well.

If you think this is just something strange going on in the heartland, then you better think again. Thomas Frank points out in his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas that the politics of the state provide a case study of national political trends. The Discovery Institute, a non-profit educational foundation/think tank is the primary promoter of intelligent design. The division at the Discovery Institute charged with promoting ID was known as “Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture” is now called the much less controversial, “Center for Science and Culture”. Their purpose however, was quite clear in the original name. In order to more effectively spread their message, the Discovery Institute has recently hired the public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts. These are the folks who brought us the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in the last presidential election. I can say with some confidence that it’s not Kansas being targeted for cultural and scientific renewal. Look carefully through the camouflaging smoke and pseudo-scientific language because it’s you and the world you live in that they are after.

Perhaps now we can put all of this behind us and move on to an issue like climate change……

Human nature seems to move us toward authoritarian systems that become quite oppressive. If formal education is not a subversive force to this oppression toward which we seem to be drawn, then education has lost its purpose and power. Education should be a humanizing vocation for the intellectual, clearly demonstrating the power of thought to negate accepted limits to create new pathways to the future.

At all levels we seem to focus on domesticating students. In our world, we make students “objects” for management and in the process dehumanize them so that they subtly accept the programming of conformity to the logic of the system.

I have reached a level of deep disappointment with the abstractness and sterility of so much intellectual work going on in higher education. It seems to deeply submerge any critical awareness necessary to make thoughtful responses. Higher education is a major player in the formal education system and unfortunately it is increasingly serving as a major instrument for the maintenance of a culture of silence.

I had the opportunity to live on and manage a piece of native Kansas from 1985 to 1997. Once the tallgrass prairie covered 250 million acres from Ohio to central Kansas. Today, only a fragment of that original prairie exists in its natural state. The Prairie Center, just west of Olathe Kansas, is one small portion that remains to remind us of our natural heritage.

The history of the prairie has unfolded during the last 10,000 years. As the last of the four glaciers to cover North America withdrew to the north, the northeast corner Kansas was covered by spruce forest ecosystem. This forest was a reflection of the changing climate, which at the time was quite cool. Quite suddenly this spruce forest ecosystem changed over to a grassland ecosystem and by 9500 years ago the spruce forest had withdrawn to the high mountains. The prairie has been the climax community of northeast Kansas ever since. The tallgrass prairie has grasses reaching 8 – 12 feet in height. The grasses and forbs form a complex and diverse community. As impressive as this community is above ground, about 2/3 of the community is below the surface. This part of the community is the most biologically active, forming a thick rhizoid mat with roots reaching 18 feet in depth. This community was able to utilize the rather poor glacial soils to develop. The tallgrass prairie ecosystem was maintained by two important factors; the relatively stable amounts of rainfall of 35 inches per year and naturally occurring fires. These fires were started by lightening that is often associated with the thunderstorms that sweep across the open prairie. Research at the Konza Prairie in Kansas, indicates that the prairie burned at five years intervals, due to naturally caused fires. This combination of rainfall and fire maintain the tallgrass prairie environment until human intervention began to change the prairie forever.

The property now comprising the Prairie Center was purchased by the U.S. Government in 1803 as part of the Louisiana Purchase and made a part of the Kansas-Nebraska Territory in 1854. This area, open frontier in the early 1820s, was a pathway for European settlement. The Santa Fe Trail cut through the heart of Olathe and just eight miles south crossed the Oregon Trail, making this area a major thoroughfare of its day. From 1838 to 1845, the U.S. Army established a military trail, east of Olathe along present-day U.S. Highway 69. The Shawnee Indians dwelled in the area that is today Johnson County. The first European settler, Reverend Thomas Johnson, befriended the Shawnee, and in 1839, was given a piece of land to build a mission. In 1856-57, the Shawnee gave up tribal title to the land and a physician appointed to the Shawnee Indians, Dr. John Barton, claimed two quarter sections that became Olathe, Kansas. During the Civil war Kansas became “bleeding Kansas” because of the fighting between Kansas, a free state and Missouri. Soon after the bloody border wars, settlers began setting up homes and businesses in the Olathe area. In 1865, J.B. Mahaffie, owner of the largest farmstead in the area, converted the basement of his farmhouse into a dining room to serve hot meals to the weary travelers. By 1870, maps of Johnson County show that the Prairie Center was part of a farm owned by the Lawerence Family. The Thompson Family also owned the land for a brief period of time.

George W. Algire and his wife Frieda, moved to Olathe by team and wagon in 1913 and settled at a homesite that is now the Prairie Center. Algire, a stone mason by trade, built their home, a brooder house, a chicken house, garage, stone walls, and lamp posts from the native stone on the land. At this time, Native Americans had a camp to the northwest of the Center and covered wagons camped in the pastures en route through the area. The Stone House at the Center stands as a hand built, and hand carved monument to the past and to the vanishing stone masonry trade. To record life as it was in Olathe, Algire took precautions to secure a hand-written history of Olathe, the people and the President of the United States and his policies, in a fruit jar which he secured behind a stone slab near the roof of the house he built. The jar’s hiding place is marked by a large “A”, hand-carved in the stone in front of it.

The Prairie Center truly began in 1963 when R.C. Wagner and his son Larry, bought a hill country farm on the western edge of Olathe, Kansas. On this farm they decided they would grow no crops but instead they would preserve the land, and in so doing save a portion of the tallgrass prairie. Where original prairie survived, they protected it and encouraged it to flourish. Elsewhere they painstakingly replanted native grasses like switch grass, Indian grass, little bluestem, and big bluestem. They dug a 30-foot deep lake, stocked the ponds, and built trails.

The Prairie Center became a project of the Grassland Heritage Foundation in 1983. This nonprofit organization is made up of many active volunteers who aid in the preservation of this native area. The foundation continued the Wagner’s work. Restoration of native fields and ecosystems continued and educational programs were begun. The foundation worked hard to make sure that the Center would be secure and that it became a invaluable community resource.

In 1990, working with The Nature Conservancy and Kansas Wildlife and Parks, the Grassland Heritage Foundation transferred ownership of the Prairie Center to the State of Kansas. Grassland continues to operate the center, under an agreement with the State, and will continue to assure the development of the Center. As a part of the state’s public areas, the Prairie Center preserves a part of our native tallgrass prairie. To naturalists and students of the outdoors it is a priceless laboratory and study area. To fisherman, campers, and groups of Scouts, it is a primitive retreat that seems miles, and centuries, removed from the city. For those of us who would simply wander along its narrow paths, it is a place to dream and think, while listening to the rustling tallgrass, and remember that once vast ocean of grass.

U.S. consumers spent an estimated $90 billion in 2006 on tobacco products.

• Approximately $83.6 billion was spent on cigarettes.
• Approximately $3.2 billion was spent on cigars.
• Approximately $2.6 billion was spent on smokeless tobacco (e.g., chewing tobacco and snuff).

• During 2000–2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States ($96 billion in direct medical costs and approximately $97 billion in lost productivity).

• The total economic costs (direct medical costs and lost productivity) associated with cigarette smoking are estimated at $10.47 per pack of cigarettes sold in the United States.

Source – http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/

I got an invitation to a party the other day and even though I am not much of a party guy, some things just need to be celebrated.  This happened to be an invitation to the 10^th anniversary celebration of Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS).  Beginning in 1998, Kansas has been through two bruising rounds of science standards development.  As we seek science literacy for all citizens, standards are supposed to outline what student should know, understand and be able do as they grow in the K-12 schooling.  Seems like a pretty straight forward task, until you introduce the culture wars into the mix.

Outraged by the events surrounding this round of standards development, in 1999 a group of Kansas began Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS) on the steps of the University of Kansas.  This was an important day as citizens stepped forward to express their outrage and to support high quality science education.  Academics can sometimes lose touch with the concerns of the broader community and will many of us academic types were/are involved in KCFS it is by necessity a citizen’s movement.

The second round of Science Standards development reached a pinnacle of conflict when the State Board of Education decided to have “scientific hearings” on the validity of evolution.  Marginally they were trying to find a way to keep evolution out of the biology curriculum however driven by attorney John Calvert, the hearings quickly became a forum for intelligent design and a clear pulpit for the anti-science movement.

On a personal level, I found myself trying to find a strategy that would stop this effort in its tracks.  The anti-science movement are masters of reframing; changing the context of an argument so that you end up arguing within their frame and giving credibility to their argument.  As I spent time staring out the window overlooking Potter Lake on the KU campus a poster for the late 60’s came to mind – “What if they had a war and nobody came”.  It quickly came to mind; what if they had hearings and nobody came?  It became clear to me that I should not participate at all and that I should ask my friends not to participate.  I called a close friend and advisor and ask what she thought.  We both realized that we would take criticism for out lack of participation however we felt that the long term damage that could be done by participating in the hearings was worse than being called names.

Here again, Kansas Citizens for Science stepped up.  During the hearings they worked the crowd and held daily press briefings to help the press understand what was actually going on during the intelligent design presentations.  So, where was I?  I was in the Wild Rivers area of northern New Mexico, a special place among wild outdoor areas.  Coming up on the area, it appears to be a broad flat plain.  As you get closer, you find that the Rio Grande has sliced an 800-foot deep volcanic canyon through the high plain.  The Wild Rivers Backcountry Byway, winding its way along the rim of the Rio Grande gorge, offers access to spectacular overlooks, including the confluence of the Red River and the Rio Grande at La Junta Point – and this was the spot where I was sitting as the Kansas State Board of Education began their scientific hearings on evolution.

Thanks to all the folks for the work and efforts you have put into Kansas Citizens for Science.  Happy Birthday and keep up the good work.

Randy Olson’s new book Don’t Be Such a Scientist: speaking substance in an age of style, is now available through Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Be-Such-Scientist-Substance/dp/1597265632

he discusses the nature of his book at;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjaTDA-9_sk

Randy will be at the new University of Kansas next week for a series of events that explore the communication of science.  It has been a personal pleasure to watch his thinking and ideas evolve during the production of his movies and the panels/discussions that followed the showings.  It is my hope that putting these three events together will lead to a rich discussion of the gap between what scientists understand about the natural world and what the general public “think” they understand.

FILM – Flock of Dodos: the evolution intelligent design circus followed by a panel discussion, September 16, 2009 at 7:00 – 9:30 pm

Book Talk – Don’t be such a Scientist: talking substance in an age of style, talk by the author Dr. Randy Olson followed by a book signing, September 17, 2009 from 1:30 – 3:30

Film – Sizzle: a global warming comedy, followed by a panel discussion September 17, 2009 at 7:00 – 9:30 pm

All events will be held at The Commons (Spooner Hall) on the University of Kansas campus.  Spooner Hall is located on Jayhawk Boulevard directly across from the Natural History Museum, just down from the Student Union.  Parking (pay) is available in the garage north of the Student Union.

The Commons;

Understanding the global commons ­– the shared physical, biological and cultural resources of the planet – is the grand challenge facing society in the 21st century. Our response to this challenge is The Commons at the University of Kansas, a catalyst for unconventional thinking, interdisciplinary inquiry, and unexpected discoveries across the sciences, arts and humanities.

The Commons is a partnership between the Biodiversity Institute, the Hall Center for the Humanities, and the Spencer Museum of Art. Our mission, one we invite you to join, is to bring together scholars and students from the sciences, humanities and arts to explore the reciprocal relationships between natural and cultural systems.

If you know what I know, then you will think what I think.  This seems to be the dominant idea about how we should approach education. 

I mentioned in an earlier blog that I no longer tell lawyer jokes after my participation in a First Amendment lawsuit against the Olathe School District (Olathe, Kansas).  The lawsuit was  precipitated by the removal of Nancy Garden’s (1982) book, Annie on My Mind, from several of the school district’s libraries in Olathe, Kansas.  The removal was done by the superintendent of schools and endorsed by the local board of education; my employers at that time. 

A brief review; the book  Annie on My Mind is young adult fiction in which the main character is coming of age, doing some self-discovery and growth.  It describes first love between two young women during their senior year of high school.  The story is told through the eyes of one of the young women as she looks back on the relationship from the perspective of her first year of college. Between the publication of Annie in 1982 and the time we brought suit in 1994, Annie on My Mind had received many awards and distinctions.  The plaintiffs; students, parents and the teacher alleged that the actions of the Board of Education and the Superintendent were motivated by partisan and political considerations designed to suppress ideas, abridge freedom of speech and deny free access to information and ideas.  As such it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution so we ended up in Federal District Court.  To make a two-year story short, in November 1995 a decision by Federal District Court to Judge Thomas Van Bebber ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the removal of Annie on My Mind was unconstitutional.

For Nancy Garden, the author, the most dramatic moment during this ordeal, was when local citizens burned copies of her book in the steps of the Kansas City Kansas Public Library.  This real event was the inspiration for another youth novel, The Year they Burned the Books.  Using this story was a valuable way for Nancy to express her emotions as she saw her work destroyed in such an ugly act. 

For me, at a greater emotional distance, the most dramatic moment came in the courtroom.  An Olathe Board of Education member was on the stand testifying that she had voted to remove the book from the school library because the book was poorly written and without merit, which would be marginally legal.  She made it clear that the book was NOT  removed because of the content (gay protagonist) of the book, which would be illegal. The Board member went on however, to discuss the “gay life style and agenda”, clearly going straight to the perceived content of the book.  Since all of the School Board members had given this similar testimony, this testimony was not particularly surprising until she went on to a truly jaw dropping moment, suggesting that there should not be any books of fiction in school libraries.  This prompted the judge to turn to her and ask her if she “ever read for pleasure?”   Undeterred, she went on to suggest that the Bible should be in school libraries (which it already was) because it is a book of facts.   

After court the judge was joking with the lawyers, suggesting that her opinion was not unlike the Dickens character Thomas Gradgrind: who opens the novel Hard Times by stating, “Now, what I want is facts” and he is clearly developed as a person of only “facts and calculations.”  Gradgrind’s comments, made in a school as advice to students, reflects an attitude toward education that is much to the detriment of his children and leads to the ultimate destruction their lives.  The judge was so taken by his comparison that he included a Dickens reference in the judgment which came out strongly in favor of the plaintiffs.

The idea that we could explore the range of human thought without fiction, allegory and metaphor is appalling.  Then again, if you know what I know, then you will think how I think.  For some the goal of education is for everyone to think alike.  So teachers should just give students the right facts and then students will think the right way.  Wow, teaching is easy.