The BEACON News from The Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education Volume XI, No. 4 Copyright © December 2007 In this issue: President’s Message—Dave Thomas, Toon by Trever Copyright Albuquerque Journal, 11-14-07—John Trever, used with permission, A Better Metric—Walt Murfin,Flock of Dodos (film) coming in February—see page 8.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE ingly explained how Behe was misrepresenting his actual position: “What I wrote was that this Things are once again heating up in the is a machine that looks like it was designed by never-ending assault on science education. a human. But that doesn’t mean that it was And this week (I’m writing this mid-November) designed, that is, the product of Intelligent De- included several events that bring the issue sign. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of into sharp focus. The most significant of these something that arose by .” And then, was the long-awaited airing of the PBS/NOVA DeRosier showed real microphotographs of an special on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School assembly containing a subset of the same pro- District court case of 2005, titled “Judgment teins forming the base of the flagellum: “This is Day: on Trial” (aired Novem- a structure found, for example, in Yersinia Pestis, ber 13, 2007). the bacterium that causes the Bubonic Plague. The two-hour production was splendid. Look at the similarities. … It’s like—sort of like At times it was like a biology class most of us a syringe… So, indeed, the [flagellum] structure would have been delighted to attend. When is not, in that sense, irreducibly complex. ” the alleged lack of transitional fossils came up, Another splendid example of riveting the program shifted gears, taking us directly to science was provided in a discussion on why a barren Canadian outcrop bearing incredible gorillas and chimps and other great apes have fossils of a genuine fish with legs— Tiktaalik 24 chromosomes, while humans have only —found in strata of just the right age (375 mil- 23. The trial testimony of Ken Miller was lion years old) for the predicted transition from presented, in which the Brown biologist and fish to tetrapods. textbook author said “Well, evolution makes a Intelligent Design (ID) proponent Michael testable prediction, and that is, somewhere in Behe’s actual court testimony was presented, the human genome we ought to be able to find regarding whether or not bacterial flagella (tiny a piece of Scotch tape holding together two chro- hair-like appendages which propel bacteria mosomes so that (of)our 24 pairs -two of them through liquids) are “Irreducibly Complex” (so [were] pasted together to form just 23. And if we complex that the absence of even one compo- can’t find that, then the hypothesis of common nent would render it useless, precluding its ancestry is wrong and evolution is mistaken. …” evolution from simpler precursors). On the wit- Then, vivid graphics were employed to show ness stand, Behe quoted Brandeis University recent research which solved this enigma —in biology professor David DeRosier directly: “More humans, two of the 24 original chromosomes so than other motors, the flagellum resembles are indeed fused, resulting in a single chromo- a machine designed by a human.” But NOVA some (Number 2) didn’t stop there. They found and interviewed DeRosier himself, and he clearly and convinc- Continued on page 2 December 2007 The Beacon, Vol.XI, No. 4 Page 2 Continued from page 1. The Beacon is published quarterly by the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education with more than just the two normal ends (telomeres) and (CESE). A 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation, we are single center (centromere) of ordinary chromosomes. incorporated in the State of New Mexico. Visit Just as predicted, Chromosome Number 2 has three our web site at www.cesame-nm.org. telomeres, separated by two centromeres, as would WEBMASTER: Jesse Johnson be expected if two chromosomes had been fused into one. BOARD OF DIRECTORS More than great science, though, the NOVA PRESIDENT David E. Thomas special got the politics and religion right too. The [email protected] original creationist motivations for the ill-fated policy, the perjury and misrepresentations of the Dover VICE PRESIDENT/PRES. ELECT school board members who started the process, and Lisa Durkin [email protected] much more were clearly and accurately presented. One of the most vivid segments showed the startling SECRETARY evolution of the ID text at the heart of the Dover trial, Marilyn Savitt-Kring Of Pandas and People, from an overtly creationist book [email protected] (just before the 1987 Supreme Court ruling against TREASURER “creation science”) into the first “Intelligent Design” Jerry Shelton book. Professor Barbara Forrest was interviewed, [email protected] saying “In cleansing this (early) manuscript, they PAST PRESIDENT failed to replace every word properly. I found the word Kim Johnson ‘creationists.’ And instead of replacing the entire word, [email protected] they just kind of did this and got ‘design proponents’ with the ‘c’ in front and the ‘ists’ in the back from the MEMBERS AT LARGE Dr. Marshall Berman original word.…” (cdesign proponentsists) [email protected] An interview with the judge who ended up ruling that ID is religion, and not science, focused on Steve Brugge the main charge ID supporters levy against teaching [email protected] mainstream biology in public schools. Judge John Cindy Chapman E. Jones III said in a (later) interview that “Both [email protected] Defendants and many of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design make a bedrock assumption which is Jack Jekowski [email protected] utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a Jesse Johnson supreme being and to religion in general. …” [email protected] The official ID “Think” Tank, the Discovery Dr. Marvin Moss Institute, immediately published its own guide to [email protected] counter the effective PBS production. In the guide, called “The Theory of Intelligent Design: A briefing Dr. Rebecca Reiss [email protected] packet for educators, to help teachers understand the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent Jim Stuart design,” the Institute’s John West and Casey Luskin [email protected] pompously declared that the NOVA program was “clearly unconstitutional”: “The question of whether evolution is compatible with religion is essentially a CESE annual dues are $25 for individual, $35 for theological question, and public schools are forbidden family, and $10 for students. Please make check from endorsing any particular theological position payable to CESE and mail to 11617 Snowheights Blvd. NE, Albuquerque NM 87112-3157. Email regarding evolution.” submissions to Editor, Nancy Shelton, nshelton10@ This is the crux of the whole controversy. The comcast.net certainly doesn’t want students to learn that many religious faiths are not at all http://www.cesame-nm.org December 2007 The Beacon, Vol.XI, No. 4 Page 3 opposed to evolution science. Rather than apparent fertility of the Universe itself. He simply presenting the facts of modern biology, asked “Why did it take 12 billion years just to and allowing students to decide for themselves make an amoeba?” His answer was that that whether or not these facts are compatible with was about how long it takes stars to go through their personal religious views, the Institute three generations of formation and immolation, continues to equate “Darwinism” with outright finally producing the heavier elements required atheism. That is, the only ones espousing a for life. “particular theological position regarding evolu- As for Intelligent Design, Coyne described tion” are the Intelligent Design leaders them- it as a “disease that is spreading,” and as selves. something that is not science, but simply poor The founder of the ID Movement, lawyer religion. Much of the subsequent discussion Phillip Johnson, declared in Creator or Blind centered on the basic fraudulence of the ID Watchmaker? (First Things, January 1993) movement.The new Discovery Institute briefing that “…the attempt to reconcile Darwinism and packet displays much of this fraudulence, theism collapses. Either God rules creation— once again repeating the falsehood that New which means that He somehow directed Mexico is one of several states that “have evolution to produce humans—or He doesn’t. science standards that require learning about The former isn’t Darwinism, and the latter isn’t some of the scientific controversies relating to theism.” And top ID theorist William Dembski evolution.” pontificated in What Every Theologian Should In closing, the Rio Rancho School Board Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design is set to consider repealing Science Policy 401, (1996) that “Design theorists are no friends widely perceived as ID-friendly, at its upcoming of theistic evolution. … When boiled down to December 3rd meeting. While supporters of the its scientific content, theistic evolution is no policy contend that it’s innocuous and innocent, different from atheistic evolution, accepting as the head of the local ID group, Joe Renick, it does only purposeless, naturalistic, material revealed otherwise in an interview on religious processes for the origin and development of station KNKT earlier this year: “If we had a life.” dozen school districts in New Mexico that came Two days after the NOVA program was up with a policy on science education similar aired, Father George Coyne, former director to that one that was passed by the Rio Rancho of the Vatican Observatory, spoke at UNM’s school board, that would shake the ground. ... Northrop Hall. He talked eloquently about his That would be the start of a revolution.” views on the marvelous dance in the Universe As they say, we are cursed with living in between Chance and Necessity, and of the interesting times. Stay tuned!

http://www.cesame-nm.org http://www.cesame-nm.org December 2007 The Beacon, Vol.XI, No. 4 Page 4

Comments from the Discovery Institute and Judge John E. Jones III re the Dover area School District court case of 2005.

http://www.cesame-nm.org December 2007 The Beacon, Vol.XI, No. 4 Page 5 A Better Metric

There is general agreement that the re- Last year’s low scoring schools tended to gain quirements of NCLB are becoming impossible more than last year’s high scoring schools. to meet. Because there is wide variation in stu- For example, in seventh grade reading, the dent ability, the only possible way that 100% lowest scoring schools in 2006 gained about proficiency can be met is by setting the level nine points between 2006 and 2007 on aver- for “proficiency” within the reach of the slow- age and the highest scoring schools actually est students. This would pervert the meaning lost about five points. The reason is obvious. of proficiency and the intent of NCLB. NCLB as Schools at the 5th percentile can easily gain originally written takes no account of a school’s several points. Schools at the 95th percentile progress. A school could make heroic progress are already near the ceiling, and any change is and still fail to meet the Annual Measurable Ob- more likely to be a loss. jectives (AMOs.) The act makes no provision for the well-known fact that school demographics Three important factors are strongly as- have a strong effect on performance. A school sociated with scores: the school demographics, that has unfavorable demographics, but does the student ethnic and economic subgroups, well in spite of its demographics should be and the previous year’s score. The school demo- applauded. A school that does poorly in spite graphics differentially affect the performance of very favorable demographics clearly needs of student subgroups and can slightly alter the help. The act has the laudable intent of rais- effects of the previous year’s score. These three ing the performance of struggling groups. It factors together account for 60% to over 70% of is a matter of reality that poor and minority the variance in mean scores. The current year students typically do less well than affluent score predicted by these factors is compared to Caucasians. A school in which normally dis- the actual current score for each subgroup. If advantaged groups do much better than might the actual score is greater than the predicted be expected given the school demographics is score, the school is performing well for that obviously doing very well, whatever the actual subgroup. This is true even if the proficiency level of proficiency. is below the AMO level. Conversely, a school in which the actual score is lower than the Of course, school excellence has many predicted score is performing below average, facets, and a single number cannot capture even if the fraction proficient exceeds the AMO. the complexity. However, a measure that com- Because the previous year’s score is one of the bines both status and growth, and accounts variables in calculation of the current year’s for the effects of school demographics and the score, growth is implicitly included as well as variability of subgroups is possible. We already current status. The difference between the ac- know that the school demographics – the frac- tual and predicted score (the residual) is a more tions of minorities, economically disadvantaged complete and fair measure of a school’s stand- (Newspeak for FRPL), Special Ed. students, and ing and progress than the fraction proficient. the like – has different effects on the various Figure 2 shows an example of the calculation demographic groups. As an example, Figure 1 for one grade and subject. Each symbol repre- shows that economically disadvantaged and sents the average score for one ethnic subgroup not disadvantaged students are both affected in one school. Symbols above the upper dashed by the school demographics, but the effect is line indicate schools that perform significantly stronger for more affluent students. The school better than predicted. Those below the lower demographics also differentially affect ethnic dashed line indicate schools that perform sig- subgroups. nificantly worse than predicted. Symbols far- ther to the right for each ethnic group indicate Growth from one year to the next is as- schools with more favorable demographics and sociated with the previous year’s score, and is higher scores in 2006. weakly associated with school demographics. Continued on page 6 http://www.cesame-nm.org http://www.cesame-nm.org December 2007 The Beacon, Vol.XI, No. 4 Page 6 Continued from page 5 FIGURE 1 We can find demographically similar schools with higher performance to com- pare to each school that performs signifi- cantly worse than predicted. For example, (as shown in the table below) non-FRPL students at school “A” performed sig- nificantly lower than predicted in math in 2007. This is a relatively small school with only 47 students tested in fourth grade. Schools “B” and “C” are demographically similar high performing schools about twice as large as school “A”. School “D” is a demographically similar school about the same size as school “A”. The staff at the low performing school could visit any of these three schools to see how they get superior results with about the same demographics. The table shows the de- mographic index and math residual for non-FRPL students in each school.

This metric accounts for many of the factors that are known to be associated with performance, but that are not usually thought to be within the school’s control. Schools cannot choose the student de- mographics or student subgroups. The previous year’s score cannot be erased or changed. This metric allows schools to fo- cus on the part than can be changed—the use this measure to see if they are actually doing as factors that are within a school’s control. well as could be expected, and if not, whether they It will not replace the requirements of can find a higher performing school that might be NCLB. It is only realistic to suppose that an appropriate model. On the down side, status and few if any in Congress could fully under- growth cannot each be seen separately. stand how this method works. However, a school that finds difficulty in meeting its Walt Murfin AYP requirements for any subgroup can CESE Statistician

TABLE

SCHOOL NUMBER 4TH DEMOGRAPHIC MATH RESIDUAL, GRADE TESTED INDEX NON-FRPL “A” 47 0.64 -16.89 “B” 93 0.66 +17.41 “C” 91 0.64 +14.41 “D” 42 0.66 +7.34

http://www.cesame-nm.org December 2007 The Beacon, Vol.XI, No. 4 Page 7

Membership dues/Donation Form

Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education (CESE) 501 c (3) non-profit, tax deductible

Dues and Donations cheerfully accepted year round (Expiration date is found on address label) Member $25. Family $35. You may contribute through United Way, PayPal or snail mail. Student $10. Snail mail checks to CESE, 11617 Snowheights Blvd. NE, Albuquerque NM 87112.

New Membership [ ] Renewal [ ] Donation [ ] Any changes?* Name Date Profession and/or affiliation(s) e.g. Science teacher, member of APSD Mailing Address

Phone Cell Fax

E-mail Most of our communication is by E-mail

......

*Please let Marilyn Savitt-Kring know if your e-mail address changes.

CESE has received $1250 in donations in memory of Professor Tim Moy, a founding member of CESE, who tragically drowned last summer. This is not enough to start a permanent fund, as had been hoped for. In speaking with the other recipient of memorial donations, the UNM History Department, the CESE board determined that the money might best be used by combining it with the UNM fund being set aside for the education of Tim’s son, Luke. We believe that this is something that Tim would have been very grateful for.

http://www.cesame-nm.org http://www.cesame-nm.org Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education 11617 Snowheights Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87112-3157

Return Service Requested

Join CESE for a special Darwin Day showing of Randy Olson’s film “Flock Of

Dodos,” which examines creationist attacks on science education in .

The free showing will be at 2 PM on Saturday, February 16th, 2008 at UNM’s

Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Lecture Hall (Room 163). More info: 869-9250.

Film website: www.flockofdodos.com