The other night I was on a high as a group I belong to, Stop the AVN, was awarded the Australian Skeptic of the Year at TAMOz. But 
as I was having a celebratory drink I was brought crashing to the ground by this post by the Tribal Scientist that the body responsible for the new Australian Science curriculum has been awarded the Bent Spoon Award. You need to go and read it and the comments, including my long and somewhat rambling one (celebratory drinks, remember?).
PodBlack has also posted briefly on it and discussed it with other educators at TAMOz, and I think you can see from the original post, the comments and the feeling of educators at TAMOz that the Australian Skeptics got it wrong here. The Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority does not belong with vaccine and AIDS deniers and the purveyors of the Power Balance.
I’ve been looking for a response or official release from the Skeptics but it isn’t out yet, obviously putting TAMOz together so successfully was a huge job and they are enjoying a well-deserved break and catchup. But I think PodBlack has nailed it – the Skeptics have shown they do not understand how the curriculum works, and this award says some interesting things about organised skepticism and how we work with other groups.
Firstly, to explain the curriculum a little. As I’ve been talking to more US teachers I’m coming to understand that this document works very differently to the US syllabi, and I suspect this is part of the Skeptics’ problem. Each state and territory in Australia currently has its own curriculum framework and schools are allowed to cover them with more or less direction (usually less). There have been concerns about student movement and comparability and the national curriculum is an attempt to have an overarching set of skills and understandings that all Australian students have covered.
Bear with me as I get specific here, the science curriculum is divided into 3 main strands – Science inquiry skills, Science as a human endeavour and Science understanding. To choose a year at random, in Year 9 (around 14-15 years) there are two biology strands:
Body systems – Body systems of animals interact in a co-ordinated way to provide the requirements for life.
And
Disease – The types and causes of disease in humans and other animals, how the organism responds, and methods of disease control.
Each of these understandings has five or six elaborations that are suggestions for contexts but completely optional.
The ACARA curriculum document doesn’t stand alone, but is supposed to sit on top of the state documents. So let’s see how the Northern Territory Curriculum Framework (NTCF) fits in. In Year 9 students should be completing Band 4 or beginning Band 5 (Bands should take roughly 2 years to complete), the biology type strands are:
4.2 Examine scientific evidence for models and concepts that are used to explain the processes connecting living systems and that lead to change.
And
5.2 Analyse concepts and principles relating to the interactions, balance, continuity and change in living things.
The NTCF is even more generous and gives 6-12 optional examples of ways students could demonstrate these outcomes.
And that’s it. Roughly a term’s worth of work, and there are two fairly major understandings you are working towards in the NTCF with two contexts ACARA says you should use, and a generous 15 optional suggestions of ways you could do it. Of course the inquiry and human endeavour strands are also intertwined, as you use experiments and see how biology impacts on society.
I hope you’ve taken two things away from this very brief rundown of how the curriculum works in Australia:
- It’s very open for teachers to decide how to develop the understanding of their classes and allow for individual circumstances, strengths and interest.
- They’re written in quite specific jargon.
To put it succinctly – Australian curriculum developers assume that the people using the documents are specialists and experts. Professionals, who understand what the extremely general outcomes mean and can break them down then turn them into programmes and lessons that take into account their students’ backgrounds, interests and strengths. They assume that teachers are able to think critically about the curriculum. These are not documents written for lay people. And it follows that professional science teachers are not going to teach creationism just because there is a loophole that means they could, even though it completely goes against the intent of the document. It’s sort of in the definition.
And that’s if the loophole even exists – 4.2 above is very clear that it has to be scientific evidence, which rules out creationism of all sorts.
Of course there are bad teachers. There may be teachers who are ardent young earth creationists, in which case I wonder how a curriculum document is going to stop them. There are bad doctors and bad scientists as well, but a doctor who sells homeopathy isn’t an argument for deciding they are all unprofessional. Because that is what has happened here. The Australian Skeptics have taken a lay person’s reading of the national curriculum, completely ignored its relationship to the state curricula if they even know about it, and are worried about what might happen. And that, my friends, is as wrong as me reading a paper in a journal all on its own then telling the professional immunologists they are “perpetrating pseudo-scientific piffle” because anti-vaxxers could misinterpret it.
There are some skeptical principles that come to mind here – accepting that experts probably know more than lay people and looking at things in context rather than isolation. Generally skeptics are in the position of expert – experts in critical thinking or in reading and interpreting scientific literature – and they are usually talking to lay people or even outright scammers. Even in the educational battles in the US the people pushing the changes have been the elected boards of education or special interest groups, definitely NOT the professional educators. But that isn’t what ACARA is, and that’s not how the Australian national curriculum is being developed.
In the end science teachers are not failed scientists, they are professional educators with a specialisation in the basics of science, something skeptics need to remember when interacting with them. Teachers should be the first and most important allies of the skeptical movement – who else has the skills, opportunity and generally desire to develop critical thinking in children? Unfortunately I can only see this ‘award’ damaging any relationship between educators and the skeptical movement.
It is interesting to wonder what the Australian Skeptics would prefer for the Australian science curriculum – to tighten it up and be very prescriptive about what teachers do and how they do it to make sure nothing unapproved creeps in? How will you assess that it’s being done? And who decides what should be in it, if the professional educators have got it so very, very wrong? Hmm, outside non-educators controlling what is taught and checking up on it – how’s that working for you guys in the US?
Spot on Deb. Props to the organizers of TAM(wish I could have been there) but I too am left scratching my head at this decision.
What were the outcomes of this award? Did ACRA suddenly take a step back and reconsider their position? Did they even notice? It may amount to nothing(I hope so). But I can’t help but think that when the time comes where Skeptics may be able to make a difference, to contribute to education policy in Australia(mind you I think it would be better to focus on teacher support and resources). professional bodies will look back at this, dare I say, unfounded criticism and dismiss organised skepticism in Australia.
I just can’t see how this award has any sort of positive outcome.
But hey we learn from our mistakes.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Australian skeptics will either defend the award, or issue a retraction and apology. So far they seem to have avoided any public aknowledgement of the controversy at all, which is rather disappointing.
Mick: Their responses on an individual level – allegedly – seem to be for people to vent their frustrations in blogs (which won’t be addressed or responded to), or to simply dismiss any criticism as merely ‘shit stirring’. One response seemed to be a smug satisfaction in the fact that it had inspired discussion. The fact the discussion put their reasoning in poor light seems to elude them.
Interestingly, from the responses (both private and public) I’ve received, those who have supported the award tend not to have read the curriculum documents, or if they have, have failed to demonstrate an understanding of how the curriculum works. I’m confident that those who support the award are in the extreme minority, however, which does not bode well for the small group of NSW skeptics who are responsible for decisions that represent the rest of the AS community.
The worst irony is that this is a group of people who actively engage in criticism of those who fail to do their research, and promote in people the need to be informed about the facts before making important decisions. When criticised here, their response is at best dismissive, as if the facts are irrelevant to their conclusion.
OUch, I mean the award seems like one of those joke awards.
So before awarding it, you’d better be really really really sure of worthiness.
Intent is always a consideration with these awards. I was on an award committee for an art award, much like this. We (see you talk like royalty when you are on a deciding committee) would pick out which new artist and art movement was more BS than art. With all of these types of awards (we gave out a small urinal, which oddly became highly collectable works of art…and yes we all LOVE Duchamp so it wasn’t a slam to him).
Now, INTENT was very important. Do the power band people KNOW they are ripping people off? YES.
But this issue is so complex, and so multileveled… and with many people with good intent and takes time to really investigate and look into…it deserves more than the “haha,this is funny” award.
It should be a REALLY 100% CLEAR “oh my gosh” everyone can easily recognize type of winner of that award. Because that is how people are going to take it. They will assume that the winner of that award is rip off artist worthy, over the top clear, insane woodly WOO! Not “this is something we disagree with after long investigation and we think you should investigate it also.”
To just award and not explain or comment is just not fair. I mean FAIRNESS is important. Everyone should be able to be heard, acknowledged as being heard, and responded to. It’s what humans do when they are doing it right.
We SKEPTICS ARE THE GOOD GUYS! We need to remember that, and act as such.
I agree with the Tribal Scientist. The most interesting thing about the situation is how unskeptical the skeptics are being. In addition to trying to read things they don’t understand and taking them out of context it’s been said that the only reason ACARA would have produced this curriculum is because they are bowing to pressure from religious schools – that’s beginning to sound suspiciously like a conspiracy.
But the attitude to teachers really bothers me, especially when people are saying what amounts to ‘Well I’m a biologist and …” It sounds like they view teachers in the same light as many skeptics view homeopaths – wannabes who couldn’t make it in real medicine and got caught up in the woo. I re-iterate – teachers are not failed scientists. They are professionals and experts in education. To dismiss that is as ignorantly arrogant as anti-vaxxers dismissing immunologists. Teachers are the ones in a great position to do skeptical outreach, many of them already are. The Australian Skeptics need to think hard about what their goals are and how they are trying to achieve them.
I haven’t seen any personal responses from anyone who was part of the decision to award the BS to ACARA indicated by TribalScientist, and if someone has responded then they were only representing themselves. As you can imagine, Australian Skeptics as a whole and the TAM organisers (which include the president and both vice presidents) in particular are a bit tired right now. I must say that, on a personal level, spending time with my kids after the last few months is much more important than providing a prompt response to a few people who are unhappy with the award, so you’ll all have to wait a bit.
One thing I will say is that the assumptions about how the decision was made and statements like “how unskeptical the skeptics are being” are just silly. I’m not saying we didn’t get it wrong – that’s being investigated right now and we’ll let everynody know what that investigation finds – but the decision was not made lightly or without consideration, and was supported by people with cerdentials at least as good as those of the critics. I suggest everybody get off their high horse and be skeptical of TribalScientist and other critics at least as mucg as they are skeptical of Australian Skerptics.
Deb, I’d add a caveat to say that there are a examples of teachers who are, indeed, failed scientists. But few of them handle teaching for very long in my experience, and often succumb to the pressure the job dishes out, typically quitting. They tend to stand out more, granted, because a bad teacher is far easier to spot than the significant percentage who do their jobs well.
I also disagree with Kitty on the makers of such placebo-based products being intentionally deceitful. I think it’s a strong accusation to make, and fails to appreciate the extent of self-deceit and poor thinking skills. Most people in that field really, truly believe they’re onto something. Dismissing it as lies and fraud is a simplistic answer that overlooks the need to promote a culture of critical thinking. It’s far easier to paint somebody as the devil and lock them up than to try to relate to their (admittedly, misinformed) views and think of how to better prevent others from falling into their trap.
On a side note, I was saddened to receive a response from the science communicator Paul Willis today, that repeated the same old tripe as I’ve been hearing (admittedly, in a coherent and well written form).
I responded to it…although I was more inspired to given my respect for the guy, rather than really feeling it necessary: http://bit.ly/fRgCp3
Eran:
I don’t think anybody expected a concerted effort to be made to provide more than a brief response, if that. Typically, there would be reason to think a media release would have been formulated prior to such a public statement. I would have thought you, as head of Australian Skeptics, might have seen fit to have have such a statement created such a document in light of a significant accusation before hand.
Nonetheless, you didn’t, hence speculation can only be based on the award itself and the nomination.
You claim ‘the decision was not made lightly or without consideration’. I would hope not. In fact, it is in light of the fact I would hope the decision was done with thought that I feel it is worth such criticism.
You also state it is ‘supported by people with cerdentials at least as good as those of the critics.’ I’m not sure where the relevance is here. This isn’t a pissing contest of degrees, Eran. It is about the facts. Nobody has stated that they are right and AS is wrong because we know more. The claim is that the statements made do not reflect an understanding of the curriculum, or science education in this country. If Barry McGaw himself had have made the same claim, I’d still have criticised it.
As for being skeptical of me, I welcome any criticisms or corrections. Plenty of room up on my horse for more people. ;)
I await to hear what AS decides.
@Eran – As I said in the post, “obviously putting TAMOz together so successfully was a huge job and they are enjoying a well-deserved break and catchup.” It can’t be much clearer than that, but other people should be able to discuss the award and the effects we think it will have without further clarification.
In this post I provided evidence that the Skeptics do not seem to have considered the other curriculum documents that work with the national document and specifically discuss things such as ‘scientific evidence,’ which rules out what seem to be the fears. In the comment I also point out that these fears are based on a belief of “pressure from sectarian schools and systems” in the very nomination, a sentiment repeated by commenters on blogs (who of course are acting as individuals).
I hope that the investigation will consider why the curriculum was taken out of context and if there is any evidence for these fears and beliefs. Until then, it is not silly to suggest that they have been unskeptical – I’ve backed up the statement not plucked it out of thin air.
I really don’t know what to make of your last statement. If you have read Tribal Scientist’s post, you will know that it is not a short whinge but explains what he sees as the problems with the ‘award’. That’s how it works – one group made a statement, other people analyse it and respond. Are you suggesting that we’re just jumping on a bandwagon? Taking sides? Or that we don’t have a right to analyse it? True, I would have expected a press release or something of the kind and perhaps that type of explanation would have made this discussion easier, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I’m glad to know that the Skeptics are taking this seriously and investigating the award. I hope that this will lead to discussions and a better understanding for all. I did look for a response before writing this and couldn’t find anything, so if I could make a suggestion a very quick post on the website to say “We are aware of the controversy and will respond when we’ve had a chance to recover from TAMOz” would probably save time and aggravation in the long run.
@Tribal Scientist – I agree absolutely that there are some very bad teachers out there, and some of them would have been the failed scientists. I’m also on record as saying that primary science education in Australia is done appallingly overall. But that is for many complicated reasons to do with training, support, resources and competing priorities among other things. It is not because of the curriculum. I even admit that my vision of professional, critical, experienced and passionate teachers across Australia is something of a pipedream. But probably no more so than a vision of professional, critical, experienced and passionate doctors or scientists. My biggest problem with this ‘award’ is the way I see it devaluing teachers, the very people skeptics should be supporting.
Mike, I think the problem is that what you consider to be facts are actually interpretations and assumptions. The fact that other people at least as qualified as you disagree with you is very relevant, because is means you may be wrong, which I don’t think you consider a possibility (i.e. the claim of “facts”).
A press release went out on Saturday and was pickewd up by several newspapers. I haven’t had the time to check waht was eventually published. In any case, the press release was less detailed than the blog item by Michael Adams on the Skeptics website.
Deb, I know at least one science teacher who disagrees with you about the link between the national curriculum and the state-based ones. That alone would mean that there is room for interpretation on that aspect as well, and things are not as simple as you present them in your post and susequent comments.
All of the above still doesn’t mean we haven’t made a mistake, which is why we’re looking into it; but I’d like to see a little more appreciation from both of you of the gray shades that are missing from your analyses.
And with that, I end my commentary until I know more about the subject matter.
Eran, if you wish for this to be about experience and qualifications, I have no issue with that. However, given I’m quite sure you know little of my qualifications or experience with regards to this matter, I’m at a loss as to how you can make such claims.
In any case, while I do make interpretations based on my experience, I’ve also put forward challenges to the claims as made by the nominee as regards to what a curriculum does and does not provide for and strives to do. That is easily verified with little effort simply by reading the ACARA site. Statements such as ‘no mention is made of Darwin or Wallace’ are blatant untruths given ‘complimentary work of Darwin and Wallace’ is explicitly stated under the elaborations section of Science as a Human Endeavour. Could they be included elsewhere? Sure, arguments can be made there. But given such poor demonstrated knowledge of the curriculum, making this a game of who has the biggest teaching degree simply aren’t relevant. That claim is simply wrong.
So, you’d like to see some appreciation about the shades of grey? Eran, your organisation made a public statement ridiculing a board responsible for science education in this country. That’s not to say that they are beyond criticism – it is to say, that if you’re relying on ‘shades of grey’ to make a case you’re personally less than confident in, perhaps public mockery by way of an award that describes such efforts as ‘pseudoscientific piffle’ might have been somewhat premature.
Again, I wait to hear the verdict.
Eran,
When AS have had the time and recovered and investigated and stated their case with good evidence from those involved with teaching and curriculum, and I am convinced that there is something to be worried about you will have as always my full support.
At this stage I am not convinced and think that another perhaps things could have been done differently. This ACARA issue seems to have materialized out of thin air very recently. Months and months of work and effort have gone into dealing with antivaxers, why as a reasonably well networked skeptic did I just hear about this Curriculum problem?
This Skeptical stuff is volunteer work, enjoy the time with your family.
Cheers
Sean
“Presented to the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudoscientific piffle.” I fail to see the grey.
I can only speak definitively for the NT, because that is the territory in which I have access to various Principals and directors who have assured me we are keeping the NTCF, but as independent confirmation they have just this year updated it to ensure it is line with the national curriculum drafts. A department which has just drastically cut its support staff because of budget constraints is extremely unlikely to go to that expense for a document that is to be abandoned within a few months. It is possible that other states plan to get rid of their own frameworks. It is also possible there is a lot of miscommunication happening – schools are notorious for bad communication and I am not defending schools or education departments for the way the national curriculum is being introduced. But that is different to the actual curriculum being piffle.
On the matter of qualifications, I do think it is relevant in a particular way. I would argue that the people with the ability to judge the curriculum fairly are those trained in writing and using curricula and familiar with pedagogical literature and policies – educators and specifically science educators. In exactly the same way as the people who can truly analyse and judge medical studies are people with the relevant experience and qualifications such as epidemiologists or immunologists. It’s fairly easy to find my own qualifications on the internet, I can only assume you’ve done so to make such a statement. Given the poor view of teachers I feel in this ‘award,’ I am very sad if my fellow educators truly feel that way.
I hope you enjoy the weekend and have a well deserved break, I look forward to hearing from the Australian Skeptics when they have completed their review.
I see that I have missed most of the discussion [you Aussies sure get up early ;)], but I would like to chime in with a few brief comments:
- Deb, excellent post. I think that you have summarized the problems with this quite well. I would add that I believe you have been too soft on your criticism of AS.
- Eran, “I’m tired” is a completely understandable and acceptable response to a minor issue at this point and the fact that you are using it indicates that you see this as a minor issue. That attitude is insulting to the well-qualified people [whose goals are very clearly to identify, develop, and encourage best practices in the teaching of science] who have expressed deep concern over the AS’s actions. This is a very serious issue.
A large skeptic organization has made the statement that “This is the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudoscientific piffle we could find this year” is a set of standards described in a working (meaning unfinished) document that does not fit someone’s idea of what that document should be. It was defended here with statements like “there is room for interpretation”.
It is clear from the evidence that the AS’s actions were extremely poor skepticism – precisely the kind of behavior the movement is working to change.
Defensive retorts which suggest that the criticism is a product of self-righteousness and arrogance are not actions which address the criticism itself. So far, I have seen very little to convince me that the award is deserved or that the AS cares to consider the arguments for why it was not.
As far as I know, there has been no disclosure of a list of members of the committee for the award, but the responses from individuals who seem to have been involved and have identified themselves as TAM organizers is nothing short of shameful, including the comments that you have made here.
Some of these are people I call friends. However, integrity and honesty are qualities I greatly value and I can only hope that those friendships survive my brutal honesty. This issue deserves it.
As a “big-S” Skeptic, I am ashamed of this “award”.
Eran, my point is awarding this and sending it out to the PRESS, it’s a “volunteer” type of thing but with professional level implication of great seriousness. It’s human beings with reputations and while you “refresh” yourself…it’s going out in newspapers and online. Remember the people that you are implicating in this award also have a personal life. I mean, if you were in this situation, and felt it unfair, how well would you be sleeping and how much fun would you be having with your holidays? There is nothing worse than the feeling of not being heard and being misunderstood, and when they open a paper or turn on the tv and HEAR what’s out there… as they will be for this entire month I am assuming…not a fun holiday season at all. They know that no matter what happens, most people (especialy in the nonskeptic environment) will only remember that first newspaper article or tv commentary.
But if this proves to be not as cut and dried as say “crazy powerband!” is there going to be as much press? What if you go “ok not so cut and dried, a little of each…maybe not worthy of an award that says …this is the NUTTIEST thing we came up with, right up there with Uri Geller!” are you going to send out new press releases? Is the same amount of publicity in the NON SKEPTIC environment going to be generated? Who cares about here, or in skeptic blogs. It’s on the news and out there where the average person is going to sit down with their morning coffee and read about it along with Lady Gaga’s latest dress.
Our actions when they effect others need to be very well thought out. Also, usually when giving out such an award (I know that my group ALWAYS did this) we EXPECTED there would be some controversy and questions. We had BEFORE we gave out our awards documentaion, replies, spokespeople, follow up press releases and indeed time to meet with the press and with the people we were “awarding” (we always made sure to include them if the liked in our press interviews and always gave them a “their side” in the magazine article on the award …this was given out via a magazine that sponsored the award). Frankly, you dont’ slap around someones reputation without really considering “wow, I could really be crapping up someones life and repuation, so they deserve consideration to give their side even if I don’t agree”
Everyone take a deep breathe, TAM OZ was fabulous and over the top success, but oddly the success of TAM OZ has the spill over of raising the reputation and respect of the WORLD for skepticism in Australia. It’s almost as if, “wow, now we have to be sure we really step it up with everything”. Amatuer and volunteer yes, but after the WOW that was TAM OZ, it’s as if now the world knows “they are so professional and dedicated to getting it right!”. I’m sure you will get it right here.
I wasn’t going to comment here again, but someone told me about badrescher’s response. Thanks, Barbara, you made me laugh. Sorry to inform you, but it IS a minor issue. It would be nice if the Bent Spoon had enough effect to make a real splash beyond about 4 bloggers and 20 commenters, but reality is not always what we want it to be. So my comment about getting off the high horses was not defensive at all – it was meant to cause the level of pomposity to drop a notch. Some people got it and toned down their criticism (thanks!), but it seems to have had the opposite effect in some cases.
I want to repeat the most important points:
1. The bent spoon was awarded after consultation with qualified people.
2. The nomination was on the Bent Spoon nominations page for months. Anyone surprised by it was not interested enough to read it (which is fine, but don’t accuse us of hiding it or wonder “how come I didn’t know”).
3. We are not dismissing the criticism, and have already saught comment from people who we believe will be able to tell us if we got it wrong. Part of the reading material provided for the reviewers is this blog and other blogs objecting to the award.
4. The review is NOT going to be done in a rush.
5. If the review finds we got it wrong, we will make ammends, but the suggestion that this kind of award can ruin somebody’s life (or even their holiday) is a bit over the top IMO.
With regard to that last point, I’m speaking from experience: I (and the other TAM organisers) have had unfair and often quite vicious public criticism aimed our way for a variety of things over the past year; from pricing through the quality of food at morning tea, it was all up there on Twitter, Facebook, blogs. Was it pleasant? No. Did it make us lose sleep? Not really. There are also people who are saying right now that they are ashamed of this award, and you know what? I’m not about to lose sleep over that either. A bit of a sense of proportion in this debate would not hurt anyone.
And now, back to my family. The lawn hasn’t been mowed in weeks and despite what some people think, mowing the lawn with my son is a perfectly valid reason to not worry about the Bent Spoon.
For a head of a skeptics group, you really don’t deal well with criticism, Eran. What you mistaken for ‘pompousity’ has been criticism leveled at what has been considered to be a poorly reasoned claim.
You might feel that they are judgmental, but the responses to the criticisms have been less than humble in themselves, with Richard snidely remarking in a Tweet that those who disagree should ‘write a long blog post about it’, and allegedly dismissing critics of it as ‘shit stirrers’. Rather than address the claims, or explain that a response will be forthcoming once AS has time (which nobody begrudges you, although you do seem easily distracted enough from your family to be goaded by Barb), you choose to take the time not to provide substance of an explanation, but to again simply dismiss it as an act of pompousness.
No, you’re quite right that this isn’t a big deal. I’m quite sure ACARA found it more amusing than troubling, and the effort put into the Bent Spoon is hardly going to see it grace the pages of The Australian any time soon. I wonder why you even bother, other than itself being a pompous act of mockery. But in this case it does spread misinformation and encourage poor reasoning concerning education in Australia, and it is this hypocrisy from an organisation that defines itself by the very measure of ‘good thinking’ that I cannot abide.
You claim the decision was made by ‘qualified people’. On the back of such an argument from authority, in which case, will these qualifications be published at any stage? Personally, I couldn’t care less…but it seems to be the sole backbone of your justification for the decision so far.
The fact that the nomination was one of a dozen up on your site for months is neither here nor there. As a nomination, I assume it is accepted with minimal judgment. As a choice for AS to present as the most deserving for ridicule, I assume it would have gone through a rigorous process where those responsible for the decision would be able to argue its merits. Therefore it’s this process which is the subject of criticism, not the fact it was nominated in the first place.
I appreciate that there is a review, and the admission that you might have gotten it wrong. I’m hoping AS is learning some valuable lessons about their protocol in the process.
It is unfortunate that there have been all manner of ‘attacks’ against yourself personally and the Australian Skeptics. While I don’t support them, I have to ask, what do you expect? You’re the head of an organisation that operates by attacking the conclusions of others. You yourself are hardly the most congenial of individuals in the face of criticism, as you’ve shown here. Being the head of any group of volunteers or professionals is enough for people to constantly judge your efforts, let alone of a group which is critical by its nature. I sympathise with the difficulties you face, but that does not excuse what I see as a poor decision and a rush to overlook inaccuracies.
I don’t expect a response here, Eran. Please, by all means, enjoy your family time. Indeed, there’s no need to respond at all to any of this. However AS continues to do itself no favours by way of positively addressing the question of education in this country.
Suggestions
1) That the Aust Skeptics be less condemning of people who discuss the award by the kind of online and in-person disparaging that has been going around. It only paints AS in a poor light. Maybe talking to teachers like Lynne Kelly would help.
2) That we now focus on something important like whether there’s going to be a TAMOz Melbourne? I have a strong feeling that it’s a ‘no’ and that would just be yet another thing to clear up.
After reading this longwinded debate, I have arrived at the conclusion that I dont actually give a shite.
And nor should you.
Though having said that, I am awarding “The Splade of Irrelevant, Uninteresting Petty Discourse” to everyone who has partaken of this tawdry little squabble
Hi Marius,
Long winded? This hardly registers on the ledger when it comes to long winded in skeptical circles? Tawdry? Hardly.
I like to see myself as a member of the Australian Skeptical community and I am encouraged in this by people like Tribal Scientist, Kylie Sturgess, The Skeptic Zone. I am voicing my opinion on an issue that I think is important in an area where I think the Australian Skeptics have failed to do their homework. I may be wrong.
Eran,
You wrote this:
The nomination was on the Bent Spoon nominations page for months. Anyone surprised by it was not interested enough to read it (which is fine, but don’t accuse us of hiding it or wonder “how come I didn’t know”).
I am presuming it is directed toward my comment. No one with any sort of online profile in our little movement here in Australia was talking tweeting or blogging about this issue, particularly those with educational backgrounds, I think that says a little about the promotion of the AS site/news items(don’t take this as a criticism)but also says a lot about the trust we invest in AS as well.
If I had seen it then yes I would have raised objections earlier (or more likely blogged about it as I did with atheist criticism of the History curriculum).
Never claimed that you were hiding it. Your assumption that I(or others) am not interested is but one of the many possibilities along with the fact that I am not glued to the Australian Skeptics page, that like yourself I have a life outside of skeptical activity and that I generally trust that AS will make good decisions.
I really doubt that ACARA knows or cares about the Bent Spoon and in a professional outfit like AS I have to question that if the award has negligible importance/effect why bother with it.
I personally find it incredibly distracting to see Eran practically ‘waving around pictures of his children mowing the lawn’ while people are trying to discuss this matter. It smacks to me of Jenny McCarthy talking of ‘mother’s intuition’ to justify her argument. Kind of tacky and completely irrelevant. If you have other business fine, but don’t think that people are going to sympathise with you JUST because you’re a dad, because you date a guy, because you have a string of skeptic-groupies or you are a monk. It’s completely irrelevant.
Let’s stick to the facts, m’kay?
And I’m awarding ‘Marius vanderLubbe’ the Dutch-oven award for lousy sex! :)
thanks for the response. Being unfamiliar with the award, I was comparing it to the the Pigasus award the JREF gives out. So, sorry, I really tought this was given the same publicity and carry the same weight!
So ignore the “hey rush out because the 10 o’clock news is carrying this!”
Now, one day, I’m willing to bet this bent spoon will be on the ten o clock news….
seriously also, I heard only positive wonderful things about TAM OZ. I mean just looking at facebook everyday was “WOW THIS IS THE BEST TAM EVAH” (yes it said “evah”). Photographs posted galore… people just overwhelmed with the hospitality and warmth of the Skeptics from down under….
Not flying pigasus award level yet, but I’m betting one day.
Whoah, I was leaving this for the weekend seeing as it’s the weekend and I thought it a reasonable request. I’m glad to know this conversation will be part of the review, and it’s in that context I’m adding some more thoughts here.
I was well aware of the nomination on the Skeptic site, at the time it did encourage me to look at the rest of the curriculum rather than just the bits I was using, I couldn’t see the problem so forgot about it. I thought it was a way of advertising the consultation process to a different audience and encouraging people to look at the draft curricula and submit any problems they saw. I think it’s now relevant to ask – did the Australian Skeptics participate in the process and make a submission? Did you receive a reply? Because that extra information would certainly affect how I view the ‘award.’
I’m really finding it hard to understand what the AS was trying to achieve with this ‘award.’ I would hope that comes out as part of the review, no matter the outcome, because knowing the reasons people are doing things is the most productive way to work out where to go next.
@Marius – This issue goes to the heart of whether and how AS can work with schools, teachers and education departments to improve science and critical thinking in Australia. I consider that should be one of the central long term goals of a skeptical organisation. But that’s just me.
Instead of turning on one another, I suggest that all of you consider the damage you are doing to your own credibility by engaging in this pointles squabble.
Matt in particular, comparing Eran Segev to Jenny Mac is only highlighting your obvious lack of understanding of the issues involved.
Perhaps next year, you might to be one of the major organizers of a TAM.
If you think that this years winner wasn’t deserving of the bent spoon, reach into your cutlery draw, type up your press release, and give a bent spoon to whomever you please, or quite the whiney static.
Get over it. It’s not that bad.
I might point out that the Texas schools do NOT currently teach creationism or ID. It was proposed, and passed, to put flaky language into the standards that would have allowed teachers to ‘present both sides’ etc etc.
And because of budget cuts, they probably aren’t going to get new books that have this language, anyway. Twenty-five million people dismissed with a hand wave.
As the Editor of SheThought, I should have been paying far more attention to these comments.
Comments that say “Get over it – this is not an issue” really have no place here. If it is not an issue to you, then fine. But people who want to discuss it can certainly do so, and they are doing so in a civilized way.
The snark and vitriol that is standard for many websites will not be tolerated here. SheThought values sincerity, civilized debate, and an honest intention to listen to other sides. Thanks.
GeekGoddess – Absolutely, I did not intend to imply that creationism was taught in Texas. I used it for a couple of reasons.
Firstly because most of the recent skeptical educational battles, especially involving evolution, have taken place in US states. I was simply drawing that parallel and wondering if AS thought this was a similar situation.
The way that educational standards are created in the US is very different to Australia, ACARA is made up of teachers and has taken years to put this curriculum together including a lengthy consultative process with teachers and others able to make suggestions. There are no elected school boards who can mandate or allow curricula, but I don’t think there are the legal or constitutional safeguards that have protected US schools either.
And secondly I was speculating on how AS reached this decision and I admit drawing an extreme parallel to emphasise. They may or may not have participated in the consultative process when they had the opportunity. They may or may not have had educators judge the curriculum, it’s difficult to tell. From the information we have it’s possible they rejected the process and had non experts judge the curriculum based on what they think it should be like. While they may be on the side of science and rationality, that process seems to be similar to what has happened on US school boards.
Heidi, My opinion of get over it is perfectly reasonable, and of no less value than any one else’s.
You might be surprise to learn that many others feel this way as well.
Unless, of course, you could explain to me why my opinion of “get over it” has no place here. I would be very interested to see your logic.
Marius, your opinion of get over it IS perfectly reasonable. I am sure others feel that way.
But the people here DO care about it. Telling them once that you do not find this issue to be worthy of debate is fine.
But mocking people for engaging in debate about an issue they care about is just rude.
Marius,
What do you think of people who accuse others of something, claiming it is wrong, and then they turn around and do it themselves? I’m asking because that appears to be what you just did. Though, you took it a step farther by removing civility.
I also question if your stance is reasonable. You’re the one that claims it is reasonable, ergo, it is you who holds the burden of proof.
I think this issue matters a lot. Skeptic organizations represent themselves through actions such as these and we lose credibility if we do not hold ourselves accountable for our actions.
Further, the problem with your comments is less your opinion and more your way of expressing it. Not only did you do exactly what you complained about in turning and attacking others after chastising people for arguing, you also felt the need to insult others. That, itself, is a very irrational act. It isn’t reasonable.
I hope you’ll find a way to state your opinions in a more productive manner in the future.
Sean the Blogonaut made his points very elegantly without the slightest hint of smug superiority. Why cant you?
Please, for the love of Jebus, take yourselves less seriously.
Marius, it is not smug superiority. It is truly an effort to have ONE place on the internet where people can discuss things without resorting to rudeness.
If I can do it, you can too. I am a horribly rude, bitchy, snarky, mean-spirited person in real life.
I created this place for people who are not.
@Mario
You have made exactly three comments to this thread, none of which have added anything of any value to the discussion. And that is the point here, a discussion, not just interjecting snarky comments to make oneself feel superior to the rest of the group.
The “get over it comment” is best suited to high school rhetoric, because all it says is, “my opinion is better then yours, so screw you.”
If you are trying to diffuse a supposed situation, you sadly have failed. As from what I can see the discussion was, until you showed up on the scene was civil. Sure people disagree, but we can do that respectfully. For the large part that happens here at SheThought.
IF you have a different viewpoint, then give it, clearly, concisely and respectfully. We welcome honest debate, as long as you can bring something to the table to back up your statements. If you are unwilling to do so, then I suggest you pick up your toys and play elsewhere.
Marius, Jebus?
The debate club lost so much when you graduated high school.
Interesting to note how quickly double standards are pressed into use, Kitty.
I understand these pages are for the more sensitive skeptics who like their debate to have all the sharp points filed off.
We skeptics are a broad church (another religious analogy for Kitt to google). I shall leave you to your gentrified pleasantries.
Funny how you seem to assume that taking off sharp points is a bad thing.
Also, church? Huh? Also, why haven’t you directly addressed the comments I made earlier?
If people are interested, today’s news features the introduction of the curriculum – “National curriculum endorsed by state education ministers”.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/national-curriculum-endorsed-ny-state-education-ministers/story-e6freooo-1225967585669
There will still be adjustments (according to http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1435896/Curriculum-two-years-late) –
“(Children) will start learning this curriculum next year but it will be very much in the hands of states as to the way in which they … approach the question of the roll out of curriculum,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“Each state will have its own specific and distinctively important ways of dealing with this process.”
The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs has agreed to develop the curriculum content as required and engage with teachers to ensure the new courses are substantially implemented by 2013.”
So, that is that.
Marius in order for a conversation to have ‘sharp points’ it needs to have a point. Being rude is simply sharp, and your sole point seems to be “I don’t like/am bored with/have something against this conversation, so none of you should participate either.” You’ve been invited several times to back up this point of view and seem to be unable or unwilling to, instead arguing about tone and writing style. The closest you have come seems to be that you think people are damaging their own credibility, a risk we’re all obviously willing to take.
The main part of this discussion is over until the AS have had a chance to conduct their review and reply. Personally I won’t be continuing until that happens or a substantive point is made and backed up. Feel free to leave or reply to this if you have such a point.
The latest:
Australian Skeptics explain the award: http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/featured-announcement/skeptics-2010-awards/
…and release an interim statement on ACARA’s awarding of it (repeating the exact same errors): http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/2010-bent-spoon-award-interim-statement/
And my response to the statements (regarding the repeated errors): http://tribalscientist.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/acaras-bent-spoon-part-3-around-the-twist/
If they’re still repeating the same, easily verified tripe as ‘Darwin is not in the curriculum’, I’m curious to know how much effort will be put into any review.