The New York Times picked up the torch that Richard and I were carrying on Friday:

Some experts on science education also point to the typical sequence of high school science instruction: biology, chemistry and then physics. It would make more sense in reverse, these people say, because the principles of physics underlie chemistry, which is crucial for an understanding of biology.

Perhaps the leading champion of this “physics first” approach is Leon M. Lederman, a particle physicist, Nobel laureate and former director of Fermilab whose focus lately has been on improving science and math education. He said the current biology-chemistry-physics sequence dates from the late 19th century, when “we didn’t know enough” and biology was considered a “descriptive” subject.

In fact, Dr. Lederman said, “biology is the most complicated of all subjects, and it is based on chemistry and physics.” And, he added, “there is nothing in chemistry, no fact of chemistry or process of chemistry that if you ask ‘Why does this happen?’ you don’t go back to physics.”

It’s interesting that biology was chosen as first because it is “descriptive” (and therefore, presumably, easier). Maybe that’s why they do Earth Sciences first at Bret Harte? Maybe it makes it more interesting for people who don’t like science?

Anyway, Richard and I are firmly in the physics first camp. You can’t understand the others properly without it and - for a kids who wants to know how things work - it’s by far the most interesting.

When I was at grammar school, I used to rank the subjects according to how ‘like maths‘ they were.

We were taught chemistry, physics and biology as separate subjects and, while I enjoyed all the sciences, I enjoyed physics the most because it was more mathematical. Chemistry had less maths and biology, at that level, hardly any at all. In my 11 year old mind, physics was pretty much just applied maths and therefore fun.

In geography, we covered such topics as map reading, how rocks are formed and weather but I never thought of it as science because science was something I enjoyed and I didn’t enjoy geography. Geography had a little bit of counting, measuring and charting but less maths than the sciences. History had no maths at all and I hated it.

At Dylan’s school, they have a single subject called science and they cover such topics as map reading, how rocks are formed and weather. Dylan hates it. In 7th grade he’ll do life science but he already knows he’ll hate it because he hates science. It’s like they want to avoid exposing kids to the hard sciences until it’s too late. Until they have formed an opinion one way or the other.

I have this theory that the people who design school curricula don’t really like science or maths but they know it’s important to the economy and that not enough people are following science careers. The remedy? Make the science in schools appealing to people who don’t like science!

I wonder if they stop to consider the effect it has on people who actually like science? If a kid likes science would making it less science-y make him like it more or less?

I know the answer for me and I know the answer for Dylan. Maths good. Science good. The more the better.

The other day, I went to Dylan’s open house at school and met his maths teacher. We went through the usual awkward self-introduction:

“So, who do you belong to?”

“Dylan”

“Oh! Dylan! He works so hard!”

“No! Dylan Lawrence!”

Apparently, Dylan’s teacher was under the misapprehension that Dylan works hard at maths. I tried to explain to her that maths was Dylan’s favourite subject because it required no work at all. She found the notion very odd. I thought it was obvious.

For me, at Dylan’s age, maths was my favourite subject too. It required no study or work and, every now and then, the teacher would give you some cool puzzles to work on. I would often slyly do maths in other classes when the teacher wasn’t looking. Apparently, it hadn’t occurred to Dylan’s maths teacher that people would enjoy doing maths.

I have encountered this odd attitude before. When Dylan started fourth grade, at back to school night, his teacher explained how hard maths was for the children but that she had a bunch of manipulatives to help with the difficult concepts and she would take them through it step by step and, usually, by the end of the year they would understand.

What would it be like, I wonder, to have math teacher who enjoyed maths? I had english teachers that enjoyed their subject ..and history …and physics …and chemistry …and biology …and french …but never maths.

What if the default assumption in the maths class was that kids like maths and find it easy. What would that class be like?

Imagine if, at the start of the year, they said “OK. Everyone who loves maths come with me. We are going to teach you separately. Your teacher like maths too”. What would that class be like?

To their credit, Dylan’s school has advanced placement for maths and they give the new sixth graders a test. If they pass, they go into a class with a bunch of surly seventh graders who don’t like maths.

Anyway, Dylan just passed the test that lets him take high school maths next year. All he needs to do now is get the form signed and handed in on time which, apparently, was the hardest thing he had to do all year in maths class.

Why is it so hard for him to get a form signed? I don’t know where he gets it from.

I have been going to the weekly presentations at Xerox Parc on and off for several years. This one - next Thursday - looks like the best one yet.

Brewing is the original biotechnology. For 6-8,000 years it has been a delight in the diet, resulting from a tremendously consistent process founded on intricate understanding of the underpinning science. It is an industry that informed all modern day fermentation processes. Beer looks good, it tastes good - and it does you good. This talk will explain all this and much more besides.

Charlie Bamforth, Ph.D., D.Sc. Professor of Malting & Brewing Sciences at the University of California

How come my Careers Advisor never told me that I could have been a Professor of Beer?

My comment about ‘real’ or ‘fantasy’ reminds me of our sit down conversation with Dylan when it was time to tell him about the fantasies that parents make up for their young children’s amusement [Are you sure it's for the child's amusement? - ed].

The conversation went something like this:

Parents: You know, Dylan, there are somethings that parents make up to amuse their children. Can you guess what they are?

Child: God?

Parents: Er. OK. That’s one, but that’s not the one we had in mind! Any more?

Child: Tooth Fairy?

Parents: yep.

Child: That was you? Dammit! Will I still get money when I lose a tooth?

Parents: Sure. Any more?

Child: Santa?

Parents: yep. But don’t tell any other kids in case their parents want to amuse themselves for a little longer…and don’t tell Jazz. You have to help her enjoy the fantasy now.

Child: I knew it! I knew there was no such thing as Santa!

He was pleased with himself for a long time about that last one.

This sounds like fun.

You will be given a maximum of 3 minutes in which to impress the judges. They are looking for exciting and engaging talks that can be understood by a general public adult audience. Props are allowed but there is no set up time or assistance. PowerPoint presentations are not permitted…Successful contestants from the first round will go through to the regional final later in the day. For this you will need to present a different 3 minute talk to the judges and a public audience. This presentation can be on the same topic, but must be a different talk. The judges will be able to question you after each presentation and will also give you feedback where possible…At the heats you only have 3 minutes to impress the judges by giving an entertaining and original talk that is scientifically accurate but also engaging to a non-scientific audience. The judges are looking for three qualities: content, clarity and charisma. So make sure your subject matter is well chosen, and clearly put across, that your facts are right, and that you let your passion for your subject shine through!

The Guardian has an article about new government guidelines for teaching creationism in religious education (RE) classes. Schools will also be required to teach the creation myths of all the major religions and will be required to compare and contrast natural and supernatural explanations of our origins.

This is nothing new to me, of course, since we were taught creationism in school when I was a lad. As I have often said, there is no better way to inoculate teenagers against some of the zanier myths than to have them debate it with their peers.

[to our second year (7th grade) RE teacher]

Miss! So, was Jesus a bastard?

[teacher]

Er. Well. It’s true that Mary and Joseph weren’t married when Jesus was conceived, but we don’t usually call him a bastard.

Wasn’t me asking the question, by the way.

Excellent Doonesbury over at Slate today about the global warming controversy and the dioxin controversy and ….

The Constructionists tell us that children learn best when we let them form their own theories about the world by making things. In contrast, the Instructionists tell us that children learn better when we-who-know tell them what the theories are.

I was always attracted by the idea of constructionism, but have not done a great job of implementing it in my parenting. Enter Jazz’s piano teacher.

Teacher : OK, Jazz, I wanted you play this song

Jazz (playing everything except that song) : tinkle tinkle. bong bong bong

Teacher : Oh that’s pretty, Jazz. How would it sound if you tinkle-bonged like this…

Jazz : tinkle bong bong bong. tinkle bong bong bong

Teacher : Very nice Jazz. Let’s write down your song. This is a stave, and you played a G, then an A and…

I was horrified at first. I found myself glancing at the clock and wondering how much I was paying to hear Jazz tinkle-bong around the keyboard with seemingly no structure to the lessons at all. Georgina couldn’t take it at all - she had to leave the room.

[epilogue]

It’s about three months since I started this post and Jazz is doing really well. She is probably at about the same point in her study as she would have been if she had taken a more direct - instructionist - route except that she still loves playing the piano and she loves to compose.

It’s so easy, as a parent or a teacher, to fall into instructionist ways. It takes real discipline to stick with the less-disciplined constructionist approach. I hope I can do it and, if I do, I will be forever grateful to Jazz’s piano teacher for showing me the way.

In my profession, software engineering, only about 10% of the professionals ever read books or practice or attend conferences or keep track of what the gurus are saying or aspire to gurudom themselves. For many, the highest aspiration is that one day they will stop being a software professional so they can manage other software professionals.

Since software first broke out of the academy and started to be used commercially, the main concern of the software establishment has been to prevent the majority - the 90% who have no desire to improve themselves - from doing the wrong thing.

I haven’t seen everything yet but, from what I have seen of it so far, Sturgeon’s Law holds.

90% of everything is crap

That’s certainly true in my profession and that makes me wonder about the others. In particular it makes me wonder about the teaching profession.

When I look back on my schooldays, one thing I remember clearly is that most of my teachers were crap. The ones who stood out all had their own style. They had something that couldn’t be learned from a book. They oozed good-teacher-ness. I think I had maybe three like that in my whole time at school. Dylan had already had four before he left elementary school. I hope he has more but the odds are against it.