Evolution to be compulsory subject in UK primary schools

[Rrose Selavy]

Good, but still some "wiggle room" for "faith" schools:

Evolution will become a compulsory subject for study in all state primary schools, the Government announced today.
Darwin’s theory of how life evolved through natural selection will be a legal requirement in science teaching from September 2011, although it will be left to schools to decide how this is done.
The move, which was welcomed by scientists, comes despite a drive to slim down the national curriculum for primary schools and leave teachers greater discretion over what to teach.
Church and other faith schools within the state system will have to comply although officials said the theory of evolution could be taught in a context that reflected a school’s ethos, in a similar way to compulsory sex education for children aged under 15

More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6923157.ece

 

[metzomagic]

Heh. I was just over reading that Times article you linked to, and the ensuing comments. Of course, the god botherers are all over it. Sad how they deny all evidence of evolution because it disagrees with their Bronze Age book of myths.

On a related note, I just got my copy of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Even reading the first 2 chapters of it would be enough to convince a rational person... oh, wait!

 

[Darat]

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

 

[metzomagic]

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

I'd assume it would be taught in the latter grades, around age 12 - 13? Agree that it would be a bit of a tough concept for 7-year olds to grapple with, but you're putting up a straw man there.

 

[Darat]

That's secondary school over here. Primary school is upto 11. Well it was back in my days - you know when the dinosaurs were still roaming around and lions were vegetarians, they may have changed things since then, my nephew was telling me just the other day that he can talk to his friends "wirelessly" when playing a game with them as if that was some great new thing - we called it shouting when I was a kid.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

 

[Darat]

I don't think it is that easy to teach, sure you could go down the "by rote" route but I don't think that is educating the kids - I would much rather they learn about simple but accurate basic science. Educate them about how to approach something in a "scientific way" - that builds a solid foundation that can then be used to introduce more complex concepts and ideas as they get older. I think kids learning that science works at a young age will stand them in much better stead.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Have to agree with Darat here. I suppose it depends how evolution is taught and in what sense. For some kids I guess it could be quite fascinating if taught in the right way but seems a bit heavy going for someone of 10.

Seems like a move more towards making primary school education more of a primer for secondary school rather than trying to get interested and exploring things.

 

[metzomagic]

My bad. Being originally from the U.S., I forgot that secondary school starts at age 11 over here. In that case, it would definitely be a better idea to make it compulsory in secondary school, when it would be more easily assimilated... but not in a Borg-like way ;-)

 

[Ocelot]

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

We covered evolution in my last year of primary school. not in any great depth but I rememebr drawing a learning about amoebas and then into fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, (lots of fun with dinosaurs) mammals and birds, then primates and finally man.

 

[shadron]

We covered evolution in my last year of primary school. not in any great depth but I rememebr drawing a learning about amoebas and then into fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, (lots of fun with dinosaurs) mammals and birds, then primates and finally man.

I went through the same stream of animals in high school biology, but it was less about evolution and more about climbing Linnaeus' system. If I remember correctly there was a chapter about evolution at the end, but it certainly wasn't emphasized while learning about worms and fishes. Of course, that was 40 years ago, and clades weren't even a gleam them.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

In response to those who think it would be hard to teach evolution to primary school kids, a teacher at one of my local primary schools did it during Darwin week and it was apparently very successful. My friend is a teaching assistant at the school and said the kids loved it and grasped the natural selection concepts straight away. I think he made a game of it that involved lots of lining up, shuffling around groups, joining and leaving etc based on certain criteria before ending up with a winning 'design'.

I'll try and get a message through to him to post on this thread the details of what he did. I only know him 'third-hand' though so it may take a while.

 

[Steve]

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

I would agree with this. I am basing my thoughts on a study example of one - my soon to be 8yo old daughter who has been a dinosaur fanatic for a couple of years. She has a basic understanding of the concept that, over the full history of dinosaurs the earlier species either died off or evolved into new species. She thinks it is pretty cool that modern birds are the ancestors of dinosaurs. She has picked this understanding up by herself (they do not teach "dinosaurs" at school) so I think that it would not be difficult for a trained teacher to teach the basic concepts of evolution to children of this age.

 

[justcharlie09]

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

Agreed. How do you talk about the animal kingdom without discussing the relatedness of all life? Or ecosystems without talking about the ways living things adapt to survive?

I wouldn't make it, necessarily, a 2nd grade (7 year old) topic--at least not an in-depth look. Still, you need it for 9,10 &11 year olds at least. Otherwise you can't really talk about biology in any sensible way.

My kids have covered it through the texts I've purchased for home use. No problem so far. They actually think it's pretty "cool" as a matter of fact.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

It depends how evolution is taught for the age group but you can be sure as Hell that any "religious education" or creationism won't wait to start at 11 -

 

[kuroyume0161]

It depends how evolution is taught for the age group but you can be sure as Hell that any "religious education" or creationism won't wait to start at 11 -

Yeah, because we all know that concepts of eternity, extra-universality, souls, and afterlife are much easier to comprehend when you're 11 or younger.

On the other hand, when I was very young we had the 'religious bus' come around and the people would show us pictures and tell stories from that infernal book. At that age they get you with stories and fantasy. When you grow up, they get you with ... stories and fantasy and the promise of eternal life.

 

[rjh01]

I agree with Rrose. We teach children evolution before their minds are closed by religion. Also teach them a bit of other science.

 

[doethcaru]

In response to those who think it would be hard to teach evolution to primary school kids, a teacher at one of my local primary schools did it during Darwin week and it was apparently very successful.

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds. There were many activities, including watching short videos by David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, investigating a "tree of life" and creating a timeline of life on Earth. But we also included the biggy - evolution through natural selection. I taught this by devising a number of predator and prey games such as the following.

The class were divided into prey and predators. Each animal was "grown" by following a set of instructions (analogous to DNA). The instructions included how they could or could not move, how they could use their limbs, whether they could see etc... The prey had velcro tags attached to belts and the predators had to "eat" them by tearing off the tags.

Some predators were successful and "survived" others did not catch a tag and "died." Similarly some prey "survived" and some did not.
Those who survived after the first round had offspring - except not all offspring were the same - there were mutations (new instructions). Some mutations would be adaptive (remove the blindfold) Others were detrimental to survival (limbs with a more limited movement). We would then play another round and so on. By the end of the game, we had a range of different predators and prey. Evolution before their very eyes!

Incidentally, I am delighted that evolution is to be taught in all schools. It is easily one of the most important ideas in biology, and the one with probably the greatest explanatory force. It is the idea that brings sense to the rest of biology.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds.

Brilliant work. I wish there were more teachers like you. And welcome to the forum.

Dave

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds. There were many activities, including watching short videos by David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, investigating a "tree of life" and creating a timeline of life on Earth. But we also included the biggy - evolution through natural selection. I taught this by devising a number of predator and prey games such as the following.

The class were divided into prey and predators. Each animal was "grown" by following a set of instructions (analogous to DNA). The instructions included how they could or could not move, how they could use their limbs, whether they could see etc... The prey had velcro tags attached to belts and the predators had to "eat" them by tearing off the tags.

Some predators were successful and "survived" others did not catch a tag and "died." Similarly some prey "survived" and some did not.
Those who survived after the first round had offspring - except not all offspring were the same - there were mutations (new instructions). Some mutations would be adaptive (remove the blindfold) Others were detrimental to survival (limbs with a more limited movement). We would then play another round and so on. By the end of the game, we had a range of different predators and prey. Evolution before their very eyes!

Incidentally, I am delighted that evolution is to be taught in all schools. It is easily one of the most important ideas in biology, and the one with probably the greatest explanatory force. It is the idea that brings sense to the rest of biology.

That sounds great. I might just be being cynical but I doubt the lessons in most cases will be anywhere near as interactive and involving as that. I can picture loads of kids being turned off science by having a boring text taught to them by a teacher who doesn't understand or care the slightest about biology. That's my only worry.