"the state of science education" is generally code-word for "should we be teaching creationism in schools?"
Maybe generally, but I'm not seeing it here. Maybe you could be more specific to this particular article?
The government funded media releases that put a positive spin on current science education (which was found to be bad). In what way is this related to teaching creationism in science classrooms?
Maybe it's in the article; I couldn't read it because I didn't register for the NYTimes. I'm going off the original paste and comment only. But from what I read, I can't figure out the connection. Are you reading something that I'm not?
it's basically the only thing under debate was far as quality of science education. we're not talking about whether or not newtonian mechanics should be taught, are we?
We're not talking about that. My assumption is that "quality" in
this article doesn't mean "what we teach" but rather "how well are we teaching it?" or "what percentage of our kids are learning what we do teach?" Is there something in the article that made you think it's about the content?
Maybe I'm really dense today. Wouldn't the government want to put a NEGATIVE spin on the state of today's science education if the issue was whether or not to teach creationism? That way, they could say the content is bad because we're not teaching creationism. Why in the world would the government want to put a positive spin on the state of science education if the government wants to add creationism to the curriculum?
Thanks.
™ Version 4.2