There are two new issues that are making the rounds among the boards about religion, and to me they relate strongly in, at least, my reaction to them: I think that there’s a lot of fuss over things that people probably shouldn’t be making a fuss about. Both are at “Why Evolution is True” (and other places), so that’s a convenient one-stop shop for my comments (I don’t claim that he originated either).
So, the first:
————————
Fears about kids learning evolution aren’t limited to the Bible Belt. The WestonForum.com, a website for the community of Weston, Connecticut, reports that a local intermediate-school teacher, Mark Tangarone, has prematurely retired after a flap about evolution:
Mr. Tangarone, a 17-year veteran of the Weston school system, claims that a program he wanted to teach about Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln was rejected by the school administration because it involved teaching evolution — the scientific theory that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor.
“I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that a teacher such as myself can be ordered to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s work and the theory of evolution,” he said.”
———————
Well, unfortunately, as it turns out, he wasn’t. According to the curriculum of that district, evolution gets taught in the 8th grade. He was teaching 3, 4 and 5, and a gifted class. Here is the E-mail that he got from the principal:
———————
” “While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic as part of a TAG project, and further, parents who would object if evolution was part of a presentation by a student to students who do not participate in the TAG program.”
He further stated, “Evolution touches on a core belief — Do we share common ancestry with other living organisms? What does it mean to be a human being? I don’t believe that this core belief is one in which you want to debate with children or their parents, and I know personally that I would be challenged in leading a 10-year-old through this sort of discussion while maintaining the appropriate sensitivity to a family’s religious beliefs or traditions.”
In conclusion, Dr. Ribbens said, “In short, evolution is a topic that is not age appropriate, is not part of our existing curriculum, is not part of the state frameworks at this point in a student’s education, nor a topic in which you have particular expertise. For all of these reasons, the TAG topics need to be altered this year to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s work and the theory of evolution.” ”
———————–
And his reply:
————————————
“He said he does have the necessary background to teach the program as he is certified to teach science and social studies for grades K-6. He also has a six-year degree in gifted education.”
….
“Mr. Tangarone said he thinks it was a tragedy and loss for the students not to study Darwin’s voyage. “The information they would have garnered would have influenced their whole year. Being prevented from learning about this at a young age is a travesty,” he said.
He was also critical of the school administration. “Statements justifying censoring evolution and reprimanding me for gathering information from colleagues is deeply disturbing,” he said.”
—————-
First, no, according to the board he doesn’t have the necessary background to teach that, as he is accredited to Grade 6, and the board says “We teach this starting in Grade 8”. Nor is a degree in gifted education any indication that he understands evolution any better than any layman off the street.
Second, if he thinks that evolution should be taught to children in its entirety that’s his right, but his approach should be to get the curriculum changed, and not try to do an end-run around the curriculum and the standards it sets and then complain when it is pointed out that that isn’t part of the curriculum for a reason.
Now, the principal does put some other things in there, but it seems to me that the principal is right. While on the global warming case he was allowed to go outside the curriculum, the principal is basically saying that there’s a lot more involved in this to do it properly because of the other issues — which no one can deny exist — and that younger children might not be able to understand how all of those philosophical implications matter. Because of this, if it’s done improperly parents could be offended and upset about how that was handled. The principal didn’t have faith that the teacher or the student giving the presentation could handle that. And so denied it.
Essentially, to me the conversation was like this:
“I want to do this evolution thing.”
“Well, there’s a lot involved in that and there are reasons why we don’t generally teach the full theory until grade 8. I’m not sure that everyone involved would be able to handle those extra issues. Do something else.”
“You don’t want to teach evolution!”
Why should this guy come across as a hero, as opposed to a whiner? This reaction is, in fact, a much ado about nothing that really ticks off moderate people; surely there are real cases where evolution is being problematically limited in schools as opposed to this one where, basically, the answer is “We don’t teach it in grade 3.”
The other case is about “National Prayer Day”, and how a court ruled it was unconstitutional:
————————-
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/national-day-of-prayer-ruled-unconstitutional/
”
Ruling on a suit filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (yay Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor!), Federal judge Barbara Crabb found that the proclamation of a National Day of Prayer violated the Constitution’s provision for separation of church and state. Crabb ruled that the official proclamation amounts to a governmental call for religious action. According to MSNBC:
“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” Crabb wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”
But Crabb also says her order does not block any prayer day until after appeals in the case are exhausted. “
———————————-
I always get very suspicious when courts start trying to interpret motives, but there’s a big problem here. Why can’t it be seen as the government encouraging all people who do pray to all pray together on one day? What did the government say the purpose was?
Let’s take a look at the other national days in the U.S.:
—————————–
- Religious Freedom Day (January 16)
- Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday (third Monday in January)[2]
- National Sanctity of Human Life Day (third Sunday in January)
- Education and Sharing Day (late March or April-based on Hebrew Calendar)
- Greek Independence Day (March 25)
- National D.A.R.E. Day (second Thursday in April)
- National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day (April 9)
- Pan American Day and week (April 14 and week thereof)
- Armenian Remembrance Day (April 24)[3]
- Loyalty Day (May 1)
- Law Day, U.S.A. (May 1)
- National Day of Prayer (first Thursday in May)
- Mother’s Day (second Sunday in May)
- National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week (third Friday in May and week thereof)
- National Maritime Day (May 22)
- Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day (last Monday in May) [4]
- National Child’s Day (first Monday in June)
- Flag Day, and National Flag Week (June 14 and week thereof)
- Father’s Day (third Sunday in June)
- National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day (July 27) (originally ended 2003, reinstated in 2009)
- Parent’s Day (last Sunday in July)
- National Airborne Day (August 16)
- Women’s Equality Day (August 26)
- National Days of Prayer and Remembrance (weekend prior to September 11)
- Patriot Day (September 11)
- National POW/MIA Recognition Day (Third Friday in September)
- Citizenship Day and Constitution Week (September 17 and week thereof)
- Family Day (fourth Monday in September)
- Gold Star Mother’s Day (last Sunday in September)
- Child Health Day (first Monday in October)
- German-American Day (October 6)
- Columbus Day (second Monday in October)[5]
- Leif Erikson Day (October 9)
- General Pulaski Memorial Day (October 11)
- White Cane Safety Day (October 15)
- United Nations Day (October 24)
- World Freedom Day (November 9)
- Veterans Day (November 11)[6]
- America Recycles Day (November 15)
- Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in November)[7]
- Native American Heritage Day (Friday after Thanksgiving)[8]
- World AIDS Day (December 1)
- National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day (December 7)
- Human Rights Day and Human Rights Week (December 10 and week beginning of)
- Bill of Rights Day (December 15)
- Wright Brothers Day (December 17) “
———————————
So, let’s use her reasoning and say that every thing on this list has as its main purpose to pretty much encourage all citizens to participate/acknowledge/accept the event being commemorated. So, does “German-American Day” bother anyone, under that model? Isn’t it discrimination to promote one identifiable group over another? And isn’t “Greek Independence Day” worrying? Why is the U.S. celebrating and encouraging its citizens to celebrate the independence of another nation? I read the wiki on it, and it doesn’t look like the U.S. was involved in it especially.
Let’s look at how wiki describes the purpose of these events:
————————-
“U.S. law provides for the declaration of selected public observances by the President of the United States as designated by Congress or by the discretion of the President. Generally the President will provide a statement about the purpose and significance of the observance, and call on the people of the United States to observe the day “with appropriate ceremonies and activities”. These events are typically to honor or commorate a public issue or social cause, ethnic group, historic event or noted individual.”
————————-
Now, wiki’s not reliable for anything, and certainly not more than a judge when talking about law, but it seems like the purpose of these things is to single out a group or a cause and, as stated, have people celebrate it appropriately. Which also means not celebrating it, BTW; I don’t think everyone participates in the events I’ve listed before. So, then, what’s the problem with prayer? Well, she could have a point that it encourages a specific activity that has a religious connotation, but that’s fairly weak. But it might technically work.
But here’s the rub: Why was this taken to court in the first place?
So, there’s a national day to pray. There are other days that include prayer, and one general day for those that pray to pray for whatever they want to pray for. Why is this a big deal? Why is this something that an organization launched a lawsuit over? Did they even think about suggesting an alternative — National Day of Prayer, Meditation, and Contemplation perhaps? Is this really such a big deal that so much time and money was spent fighting it?
See, the problem is this, speaking as a moderate (and not an American, either, since I’m Canadian): This really is minor. If anyone got horribly offended at any of the other things on the list — and there are a few, as I’ve pointed out — and tried to take that to court, we’d laugh at them. But not here. This is a big deal, and well-known secularist names are on the side of “This is a really, really big deal”. And I can’t see why. Is this the biggest issue of discrimination facing people who don’t have a religion? If this is so serious, maybe atheists and secularists don’t have all that many problems.
Except, in some cases, they clearly do. We have a big stink over one school deciding that evolution was too controversial to be taught at what they consider an age-inappropriate grade when there are school boards that are either talking about including creationism or ID or eliminating evolution. We have people complaining about National Prayer Day or a traditional prayer before public meetings or a traditional cross or display of the Ten Commandments when most Americans won’t vote for an atheist President or want to actually have laws that reflect a particular religion.
And this is the problem: if people are so vocal over the little things, the moderates get irritated, and get distrustful. There are lots of people — I’m one of them — who have no issues with atheists or secularists and would like to get along with them, but it’s hard when they seem to foam at the mouth at any mention of religion and start trying to use the courts to enforce that. Sure, for some of the minor issues the courts might be appropriate, and it’s a lot harder to change social circumstances and opinions than it is to win a court case. But fighting and winning these sorts of battles doesn’t help you change opinions. It only makes people dislike and dismiss you.
The Verbose Stoic 
April 18, 2010 at 5:14 am |
Weston Forum (same paper as original article letter to editor) April 8 Steven Newton Public Information Project Director National Center for Science Education is quoted “Because Connecticut science standards clearly direct that evolution be part of the curriculum starting at grade three…”
Sounds like the teacher was correct and the principal disregarded state standards reacting to “anticipated” parental reaction.
After researching the state standards the Stoic might reconsider this posting for accuracy and misplaced name-calling.
The real whiners were probably the few vocal parents that the principal was reacting to.
Next we will be teaching arithmetic based upon polling parents. How many parents “believe” 1+1=3. Yup, that’s the answer, we’ll go with.
The Stoic should reread the entire article and not just the Cliff Note version before being so verbose.
“Mr. Belair (Weston superintendent) said Weston schools routinely teach evolutionary concepts in kindergarten, third grade, eighth grade, ninth grade, and 10th grade.”
Evolution is to be part of the curriculum starting at grade 3 (see Newton above) and the teacher is accredited through grade 6. The Stoic was duped by the smoke and mirrors of the response of the administrators running for cover from Principal Ribbens’ remark. We teach blah, blah, blah without ever addressing the restrictive email.
Ribbens is apparently himself conflicted, calling evolution “a robust theory” and in the next breath “philosophically unsatisfactory”. Such gibberish to excuse his fear of the wrath of a subset of parents?
Oh by the way, where does the teacher say he wants to teach evolution in its entirety?? The Verbose Stoic is now adding words to the article.
Worse than Wiki, postings such as this should come with the caveat: Reading comprehension and thinking before writing is not a requirement for blogging.
April 18, 2010 at 5:44 am |
Monk E. See:
Here’s the relevant quote from the page in context about the standards:
““This is a personnel matter, not a curriculum issue,” said Mr. Belair. He said Weston schools routinely teach evolutionary concepts in kindergarten, third grade, eighth grade, ninth grade, and 10th grade.
According to Weston curriculum instructional leaders John Drummond and Carolyn Vinton, Weston schools address evolution in a “developmentally appropriate manner” in kindergarten, and grades three, eight, nine and 10.
“The understanding of content and concepts is developed over time. For example, the grade level expectations for kindergarten include distinguishing between living and nonliving things. In third grade, students learn about the adaptations organisms need to survive. In grades eight through 10, the science curriculum includes the study of the evolution and biodiversity of organisms that result from genetic changes occurring over time,” the pair said in a joint statement.”
Evolution — and what would be relevant to Darwin, it seems — is taught in grades 8 – 10. By the standards. Adaptation is taught in grade 3.
So unless he only wanted to teach adaptation and the principal still opposed it, I’m totally correct on my comments about the standards. If you want to talk about someone not reading something before posting, it’s always best to make sure you get it right yourself [grin].
Especially since the people saying what you quoted are responsible for the curriculum and are backing the principal.
As for Ribbens, I did say this:
“Now, the principal does put some other things in there, but it seems to me that the principal is right. While on the global warming case he was allowed to go outside the curriculum, the principal is basically saying that there’s a lot more involved in this to do it properly because of the other issues — which no one can deny exist — and that younger children might not be able to understand how all of those philosophical implications matter. Because of this, if it’s done improperly parents could be offended and upset about how that was handled. The principal didn’t have faith that the teacher or the student giving the presentation could handle that. And so denied it.”
There are additional issues, as everyone knows. Do you really want children getting the incorrect idea that we descended from apes? How often do those who promote evolution have to face that idea? And can someone in grade 3 handle the idea of common descent? And if it clashes — or can even be seen to clash — with their religion, do you think that they, in general, have enough background to understand and critically evaluate the counters that the religion gives?
That, I think, is what is meant by “philosophically unsatisfactory”, in that there are philosophical issues that need to be addressed and might not be properly addressed at that level. I admit that that’s reading in a little, though.
April 18, 2010 at 9:16 am |
Click to access PK8_sciencecurriculumstandards2009.pdf
The above link is for the Grade 3 Curriculum for CT Schools.
Without much interpretation, the title “Heredity and Evolution” seems to be included and only qualified by using words such as survival and adaptation.
There was nothing in the principal’s email to indicate that Tangarone was considering anything of a complete paleontological or evolutionary discourse or was going beyond “adaptation and survival.”
To quote the article… In conclusion, Dr. Ribbens said, “In short, evolution is a topic that is not age appropriate, is not part of our existing curriculum, is not part of the state frameworks at this point in a student’s education” All of these points are refuted in the link to the official guidelines above and not part of some interpretive blog dance.
It was your fabricated quote “he thinks that evolution should be taught to children in its entirety” that should give the reader pause.
You further make up your own quote ascribed to the administration “We teach this starting in Grade 8″ when clearly the school reps. stated otherwise and then you tried to dismiss the teacher as being unqualified since his accreditation is only to grade 6.
Please explain or edit for fact.
To study Darwin as a man who was able to observe and make sense of an order that many others had overlooked before is a valuable role model for this group of advanced 3rd graders at the least and might just inspire the other kids as well.
This teacher in question is likely the type that could even inspire kids to become more than the generation before or, in other words… evolve.
April 18, 2010 at 10:00 am |
To start with, you’re reading way too much into the title. What they teach in that section in grade 3 is summarized by the heading below it:
“3.2 — Organisms can survive and reproduce only in environments that meet their basic needs.”
What part of Darwin’s voyage would only address that?
Here’s what they expect the students to do at the end of it:
“Compare and contrast the external features and behaviors that enable different animals and plants (including those that are extinct) to get food, water and sunlight; find mates; and be protected in specific land and water habitats.
Explain how behaviors such as hibernation, dormancy and migration give species advantages for surviving unfavorable environmental conditions.
Give examples of ways animals benefit from camouflage
Evaluate whether an adaptation gives a plant or animal a survival advantage in a given environment.
Design a model of an organism whose adaptations give it an advantage in a specific environment.”
There’s no mention of formal evolution at this point at all.
So it does look like the principal and the board have a case. Without knowing the details of the project, we won’t know for sure if he wanted to go further, but in my opinion — and, really, blogs are about opinions, no? — it really does seem like it does. What you’ve given in no way refutes what Ribbens said.
Especially since your own quote belies the comment since:
“Mr. Tangarone offered support from the Connecticut State Department of Education’s Core Science Framework and Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education, to teach evolution at an early age.”
Now, why would he offer that as support if he was only teaching what the curriculum said you could teach?
As for your specific points:
“It was your fabricated quote “he thinks that evolution should be taught to children in its entirety” that should give the reader pause.”
Well, what I actually said was:
“Second, if he thinks that evolution should be taught to children in its entirety that’s his right …”
Note the IF. If that’s his point and that’s what he’s railing against, then my point stands. If not, then I’m wrong and he or you can actually correct me on that. But note that even your own data proves my overall point: it isn’t that the school won’t teach evolution, because it does teach it in various stages and it’s in the curriculum. The principal and board seem to be saying that what he wanted to do went beyond what is appropriate for that age-range, and without something more than a vague interpretation I’m gonna stick with that.
As for:
“You further make up your own quote ascribed to the administration “We teach this starting in Grade 8″ when clearly the school reps. stated otherwise and then you tried to dismiss the teacher as being unqualified since his accreditation is only to grade 6.”
First, I was not ascribing that as a quote to the administration, but was using a stylistic approach as a summary, which is quite my own. I apologize if it confused you, but I’m not going to get too concerned about a style point [grin].
Second, the school reps were defending the principal and outlined what the school did teach, so it really does look like that’s a fair summation.
Finally:
“To study Darwin as a man who was able to observe and make sense of an order that many others had overlooked before is a valuable role model for this group of advanced 3rd graders at the least and might just inspire the other kids as well.”
I don’t disagree. I meant to — but forgot to — say that perhaps some sort of compromise could have been worked out to keep it closer to the curriculum and allow them to participate in the birthday celebration thingie. And both sides are probably to blame for that. This is the prime problem with “Much ado about nothing” cases: because of the all or nothing attitude and rhetoric, no one ends up happy, when a little calm, rational thought would result in something that would make everyone happy.
April 21, 2010 at 9:02 pm |
Principal Apologizes
http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/thewestonforum/news/local/56145-evolution-flap-ribbens-apologizes-weston-parents-have-questions.html
So this was about who was going to be the dominant male and the admin. chose to back the principal (who now apologizes) and chose instead to make personal attacks on the teacher.
Pretty low on the evolutionary scale if you ask me…
April 22, 2010 at 5:40 am |
Full text of the principal’s letter from the above site:
“Mark,
To follow up on our conversation on Friday, I would like to summarize my thoughts regarding the TAG topic for this year for the sake of clarity.
As I said on Friday, I think Charles Darwin was one of the greatest naturalists of all time, and the theory of evolution has been a robust theory that has been the basis for much biological thought for the last 150 years or so.
Having said that, it is not appropriate to have his work or the theory part of the TAG program since the topic is not age appropriate — if evolution is part of the science curriculum in Weston, the instruction occurs in much later grades. In that case the class is taught by a teacher with specific training and certification in biology.
With all due respect to your abilities as a teacher, I do not think it wise to teach a potentially controversial topic, without the training and background necessary to deal with issues that could emerge.
Those issues could include parental objection.
While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic as part of a TAG project, and further, parents who would object if evolution was part of a presentation by a student to students who do not participate in the TAG program.
Evolution touches on a core belief — Do we share common ancestry with other living organisms? What does it mean to be a human being? I don’t believe that this core belief is one in which you want to debate with children or their parents, and I know personally that I would be challenged in leading a 10-year-old through this sort of discussion while maintaining the appropriate sensitivity to a family’s religious beliefs or traditions.
In short, evolution is a topic that is not age appropriate, is not part of our existing curriculum, is not part of the state frameworks at this point in a student’s education, nor a topic in which you have particular expertise.
For all of these reasons, the TAG topics need to be altered this year to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s work and the theory of evolution.
Mark Ribbens
Principal Weston Intermediate School”
More on why he rejected it:
“He said the reason Mr. Tangarone’s AustralAsia program was rejected wasn’t because of the topic — but because of the person teaching the topic.
“I started running through the possible misunderstandings children would have [about evolution] and I anticipated what could go wrong. It is a pivotal and important topic that should be taught well. Was Mark the person to do it? No,” Dr. Ribbens said.
Despite the fact that Mr. Tangarone has taught the TAG program for 17 years, and is certified to teach science and social studies in grades K-6, Dr. Ribbens said someone with a more scientific background was needed to teach evolution. “It needs to be taught right,” Dr. Ribbens said.
When asked about his statements that evolution was not an age appropriate topic, and was not part of the state frameworks for intermediate students, Dr. Ribbens acknowledged he could be wrong. “I tend to be too conversational in my e-mails, and if my language involving the frameworks was wrong, then shame on me,” he said.”
Note also that the letter was sent in September 2008 and the principal is no longer at the school:
“Dr. Ribbens, who has a background in music, left Weston in 2009 to take a position as the principal of the Cooperative Educational Services Regional Center for the Arts (RCA) magnet school in Trumbull.”
This does not really paint Tangarone in a good light, since he is retiring early well after the fact (an entire school year) and the principal that caused him problems is, well, no longer causing him problems.
April 22, 2010 at 10:38 am |
Reread the original article. After Ribbens left his position, Tangarone again approached the administration and was again rejected:
After Dr. Ribbens left the district, Mr. Tangarone appealed to Assistant Superintendent Tom Scarice. He had previous success with an appeal to teach a program on global warming.
Mr. Tangarone offered support from the Connecticut State Department of Education’s Core Science Framework and Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education, to teach evolution at an early age.
He also sent an e-mail to other science teachers in the district asking them about teaching evolution.
But despite his efforts, the appeal was denied. “Tom Scarice said ‘Give it up, Mark!’ I was also reprimanded and fined a day’s salary for sending the e-mail to the other teachers”
How does this put Tangarone in a bad light? How much more did you want him to do? Others may have waited instead of losing % of retirement but Tangarone decided to go public.
The fact that the admin. was acting w/o the knowledge of the BOE and then whines when Tangarone sent a letter directly to the BOE shows this was just about control and this teacher had the guts to say enough.
http://www.parentsforpubliceducation.com/
Letter below:
April 2010
Fellow Weston Citizens:
In the last two weeks, The Weston Forum has reported on the decision made by the administration of our schools to prohibit the teaching of the life and work of Charles Darwin (and his theory of evolution and natural selection) by one particular teacher.
Here’s the first article (Weston forum 4/15)
Here’s the second article (Weston Forum 4/22)
The complete text of the letter from Dr. Ribbens can be found here at the bottom of this page.
Since it is the Board’s responsibility to “make decisions on education, policy and budget matters” and “make a continuous appraisal of the educational and administrative process” (BOE Bylaws, 9300a):
OUR GOAL IS TO CONVINCE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO CONDUCT ITS OWN FORMAL REVIEW OF THIS DECISION, THOSE WHO UPHELD IT AND WHETHER IT REPRESENTS DISTRICT POLICY. THIS REQUIRES 4 OUT OF 7 BOARD MEMBERS TO AGREE.
– we do not feel that Weston or our school district should be known for supporting the contents of the letter written by Dr. Ribbens to halt the program (see article links above).
– we do not feel this decision represents the majority viewpoint of Weston residents and parents.
– we do not feel that the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent should have upheld this point of view without bringing it to the Board’s attention and opening it to serious discussion.
– we do not feel that the administration has the right to give confidential personnel information to the press about an employee without the consent of the Board (See Weston Forum 4/15).
Please know that the decision by Dr. Ribbens and the administration to halt the curriculum was made abruptly and disrupted the school year; it was only through the resignation of a teacher that the full story came to light.
“The Board is responsible for the development of policy and for the employment of a Superintendent who will carry out its policy through the development and implementation of regulations. “ (BOE Bylaws, 9300a).
We want to know if our Board approves of this matter from start to finish and what it has to say.
Thank you for reading and click here to email us with your opinion and if you can attend Monday’s meeting.
Respectfully,
Liz and Jeff Silverman
25 Langner Lane
April 22, 2010 at 12:16 pm |
What I mean is — and I’m not interested in getting into comments about personalities here — that it seems odd that he waited an entire full school year after the principal had left to raise this as an issue. Here’s the timeline:
September 2008 – Proposes his program, is rejected by the principal.
Sometime in 2009 (probably September) – Appeals to the assistant superintendent, after the former principal has left.
April 2010 – Decides to retire early and raises this publically as an issue.
Assuming that there was an appeal process, why didn’t he appeal in September of 2008? Surely the appeal wouldn’t require waiting an entire year (if it did, that would be a problem with the process itself).
This could all be explained, but we don’t have anything explaining it. And so even if there is a problem, we seen to have moved past it being about evolution and about it being about personalities, which pretty much proves the point of my post, thus we need no longer discuss it.
April 22, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
I live in Weston. I had him. He is qualified. He is the only certified gifted teacher who has taught in the TAG program.
This is a big deal, not nothing. Have you read the email? Not philosophically satisfactory? Right out of a creationist playbook.
He did return to the superintendent. He got nowhere. They still prevented him. So he didn’t just sit on his hands for a year and wait.
The school district is calling him a “disgruntled employee” and that his retirement is “a personal matter.” They deny that this whole mess has anything to do with him leaving, which is absurd.
So, verbosestoic, I know you want to comment on how its no big deal. But I happen to know a bit more than you about the situation.
April 22, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
Nothing you’ve said contradicts what I’ve said, or makes it any bigger a deal.
The school board still does teach evolution, and teaches it according to the curriculum.
Being a gifted teacher does not mean that you are qualified to teach everything under the sun.
And it really looks like, at worst, the principal didn’t have a problem with evolution but with Tangarone teaching it, which might be for personal reasons. But the board did back up the decision.
And the final point: supposedly according to the article his appeal was filed after Ribbens had left, which would be 2009. So either your appeal process is really bad, or he waited quite a while. And nothing is mentioned about what the new principal said.
At any rate, there is no reason to think that the school just doesn’t want to teach evolution, and that that is why it was rejected. Interpreted charitably, the two of them talked past each other and it resulted in hard feelings (the principal didn’t understand what Tangarone wanted to do, and Tangarone didn’t understand that that was what caused the reaction). Interpreted nastily, both parties just wanted it their own way and stubbornly refused to back down. And there’s a million interpretations in-between. But there’s no reason to think that there was a general attack on evolution. As I said in my actual post, surely there are boards doing far worse than this.
April 22, 2010 at 9:31 pm |
“Tom Scarice said ‘Give it up, Mark!’ is what Tangerone got from the new asst. superintendent on appeal. But of course that was Tangerone’s reporting which is at least more consistent than the stories coming from the administration.
OK if your final answer is that “surely there are boards doing far worse than this.” then you are right but it doesn’t seem from a careful reading that the school board was even kept apprised of the superintendents/principal’s actions but having assailed Tangarone and backed Ribbens (who now apologizes “shame on me”??) Tangarone is left the victim of attack (disgruntled employee — read “whistleblower in the crosshairs”) by superintendents and their actions will be judged/feared by other teachers remaining in the town. Great atmosphere to work in… not.
Tangarone’s problem was not realizing how serious the admin. was about crushing him.
I think he has won. Apparently the more educated of this town may yet have some say in how to deal with the admin or at the least with the current school board when elections next roll around.
So yeah Mr. Verbose, there are worse things under the sun but is that all you have to say after wasting so many kbs. on misreads and misinterpretations?? Or is that your best apology? Reread your initial diatribe as your words convict you. You are wrong too many times to count.
Sorry but I never could get past your inaccuracies on the first issue to care a hoot about what you might have to say about National Prayer.
April 23, 2010 at 5:04 am |
Monk E. See, my whole original point was that this is not something to get as worked up about as people were. This is not an attack on evolution. I stand by that. Nothing in what anyone has said has contradicted that. At best, the more recent information hints that it might have been personal, and that the principal might just not like Tangarone. That’s it.
January 16, 2012 at 11:49 am |
[…] by the Templeton Foundation that was picked up by both Jerry Coyne and Daniel Fincke, followed by my post about some complaints that seemed to not be about things that were unreasonable, my essay on the morality of psychopaths and autistics and rounding out the top 5 my response to […]