AIBU to be tearing my hair out over this Y5 homework? (Evolution)

[sauvignonBlinko]

DS has been given this homework worksheet and it's been causing us a bit of angst because DS insists his teacher told him that woolly mammoths evolved into elephants and elk evolved into deer, etc (grr!)

We've had some discussion about "common ancestors" and I've helped him to write something a bit more accurate but I expect it'll all be marked wrong, and most of the kids will be none the wiser by the end of the exercise. [Sigh!]

Wild Boar was an interesting one. Apparently they did evolve into domestic pigs, but wild boar have died out and been reintroduced into Britain several times and there's currently a thriving population, so which box should he tick? I persuaded DS to tick both boxes 1 & 3 in the end (which DS is a bit about), and we've been debating whether to tick box 4 too. It'll be interesting to see what the teacher considers to be the "right" answer!

If it was intended as a Critical Thinking homework I'd be thrilled. But it's not.

[confuugled1]

BelieveIt You're right - I did call it a theory to start with - but it was early and I was still half asleep so sorry, I knew what I meant, was just too tired to explain it properly.

And theoretician I get what you mean - goes along with it being a theory that's the best explanation we have at the time. However, having discussed it with the teacher and head of year (happened to catch them outside of school at pickup) they really weren't thinking of it in that way - they really wanted people that had invented things like Robert Dyson or James Watt or Henry Ford or Leonardo da Vinci...

[MaxieK]

I think for some, Theory (in terms of science) does not mean what they think it means. It trips up many lay-people and is, of course, the linguistic nit-picker argument used by Creationists/flat-earthers/science deniers to 'disprove' basic physical concepts and call them out as invalid because they don't gel with some religious mythos. "Oh but it's just a theory!" No. It's not. Just stop it.

The Theory of Relativity is not some unproven hypothesis of how things work, it is the RULE of how things work. In science, a Theory is pretty much equivalent to a law, it's based on exhaustive observation and experimentation which is used to show what we WILL observe, and how things WILL work.

In the case of the OP's child's homework, it seems clear the teacher has failed to grasp or adequately explain the common ancestor part of the Theory of Evolution and might need to have this (tactfully) pointed out.

[Believeitornot]

A theory is not a "rule", it is just a series of corroborated explanations. You may well have other explanations but that particular theory fits the bill the bestbased on available evidence.
Rule implies it is the only way hence my reply.

[theluckiest]

Y'see, I'm a primary teacher and I'm going to be completely honest - there are some huge concepts of science (and computing) particularly that I struggle with and yet are demanded by the curriculum. Unless you are a specialist, it's hard to get it accurate all the time...

I have had to really do my homework in order to be able to teach them... In primary you really need to be a jack of all trades (even if you didn't learn it yourself at school and are a bit rubbish at it. Languages is another one - I have to get creative as I simply wasn't taught the language I am supposed to teach to Y6 children who sometimes know more than I do!!)

Although I find it fascinating though. I have just been teaching Evolution and that worksheet is bollocks. At least I got over the hurdle of a parent who didn't want his child 'learning about all that monkey stuff' as he believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible (ie Creationism). I guess that's why it was moved into the primary curriculum!!

[user1474781546]

Y'see, I'm a primary teacher and I'm going to be completely honest - there are some huge concepts of science (and computing) particularly that I struggle with and yet are demanded by the curriculum. Unless you are a specialist, it's hard to get it accurate all the time...

Which makes me sick to the teeth.

Individuals can become primary school teachers without even a GCSE equivalent in Science.
Big bug bear of mine.

I am a Chemistry graduate. Also PGCE qualified. It infuriated me that so little science is taught in primary schools.
By the age of 8 my kids were hugely curious about the nature of matter, and I was happy to educate them at home in basic atomic theory, electromagnetic spectrum, basic radiation ideas.

Easy peasy for most 8 year olds. Apparently not for most teachers.

[theluckiest]

How lovely for you User147....I'm genuinely glad that you have the knowledge to share with your own children. Although you say you are PGCE educated, presumably you're not teaching anymore? Have you looked at the primary curriculum recently?

As it happens, I AM educated to GCSE level. (Double AA grades in science if you're wondering.) My point was that primary teachers are expected to be experts in everything which is crazy. Particularly at the moment due to to massively over stretched curriculum where relatively complex concepts are required to be taught across the board. This is Upper KS2 where previously secondary objectives have come down into primary. So of course some of them are challenging to teach.

So concepts that previously were not taught until secondary. By teachers with a degree in that subject.

I have a degree. Of course. My apologies that it was an arts degree and not a science one so understandably I have to do my homework before I teach certain topics.

Oh and that's along with the phenomenally complex grammar knowledge, coding skills, 'mastery' of mathematical concepts and in-depth knowledge of over 1000 years of British history that I am also required to teach to a high level.

But I bow to your superior knowledge. Perhaps you would like to come and teach these 'easy-peasy' concepts to my class? Oh, there's no money to pay you of course and definitely no money for any resources but if you could rustle something up for tomorrow afternoon that'd be smashing?

[user1474781546]

So not only poor knowledge in science but a bad attitude also.

Lovely.

[theluckiest]

Says the poster hiding behind a random username. Have you actually read any of the points I made?

Um, not sure where you got my poor understanding of science from? Will there be a quiz? Excellent. I am really good at quizzes.

I actually really enjoy my job and learning along with my students. Every day's a school day...

[user1474781546]

luckiest your job isn't about "learning with your students"

Your job is about imparting knowledge.

[MyWineTime]

I completely agree with Buildalegohouse
You don't need to be so involved with his homework. Discuss it with him, but let him answer however he wants to. It doesn't matter if he gets it all exactly right, it's about the process of learning. Researching, interpreting and answering. As some of this task is ambiguous and open to interpretation, the minutiae doesn't matter.

[MyWineTime]

I disagree user
Teachers aren't there to just impart knowledge - kids could read books for that. Teachers are there to help children learn. Learning with them is FAR more valuable than imparting knowledge.
In primary school, advanced knowledge in a multitude of subjects is not as important as the ability to encourage curiosity and interest.

[theluckiest]

Really User? I am glad you clarified that.

Actually, I may have to learn something myself before I impart it to someone else. Occasionally, I even (gasps) don't know the answer straightaway to a question asked by a child. I would be doing that child a great disservice if I pretended I did. And if you had replied to my earlier point about the curriculum, you may even have acknowledged that no-one knows everything. Even you.

I am well aware what my job is. Please don't be deliberately obtuse.

[user1474781546]

Yo sound a bitter teacher.

[BreconBeBuggered]

user, what kind of polymath would you approve as a teacher for your own DC?

[theluckiest]

Why? Because I referenced how much fun I have with my students? Clearly that must make me bitter then!! How dare I enjoy inspiring young minds to learn and to question things around them...

And you still haven't elaborated on the fact that you're 'PGCE trained'. I take it that you're not currently in the profession then?

[theluckiest]

Sorry, that was to User, not you Breaconbebuggered (love it!!)

[Booboostwo]

User if you don't know that the job of teachers is to learn with their students then you don't know fuck all about education (higher education researcher in the philosophy of education here and happy to share my overachieving multiple degrees if you want).

[MaryTheCanary]

Some of the responses here are reminding me of the Onion article, "Teacher Who Learns More From Her Students Than She Teaches Them Fired."

www.theonion.com/video/teacher-who-learns-more-from-her-students-than-she-36958

"Teachers aren't there to just impart knowledge." Nobody said they were, but it is PART of their job.

" It doesn't matter if he gets it all exactly right, it's about the process of learning." Err, no. Learning stuff that is correct is actually important as well. We have had people in this thread commenting specifically on how misunderstandings about science introduced at the primary stage often cause problems along the line--"If monkeys because people, then how come there are still monkeys today?" etc. etc.

Children have the right to be taught by people who know lots of stuff, especially about subjects that they are actually trying to teach.

If asking primary teachers to be "polymaths" is demanding too much, then maybe as a society we need to be doing some serious thinking about introducing more specialist teaching for the last few years of primary school.

In some countries' school systems, children's science, maths and other subjects are handled by specialists after age 8 or 9.

[MaryTheCanary]

One other thing that tends to happen in countries that do science well at primary level (Finland, Japan, Singapore) is that they tend to have centrally-mended, high-quality and properly-sequenced primary-school-level textbooks on science, and schools make ample use of them. This makes it easier for teachers who are not science specialists to teach science in a way that does not actively introduce misunderstandings, not least because they do not end up having to spend hours on end trying to create and assemble their own resources (often from Googled information which may be of dubious quality). It also reduces workload for teachers.

[Booboostwo]

Nobody said teachers should learn everything from their students because they know nothing. It's about instilling a questioning attitude, which accepts the possibility of ignorance and failure in everyone and imparts research skills that lead to life long learning.

[VashtaNerada]

user - you may have a good science knowledge but you presumably don't have the equivalent knowledge in every single subject you teach?! As a parent with a primary aged child I actually appreciate luckiest's honesty! You can't possibly know everything and I think it's fine if occasionally a child or parent knows more and is able to feed that back.

[Believeitornot]

user, how's your history? Or geography? Having s degree in science does not make you a better teacher or more knowledgable.

[MostlyHet]

Well, aa someone with a PhD in theoretical physics, I'd sooner have someone withluckiest'sattitude thanuser's teach my children.

What actually matters is how the teacher approaches mistakes/gaps in their knowledge (honestly or with bluster) and also the parents attitude (do you go in all guns blazing or do you tactfully explain why a particular error/oversimplification matters? Because oversimplifications are almost unavoidable in trying to teachsscience to people who haven't got a huge amount of background knowledge - the question is whether the oversimplification ends up dangerously misleading.)

And if you do have specialist knowledge, how about volunteering to go in and help? I borrowed our STEM outreach stuff from work and spent an afternoon with DC's class and had a fantastic time. I know other parents have done the same - a midwife for eg when they were doing the "where do babies come from?" topic).

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

As a primary science specialist, I think it does matter. There's a difference between simplifying an explanation that can be built on later and teaching something that's so incorrect that it has to be untaught.

What's equally worrying is that's a commercially available resource. How many other teachers have bought that and are using it without question?

[myownprivateidaho]

Honestly, I find this thread slightly worrying. It feels great to sneer about primary school teachers not understanding evolution etc. But most posters don't seem to have thought critically about the problem with this worksheet.

The problem with the worksheet is not that it incorrectly explains the theory of evolution. The problem is that it gets the name of some of the ancestors wrong. The ancestor of a modern elephant is something called a primelephantis and not a woolly mammoth. The woolly mammoth is better described as a cousin of the modern elephant.

However, what the sheet does CORRECTLY is demonstrate that over time, natural selection causes adaptations which over the generations give rise to new species.

Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable that the sheet used more familiar extinct animals in order to get kids to remember this theory even though this meant sacrificing strict accuracy. I think that using the example of the woolly mammoth probably led to more kids being engaged and remembering the outline of the theory than using an unfamiliar extinct animal would have done.

However, even if you don't think this, all that the sheet has done is mistake the ancestor and not misstate the basic theory of evolution.

If you're going to sneer at "uneducated" primary teachers, best to get your own head around the materials they are using first.