# Science in Schools? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393 "2010-02-25T15:28:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/21 "2010-02-26T19:06:08Z")
From **amarinth** ’s link: > [@](#): > > White students predominate in the science classes that require supplemental lab time, according to an analysis by a lead teacher in the Berkeley High math department. Her study also showed that three-fourths of the students who take less-rigorous science classes – those that do not require extra lab time – are African American or Latino. > > […]“why are we having science classes with two or three labs when there are kids in science classes with no labs?” wondered Gonzalez, a parent who supports the shift. Emphasis added. I can’t tell from these statements if Berkeley High’s regular lab-science courses all do in fact provide any lab experience at all. If the regular lab-science classes really are inadequately funded, to the extent of being unable to provide the labs they’re **supposed** to provide, then I can see the point of remedying that omission by taking funds from the supplemental-lab courses. We don’t want to be lavishing funds on high-achieving students to the extent of actually shortchanging other students. However, if the regular lab-science courses are already adequately funded, or if the proposal would defund the supplemental-lab courses but not remedy the shortcomings in the other courses, then it seems unfair and/or counterproductive. > [@Simplicio](#): > > I dunno, the AP classes were apparently funded with a tax that was created specifically to close the gap between the higher and lower income students. It’s obviously not serving that purpose if those lower income students aren’t attending the AP classes That’s another good point. From the link: > [@](#): > > In Berkeley’s 10 square miles, multimillion-dollar hillside homes with sweeping views rise above working-class bungalows and apartments in the flatlands. […] > > Only 30.8% of African American students at Berkeley High are proficient in English and 31.3% in math, according to the state Department of Education. Just over 90% of white students are proficient in English, 87.1% in math. […] > > Berkeley residents voted for a parcel tax in the 1980s to shore up funds for education and help erase the gap. Two-thirds of the money is used to reduce class sizes, but much of the remainder goes to enriched science and arts programs and academic support such as tutoring. It’s not clear exactly what the details of the parcel tax were, but **if** the enriched science classes were originally funded specifically to provide academic enrichment to lower-achieving students, then it’s clearly inappropriate to use those funds for courses that serve mostly higher-achieving students. Overall, this appears to be just the same type of conflict about how to divide school funds among regular education, remedial education, and advanced programs for high achievers that is endemic in school districts throughout the country. Everybody’s got their own ideas about which students “need” or “deserve” the money most. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/22 "2010-02-26T20:15:31Z")
Does anybody know why they’re having labs outside of class time? When I was in high school, I took college-prep chemistry and AP Physics. We did a lot of lab work for the chemistry class, but it was all during regular class time. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/23 "2010-02-26T20:56:09Z")
Don’t know. When I was a junior in high school I was driving into Pittsburgh three times a week to take college-level chemistry at Pitt. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/24 "2010-02-26T21:07:28Z")
I wonder if the article includes Asian students in the “white” class. I don’t know the composition of Berkeley High, but I don’t live that far away and not considering Asian kids in any discussion like this is absurd. In my district the variable best predicting the test score of an elementary school is the percentage of kids getting subsidized breakfasts and lunches. We’ve got more Latino kids than black kids, Unless you want to consider Latino kids as a “race” I’ll go with economics. While it might be true that there is a correlation between wealth and intelligence, I think the advantages a relatively rich kids has before and in school are pretty obvious. However, non-Californians probably don’t comprehend how badly school districts are hurting for money. This is probably considered just one more hard choice among many. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/25 "2010-02-26T21:31:31Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It seems some people want to throw out the term “hate” whenever a criticism is leveled against their pet theory that income level is the primary determinant of underperformance in school. But what deserves that appellation here? > > I’m sure the edible schoolyard, raising silkworms, square-dancing and taking care of the class hamster are all lovely projects, possibly even contributing positively to learning. Questioning the extent to which any of these contributes to future academic success, or even holding to an opinion that they are nutty, hardly qualifies as “hate,” does it, (unless you are having some sort of knee-jerk yahoo reaction)? > > I’m curious if you want to respond to my other post, above. You’ve argued the problem causing low participation in extra-hours advanced courses is income, and the underperforming groups are blocked by poverty to participate more fully. Is the Berkeley football team, then, largely composed of wealthy black students who just happen to be uninterested in advanced science courses? The issue, I think, is not that there’s anything wrong with questioning whether particular projects in general are things schools should be doing. Rather, the issue is that you seem to think that the edible schoolyard is something unique to Berkeley, and an additional thing to point to as an example of how messed up the schools in Berkely are, specifically. In fact, agriculture is taught at many, many schools. It was certainly taught at the high school I went to. ---
**Author:** ![Jake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/26 "2010-02-26T22:01:16Z")
Thanks, all, for the responses. Frisk, Kimstu, your comments were especially poignant to me. The 'Dope ROCKS! ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/27 "2010-02-27T04:34:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m curious if you want to respond to my other post, above. You’ve argued the problem causing low participation in extra-hours advanced courses is income, and the underperforming groups are blocked by poverty to participate more fully. Is the Berkeley football team, then, largely composed of wealthy black students who just happen to be uninterested in advanced science courses? No, I am not going to respond to your previous post, because it does not have to do with anything I’ve posted. Your only goal in any thread that touches on race is to spout your single theory, which will never change. I see no point in engaging you. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/28 "2010-02-27T04:59:45Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > No, I am not going to respond to your previous post, because it does not have to do with anything I’ve posted. Your only goal in any thread that touches on race is to spout your single theory, which will never change. I see no point in engaging you. Well, I guess that’s one debating style…make a point, have it criticised, and then just walk away because the opposing viewpoint is “spouting their theory.” Why not point out why their theory is not illustrated by the example at hand? I see Berkeley as a good example of a school with a record of trying hard to equalize opportunity, but nevertheless ending up with disparate results. And I can certainly understand why you would walk from a defending your assertion that income prevents full participation in extra-hours opportunity when confronted with photos of their football team. It’s sort of hard to maintain an assertion like yours with that picture staring you in the face…the kids on that football team are there because of superior performance, and no-one even thought to argue the underrepresented groups on the football team were somehow not given equal opportunity. I remain critical of your haste to inject the word “hate,” though. I have defended elsewhere that we as a just society should extend an extra helping hand to those who cannot perform on par. There is nothing that requires us to pretend equivalent ability. Our moral obligation is to make sure that everyone gets a share of the pie, not to pretend that nature is fair. ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/29 "2010-02-27T11:39:15Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Maybe I just had really crappy lab experiences, but I found them to be a waste of time. You’re not alone. Labs took up the vast majority of my study time when I was in school. The ones I really remember were the ones the teacher did in front of the entire class anyway. > [@wmulax93](#): > > A further thought from me on this: If the program costs $400,000 per year, I would think a big, big chunk of that could be covered by donations from some of Berkeley’s elite. When my wife taught at a high school in Scottsdale, AZ, there was a “Dad’s Club” that raised $800,000 for the school to buy new technology (a tablet PC and an LCD projector) for every classroom. My mother knows someone who was a Principal at an elementary school in a very wealthy neighborhood. Demand and funding was down that year so they let a few part-time classroom aides go. One parent was very upset that their kid’s favorite aide was one of them, so she came into the school and asked what the problem was. Upon being told funding was down and they just didn’t need her this year, the parent asked how much an aide cost, busted out her checkbook and cut a check for the part time salary. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/30 "2010-02-27T22:09:55Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Overall, the effort fails to acknowledge the simple fact that the reason that many minorities as a whole do not excel in school is because the culture from which they come doesn’t place a high value on education. I’d believe more than some cultures place a lower value on science and math before I would believe they place a low value on education in general. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/31 "2010-02-27T22:51:36Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > I’d believe more than some cultures place a lower value on science and math before I would believe they place a low value on education in general. Depends on the culture, of course, but I think it’s fair to say that there are indeed cultures in which “book-learning” or academic schooling in general is undervalued compared to other types of experience or training. Anybody read Ronald Blythe’s 1969 book _Akenfield: Portrait of an English Village_? That’s what came to mind when I saw **Una** ’s comment, thinking of the elderly village artisans and farmers who were interviewed for the book and their disparagement of “schooling”: as one villager put it, in their youth they couldn’t wait for the time when they would be able to leave school and “start learning”. They became wheelwrights and blacksmiths and farmers and so forth, and the “learning” that they thought of as genuinely important was the training in the techniques of their trade. It wasn’t that they weren’t intelligent and thoughtful people, it’s just that scholastic education as a whole didn’t seem very meaningful to them. I think it’s fair to describe that as a culture that “doesn’t place a high value on education” in general, and I think it’s fair to say that there are subcultures in contemporary America that have somewhat similar attitudes. I went to elementary school in the 1970’s in the New Jersey Pine Barrens area, and not to reinforce [Kallikak-type “piney”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piney_(Pine_Barrens_resident)) stereotypes or anything, but there were certainly some kids there from families with, um, a weaker cultural focus on academic education. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/32 "2010-02-27T23:31:38Z")
But I’m thinking in the context of southern California in 2010. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/33 "2010-02-27T23:37:55Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Although I feel the decision was a poor one, I have mixed feelings about the utility of labs in early science education. Maybe I just had really crappy lab experiences, but I found them to be a waste of time. I would be interested in reading more about what exactly was offered in the program that is being cut; the LA Times article didn’t seem to go into that. This does bring up the interesting question of how to allocate limited resources in education. As a mainly “visual” person, I have to say that being in a lab, and actually seeing something happen can be more informative and more readily grasped than sitting in a class room listening to a teacher (no matter how good) and staring at equations. The class work and labs “help” each other to teach. The lab is where you get the hands on part of learning. It also helps to “weed out” those “A students” who can memorize the book and the test without understanding any of it. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/34 "2010-02-28T03:09:48Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > As a mainly “visual” person, I have to say that being in a lab, and actually seeing something happen can be more informative and more readily grasped than sitting in a class room listening to a teacher (no matter how good) and staring at equations. The class work and labs “help” each other to teach. The lab is where you get the hands on part of learning. It also helps to “weed out” those “A students” who can memorize the book and the test without understanding any of it. I’m interesting in hearing about some examples of chemistry concepts (at a high school level) that are easier to understand by doing a lab rather than just thinking about them. I don’t disbelieve you, it’s just alien to my experience. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/35 "2010-02-28T05:49:55Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I’m interesting in hearing about some examples of chemistry concepts (at a high school level) that are easier to understand by doing a lab rather than just thinking about them. I don’t disbelieve you, it’s just alien to my experience. Chromatography, TLC, setting up a reaction, recrystallization, cannulation and failure. Seriously, you can’t learn how to run reactions out of a book. The book tells you which reactions to run, but there is a pretty steep earning curve in actually doing it. You and I can run reactions out of a book, but that’s because we’ve been doing it for years. Even with that you will still run into new set-ups that require different techniques you aren’t familiar with. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/36 "2010-02-28T07:44:08Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > But I’m thinking in the context of southern California in 2010. I assume you mean northern California. There are big differences. The sad fact is that in our district Asian parents care a lot more about education and getting their kid into a good college than white parents. The latter group contains a lot of people who want to go the community college route to save money. One of my daughter’s teachers said in class that there wasn’t that much difference between the local community college and Harvard. This difference might be wealth based, but I think it is more culture based. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393/37 "2010-03-01T13:10:29Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > Chromatography, TLC, setting up a reaction, recrystallization, cannulation and failure. Seriously, you can’t learn how to run reactions out of a book. The book tells you which reactions to run, but there is a pretty steep earning curve in actually doing it. You and I can run reactions out of a book, but that’s because we’ve been doing it for years. Even with that you will still run into new set-ups that require different techniques you aren’t familiar with. Not really what I had in mind as “chemistry concepts”. These are specific laboratory techniques, most of which aren’t seen until taking an organic chemistry lab in college. I’ve purified compounds by flash chromatography more times than I care to remember, but that doesn’t help me with the concept behind it, which I probably couldn’t explain anyway other than a few incoherent mutters about theoretical plates and Van Deemter plots. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-in-schools/530393.md?page=1)