Correction: This story was updated Friday morning to fix an error regarding how sitting board members ranked MiDian Holmes. No board member ranked her as first choice. EdNews regrets the error.
Two people vying for a seat on the Denver school board representing Northeast Denver said Wednesday that they support the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Antwan Jefferson, a former teacher at Montbello High School who now teaches in the urban education program at the University of Colorado-Denver, and MiDian Holmes, head of Denver chapter of Stand for Children, both held up “yes” signs when asked if they would support the teaching of creationism during a candidate forum Wednesday evening at Smiley Middle School. Jefferson also said he supported the teaching of evolution.
One sitting DPS board member listed Holmes as a second choice; two board members listed her as their third choice to fill the
MiDian Holmes
District 4 seat, according to anonymous ballots reviewed by EdNews. Three board members listed Jefferson as their second choice to fill the vacant seat.
“To be honest, I’m a mom who really cares about giving kids the public education they need,” Holmes said Thursday. “I am new to the political world. I was thrown off by that question. I am a faithful person, but I do believe a strong line should be drawn between private faith and public education.” (Watch the video by clicking on the agenda for the Feb. 20 meeting and scrolling to the “video” link).
Previous stories
However, the so-called “lightning round,” held in a game-show type format with candidates seated in a row facing the audience, had candidates holding up “yes” and “no” signs as they were barraged with provocative questions by the host. The finalists for the seat were given no advance warning.
Antwan Jefferson
Jefferson also held up a “yes” sign when asked if he would support the teaching of evolution, while Sean Bradley, legislative director for the American Federation for Children, and Lisa Roy, executive director of the Timothy and Bernadette Marquez Foundation, held up a “no” sign. Two sitting DPS board members listed Roy as their second choice.
Jefferson said Thursday he believes education is about broadening students’ knowledge base and educating them about how different people view the world, not “promoting an agenda.” Therefore, students should know about both creationism and evolution so they can understand the political debates over both and where they stand on the issues.
“I don’t think we should … perpetuate ignorant students by not giving them access to information” he said. “We can leave religious proselytizing to religious schools.”
Meanwhile, Bradley also held up a “yes” sign when asked about support of vouchers, which allow public school students to attend private schools using taxpayer funds. One DPS board member listed Bradley as a top choice to fill Easley’s seat. Holmes held up her sign part way. Bradley could not be reached for comment. One sitting board member listed Bradley as a top choice to fill the seat.
Holmes said while vouchers might make sense in some contexts, they don’t “really have a place in a district like Denver.”
“We have such a strong system of public school choice,” Holmes said. “If I am selected for this seat, my goal is for parents like me to have a choice to send their kids to any public school that best meets their needs.”
In a second lightning round, all nine candidates seemed to indicate they supported bilingual education; that busing should be provided for gifted and talented students and those who attend magnet schools; and that physical education should be mandated in light of the nation’s obesity epidemic.
On the controversial topic of co-locating more than one school or program in a single building, candidates Mary Sam, a retired DPS teacher, and Vernon Jones Jr., an assistant principal at Manual High School, held up “no” signs, while Fred Franko, founder of the Out-of-School Time Network, Jefferson (and possibly others) kept their signs on their laps.
As for whether the district’s limited resources should be spent to air condition all Denver schools, only Sam voted “no” while the remainder voted “yes.”
When asked if another school should be built in Stapleton even though there is space at other DPS schools, Holmes, Hansen and Roy held up “yes” signs. Jefferson, Bradley, Sam and Jones held up a “no” sign. Franko and Taylor kept their signs down.
Finally, candidates were asked whether they supported Superintendent Tom Boasberg. Sam was the only candidate to hold up a “no” sign. Franko and Jefferson kept their signs down and the others held up “yes” signs.
Jefferson said he thought the question was “unnecessarily reductionist.” Jefferson said if the question was about Boasberg’s support of the rapid growth of charter schools in District 4 he would have held up a “no” sign. If the question was about Boasberg’s support of doing what needs to be done to turn around low-performing schools, he would have voted “yes.”
“To say, ‘Do you support the superintendent?’ insults the intelligence of the public,” Jefferson said.
By the middle of next month, the board must fill the vacant seat to meet a 60-day limit set by the state. If the six current board members cannot agree on a replacement, board President Mary Seawell has the authority to make an appointment. Seawell has said she’ll pick that person from among the nine finalists.
The new board member, however chosen, will have to run in next November’s election if he or she wants to serve a full four-year term.
The seat is viewed as pivotal to the future direction of DPS since the board is typically divided between those members who are generally more supportive of the superintendent and current reforms – including Seawell – and those who are concerned about improving quality at neighborhood schools – not just charters – and who question how well the district is educating growing numbers of English language learners.
None of the nine finalists are Latino, which prompted concerns from the Colorado Latino Forum, which asked the board to reopen the process to fill the seat. Board members Arturo Jimenez and Jeannie Kaplan publicly backed the forum’s request to reopen the process even though neither of them listed Hispanic candidates among their choices for the board seat, according to anonymous tally sheets reviewed by EdNews.
EdNews will post the video from Wednesday’s forum as soon as it’s available.
I agree that people should know about creationism because it is such deceitful “scientific” quackery and an attempt to insert fundamenatlism ino science classrooms in violation of US Supreme Court and FederalCourt rulings(Aguilardvs La 1987, Kitzmllervs Dover 2005) . And we don’t want to forget the mainstream Christian churches have released national council statements supporting evolution and science and denouncing creationism(NCSE website church statements).
So besides major legal problems from the highest courts in the land, creationists have huge denominational problems.
Finally, no accreditted university science department teaches creationism as science, there are ZERO creationism research papers in the Library of Congress catalog, all science organizations of merit denounce creationism as non scientific fundamentalism and the Vatican says creationism is neither science or rleigion.
The best people can do with creationism and creationsist is identify them, keep them from abusing school chilfdren with misinformation and miseducation. They do not deserve debate as they crave credibility.
They have no research only refuted and disreputable deceptive claims attacking various elemnts of science and the scientific method.
There is no magic and mystical events in science. If they want that, they should go start their own alchemy labs and stop wasting humanities time. And, while they are at it, as they attack the scientific method constatntly, it is only appropriate that they turn off their electricity, sell their cars, stop using satelitte comunication and forgo antibiotics. All these items come from science not creationism. There is not a SINGLE useable invention that has come from creationism. The great scientists of the past do not include any magic or mystical desgner fraud in ANY of their scientific work. When a creationist claims Newton or Galileo was a creationist, ask them to show you the magic in their scientific work. Creationist are liars and its important to let them know what charlatans and backwards fraudulent clowns they are at every chance. It is sad that they prey on the uneducated and vulnerable especially in churches, but as education evolves, fewer people are going to grow up to be a cement brain creationsit and more people will be able to think logically and use their reason . But if there are anycreaionists out ther who have evidence to overturn evolution(and with it geology,paleontology,physics etc) they should write that stuff down, submit it to a science jouranl and collect their Nobel Prize.
It’s really unfortunate to have school board candidates advocating for the scientific illiteracy of creationism – they should be reminded of a certain 1987 US Supreme Court decision. But perhaps the comment “students should know about both creationism and evolution” meant that students should be told that the fact and theory of evolution are the backbone of modern biology, while the ignorance of creationism has no support whatsoever in the world of science.
Sounds like neither of them even knows what creationism is. Does DPS really want illiterate people on their school board?
Will Fraser–wow, excellent post!
You should google “Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense.” If you haven’t seen it, I predict you’re going to like it.
Many thanks, Will.
And btw, if we are to teach creationism on an equal footing with evolution, shouldn’t we also expose to children to theories that the Holocaust was a fraud? Could be, you know, it didn’t happen, so kids, make up your own minds on this! And don’t get me started on gravity, it’s a real downer…
It seems that some momentum has begun to build on this topic of creationism. I appreciate the exchange and I hope that others also are thinking about this and the other issues related to what counts as knowledge. However, the teaching of creationism as a worldview is not consistent with its presentation as a scientific theory competing with evolution. Instead, as (hopefully increasing numbers of DPS) students will learn in their college-level World Literature courses, liberal arts colleges throughout the nation include international and historical perspectives of the origin of mankind—outside of the Science Department—and these perspectives are used to shape the minds of thinkers. In these courses, creationism is considered neither propaganda nor science.
If we are led to believe that the only way our students can be considered prepared to participate in an increasingly global society is to measure their performance on standardized instruments, then we also must recognize that our students are more likely to be intolerant.
I would like to think that our students will become politically, socially and civically savvy; critical and self-aware thinkers; and generally smart. In other words, I’d like them to be educated rather than schooled. Hence, and I wish to be clear here, returning the arts to our public school curriculum is vital to child development and student learning; likewise, historically divisive topics must be fodder for the development of the adolescent mind, such as the systemic oppression of women, the proliferation of human trafficking, the enslavement of Africans and their ancestors, and creationism.
Again, thanks for the dialogue.
As a former geologist and high school science teacher, I too was surprised that any of the candidates for the Denver School Board would suggest that DPS not teach science when we are so needing thoughtful scientists and scientifically literate citizens. Hard to know where to start with this sort of thinking from a prospective DPS board member.
“…don’t get me started on gravity, it’s a real downer…”
Good one, Jeff, lol.
Here’s the part I don’t get about creationism (among other things): What’s less holy about the way it really works? Isn’t life wonderful and mysterious enough? Indeed, the more we see through the eyes of Science, the greater is the Mystery.
Can’t students be taught that some people believe it is God’s Hand at work, while some don’t? Why try to look some perfectly intelligent student in the eye and tell them those fossils over there are really only 10,000 years old because The Book Said So — when the Real Story is so much more moving anyway?!
One of our daughters, an avid geology student and no dummy, has married into a very religious family and while none are expected in near future, I’ll be watching with interest to see how their own children will be raised in regard to these issues. (Yes, I know I’m supposed to “butt out,” I said just “watching!”) My prediction and hope are that notwithstanding her new-found religion, Daughter will pass along to her children both her fascination and understanding based on scientific principles — and the spiritual elements that she has implied from them. In short, what she herself was taught — which has never seemed an inconsistency, nor a necessitated negation of one ideology for the other. “Let’s pray” these issues don’t result in family discord down the line, since I think my son-in-law does “believe in creationism,” we’ve just never discussed it and I can’t imagine doing so with a straight face.
Good comments. While I have no problem of students understanding that some people still believe in creationism, placing it formallly in the curriculum as a theory that holds equal weight as evolution potentially misleads students (and parents). It is more ludicrous and damaging than saying that climate change has not been proved because 1% of climatologists contest its reality. The danger with the latter is that people become very complacent, waiting for absolute, verifiable proof (which will never come) before they consider how we must adapt to the very real impacts of climate change here and throughout the world.
antwan, that’s a good explanation of ‘your’ context but beside the point. When creationism is brought up in the context it was, it’s hardly ever while discussing the role of teaching ‘creation myths of world cultures’–it’s about Christian fundamentalists wanting their way in science curricula. So, the answer I would have given would have been a very emphatic NO!
Tom,
Great to see you join the conversation. You hit the nail on the head. Fine to teach the wide varieties of views/beliefs on “creation” in any number of other course settings (and important to do so) but hugely problematic to do so in the context of a science course where the focus should be on learning science which has nothing to do with creationism.
The context of these “votes” was sufficiently silly that I doubt that there were any responses that meant anything. This is as worrying as the likelihood that the Denver School Board will be loaded with creationists. Quite apparently, there were at least two in the running; Sean Bradley, and Lisa Roy oppose teaching ‘evolution.’
The conditionals added by Antwan Jefferson did not do much to still my concern. I am well aware of the “different ways of knowing” concepts popular in anthropology, I am an anthropologist. However, as an educator it is not necessary to teach these “other ways” when they are categorical incongruent with reality. We have no need to teach female genital mutilation merely because it is a common cultural practice in some parts of the world. Public school teachers are constrained in how they approach religious issues because the First Amendment not only prevents government sponsored religion, but also government sponsored suppression of religion. Trying to have it “both ways from Sunday” fails. I do recommend that teachers and concerned members of the public read the excellent resource available from the UC Berkeley “Understanding Evolution” website. Particularly relevant is the section on “Teaching Materials” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/index.php
Another recommendation is the “Evolution Resources from the National Academies” http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
Creationism has a place in public schools, but only as a part of a literature study of world myths and folk tales. Science class needs to be reserved for real science.
Creationism is not science and should not be taught in schools because it is unconstitutional. If this is a constitutional republic then teaching religion, prostelyizing, is also not acceptabe.
The only thing students need to know about creationism in their basic science classes is that its fraudulent non scientific rhetorhic. Creationism is Not an alternative to science. It should be condemned by lawmakers and teachers alike as the misinformative trash it is.