I was reading this tirade by the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), a teacher's union. I wouldn't recommend it unless you (a) already have some background, or (b) plan to spend a lot of time researching each Orwellian deception therein, or (c) you enjoy having your brain filled with deceptions.

But I found this statement telling:

[O]ne cannot go from a scientific finding directly to a mandate for all classroom lessons. Says Robert E. Stake, "...you cannot draw simple lessons from randomized trials." Teachers are more like engineers; they want to know the findings in science about falling materials, but they work in areas with an assemblage of materials, all falling at different rates.

If you can't "draw simple lessons from randomized trials" then my entire college-level physics education, which was based on repeated trials, was a waste. And so is my training in sociology. And so are most sciences based on randomized trials.

Oh, I know, the word there is "simple". It's a weasel-word the union inserts to defend against test after test that shows that practices like "whole language" reading don't, you know, actually work. (Apparently, they have some stake in making sure we don't force teachers to stop doing stupid, harmful things to our children. Maybe they know an illiterate population is easier to fool. ;-))

Railing against learning things from "randomized trials" is bad enough, but what blew me away was the utter scientific ignorance -- and general arrogance -- of the chosen illustration. Read it carefully:

Teachers are more like engineers; they want to know the findings in science about falling materials, but they work in areas with an assemblage of materials, all falling at different rates.

First, if an engineer is working in "areas" filled with "assemblage[s] of materials" which are "all falling", someone ought to be fired: most engineers are hired to prevent such outcomes. Apparently, these people have not a bloody clue as to what engineers actually do. (But they're apparently glad to instruct on such.)

Next, we learn that these uber-educators over at the CFT, who want to have the final word on deciding what is "science", actually believe that different materials fall at different rates and that "engineers" are eager and waiting for science to tell them the rate of fall for each material?

Ummmm... did anyone ever hear of this guy named Galileo? The one who demonstrated that, sans friction (which is determined by mass and shape, not "material") objects having differing materials all fall at the same rate? You know, that big scientific discovery of, oh, five hundred years ago?

Yes, I remember: we can't draw "simple conclusions" from those "randomized trials" Galileo conducted. Gotta ask the California Federation of Teachers first. Then they'll decide if Galileo's discovery should be taught in the California public schools, and if it passes as valid "science".

Clearly, the answer has been "no" so far.