>It's a good starting point, but I fear that the study of it is limited to >"memorize these three statements, you'll be tested on them" rather than >discussing the important/whyfores of doing it that way. Basically, the >student memorizes the 2-3 statements, answers the question on the test >successfully, and then that is it. [much snippage] >It's my view that "primary school" instruction (and parents) underestimate >the capabilites of the students and often "oversimplifies" material be >presented. I don't disagree with any of this. My big objection to the teaching of science in public schools is that it *isn't* taught beyond a very cursory level and that when it does get reintroduced (usually in HS), very little attention is given to the methodology of science, which is what *makes* science what it is. Consequently, we graduate a hell of a lot of adults who really don't even understand what science *is*. These are the same adults who comprise an electorate that is required to deal with very serious issues generated by science (e.g., the cloning debate). This sort of ignorance is, in my utter opinion, thoroughly dangerous. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me when I think about it. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus