Science Experiment, Anyone?

I have been absolutely disgusted at the articles that have been circulating the web about how Mcdonald's hamburgers defy the natural laws of science (literally) and do not grow mold or decompose, no matter how long they are left out.

Recently, a NYC artist left a McD's hamburger sitting out on her bookshelf for six months. Yes, SIX MONTHS! What do you think happened to that hamburger? Well, if you are slightly messy and sometimes dirty like me, you have probably left food sitting out for a couple of days. If you have done this, then you also know that when food is left sitting out, it begins to grow mold on it. If you don't believe me, just ask Miguel Lara. Last summer, he had to clean out my mold-filled coffee pot. The coffee was only sitting for about a week and a half and, I swear, it had already amassed an entire fungus colony.

Back to the hamburger. After six months, the hamburger looks exactly the same. Not one speck of mold can be found. What's even more disturbing is that this is not the only example of someone doing this. According to Yahoo! News, there is a school teacher who has left a McD's burger sitting out for the past 12 years! Apparently, she has done this to prove to her students that they should never eat fast food.

Here is a picture of the burger that had been sitting out after 145 days...it still looks as edible as day 1.

After reading this blog and looking at the picture, what do you think? Do you believe it to be true? Does your perspective of eating at fast food restaurants change now? If I were the science teacher, I know what I would be giving out as an extra credit assignment...

Are We Moving Too Fast?

As my students finish taking their second district benchmark (in the first seven weeks of school, the students have taken a diagnostic exam, two district benchmarks, one unit exam, and four quizzes...in my class alone), I can't help but wonder if we are trying to cram too much information into our students' brains too fast.

I came across a blog from the Houston Chronicle called, "Slow Math?" The article asks the same question that I just posed and uses something called slow math to make its case. The article compares the "Signapore math," which introduces concepts slowly and over a long period of time, with Texas' current education philosophy of introducing difficult concepts to students as early and rapidly as possible.

The Singapore method takes a "slow-but-steady" approach. The Texan method takes the "Rapid-fire" approach. Which is better? Is our goal to make sure Kindergarten students understand difficult concepts (and then forget it before second grade), or is our goal to ensure our seniors are graduating with a depth of knowledge that comes from years of practice and fundamental teaching?