PUBLISHERS HOLD THE LINE IN TEXAS
“Materials submitted to the Texas Education Agency and examined by the Texas Freedom Network and university scientists show that publishers are resisting pressure to undermine instruction on evolution in their proposed new high school biology textbooks for public schools,” according to a press release issued by the Texas Freedom Network on October 16, 2013. “This is a very welcome development for everyone who opposes teaching phony science about evolution in our kids’ public schools,” Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller commented.
Publishers submitted their proposed science textbooks for adoption in Texas in April 2013, and review panels, composed of Texans chosen by the state board of education, were responsible for evaluating them. But, as NCSE previously reported, ideologues on the panels attacked the treatment of evolution and climate change in the textbooks. “The arguments in these reviews are the same discredited claims anti-science activists have pushed for years,” commented NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau in a joint press release issued by TFN and NCSE.
Publishers were asked to submit their proposed changes in response to the panels’ comments by October 4, and the Texas Education Agency made the proposed changes available to the public on October 11. After examining the proposed changes, TFN reports, “Editorial changes from all 14 publishers that submitted high school textbooks for adoption this year do not reflect” the arguments and beliefs of the review panelists who objected to the textbooks’ treatment of evolution.
Arturo De Lozanne, a professor of molecular, cell, and developmental biology at the University of Texas at Austin, was quoted in TFN’s press release as saying, “From what I can see so far, publishers are resisting pressure to do things that would leave high school graduates in Texas ill-prepared to succeed in a college science classroom.” De Lozanne added, “If we want Texas kids to be competitive nationally, we have to ensure that what they learn in their high school classrooms is based on facts, not ideology.”
NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau, who traveled to Austin to testify before the board in defense of the textbooks and subsequently helped to review the proposed changes from the publishers, agreed, saying, “I’m glad to see that publishers didn’t succumb to pressure from unqualified ideologues, standing firm to ensure that students in Texas—and every other state—have access to accurate, thorough, honest textbooks.” The board is expected to make a final decision on the textbooks at its November 2013 meeting.
For the press release from TFN, visit: http://www.tfn.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7737 For the joint press release from TFN and NCSE, visit: http://www.tfn.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7651 For the text of Rosenau’s testimony before the board, visit: http://ncse.com/blog/2013/09/my-testimony-before-texas-board-education-0015045 And for NCSE’s previous coverage of events in Texas, visit: http://ncse.com/news/texasUPDATE FROM KENTUCKY
The Next Generation Science Standards avoided a potential obstacle in Kentucky when the Interim Joint Committee on Education decided not to address the issue of their adoption,according to WFPL radio in Louisville, Kentucky (October 15, 2013). As NCSE previously reported, the NGSS faltered in Kentucky on September 11, 2013, when the legislature’s Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee voted 5-1 to find the standards deficient, despite the fact that they were recommended by the state department of education and the state board of education, as well as by the Kentucky Science Teachers Association. Governor Steve Beshear promptly announced that he planned to implement the NGSS under his own authority.
Why did the subcommittee vote to find the standards deficient? Senator Perry B. Clark (D-District 37), the sole member of the subcommittee to vote to adopt the standards, told Live Science (October 9, 2013), “The furor is about climate and evolution.” He added, “Some said we had to wait for the opinions of the Kentucky citizens. I said, ‘You don’t wait for ‘opinions’ on science.” Similarly, the Lexington Herald-Leader (October 13, 2013), said of those opposed to the state’s adopting the NGSS, “Some argue that the standards treat evolution as fact rather than theory. Others claim the guidelines overemphasize global climate issues while ignoring other areas of science.”
The Interim Joint Committee on Education could have addressed the NGSS, and, as WFPL explains, it “could still hold a special meeting between now and Nov. 1, but co-chair Rep. Derrick Graham, D-Franklin, says ‘it’s a done deal’ and the standards have overwhelming support of the business and science communities.” Beshear still needs officially to notify the state Legislative Research Commission of his decision to override the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee’s vote. And it remains possible for the Kentucky General Assembly to override Beshear’s decision when it reconvenes in January 2014. Eight states—
Washington, Delaware, California, Rhode Island, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, and Vermont—have adopted the NGSS so far.
For the report from WFPL radio, visit: http://wfpl.org/post/kentucky-education-committee-passes-hearing-science-standards-official-adoption-near For Live Science’s story, visit: http://www.livescience.com/40283-ngss-science-standards-change-education.html For the Lexington Herald-Leader’s story, visit: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/13/2875437/state-educators-push-ahead-with.html And for NCSE’s previous coverage of events in Kentucky, visit: http://ncse.com/news/kentucky“WHY CAN’T SCIENCE TEACHERS SIMPLY TEACH SCIENCE?”
“Why can’t science teachers simply teach science?” was the reaction of a columnist for the Charleston, South Carolina, Post and Courier (October 13, 2013), in the wake of the state board of education’s discussion of the revised state science standards at its October 9, 2013, meeting. As NCSE previously reported, the board gave its initial approval to the standards, which are a revision of the standards adopted in 2005, which the Fordham Institute graded as A- in its 2012 evaluation of state science standards. But several members of the board expressed concern about the treatment of evolution and climate change. Michael Brenan enquired whether the concept of “irreducible complexity” was included in the standards, for example, and Danny Varat suggested that a standard about climate change was “leading toward a predetermined conclusion.”
Robert Dillon, a professor of biology at the College of Charleston and the founding president of South Carolinians for Science Education, attended the board meeting and told the board that the new standards are excellent as drafted and should be approved. Responding to the comments from those opposed to the standards and from the members of the board who expressed concern about evolution and climate change, Dillon told the Post and Courier’s Melanie Balog, “Here is my one and only point. I want science in the science standards. I don’t want any politics, I don’t want any religion. I just want science.” According to Balog, he “predicts more infighting between the Board of Ed and the Education Oversight Committee, a separate 18-member review panel that can suggest wording changes and other revisions to the standards before the state board gives final approval next year.”
For Balog’s column in the Post and Courier, visit: http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20131013/PC1610/131019799/1009/keeping-religion-separate-from-science-in-sc-schools And for NCSE’s previous coverage of events in South Carolina, visit: http://ncse.com/news/south-carolinaPROGRESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA?
“The state Board of Education gave initial approval to a new set of science standards Wednesday, although some board members tried to overturn the vote out of concern over whether the new guidelines leave room for students’ religious beliefs on the origin of life,” reported the Greenville News (October 9, 2013).
The standards under consideration are a revision of the standards adopted in 2005, which the Fordham Institute graded as A- in its 2012 evaluation of state science standards. According to the Fordham study, “at the high school level, evolution is treated excellently and the support documents are exemplary.”
The new draft South Carolina standards are not the Next Generation Science Standards. Indeed, in 2012 the state legislature adopted a budget that prohibited the state from using funds to “participate in, implement, adopt, or promote” the NGSS, as Education Week’s Curriculum Matters blog (June 29, 2012) then explained.
During public comments, a representative of South Carolina Parents Involved in Education asked the board, “Are the new science standards what South Carolina needs right now?” She answered no, complaining that the standards have a “materialistic bias” about the origin of life and accusing them of seeking “to indoctrinate rather than inform.”
In response, Robert Dillon, a professor of biology at the College of Charleston and the founding president of South Carolinians for Science Education, told the board that the new standards are excellent as drafted and should be approved. The new science standards are indeed what South Carolina needs right now, he added.
Several members of the board then expressed concern about specific aspects of the standards. Michael Brenan (not Jim Griffiths, as the News reported) enquired whether the concept of “irreducible complexity” was included in the standards, for example, and Danny Varat suggested that a standard about climate change was “leading toward a predetermined conclusion.”
On the Facebook page of South Carolinians for Science Education, Robert Dillon was gloomy about the prospects of the standards, writing, “I was disappointed by much of the discussion in the State Board of Education meeting yesterday afternoon. I’m afraid our new draft science standards face a bumpy road to approval.”
“The standards now will go to the state Education Oversight Committee and come back to the state Board of Education for final action early next year,” the Greenville News explained. “If they are approved on second reading then, they would go into use in the 2014-15 school year.”
For the story in the Greenville News, visit: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20131010/NEWS/310100019 For the Fordham Institute’s comments on South Carolina’s standards (PDF), visit: http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-Science-Standards-South-Carolina.pdf For the post on Curriculum Matters, visit: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/06/sc_measure_prohibits_adoption_.html For South Carolinians for Science Education’s Facebook page, visit: https://www.facebook.com/pages/SCSE-South-Carolinians-for-Science-Education/108703794114 For video of the hearing, visit: http://ed.sc.gov/agency/stateboard/video/index.cfm?ID=mlq-GiDpFiQ And for NCSE’s previous coverage of events in South Carolina, visit: http://ncse.com/news/south-carolinaThanks for reading. And don’t forget to visit NCSE’s website— http://ncse.com—where you can always find the latest news on evolution and climate education and threats to them.
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch Deputy Director National Center for Science Education, Inc. 420 40th Street, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609-2509 510-601-7203 x305 fax: 510-601-7204 800-290-6006 branch@ncse.com http://ncse.com