Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
In late July in Frankfort, Kentucky, supporters and critics of the Next Generation Science Standards clashed during a hearing over proposed changes that could be made to the science curriculum of the state’s public schools. The new science standards were developed with input from officials in Kentucky and twenty-five other states with the hope of making science curricula “more uniform across the country.”
Those who spoke in support of the new education standards said they are “vital if Kentucky is to keep pace with other states and allow students to prepare for college and careers.” Supporters feel the new standards “will help beat back scientific ignorance.” Critics—on the other hand—claimed that the new standards were “fascistic” and “atheistic” and promoted thinking that could lead to “genocide” and “murder.”
According to the Courier-Journal, nearly two dozen parents, teachers, scientists, and advocacy groups commented during the Kentucky Department of Education hearing on the Next Generation Science Standards—which are a broad set of guidelines that were developed in order to revise K-12 science content that would meet the requirements of a 2009 law, which called for educational improvement.
Blaine Ferrell, a representative from the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, said, “Students in the commonwealth both need and deserve 21st-century science education grounded in inquiry, rich in content and internationally benchmarked.” Dave Robinson, who is a biology professor at Bellarmine University, said that neighboring states had been more successful in recruiting biotechnology companies. He added that Kentucky “could get left behind in industrial development if students fail to learn the latest scientific concepts.”
But the majority of comments reportedly came from opponents of adopting the new science standards. The critics “questioned the validity of evolution and climate change and railed against the standards as a threat to religious liberty, at times drawing comparisons to Soviet-style communism.”
Mike Wynn (Courier-Journal):
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”
Another critic of the new standards claimed that they would “marginalize students with religious beliefs.” She said they could lead to the ridicule and physiological harm of such students in the classroom and that they could also “create difficulties for students with learning disabilities. The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them.” She added, “We are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
An environmental geologist who spoke in support of adopting the New Generation Science Standards said that he was “offended by comments suggesting that evolution leads to immorality and ‘death camps,’ calling it a horrible misrepresentation of scientists. He said that he—unlike many of the critics who had commented at the hearing—had actually read the standards. “Everything is actually based on evidence — arguments from evidence are actually given priority in the Next Generation Science Standards.”
According to Kevin Brown, Kentucky’s associate education commissioner and general counsel, comments made at the standards hearing “will be reviewed by department staff and summarized into a statement of consideration with formal responses. Board members will then consider the comments and responses in August and decide whether to make changes or advance the standards to legislative committees for approval.”
Robert Bevins, the president of Kentuckians for Science Education, said he expects that the board will send the standards forward without changes. Let’s hope that Bevins is right.
SOURCES & FURTHER READING
School science is hotly debated in Kentucky: New standards are called ‘atheistic,’ ‘fascist’ by some (Courier-Journal)
Next Generation Science Standards In Kentucky Draw Hostility From Religious Groups (Huffington Post)
Kentucky: Next Generation Science Standards (Kentucky Department of Education)
Next Generation Science Standards for Kentucky (National Center for Science Education)
Kentucky’s new science standards draw heated debate (The Spectrum)
Will A Denier Scrub Curriculum That Teaches Climate Science To Kentucky Schoolchildren? (ThinkProgress)
Sen. Mike Wilson | Science standards include troubling assumptions (Courier-Journal)
Science Standards Draw Fire From Ed. Leader in Kentucky Senate (Education Week)
Next Generation Science Standards In Kentucky Draw Hostility From Religious Groups (Cafe Mom)
TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS SOLVED 1) IF THE PARENTS ARE AGAINST THIS THEN HOME SCHOOL YOUR KIDS OR SEND THEM TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL. 2) THE CHURCHES HAVE NO SAY WHICHSOEVER IN THIS MATTER (SO SIT DOWN AND SHUT-UP).
science can be used to support state doctrine. It isnt like it has never happened before.
I have no idea and dont care. I would teach evolution in any science class I tought.
Bron,
My understanding is this is a debate at the State level not the Federal level. I fail to see how Kentucky State deciding to teach science as science, which is what the Kentucky State standards seem to be saying, is anything to do with a Federal level intervention. If there were a Federal level intervention all States would teach the same thing and there would be no debate at the State level.
I applaud Kentucky State for having standards of education in keeping with Science, not all States do apparently.
I wish that all States and schools in the UK would also include teaching children critical thinking independent of science. Although good scientists are critical thinkers, even if they switch off their critical thinking when it comes to theology, critical thinking is not something taught directly anywhere to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps it’s not compatible with the aims of basic education, which is to provide a basic grounding from which to explore the world. I don’t know…
Bron,
“The left is quite intolerant of opposing ideas which question their world view.”
What has science and scientifc fact got to do with “the left?” Do you think the individuals who developed the new sceince standards are leftists?
Juliet, Best bourbon and horses in the world. And great college basketball. “Always look on the bright side of life.”
I am all for parents starting independent schools. I think that the federal government has no place in education at any level.
Most universities are filled with professors whose ideas I fundamentally disagree with and am tired of funding. I am not talking religion either.
The left is quite intolerant of opposing ideas which question their world view.
As grathuln says “One thing missing from most curriculums is critical thinking, that is to teach children to question, seek and evaluate evidence before agreeing with a view point.”
It is definitely missing from public education.
Give science a chance Kentucky …
Whether it was the 8th or 9th, God Created Dog to come to Earth to watch over mankind. Dog is God spulled backwards.
Oh, no. Gotta let the Ninth Day Adventists chirp in. God Created Dog On The Ninth Day!
They better teach this one: God created Dog on the Eighth Day!
If they don’t there are gonna be some barkindogs.
Bron,
Science is separate from the “metaphysical”. The issues the creationists have is that the state doesn’t want to “teach the controversy” when the fact is there is no controversy with respect to evolution versus creationism and young earth creationism. Science is science and creationism and young earth creationism are not science.
I agree we sometimes have to defer to experts with respect to complex issues such has how life started, as opposed to evolved, because we cannot know everything. I tend to accept scientific theory with the scientific caveat of “we could be wrong” rather than “god did it” because I know science will seek to disprove its own theories and in doing so refine or reject their theories ultimately progressing towards a sound, demonstrably theory such as evolution; evolution being a theory that has stood up to the most testing of all and has demonstrably predicted things not known when it was first conceived, such the relationship all things have in DNA. The “god did it” concept stops right there not seeking to determine anything more. Thank goodness not everyone just accepted “god did it” as the solution.
Life on other planets is almost certainly going to be carbon based but that allows for a lot of possibilities and there is no reason for it to have the same DNA chemistry as we do and it is very unlikely to have the same genetic ancestry to us. It may be humanoid bi-pedal but there is no reason we know of why sentient life could not evolve from a completely different path resulting in something we would not identify as humanoid.
One thing missing from most curriculums is critical thinking, that is to teach children to question, seek and evaluate evidence before agreeing with a view point.
This will help prepare the kids for the next episode.
[music]
For its one, two, three, what are we fightin for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn! Next stop is Vietnam.
And its five, six, seven open up the Pearly Gates.
Ain’t no time to wonder why.
Whoopee, we’re all gonna die.
-Country Joe and The Fish (from Kentucky)
“If a state wants to teach creationism let them.” Not on my dime. No sir. If a group of parents wants a religious school then they should start one and pay each and every bill! NO TAX DOLLARS should go into such an enterprise. (this includes alleged payments to students or phony charter schools.) Let their children be refused entry into a college because their science is non existent or just a muddle of magical thinking. If these nuts had to pay to reach this trash they would most likely fade away and if they didn’t well at least they wouldn’t be hurting the education of others.
It is time to get religion and religious zealots out of our schools, our congress and our government. Theocracies are bad for humans.
Lest I be attacked for hating religion. I do not. It has its place. That place however is not in creating our educational standards, our curricula or our laws.
Bron,
This is an issue of separation of church and state. The state may not teach religion as science. Understanding Christian myths of how the world began are very important in our society. They should be taught in a world religion course. But a state may not impose a specific religion’s origin myths on people of their state under the guise of science.
These kids will be held back intellectually because they will not understand how science works and how it is different from their religious ideology. This leaves them at a true disadvantage in the world. If their parents feel it is important to keep a scientific understanding from their children, (and I truly wish they would reconsider that position) then they may put them in a private, religious school. But the state may not impose christian origin myths on students.
Bron,
Kentucky State is trying to set a good standard of education for science based not on religion but on science, good for them. If people don’t want their children to be taught science they should start their own schools or home school so they can teach religious dogma instead of science thereby disadvantaging their children when it comes to science. The debate is at the state level not the Federal level so your point is moot.
Elaine:
If people are stupid enough to harm their children with a bad education, it isnt my business.
If a community wants to teach creationism, let them. The smart children will figure it out.
If they are teaching humans interacted with dinosaurs, well maybe the state has a right to intervene but if they are teaching that a prime mover put into place the necessary and sufficient conditions for life and then evolution guided its advancement? Why not? At that point it becomes metaphysical anyway.
The fact is that we are here, we may not ever know how exactly life came to exist. But teaching intelligent design isnt a big deal in my mind. I dont know exactly how a random bunch of chemicals became animals, I know a number of very smart people all have ideas.
My thought is that it is because that is the way it has to be. That there is order in the universe and that order allows for all that we see. It is because it can be nothing else.
If there is life on other planets, I am betting it is similar to life on earth.
Bron,
Kentucky can do what it wants with education in the state. Do you think some outspoken anti-science and religious folks should be able to dictate what science content is taught to its children?
Seems to me the state can do what it wants with education. If they want to teach creation, let them. People who dont like it can start their own schools or people who like creation can start their own schools.
This is the problem with government involvement in things it has no business being involved with.
States or, better still, local communities should set standards for education.
And for god sakes get rid of Standards of Learning testing, what a cluster fluk that is.
“..we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution..”
There is no correlation between wealth and science. Even rich people can be either scientific dim wits or smart manipulators of religious dogma.
My state embarrasses me.