And so it is that Achieve, The National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science released their version of Science the way they want school children all across the country to learn it, this week to a flurry of comment:
New Teaching Standards Delve More Deeply Into Climate Change
Next Generation Science Standards Go All In With Climate Change
New Science Standards Put Global Warming At Core of Curriculum
Several things have caught my attention.
First, when one visits the Oklahoma Department of Education website to find our Science standards, our DOE would have you believe that ALL the Common Core State Standards (Language Arts, Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Math) were released in their final form on June 2, 2010. Actually, English Language Arts and Math only were released in a final version of sorts on June 2, 2010 (after the Oklahoma legislature had voted to make them law in our state through SB2033) and it doesn't appear through any research I've been able to dig up on the internet that those were the final ELA and Math standards (the Common Core website and a site called Education Northwest were the only ones I was able to track any information on standards release dates and both those sites give incomplete information). Social studies standards are not really social studies standards but ELA standards that include History Literacy - specific social studies standards have yet to be developed. In fact, Oklahoma's Social Studies Standards indicate just this exact situation. You can read them for yourself here. Notice that you'll see Common Core ELA standards referenced for reading and writing assignments in addition to previously developed state Social Studies standards. These are the ones that we wrote about in the blog, "A Republic Ma'am, If You Can Keep It". Obviously, the Common Core Science standards are just NOW being released for public comment. A bit disingenuous, don't you think?
At any rate, back to the Science standards. EdWeek reports,
"Observers say the treatment of evolution and climate change, two politically thorny issues, may complicate decisions in some states."Goodness yes in Oklahoma those would be thorny issues! They also go on to report,
"With biological evolution, for instance, the standards make clear that the concept is a fundamental underpinning of the life sciences. And with climate change, the document calls human activities “major factors.”Wow. Yea, those aren't going to play well in the Bible belt I'm afraid.
Now look, I'm often criticized because I have a Master's Degree in Biology and I don't want Evolution taught in schools. I don't want ANY untested THEORY taught in school as a fact. I maintain that if you want to teach THEORIES, then teach competing THEORIES - Evolution and Intelligent Design for example - but don't begin to tell children that it's one way or the other factually. If you do, you have completely invalidated the scientific process as neither THEORY can be observed and/or recorded in order to be disproven (or proved). Obviously, I have faith in Intelligent Design, but as a scientist that's all I can impart to a student as I go on to also explain the THEORY of Evolution (in which I hold no belief at the macro level).
So, where did all this theoretical nonsense come from? Well, I did a bit of internet digging tonight after looking at Oklahoma's Science Standards.
I taught 7th grade science in the late 1990's early 2000's using the Core Knowledge standards and the Oklahoma PASS. I spent a LOT of my year talking about chemistry. Guess what? There is no chemistry in Oklahoma's Science standards until HIGH SCHOOL! Well, there you go! We don't want to overdo our scientific knowledge - we don't want standards "a mile wide and an inch deep" we want them "a mile deep and an inch wide". Certainly, it will be easy for kids to pick up the language of Chemistry by high school (snark). Interestingly, in the above-cited articles this notion is mentioned. It was felt that these standards needed to be more earth science focused, so apparently, chemistry got the short shrift! It is interesting to me then, that without a proper study of Chemistry to understand the breakdown of ozone and methane, you could buy the whole global warming thing hook line and sinker!
I also found this,
The science standards in this document were developed based on the National Science Education Standards by the National Research Council (NRC), the Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the Science Frameworks by the National Association for Educational Progress (NAEP). The United States has established a goal for all students to achieve scientific literacy. These national publications, developed by science and education experts, will enable the nation and the state of Oklahoma to meet this goal. (page 1,2)Okay, let's assess this. Here is the NRC - which houses the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. What do you see when you click the link? NOTHING BUT STUFF ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING! Oh yes, there's really nothing else on the page. In fact, the NRC's home page has the banner, "Climate Change at the National Academies". Very non-partisan, right? Very scientific! It's no wonder the standards are all about Climate Change and chemistry has been taken out in favor of 'earth' science.
Let's try the AAAS. I'll bet they're more scientific and less partisan...Oh goodness. On the front page of their website at the top, they have this article,
"A Mosaic of Human and Ape [11 April 2013] New findings in Science shed light on the anatomy and likely habits of Australopithecus sediba, a possible human ancestor discovered in South Africa in 2008.A quick trip over to the "programs" tab finds this,
• Sustainable Development
• International Cooperation
• Women's Collaboration
• Science Diplomacy
Now the Next Generation Science Standards says,
States have previously used the National Science Education Standards from the National Research Council (NRC) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Unfortunately, when you scroll down the list of NGSS supporting documents, they come from, yes, you guessed it, the AAAS and the NRC. I guess the NEW stuff is the Global Warming hysteria.
AAAS) to guide the development of their current state science standards. While these two documents have proven to be both durable and of high quality, they are around 15 years old. In addition, major advances have since taken place in the world of science and in our understanding of how students learn science effectively. Explore the timeline below to read some of the recent foundational science education research and reports on which the Next Generation Science Standards will be based.
People will ask, it's inevitable, but NO, the NGSS are apparently NOT under the direct title of the Common Core State Standards - they are called, College and Career Ready Standards. As I posted in the first paragraph, there is definite confusion on the exact differences between the Common Core and College and Career Ready Standards, but I can tell you this, just like with the Common Core, all the same players are involved - mainly Achieve. This is important because earlier tonight, my friend and co-worker Danna sent me a copy of Oklahoma's State Longitudinal Grant Application. I am working on a story on this document alone, but Danna pointed out and it struck me quite hard, that this document included the CV of Oklahoma's Executive Director of Student Information, John Kraman (page 97). Among other things, it says,
This guy was in on the ground floor of the Common Core State Standards - which CAME OUT OF WASHINGTON, D.C. where he worked with Achieve. So, I guess you can say that no matter whose name is on the standards, it's all the same names and all the same people - it's just the regular people that are getting nothing out of the whole takeover dealio but stupification of our kids and a tax burden!
In closing, just like with the Common Core, this writer, bemoans the following about his frustration with all the climate change nonsense,
These reports only rarely contain blatant lies. Instead, we are fed a mélange of half-truths, incomplete statements, and misquoted citations. Who really expects reviewers to dig so deep as to uncover all of these?Climate data has been proven to be fudged, tampered with, contrived, and yet the National Science Foundation (NSF) continues to take our money to fund global warming studies. How can you even wrap your brain around using public funding to perpetuate a myth?
Well, if you can bully and scare school children with this silly concept, you drive wedges between parent and child. As I wrote in a blog some years ago, "The Zombies Are Coming, The Zombies Are Coming",
My daughter brought home yet another piece of fabulous homework (PROPAGANDA) from my Blue Ribbon winning elementary school, Quail Creek Elementary. This one was called, "Shifting Shape; The earth is changing shape because of GLOBAL WARMING!"There's no way to beat this. I mean, kids tend to think their parents are just three bricks shy of a load anyway. When you get someone at school in a trusted position pushing political garbage that has no business being in a public school, your child is going to be hard pressed - especially in the younger grades - to stand up to that teacher and tell them how the cow ate the cabbage. That's basically the definition of indoctrination and you don't have to have to be wearing a tin foil hat to see that - even though Reynold's Wrap tends to make the gray in my hair shine!
Yes, according to the worksheet, "For more than 200 years, Earth has been getting warmer. Lately it seems to be happening more quickly....."
I tell my daughter after she makes me aware that she is stumped and doesn't know how to complete this worksheet, "I forbid you to do that and turn that in." And so goes our conversation:
"I forbid you to do that and turn it in! It's a lie. You're perpetuating a lie!"
Betty: "But MOOOOOOOOOM, You're the ONLY parent who ever gets upset at this kind of thing! You're embarrassing me!"
"It's about more than being embarrassed child, it's about doing something that promotes "junk science" - science that isn't true and hasn't been proven!"
Betty: "But I don't care! I don't want to get a bad grade for NOT doing it and my teacher will be mad!"
"I don't care if you get a bad grade! This isn't important to your base of knowledge in any way mainly because it ISN'T TRUE - it's completely unfounded science that even the man who runs the Weather Channel - among others - says isn't true either. It's not just your MOOOOOOOM, you know. What would you say if they started teaching that God was a lie, or Faith was a lie?"
Betty: "They don't do that mom and I don't care. I don't want to get a bad grade and have my teacher be mad at me."