Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

NCSE Evolution and Climate Education Update for 2013/10/18

(by NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch)

Dear friends of NCSE,

Promising news on the Texas textbook front. The NGSS avoid a potential
obstacle in Kentucky. And signs, if equivocal signs, of progress for
South Carolina's state science standards: a reaction and a report.

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/texas 

UPDATE 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-carolina 

PROGRESS 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-carolina 

Thanks 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 

Check out NCSE's new blog, Science League of America:
http://ncse.com/blog 

Read Reports of the NCSE on-line:
http://reports.ncse.com 

Subscribe to NCSE's free weekly e-newsletter:
http://groups.google.com/group/ncse-news 

NCSE is on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter:
http://www.facebook.com/evolution.ncse 
http://www.youtube.com/NatCen4ScienceEd 
http://twitter.com/ncse 

NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://ncse.com/join