Posted on 03/17/2015 12:56:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
SIOUX FALLS Proposed standards for science education in South Dakotas public schools became the latest Monday to receive criticism from some parents whose values are at odds with the direction of the state Department of Education.
The state Board of Education held a public hearing that was split between science professionals who strongly support the new standards and opposing parents who disbelieve climate change and evolution.
State law requires the board to hold four public hearings on changes in school standards. The board will reach its decision on the science proposal after the fourth hearing set for May 18 in Aberdeen.
Fringe ideas
One of the mothers who testified Monday said she applied to serve on the work group for the science standards, but wasnt selected. She said she knew three other parents who also werent chosen.
I wish that you allowed that opportunity to occur, Nicole Osmundson of Sioux Falls said.
Osmundson described climate change and evolution as fringe ideas, but suggested there could be ways to hold classroom discussions about them without the school system advocating for or against them.
Another opponent, Catherine Billion of Sioux Falls, tied the standards movement to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization often referred to as UNESCO and its Agenda 21 plan for sustainable development that was adopted at an international conference in 1992.
Billion said many South Dakota families have values that dont match the school standards as proposed.
And that pits school against parents, she said.
The state board could adopt the science standards at the May 18 meeting or direct the department to further revise them for possible final approval at the boards July 27 meeting in Rapid City.
School districts would be required to have the standards in use for the 2017-18 academic year, according to the boards president, Don Kirkegaard of Sturgis. He is superintendent for the Meade school district.
Good for all students
The opponents, however, saw more than twice as many science teachers, researchers and scientists testify in favor.
I am fully in support of the adoption of these standards, said Julie Olson, a Mitchell High School science teacher and president of her professions statewide organization.
Olson, whos taught for 24 years, said the standards as they are proposed feature a steady progression and would work well for at-risk students, limited-English students and advanced students.
Others said school districts science standards varied widely and sometimes have been a slippery slope that didnt encourage the rigor needed in science disciplines.
Sam Shaw, whos overseen the science standards development for the department, said the work group accepted earlier suggestions that the standards need to be aligned by grade groupings, such as for grades six through eight and for high school. The work group will convene this summer to address that situation, according to Shaw.
Thats a big concern for many of us, Kirkegaard said.
The state board also took comments Monday on proposed new standards for three more areas.
Fine arts and K-12 educational technology will get their final public hearings at Aberdeen on May 18, while social studies will get hearings at Aberdeen and on July 27 at Rapid City.
The four-city hearing requirement Aberdeen, Sioux Falls, Pierre and Rapid City was adopted by the Legislature after the state board voted in 2010 to adopt Common Core standards for math and English language arts.
People claimed in subsequent years they didnt know the state board planned to take the action. The board followed the standard public process set previously by the Legislature for rule-making.
Attempts fell short last year and this year to have the Legislature repeal or suspend Common Core. The new Smarter Balanced standardized assessments using those standards are in their second year of use this spring.
In a somewhat unusual event Monday, a state legislator testified as a neutral party on the science standards.
Rep. Mark Mickelson, R-Sioux Falls, said he was neither a supporter nor an opponent, but said parents need to feel they are being heard.
Mickelson, who said his familys children attend public school, noted that private schools pay attention to parents who provide tuition and donors who benefit the schools.
Academic raises alarm: The Democratic Party is facing a Catholic apocalypse - Tea Party-ization of white Catholics
Democrats have preached the Green Church of Climate Change doctrine for the last 2 generations - every aspect of our lives is touched by their teachings.
I ask Where is the separation of Church and State!?
The Left has actively PROMOTED their Mother Earth religion in our classrooms, on the Hill, from the White House. Weve been told that their religion is true. Its instilled in our youth that non-believing holds such dire consequence for their future (the worlds very existence), that deniers must no longer have a voice in the matter - that there is no longer a debate. Non believers must be ridiculed and shunned.
I ask, why hasnt the Green Church been banned from our classrooms?
Climate has become a state supported religion.
“Climate Change” is a religious agenda, the one of Gaia and/or Wicca. Of mother earth and nature’s supremecy.
“Climate” is the religion of the Left.
Watch how Democrats will fight to the death to defend it.
Please bear in mind that Lysenkoism was analogous to Creationism insofar as it rejected Evolutionary Orthodoxy.
I recall banning "Captain Planet" long ago in my house. I noticed it is back on the television again...a generation later.
The Left requires indoctrination, not understanding. Science requires the latter, not the former, otherwise, it isn't good science.
No repeatable result need fear a repetition of the experiment or a re-analysis of the data.
Bear in mind how it was used by Lysenko and Stalin - you don’t see the similarities with “settled science” and “deniers must be silenced?”
Remember the children's group singing Yes we can, can, can ?...."... Obama's gonna lead 'em, Obama's going to change it and rearrange it - we're going to change the world..."
There's a creepy Facebook page for "Climate Parents" - teaches them how to indoctrinate their children.
True science uses observation - a theory must be falsifiable - science always questions.
If the Left's Green Climate Doctrine is denied, there will be consequences (this IS NOT science - this is ideology).
This IS their religion.
In that regard, Lysenkoism was much more limited. I believe Stalin endorsed some kind of “winter wheat” program on that basis, which of course didn’t work. This had disasterous consequences, but still it did not have the scope “Climate Change” policy.
Certainly I do have many misgivings about the “Climate Change” agenda. Obviously this is nothing like a scientific question as it has been understood in the past, and it is analogous to Lysenkoism in that it affects broad social policy. It’s different in that it isn’t based on a single idiosyncratic view, but a whole community of professional scientists. Of course it’s obvious how dissenters and skeptics are squeezed out, but what if they’re right?
The latest that I see is that the deterioration of the West Antarctic ice sheet is accelerating, and has passed a tipping point, so we’ll see.
Scope? Limited?
I see a strong parallel with the Left’s “Settled Science.”
“....Support from Joseph Stalin gave Lysenko even more momentum and popularity. In 1935, Lysenko compared his opponents in biology to the peasants who still resisted the Soviet government’s collectivization strategy, saying that by opposing his theories the traditional geneticists were setting themselves against Marxism. Stalin was in the audience when this speech was made, and he was the first one to stand and applaud, calling out “Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo.” This event emboldened Lysenko and gave him and his ally Prezent free rein to slander the geneticists who still spoke out against him. Many of Lysenkoism’s opponents, such as his former mentor Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, were imprisoned or even executed because of Lysenko’s and Prezent’s denunciations.”...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
My chiropractor was all excited about a wonderful show on HBO about climate change.
I told him to look at the world before the medieval warm period. Arguably hotter than today. Also told him to read Joe Bastardi and Michael Crichton on the subject.
I’m sick of having to guide folks in that direction.
Yes, but like any religion, it has its true believers, its disciples, its hucksters, and its for-profit charlatans, and the charlatans are running the show.
I tell all people who use the term climate change that they are global warming deniers because they have abandoned the use of the words “global warmkng”
It infuriates me when the lefts religious leaders (Gore etc) lump those of us who reject anthropomorphic climate change with those who don’t believe in some form of evolution. It’s Apples and Oranges there marxists!
I loathe the left.
Michael Crichton accurately titled his book “State of Fear” - which is exactly what the Left wants.
Great read...my copy is somewhere up in the attic. Have to try to find it and give it to my easily swayed chiropractor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.