The State of South Dakota, through the State Board of Education, officially adopted their science curriculum today, which you’ll find below.
In conjunction with the adoption and issuance of the report, the National Center for Science Education covered the occasion, and noted the following on their web site:
The South Dakota state board of education adopted a new set of science standards for the state on May 18, 2015. The new standards were developed in South Dakota, but include elements of the Next Generation Science Standards, which have so far been adopted in thirteen states — California, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia — plus the District of Columbia.
and…
A recognition of the controversy appears (PDF, p. 6) in the introduction to the standards: “Through the public hearing process related to adoption of the South Dakota Science Standards, it is evident that there is particular sensitivity to two issues: climate change and evolution.” Nevertheless, the South Dakota standards on climate change and evolution are not significantly different from the corresponding standards in the NGSS.
So, while they’re doing it with sensitivity, South Dakota’s standards for teaching climate change and evolution are fairly close to those of the Next Generation Science Standards.
After reading the document, what’s your opinion?
I’m concerned by the company of states we’re joining.
If we can convince our children that apes are their distant cousins, convincing them that the exhaust from Mommy’s car kills polar bears thousands of miles away should be a piece of cake.
This is exactly what hundreds of concerned citizens and dozens of legislators over the past several years have been concerned about, warned against, and tried to stop. But the Governor, Sec. of Education, and State Board of Ed went ahead and did it anyway. I don’t have time to read it and search for it now, but apparently we now have the easily debunked myths of global warming and evolution as part of our official state curriculum. Ouch ! And the educrats wonder why so many veteran teachers are leaving the profession, and why so many more kids are homeschooled or going to private schools ?
I guess this just reinforces the elitist belief that the masses are stupid and the state and the Dept of Education must show us the way. Climate has always been changing, even before man set a foot on the earth – I learned that way back when and believe it, so the standards have that much right. But teaching that man is destroying the environment unless we pass all the regs via EPA etc is not a proven fact. Polar bears are not dying, but I don’t think most people even know that. The oceans are not rising as good ole Gore predicted years ago. Yes, there are storms, there have always been storms and droughts etc (remember the dust bowl anyone?). Coal is being attacked by Obama, but he doesn’t give one thought about the carbon pollution he is causing by his multiple flights (even apparently one just for his dog!). Gore’s argument was reducing carbon footprints, while he is leaving some of the biggest footprints of all Americans. But I guess I’m just too dumb to really get it, and my kids are too dumb, and my grandkids will be too dumb, so OK, state, have at it and tell us what we should believe. I give up as no one is listening to the common person anymore; it’s all to promote some agenda.
“The oceans are not rising as good ole Gore predicted years ago.”
Have you been to Venice Italy or South Florida lately? You may wish to talk to the locals there.
The oceans are getting more acidic with their absorption of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere which will have a dramatic affect on the food chain in the near future. What would you attribute the rising CO2 from? Volcanoes?
Ever worry about what waterways to fish in or the amount of fish consumption due to Mercury contamination?
” But teaching that man is destroying the environment unless we pass all the regs via EPA etc is not a proven fact.”
Do you feel comfortable having your family drink water straight out of and swimming in the Big Sioux river?
Science who needs it?
Yes, volcanoes put lots of co2 into the atmosphere. If co2 is really increasing, so what ? It is what all plants take in to help them grow. The more co2 the better and faster they grow, the carbon goes into building their cells and the oxygen is given off for all of us humans and animals to breathe. That is simple science. Co2 is not evil, it is the way God created the earth to work.
With more ocean acidification from increasing CO2 levels calcium carbonate-builders such as clams and oysters are having a more difficult time in forming their shells in the Pacific Northwest which hurts the industry, coral reefs will die providing habitat for various fish species and the tiny animals like krill and plankton species that form the base of the food web. Whales and Salmon depend on plankton in their diet for example. http://www.oceanfutures.org/news/blog/ocean-acidification-crumbling-shells-sea
Last night I read the standards and compared them to Next Gen and then tried to make sense of the statement of the National Center for Science Education.
Basically, I think the NCSE is spinning what was adopted. The BOE adopted standards do not endorse climate change. They only mention that human activity can affect the ecosystem (just as Begalka references volcanic activity). That really isn’t very controversial. We faced the same thing when we cleaned up our air or restricted emissions into our rivers and streams.
Same with evolution.
What I think is appropriate is if one wants to comment on the standards, they should have at least taken the time to read the standards, compare them to the Next Gen Standards and not rely on people who have an agenda to spin things either in favor of standards or against standards. It is illuminating to notice what SD’s Board of Education cut from the standards adopted to gain a sense of what are really in the standards.
St. Paul said something to the effect to be prepared to give a reason for our hope. I think one should be prepared to give an argument for their views that includes actually have read the standards with enough diligence to understand what they say (vs. relying on what someone else says they say).
Sorry if I jumped to some wrong conclusions, and assumed the worst, and went a little overboard in my assessment . I should have known better, but you get my drift !
I have to admit I didn’t read the standards like you did, Troy. However, based on the way the standards are being used in Common Core relating to math, taking something simple and making it harder, and based on the fact that apparently pride in America and basic history of our great nation is not being taught as much in schools presently, pardon me if I have a skepticism of anything the education community elitists propose. It might surprise you that I believe God created man, but whether he did it by plucking a rib from Adam and making Eve or by evolution is immaterial to me; he did it and that’s all that matters. However, global warming is another issue in my mind. Yes, man has an influence on climate to some degree but not to the degree espoused by Gore et al. I remember reading back in grade school that there was proof that oceans had once existed where none exist today, that possibly the world shifted on its axis way back when; and I visited the dino-roars exhibit at the Great Plains Zoo which showed how oceans and continents have changed over the past millions of years. Yes, climate change exists. Apparently to reduce our carbon footprints some would have us live like the Amish; nothing wrong with that if you want to, but I highly doubt most people today are willing to give up their modern devices and lifestyle. Those in favor of the climate change agenda would benefit the cause greatly if they lived the life they want the rest of us to live – are you listening, Mr. Gore?
Anyway, pardon me if I have great skepticism of anything related to Common Core. I have no problem with standards that say little Johnny should be taught reading in first grade, multiplication tables in third grade, or whatever across the nation; that is after all what standards are about. They should not be to promote an agenda that isn’t proven, whether climate change or “new” math or whatever.
And teachers in the state are not all that happy with the testing associated with this either. It discriminates against those who either don’t do well on testing or can’t read English, and it damages kids’ self-image and presents an incorrect picture of what they know or don’t know, not to mention the time wasted by excessive testing. But the SD DOE won’t even come to observe these problems in the classroom, and teachers don’t dare speak out much and just go along with it.
As long as parents have the option of home-schooling, at least there is a choice. Hopefully that option will continue.
Considering I know about half of all the committee members who reviewed these standards, I can say with confidence that these standards were reviewed by South Dakota’s best and brightest in the field. As I always remind my conservative friends, if you do not temper leftwing teachers with standards, you are going to have a whole year on climate change and the like. I spend a total of three chapters out of 145 chapters of science content taught each year grades 7-12 on issues relating to climate change. Why? Because one cannot meet all of the standards for any subject area by dwelling on any one standard for any period of time. My one problem with these standards is that it amplifies the perception that climate change and the theory of evolution are somehow on the same controversial footing. One is a hypothesis that is based on mounting evidence yet incomplete data and sketchy climatological models that are all over the board. The other is a bedrock theory supported by mountains of evidence and data and has no realistic chance of ever being overturned or greatly modified. To equate these two is true silliness.
“[Macroevolution] is a bedrock theory supported by mountains of evidence and data …”
Spencer Cody is a college-educated science teacher. I’d be interested to hear what he regards as the three strongest pieces of evidence for macroevolution. Better yet, I’ll settle for ANY three.
“The other is a bedrock theory supported by mountains of evidence and data and has no realistic chance of ever being overturned or greatly modified.”
I don’t remember reading about a scientific experiment that turned a monkey into a human being.
how is your cory heidelberger obsession blog going? have you asked him out on a date yet?
Well as long as liberal left common core loving Dennis Daugaard’s appointed people adopted the national standards picked for them, it makes me feel so much better when RINOs take away local control from parents like Democrats, instead of Democrats doing it.
Yes, you are taking away local control from leftwing educators, not parents. Since when do parents dictate anything that is actually taught in science outside of a homeschool setting? They do not teach the class, write the textbooks, or in most cases bother to inquire into what is being taught much beyond a letter grade. People who think local control automatically translates into some sort of conservative panacea obviously understand very little about our education delivery system and the level of parental involvement in academics in junior high and high school education.
Aren’t most school boards made up of parents? Aren’t school boards supposed to be the local control of such matters?
Taking away parental rights, because you think government can do a better job? And that sounds good to a “Republican?”
what keeps the opponents to this new curriculum from gaining the needed amount of traction? why can’t they rouse the other parents to action?
The checks and balances in our state government have been compromised to the point our government is an incestuous mess.
A core Republican principle of parental control of education has been betrayed by moderate “Republicans” supporting a liberal agenda in the Common Core takeover of US education.
Senator Begalka: I jumped to the same conclusion when I saw who was “praising” our standards. Fortunately, I had been working late at the office and my wife had something that night so I decided to put the Twins game and actually read the standards. I was just lucky.
Mostly to various anonymous: State Standards and Local Curriculum are vastly not the same thing. Just because the State Science Standards don’t include climate change it doesn’t mean the school boards/Administrators/Science teachers won’t choose curriculum that endorses climate change. Spenser is right. Standards from the State is our first protection on two fronts- Schools dow what they are assigned to prepare students for the workforce and adult life and don’t have half-crocked curriculum. Parents need to be diligent and express their views with regard to curriculum.