Mother Jones earlier reported that the state of New Mexico had written science standards intended to placate climate change deniers and creationists. The state took modern science out of the science curriculum
Now, Mother Jones reports with satisfaction that the state was embarrassed by the outcry against its cave-in to special interests and has restored science to the science curriculum.
Andy Kroll writes:
The whole saga began last month when, as Mother Jones first reported, the state’s Public Education Department unveiled a set of draft standards for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education spanning grades K-12. New Mexico’s proposal largely followed the Next Generation Science Standards, a highly regarded model for teaching STEM that has been adopted by 18 states and the District of Columbia. But the state also made several baffling changes of its own, as we explained:
[T]he draft released by New Mexico’s education officials changes the language of a number of NGSS guidelines, downplaying the rise in global temperatures, striking references to human activity as the primary cause of climate change, and cutting one mention of evolution while weakening others. The standards would even remove a reference to the scientifically agreed-upon age of the Earth—nearly 4.6 billion years. (Young Earth creationists use various passages in the Bible to argue that the planet is only a few thousand years old.)
“These changes are evidently intended to placate creationists and climate change deniers,” says Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit group that defends the teaching of climate change, evolution, and other scientific-backed subjects in the classroom. The proposed changes, Branch added, “would dumb down New Mexico’s science education.”
A backlash ensued, with science experts, teachers, and others who were stunned by the state’s anti-science proposals voicing their displeasure with state education officials. New Mexico’s two US senators, both Democrats, wrote that they were “disturbed” by the proposed changes.
Ruszkowski, the education secretary, initially responded to critics by saying that his agency had crafted the proposed science standards—including the ones omitting evolution, human-caused global warming, and the age of the Earth—after hearing from “business groups, civic groups, teacher groups, superintendents.” (He declined to name those who helped shape the standards.) The process that went into developing the controversial standards, he added, was “how PED does business.”
However, in an interview with Mother Jones, a former PED official who helped develop the science standards contradicted Ruszkowski’s account. Lesley Galyas, who worked for four years as PED’s math and science bureau chief, said “one or two people” working “behind closed doors” had politicized New Mexico’s science standards. “They were really worried about creationists and the oil companies,” she said. In the end, she quit her job at the agency in protest of the changes sought by her bosses.
Outrage worked. The state reversed course. Read the article and feel some satisfaction in knowing that the voice of the public makes a difference.
Be very careful when writing that the NM PED “reversed course.” The PED has agreed to put back climate change, age of the earth, and evolution but there are some other items that are still out there. The reversed items may just be a comprise to placate the masses of people in NM that are totally upset. This is not a done deal. People better be very cautious until the final rule comes out. Roszkowski, Interim NM Sec of Ed did not even bother to show up for the Public Hearing. He knew what was coming and went to Roswell, NM instead. This all started when Governor Martinez vetoed a bill that would require Teachers to use Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the classroom. DO NOT trust Roszkowski and Martinez to do what is right for the children of NM. DO NOT!!!
Went to Roswell?
To get advice from the space aliens?
SDP,
My thought exactly!
Reformers get their orders in Roswell from space aliens: to serve mankind.
Maybe he went to meet with fellow aliens. Regardless, what he has proposed is something completely alien to public education, science education at all levels, and the scientific community. He needs to be taken way by his brother aliens.
If he is being advised on science by aliens advanced enough to travel to earth from a distant planet, who are we to argue?
He should get on their space ship and take other reformers with him
If Bill Gates, Eli Broad, Campbell Brown, Betsy DeVos, Eva Moskowitz and others would get on Elon Musk’s rocket to Mars, everyone would be much better off (except for the Martian bacteria and grizzly bears, who would never forgive us)
There is a whole solar system out there just waiting to be conquered by vouchers and charters.
Aliens advising him? More like creationist cretins. Roszkowski’s latest version still kowtows to that secret behind-closed-doors cabal that tweaked them in the first place. Hannah must be beaming, wherever she is. Quelle subterfuge. Quelle nausea…
Orlando Sentinel has a great series on Florida vouchers:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-florida-school-voucher-investigation-1018-htmlstory.html
“Private schools in Florida will collect nearly $1 billion in state-backed scholarships this year through a system so weakly regulated that some schools hire teachers without college degrees, hold classes in aging strip malls and falsify fire-safety and health records.
The limited oversight of Florida’s scholarship programs allowed a principal under investigation for molesting a student at his Brevard County school to open another school under a new name and still receive the money, an Orlando Sentinel investigation found.
Another Central Florida school received millions of dollars in scholarships, sometimes called school vouchers, for nearly a decade even though it repeatedly violated program rules, including hiring staff with criminal convictions.”
Ed reformers just jammed vouchers thru in Illinois. Incredibly, they are EXPANDING this to other states. The schools aren’t regulated at all. Anyone can open one. They have a 24 year old who is still in community college running a voucher school.
When you read the story on Florida vouchers remember that the US Department of Education is enthusiastically lobbying to expand the Florida vouchers to all 50 states.
Either they don’t know what’s going on in Florida or they don’t care.
Florida voted on vouchers in 2012 and overwhelmingly rejected them.
Mustn’t let democracy impede oligarchy
We are now facing a new low in privatization frenzy. Results are no longer a factor along with evidence. It is the great public education heist under DeVos and Trump. The goal is to grab as much money as possible before the public realizes what has happened. We have gone off the rails and failed to protect our young people from the vultures.
Evangelicals seem utterly unaware of the fact that primary reason for the decline in Americans’ affiliation with any organized religion at all is the anti-scientific stance that many evangelical churches have taken and widely and loudly espoused on many topics, such as the human factor in climate change, but especially on the topic of evolution. But most Christians don’t really know their own faith. For example, they don’t know that decades ago the mainstream Christian denominations agreed that evolution is how the human body came to be. Centuries ago, St. Augustine gave this warning to his fellow Christians: “It is a disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talking nonsense on scientific topics. Many non-Christians are well-versed in Natural [scientific] knowledge, so they can detect the ignorance in such a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The danger is obvious: The failure to conform to demonstrated Natural [scientific] knowledge opens the Christian, and Christianity as a whole, to ridicule. If non-Christians find a Christian mistaken on a scientific subject that they know well and hear such a Christian maintaining his foolish opinions, how are they going to believe our teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?” Simple answer: They’re not. Here’s what America’s mainstream Christian churches say about phony “creationism”/”creation science”. Share it widely, especially with your Christian friends:
The CATHOLIC CHURCH: Already back in 1909 the Catholic Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies declared that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis do not properly conform to the historical method of translation “used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time” and therefore Catholics do not have to take these chapters of the Book of Genesis literally.
In the 1950 Papal Encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII declared that the human body could have evolved “from pre-existent and living matter” that evolved through a sequence of stages before God instilled a spiritual soul into the human body. Catholics are only bound to believe that the evolution of the human body was a God-guided process, and that the spiritual human soul that inhabits the physical human body didn’t evolve but is created by God.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed to the Pontifical Academy of Science that Pope Pius XII was absolutely correct in the establishing for the faithful “that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one does not lose sight of several indisputable points” such as those cited in the 1950 “Humani Generis” encyclical.
The EPISCOPAL CHURCH in its 67th General Assembly officially declared: “Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so-called ‘balanced treatment’ laws requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’ whenever evolutionary models are taught; and
Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such “balanced treatment” laws; and
“Whereas, the terms ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and
“Whereas, the dogma of ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and
“Whereas, ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it
“RESOLVED, that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement, and be it further
“RESOLVED, that we affirm our support of the sciences and educators and of the Church and theologians in their search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us; and be it further
“RESOLVED by 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively urge their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the ‘Creationists’ into legislating any form of ‘balanced treatment’ laws or any law requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’.”
The LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION declared in its Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, Vol. I, 1965, that: “An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution’s assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology’s affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians.”
The UNITED METHODIST CHURCH declared at its 1984 Annual Conference that: “Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,
“Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,
“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,
“Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,
“Be it RESOLVED that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce ‘scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.”
The UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH in the USA declared at its 1982 General Assembly that: “Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:
“Therefore, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly: Affirms that, despite efforts to establish ‘creationism’ or creation science’ as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma; and,
“Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach ‘creationism’ or ‘creation science’.”
Thank you for this wonderful post, Scisne!
I especially love this snippet from the Episcopalians: “the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not…”
Now this is reminding me of my husband [cradle Catholic]’s & my [convert to Catholicism from mixed bckgd]’s debate over how to baptize our first child. He was agin Catholic; his scientific bent vs rigid Catholic schooling put him off, tho he believed in God. I was a hybrid Prot/Cath baptized in both faiths w/a bent toward Cath [liked the historical liturgy & cherry-picked from catechism]. Told him I’d be fine w/Episcopalian which bridged the gap– he caved toward Cath. We were lucky to have my close fam friend, a Jesuit priest, who walked him thro the sort of thinking expressed in the above quote.
Climate change is one of the most disputed topics in teaching science, in addition to those topics distained by Biblie literalists and like-minded people who promote the idea that dinoasurs were on Noah’s arc, demean research in geology, archaeology, evolutionary sciences, and so on.
I found a recent report on the apparent capture by climate deniers of science teachers on the topic of “science change.” The survey may indicate the effectiveness of campaigns lead by climate deniers. Among these are about 190 members of Congress.
This survey suggests that sciene teachers may be included. I think the survey fails to capture the demands in the new science standards– that they be correlated with the Common Core,also addess Technology and Enginerring Science teachers ( like those in many subjects) face implicit and explicit demands for “coverage” of topics (breadth) with not much regard for depth. I think that the raw proliferation of standardsa and tests is a contributing factor to the findings in this survey of science teachers.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/eyes-on-environment/science_teachers_could_be_obstacle
Though a majority of science curricula cover global warming, [Key quote from your link]: “Only 30% of middle-school teachers and 45% of high-school teachers gave the correct answer when asked ‘what proportion of climate scientists think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities’ (correct answer: 97%). This means more than half of teachers believe scientific consensus to be much lower than this almost unanimous majority!”
I had a fun moment a couple of days ago. Confronted by a climate change denier, I asked if they accepted the validity of the scientific method. Answer: yes. Is the scientific method affected by questions of ethics, morality or church doctrine? Answer: no. Then why, if the application of the scientific method demonstrates the validity of climate science (not weather) and that the universe is billions of years old, do you try to refute them with doctrinaire Biblical references? Answer: Well, that’s not fair…I mean…Wait a minute…
Some fool left a comment on this site some time back about how the Electoral College was meant to protect us from the majority becoming a mob and taking over.
But it is clear to me that the majority isn’t the mob we should fear taking over. It is the minority.
According to a PEW report on “Public views on climate change and climate scientists, the majority of people believe global climate change is due to human activity and that there should be restrictions on power plant carbon emissions and international agreements to limit emissions.
In fact, 67 percent of Americans support a major role for climate science in policy decisions.
48 percent say the Earth is warming due to human activity
31 percent think it is caused by natural patterns
20 percent think there is no solid evidence.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/
And Gallup reports that only 38-percent of Americans think that everything was created in a flash 6,000 years ago … creationism.
“The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so — the strict creationist view — has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution — either God-guided or not — saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.”
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
In addition, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, Trump’s approval reading is 38 percent versus 55.89 percent that disapproves of him.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/
Who is the mob we should fear at this time: the majority or the minority?
Answer: The THIRTY-EIGHT PERCENT (deplorable people … yes) !!!!!!
Q Some fool left a comment on this site some time back about how the Electoral College was meant to protect us from the majority becoming a mob and taking over.END Q
I am the man who said this. The electoral college was designed,to serve as a “buffer” between the people, and the selection of the president. Many times, the loser of the popular vote, has been elected president.
Electors are chosen by the voters, but the electors are only PLEDGED to vote the way the citizens vote. In 1976, an elector pledged to one candidate defied the citizens, and cast his electoral vote for a candidate who was not even on the ballot.
The founders (justifiably) feared mob rule. That is why the president can veto bills, that have been passed by the majority of the congress. That is why the smallest population state (Wyoming) is exactly equal with the largest population state (California) in the Senate.
Please read Federalist Paper #68, written by Alexander Hamilton.
It explains that the purpose of the Electoral College was to have a group of wise men who would prevent the election of a rabble-rousing charlatan, especially one who was controlled by a foreign power.
Wise man, that Alexander Hamilton.
Read it, Charles, and please don’t tell me you know more than Hamilton, or your third cousin was descended from Hamilton’s best friend
Charles,
As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
Lloyd,
Please google Federalist Paper #68 A. Hamilton.
It is clear that the Founders worried about the election of a demagogue and foreign intrusion.
Prescient
What they feared has come to pass and it didn’t happen by accident. There are known forces at work out to subvert the U.S. Constitution and get rid of the protections it offers every citizen.
I have read Fed 68 before. I never noticed the verbiage you state. I do not claim to know more than Hamilton.
Charles,
You never read Federalist Paper 68. Never. It is not that long, and the two points I made are the centerpiece of #68.
The purpose of the Electoral College was to create a review board of wise men to be sure that a charlatan was never elected president and to prevent a foreign nation from interfering in our election.
If you didn’t notice Hamilton’s “verbiage,” you didn’t read #68.
I want to amend that to “simple minded fool”.
The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
It was Tocqueville who called it a majority. It was Madison who called them factions.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
The Alt-Right is a faction based on lies and conspiracy theories.
The Koch brothers and ALEC’s form of libertarianism are a faction
The Walton family is another faction.
The neo-conservatives are a faction.
Bill Gates and his group of supporting billionaire oligarchs are another factions.
The neo-liberals are a faction.
The KKK is a faction
White Surpamcistis is a faction.
So-called liberals are another faction – actually several factions.
Progressives are another faction.
Conservatism is also divided up into factions.
Fundamentalist Christians like Betsy DeVos represent another faction.
Several far-right factions have joined together to form a larger faction that has become a large mob representing 38-percent of adults in this country.
Currently, there is no unified faction larger than that 38-percent supporting Trump, so that is the mob or faction that the founding fathers feared.
The U.S. Constitution and the Republic it guides is being subverted by that mob … the 38-percent made up of several of the factions listed above.
It’s heartening that real journalism can still make a difference!
Very good news.
Evolution is safe in our CA district, but science is not. From what my science colleagues tell me, the new digital curriculum, Discovery Science, banishes actual teaching. Kids get a video (far too fast for most kids) on a topic, then they have to perform activities and projects during which they ostensibly develop their science skills. They take a test and then move on to the next topic. Teachers are not supposed to give any direct instruction. In theory, this is the glorious apotheosis of the ed school professoriat’s dream of destroying the “sage on the stage”. In practice, this is kids mired in confusion, saddled with confusing and complex tasks that allegedly strengthen their science-doing muscles, but leave them with the haziest understanding of important scientific topics. This is why I have such an animus toward our education schools. This is all a direct result of their stupid prejudice against lecture.