MINNESOTANS GIVE INPUT ON SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS
By: Seth Cooper
Discovery Institute
October 20, 2003
First Draft of the Minnesota Science Standards:
http://education.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/translatedcontent/pub_038386.pdf
The October 6, 2003 Proposal:
http://idnet-mn.org/ScienceStandardsSuggestions.html
This week signals the close of the public comment period on the first proposed draft of Minnesota’s new science standards. In November, a second draft will be composed by the science committee, taking into account the views expressed by scientists, teachers, and concerned citizens of Minnesota. Dr. Cheri Pearson Yecke, Minnesota’s Commissioner of Education, will present a final draft of the science standards to the Minnesota legislature in February.
The first draft of the science standards have much to applaud, but also contain much room for improvement. One positive benchmark in the “History and Nature of Science” section of the draft states that “Students will be able to explain how scientific innovations and new evidence can challenge accepted theories and models, including cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease, Big Bang theory.”
However, benchmarks pertaining to neo-Darwinian evolution remain incomplete by failing to address the scientific controversy that exists surrounding the theory. An analysis that has come to be known as the "October 6, 2003 Proposal” addresses the draft’s shortcomings, suggesting improvements that include benchmarks stating “Students will be able to explain the limits of natural selection and random mutation to explain complexity,” and that “Students will be able to explain the controversy surrounding the origin of life.”
The “October 6, 2003 Proposal” has received the endorsement of many Minnesota scientists and citizens, including Dr. Christopher Macosko, professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of Minnesota. Conveying his support of the proposal in a letter to Commissioner Yecke, Dr. Macosko stated that “It is excellent practice in critical thinking and good science for students to learn about the controversy in such an important topic.”
As the science standards adoption process continues, much attention will be paid to the “Santorum Amendment” to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which states: “[W]here topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.” Earlier this summer, Commissioner Yecke publicly endorsed the “Santorum Amendment” as Congress’s official policy on the subject, correctly noting that “nowhere does this language mention intelligent design or creationism. Instead, it simply states the idea that children should understand that there is diversity of opinions and beliefs.”
First Draft of the Minnesota Science Standards:
http://education.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/translatedcontent/pub_038386.pdf
The October 6, 2003 Proposal:
http://idnet-mn.org/ScienceStandardsSuggestions.html
The work of Discovery Institute is made possible by the generosity of its members. Click here to donate.
