{"id":186,"date":"2007-03-24T10:49:39","date_gmt":"2007-03-24T14:49:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.flascience.org\/wp\/?p=186"},"modified":"2008-08-05T12:34:32","modified_gmt":"2008-08-05T16:34:32","slug":"what-minnesota-went-through","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=186","title":{"rendered":"What Minnesota went through"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday I posted about Cheri Yecke’s desire to be Florida education commissioner<\/a>. A commenter at Pharyngula<\/a> reminded me of a post done a few years back at our old blog site<\/a> about Minnesota’s fight over the state science standards when Yecke was there. I’m reposting it here for easy reference.<\/p>\n

——————————-<\/p>\n

Original post from Sept. 26, 2005:<\/p>\n

[Minnesota\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s experience in 2003 and 2004 with antievolution efforts to change the state science standards rings a warning bell for Florida, which is currently in the process of revising its science standards, with adoption of new standards scheduled to occur in 2006. The following article provides a first-hand account from two members of the Minnesota science standards writing committee.<\/em>]<\/p>\n

During the summer of 2003, more than fifty classroom teachers, parents, professors of science and education, and business people convened at the Department of Education to create the new Minnesota Academic Standards in Science (see this page<\/a>). The state legislature overturned the Profile of Learning standards in April of 2003 with the requirement that new standards in five areas (mathematics, language arts, science, social studies, and art) be developed and implemented by the 2004-2005 school year (see this page<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In the early summer, Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke put out a call for those interested in being on the science standards committee. The application process consisted of going to the department\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s web site and providing contact information along with a 100-word biography. No further information was sought or allowed.<\/p>\n

It is not known how many applications were received or what criteria were used to select those chosen to serve on the committee. However, no science teachers from the Minneapolis Public Schools, the largest school district in the state, were placed on the committee, although three are known to have applied; while two of the members were teachers from a small private high school called South West Christian High School which has a faculty of thirty-two.<\/p>\n

The Department of Education gave the science committee an outline of the format to use for the new standards. Four strands, taken from the national science standards, were divided into several sub-strands, also generated from the national standards. The committee was charged with creating the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153standard\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153benchmarks\u00e2\u20ac\u009d under each sub-strand. For example:<\/p>\n

Grade Level 9-12<\/p>\n

Strand II PHYSICAL SCIENCE<\/p>\n

Sub-Strand E Forces of Nature<\/p>\n

Standard The student will understand the forces of nature and their application.<\/p>\n

Benchmarks<\/p>\n

1. The student will recognize the factors that affect the presence and magnitude of gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces.<\/p>\n

2. The student will identify the dominant force or forces in a variety of interactions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Department of Education provided copies of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153exemplary\u00e2\u20ac\u009d state standards documents (ironically including Minnesota\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recently repealed Profile of Learning for Science! See previous link.). The general committee was also given a copy of the so called Santorum \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Amendment.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/a> This precipitated the first discussion of creationism\/intelligent design and allowed for the identification of those in the group who supported intelligent design. The \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Santorum Amendment\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/a> was the only legal advice given to the committee.<\/p>\n

The first rough draft of the standards was sent to the Department of Education to be disseminated for public input. It took many of us by surprise when the published standards included a softening of several Nature\/History of Science and Life Science standards through the insertion of such phrases as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153may explain\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153might account for\u00e2\u20ac\u009d; phrases never used by the committee<\/a>. Through the efforts of several committee members these additions were made public and the Department of Education, in a statement by Commissioner Yecke, retracted the printed version for the original draft. The strand groups re-convened after the hearings to consider the public\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s input. Each strand committee reviewed the public comments pertinent to that strand. Changes were made to the strands based on some public comments; not all of the comments were constructive or supportive of sound science.<\/p>\n

After working in smaller strand groups, the standards\/benchmarks for the four strands were brought to the larger group for approval. There was little debate on the vast majority of the draft standards\/benchmarks; there was discussion, forceful but not heated, on the Gr. 9-12 Nature and History of Science Sub-strand A standard and benchmarks. A small but vocal minority wanted the words italicized below stricken from the draft; the words were left as written.<\/p>\n

Grade Level 9-12<\/p>\n

Strand I. HISTORY AND NATURE OFSCIENCE<\/p>\n

Sub-strand A. Scientific World View<\/p>\n

Standard The student will understand the nature of scientific ways of thinking and that scientific knowledge changes and accumulates over time.<\/p>\n

Benchmarks<\/p>\n

1. The student will be able to distinguish among hypothesis, theory and law as scientific terms and how they are used to answer a specific question.<\/p>\n

2. The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(NOTE: there are three more benchmarks in this standard. No language was challenged in those benchmarks.)<\/p>\n

Additionally, there was some discussion of the 9-12 Life Science Sub-strand E:<\/p>\n

The student will understand how biological evolution provides a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms, as well as for the striking molecular similarities observed among the diverse species of living organisms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The same minority wanted to add \u00e2\u20ac\u0153may\u00e2\u20ac\u009d before \u00e2\u20ac\u0153provide\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and to substitute \u00e2\u20ac\u0153possible\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153scientific.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The motion did not pass and the second draft version, as originally worded by the strand committees, was sent to the Department of Education.<\/p>\n

The Commissioner of Education chose members from the larger committee to form the final writing committee. Of the twelve members selected, four were intelligent design proponents. The criteria for selection were never made public.<\/p>\n

The writing committee edited the standards\/benchmarks for clarity of language, creating bulleted lists, etc. Importantly, the writing committee could not add to, or delete from, the standards\/benchmarks except to eliminate repetition or to create consistent language (e.g., always using \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The student will.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d).<\/p>\n

There was little debate on most of the standards including the History\/Nature of Science. However, the ID proponents did try to add language to the 9-12 Life Science E standard to allow \u00e2\u20ac\u0153alternative theories: to be taught. Additionally, they sought to have the language of 9-12 Life Science E Benchmark 4 changed as they felt that the language forced students to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153accept\u00e2\u20ac\u009d biological evolution. The writing committee accepted none of these edits and the final version of the science standards was sent to the Department of Education.<\/p>\n

Before the legislative committee hearings, David Eaton, a member of the writing committee and treasurer of the Minnetonka, MN school board who is heavily active in the state\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s intelligent design community, commissioned a poll by the Zogby group to assess the level of support in MN for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153teaching the controversy\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. The Zogby survey was conducted February 13 and 14, 2004 after the standards and minority report had been delivered. The poll consisted of several questions; however, one question in particular was used in subsequent editorials and in the Senate and House hearings:<\/p>\n

When Darwin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s theory of evolution is taught in school, student should also learn how scientists continue to critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The results are dated February 17 (see this page<\/a>) and were spun by the ID folks as supporting the inclusion of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153alternative theories\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the science standards. Additionally, the intelligent design members of the writing committee sent a minority report (see this page<\/a>), to the Department of Education and the two Minneapolis\/St. Paul newspapers. This was intended to create the image of substantial disagreement over the teaching of evolution within the full committee and the writing committee. The report was signed by four members of the writing committee: David Eaton, Duane Quam, Kathryn Duffield, and Heather McKinley; however, Ms. McKinley did not attend any writing committee meetings or contribute to the writing committee discussions in any form.<\/p>\n

Public hearings on the final version of the standards were held in January and February of 2004. Members of the full committee, the writing committee, and outside commentators testified both for and against the standards. Summaries of the hearings can be found at this page<\/a>. On May 16, 2004, the last day of the 2003-2004 session, the legislature voted to adopt the state science standards without any of the changes or amendments proposed by those who wanted to teach the so-called weaknesses of biological evolution. The final standards adopted were those recommended by the original writing committee.<\/p>\n

Dr. Melanie A. Reap
\nMr. Jamie Crannell<\/p>\n

[Dr. Reap is an Associate Professor of Education at Winona State University, Winona, MN. Mr. Crannell is a chemistry teacher at Chaska High School, Chaska, MN. They wrote this article to share their experiences with the education community of Florida, where Cheri Pierson Yecke has been appointed K-12 Chancellor.]<\/p>\n

——————-<\/p>\n

The following were from the comments on that original post:<\/p>\n

Who _paid_ Zogby for that biased poll which one committee member (on his own?) commissioned?<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t think it is known who paid for the Zogby poll but they seem to go with the territory. An accompaniment of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the process\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. We certainly expected one from the beginning. And these polls are notorious for leading the witness and various biases, this characterisitic of these polls having been discussed in several places. John Calvert, the Kansas based lawyer who works with the ID Network and as I recall when asked who invited him the answer was fuzzy. I didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t keep my notes but I recall not knowing the name of the sponsoring group or could I find it. I always assumed some deep pockets of two or three interested people.<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

We do not know for certain who commissioned the poll; most likely it was several people involved in MN ID circles. However, there is some evidence that a member of the minority report group had a hand in it.<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

So the Zogby poll was not a taxpayer-funded effort to ascertain \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the will of the people\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, but an external poll-itical* attempt to push the standards committee towards a certain position? If so, does anyone have ideas on preparing for similar gambits in Florida?<\/p>\n

* (sorry, couldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t resist that one)<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

You\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve nailed the Zogby poll perfectly. The state didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t fund it; private entities with an agenda funded it. I would look for something similiar to happen in Florida but I ma not familiar enough with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153who\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s who in ID\u00e2\u20ac\u009d down there to state possibilities.<\/p>\n

Good pun, btw.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yesterday I posted about Cheri Yecke’s desire to be Florida education commissioner. A commenter at Pharyngula reminded me of a post done a few years back at our old blog site about Minnesota’s fight over the state science standards when … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pcZNLl-30","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1104,"url":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=1104","url_meta":{"origin":186,"position":0},"title":"You earned an A!","author":"Brandon Haught","date":"August 10, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"A new study examining the mention of evolution in states' science standards spotlighted us here in Florida for the huge turnaround from a grade of F to a grade of A! Florida\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Over the past decade, Florida has improved its standards more dramatically than perhaps any other state. The 1999\u2026","rel":"","context":"With 4 comments","block_context":{"text":"With 4 comments","link":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=1104#comments"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":248,"url":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=248","url_meta":{"origin":186,"position":1},"title":"Dover a win for “teach the controversy”?","author":"Brandon Haught","date":"July 17, 2007","format":false,"excerpt":"We here in Florida are revising the state science standards, so this story about \"teach the controversy\" is worth reading and keeping in the back of your mind. Basically, the story claims that intelligent design's tanking in Dover, Pa. was actually a good thing for ID. Anti-evolutionists are now supposedly\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Our Science Standards"","block_context":{"text":"Our Science Standards","link":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?cat=7"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":232,"url":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=232","url_meta":{"origin":186,"position":2},"title":"Yecke Information Challenged","author":"Brandon Haught","date":"June 25, 2007","format":false,"excerpt":"-- Updated: Story about Yecke in the St. Petersburg Times.\u00c2\u00a0-- The following press release has been sent out to Florida media: Internet Company Tries to Sanitize Old Information about Yecke Dr. Cheri Pierson Yecke, K-12 chancellor for Florida\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Department of Education, has apparently hired a company called ReputationDefender to search\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Alert"","block_context":{"text":"Alert","link":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?cat=6"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2832,"url":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=2832","url_meta":{"origin":186,"position":3},"title":"Congratulations! Florida gets an A!","author":"Brandon Haught","date":"July 19, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"A paper in the latest edition of Evolution: Education and Outreach examines how each state's middle school science standards cover evolution (A state-by-state comparison of middle school science standards on evolution in the United States). The standards were judged in five categories:\u00c2\u00a0Is the term \u00e2\u20ac\u0153evolution\u00e2\u20ac\u009d used; Is the concept of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Our Science Standards"","block_context":{"text":"Our Science Standards","link":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?cat=7"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":334,"url":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=334","url_meta":{"origin":186,"position":4},"title":"News Release: Standards can go from F to high B","author":"Brandon Haught","date":"December 3, 2007","format":false,"excerpt":"The following news release was sent out today as a joint effort of Florida Citizens for Science and the National Center for Science Education. Prof. who flunked Florida science standards says new ones are shooting for an A Expert gave current statewide standards an F but new draft is \"a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "In the News"","block_context":{"text":"In the News","link":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?cat=3"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":192,"url":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?p=192","url_meta":{"origin":186,"position":5},"title":"FCS presents Science Standards draft","author":"Brandon Haught","date":"April 9, 2007","format":false,"excerpt":"Florida Citizens for Science is proud to present the culmination of months of very hard work: a draft of Science Standards for the state of Florida! You can find a pdf copy for download at http:\/\/www.flascience.org\/FCSstandards.pdf . Here is a portion of the introductory letter found in the standards that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Our Science Standards"","block_context":{"text":"Our Science Standards","link":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/?cat=7"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.flascience.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}