Committee Speaks Out: Why We Did Not Support Science Standards Excluding Climate Change and Evolution

The Iowa Department of Education’s proposed updates to science education standards have stirred debate. A 37-member revision team claims the publicly released version does not reflect their consensus. Instead of including crucial phrases like “climate change” and “biological evolution,” the new proposal mentions “climate trends” and omits any mention of the Earth’s age.

University of Iowa professor Jeff Nordine, a member of the revision team, expressed surprise at these omissions. He said the original intent was to maintain existing standards while adding more context, not to drastically alter fundamental concepts. The previous standards mentioned climate change over a dozen times and emphasized the link between rising temperatures and human activities.

The newly proposed standards reference climate change only in vague terms, stating that Earth has experienced both natural warming and cooling phases. They also remove references to biological evolution, which the old standards supported with empirical evidence, including genetic information and the fossil record.

Other committee members, like Angie Breitbach from Dubuque Community Schools, echoed Nordine’s concerns. She stated that the document for public feedback was significantly different from what the team had approved. There is a growing frustration among educators about how these changes were made and communicated. Many believe they undermine the quality of science education in Iowa.

The backdrop to these updates involves a political climate where lawmakers seek greater influence over educational content. This week, Rep. Taylor Collins from Mediapolis highlighted plans to reform higher education curriculum, suggesting a new focus on intellectual diversity and civics education.

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds previously mandated changes to social studies standards that emphasize Western civilization and local history. The proposed science standards also mention humanity’s impact on climate but lack specificity about how human activities adversely affect biodiversity and climate.

During a public forum, many voiced their concern about the omissions in the new standards. Professors and educators expressed anger and disappointment, noting the importance of teaching about climate change and evolution. They stressed that understanding these concepts is critical for students’ education in a rapidly changing world.

In summary, the debate over Iowa’s science education standards reflects larger tensions in the state’s educational policies and priorities. As these proposed changes await public comment, the reactions from educators and the community indicate a strong desire to uphold rigorous scientific education for all students.

Source link