Enhancing Iowa’s Science Standards: The Importance of Valuing Expertise and Real-World Experience

Glenn Branch is the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education. This nonprofit group fights for solid science education across the country.

In Iowa, there’s an ongoing effort to review and update the state’s science standards. These standards define what students should learn in public schools. Recently, a thought from Mark Twain popped into mind. He once said that picking the right word is essential, comparing it to the difference between a lightning-bug and true lightning.

The Cedar Rapids Gazette recently reported that a committee of 37 Iowa educators and scientists worked hard to revise the state standards. However, when the Iowa Department of Education presented the draft to the public, it had removed key terms like “evolution,” “climate change,” and the reference to the Earth’s 4.6 billion years age. This change went unnoticed until the committee members raised their voices in protest.

A spokesperson for the department explained that some changes are normal between committee drafts and final recommendations. Typically, minor edits can happen. But in this case, significant concepts were modified, replacing essential terms with vague language.

Learning science means understanding the language scientists use. Professors and experts in Iowa don’t discuss “biological changes” or “climate trends” when referring to evolution or climate change. Current science standards in Iowa and many other states use these terms plainly and directly.

The decision to include “evolution” and “climate change” came after careful research from a consortium of notable scientific organizations, including the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. When Iowa adopted these standards in 2015, the state’s science teachers voiced no complaints about these terms.

The committee’s choice to keep the precise language about evolution and climate change was based on years of classroom experience and expertise in Iowa. If the Iowa Department of Education’s actions stemmed from scientific knowledge, their reasoning ought to have been shared with the public by now.

It seems clear that the motivations behind the changes may reflect a lack of understanding or support for evolution and climate change. Regardless of the reasoning, these adjustments make Iowa’s science standards less accurate and potentially misleading.

Iowa’s science teachers rely on clear and accurate standards to help their students develop scientific literacy and succeed in STEM fields. They deserve the tools that reflect true scientific understanding, not vague substitutes. Teaching science in the terms scientists actually use is vital to inspiring Iowa’s students and preparing them for the future.

Top photo of Glenn Branch provided by the author and published with permission.