Academic Standards Public Hearings

  Main

  Social Studies

  Science

  Updates

St. Paul  Academic Standards Hearing
View Academic Standards and give comments online

St. Paul Central High School Hearing
September 22, 2003

Most of the 300 in the crowd would probably consider themselves somewhere on the continuum from moderate to liberal to socialist.

Commissioner Yecke told the audience that the most helpful feedback is SPECIFIC feedback, where the speaker says exactly what they like and/or exactly what they’d like changed. She asked people to cite exactly where it is found in the standards, either page number or grade/strand. She said to quote the standards verbatim and not to paraphrase.

The Commissioner introduced the committee members who sat at a table on stage facing the audience. Speakers came up to a microphone in front of the committee.

SOCIAL STUDIES PUBLIC COMMENTARY
Most of the speakers were very critical of the social studies standards and very vocal (some to the point of rudeness). Some frequently heard comments concerning the standards:

• too politically biased

• too Eurocentric (we heard this a lot)

• too much emphasis on America and Western civilization

• not enough emphasis on other nations and cultures and ethnic groups

• too much knowledge, too many “factoids” (that became a favorite buzzword)

• not enough emphasis on process and critical thinking

• too difficult for students to learn and teachers to teach

• too detailed and age inappropriate

There seemed to be a large contingent of Minneapolis teachers, several of whom complained that there were no hearings in Minneapolis.

One very vocal parent had formally organized a group against the social studies standards, and invited others to join amidst lots of applause.

One woman just returned from Cuba and praised the schools with their 1:20 ratio. (I wonder if her carefully crafted tour included a visit to the political prisoners in Castro’s gulag.)

The committee was criticized several times for not enough diversity among committee members. The Commissioner said they were selected for qualifications and geographic diversity.

A high school girl complained about having to learn too much information and that the committee should listen to what students want.  

Her mother then blasted the standards and she may have been the one who  suggested the entire committee resign.

One man criticized the committee for allowing the Maple River Education Coalition to push through their agenda. A couple others critically mentioned Maple River, one saying he knew all about them; he was on their mailing list. (He missed our new name, EdWatch.)

There were a few bright spots in the evening. One parent reminded the crowd that if they wanted to talk about Japanese internment, they should also talk about Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Chairman Mao, etc. He and a few others were a minority voice, but it was important that the committee heard from them.

A frequent criticism was too much emphasis on facts and information, and not enough on process and critical thinking skills. These people (and the committee) need to be reminded that both are important. We must give our students a broad foundation of knowledge and also teach them how to think critically about that knowledge. But we must emphasize that without knowledge, critical thinking is worthless, because it’s based on opinion and ignorance and can only lead to faulty conclusions. Another frequent criticism was too much information for students to learn, that students could never learn that much. This is an indication of how far we’ve dumbed down our education and lowered our expectations of public school students, and they are the ones who are losing out.

SCIENCE STANDARDS PUBLIC COMMENTARY
The majority of the speakers focused on social studies, but a few of us tackled the science standards. The science standards were very well done for the most part, with a good emphasis on scientific knowledge and the scientific method. Almost all the testimony on both sides dealt with the teaching of evolution.

An organization of MN atheists was well represented. They were very adamant that evolution be taught as fact, and rehashed the same old-same arguments about not allowing religion/God in the schools. One of them said this was even good for MN’s economy, as he related how a major computer company changed its mind about relocating in Topeka after hearing about the Kansas school board forcing creationism, because they wanted to have an intelligent workforce pool to choose from. [note- The board did not force creationism.]

One parent gave a very good testimony as a scientist, first commending the committee for their good focus on objective knowledge and the effective teaching of the scientific method in the benchmarks, and recommending the term scientific method rather than scientific inquiry be used throughout the standards. She respectfully told the committee “I consider the draft document to be a diamond in the rough in need of additional polish before implementation” and then described why evolution does not belong in the standards based on legislative criteria.

A biology teacher (from Australia?) who has lived in several countries including England said we need to teach evolution as it is taught in other countries. She mentioned “other speakers” who portrayed evolution as theory, and emphasized that we need to teach evolution as FACT. 

EdWatch - 105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116, Chaska, MN  55318 
651-646-0646 - edwatch@lakes.com - (c) EdWatch - All rights reserved.