Upload
rob-port
View
5
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
North Dakota Common Core Survey
Citation preview
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft:
Public Comment Survey
Comments through June 3, 2014g ,
43
40
45
50
Survey Respondents
32
10
15
20
25
30
35
2
4
10 0
1
7
0
5
Administrator Community Member
Higher Education
Parent Principal School Board Member
Student Teacher Other
Page 1
7Strongly Agree
The standards are clear
17
20
Disagree
Agree
38
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
The standards are clear
Disagree
Agree
Administrator
Community Member
Higher Education
Parent
Principal
School Board Member
Student
Teacher
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Strongly Disagree
Other
Page 2
7Strongly Agree
The standards represent an appropriate level of rigor
12
19
Disagree
Agree
44
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
The standards represent an appropriate level of rigor
Disagree
Agree
Administrator
Community Member
Higher Education
Parent
Principal
School Board Member
Student
Teacher
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Strongly Disagree
Other
Page 3
6Strongly Agree
The number of standards per grade is reasonable for a given school year or course strand
13
22
Disagree
Agree
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
The number of standards per grade is reasonable for a given school year or course strand
Disagree
AgreeAdministrator
Community Member
Higher Education
Parent
Principal
School Board Member
Student
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Strongly Disagree
Student
Teacher
Other
Page 4
6Excellent
Overall rating for the standards
15
11
Fair
Good
52
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Poor
Excellent
Overall rating for the standards
Fair
Good
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Poor
Administrator Community Member Higher Education
Parent Principal School Board Member
Student Teacher Other
Page 5
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
1/4
Q6Dothestandardscovereverythingthatisimportantforallstudentstoknow?
Answered:60 Skipped:30
# Responses Date
1 Ifeelitisimportantforstudentsinsc iencetoknowthattherearemanytheoriesofevolution. 6/2/20149:37PM
2 No. 6/2/20143:55PM
3 Absolutelynot. 6/2/201412:00PM
4 No,thereissomuchtheyshouldatleastbeintroducedtobeforebeingoutofhighschool.Onethingnotlargelycoveredinthesestandardsisnuclearprocesses,it'smoreofasidenote.Thisisbecomingmoreandmorecommoninoureverydayl ife,fromfoodpreparationtoresearchingtheuniverse,medicaldiagnosisandtreatmenttoenergyproduction.Ithasimpactsonchemistry,physics,andmore.Thismustatleastbecoveredintheextentitisused.Anotherthatisglazedoveristherelationshipbetweenelectric ity,magnetism,waves,andgravity.Asresearchhasshowntheseareallrelatedatasubatomiclevel,especiallyelectric ityandmagnetism(refertoFarradayandthefirstmotorandthengenerator).Nottomentiontherelationshipbetweenchemistryandelectric ity.Somanyrelationshipsareglazedoverandwil lbemissedbythesestandardsastheysplitideasoutandseparatethemfromoneanother.Thebiggestmissingitemofalliscounterargumenttotheories,specifficallyglobalc limatechange.ThemostacceptedargumentisHumancausedclimatechangeasthe"major"factor,butnaturalcausesmaybethe"major"factor.ManyoftheIPCC'sfindingsbasedonpoormodelsareinc ludedinthestandardsasfactsbutnoneofthecontradictoryfindingsare,suchastheNIPCC'scomparisonofthemodelstoempericaldata.Globalc limatehistoryisnotcovered,mostlybecauseitissti l l notunderstood,butthatiswhyopposingviewsshouldbeintroduced,yetthestandardsareonesidedandstudentswil lhavetofallonthatsidetomeetthestandard,removingthesc ientific process.
6/2/201410:57AM
5 1.RecommendedpracticesdominatetheNGSSattheexpenseofessentialknowledge,whichshouldbethefocusofsc iencestandards.2.Contentandskil lsthatareaboveandbeyondthestandards(suchasthermodynamics,stoichiometry,solutionchemistryandnitrogencycles)butthatwon’tbepartoftheassessmentswil lbeneglectedbecauseteacherswil lteachtothetest.3.Severalopportunitiestobuildimportantl inksbetweengrade-appropriatemathandrequiredsciencecontentaremissed.
6/1/201410:33PM
6 1.RecommendedpracticesdominatetheNGSSattheexpenseofessentialknowledge,whichshouldbethefocusofsc iencestandards.2.Contentandskil lsthatareaboveandbeyondthestandards(suchasthermodynamics,stoichiometry,solutionchemistryandnitrogencycles)butthatwon’tbepartoftheassessmentswil lbeneglectedbecauseteacherswil lteachtothetest.3.Severalopportunitiestobuildimportantl inksbetweengrade-appropriatemathandrequiredsciencecontentaremissed.
6/1/201410:12PM
7 1.RecommendedpracticesdominatetheNGSSattheexpenseofessentialknowledge,whichshouldbethefocusofsc iencestandards.2.Contentandskil lsthatareaboveandbeyondthestandards(suchasthermodynamics,stoichiometry,solutionchemistryandnitrogencycles)butthatwon’tbepartoftheassessmentswil lbeneglectedbecauseteacherswil lteachtothetest.3.Severalopportunitiestobuildimportantl inksbetweengrade-appropriatemathandrequiredsciencecontentaremissed.
6/1/201410:09PM
8 Absolutelynot 6/1/20147:52PM
9 No,studentsneedtolearnactualmathandsc ience. 6/1/201410:04AM
Page 6
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
2/4
10 Iamawareofakindergartenteacherwhoc laimedthattheexpectationsoftheCommonCorearetoodemandingforakindergartenstudent.AndIfeeltheexpectationsoftheNGSSarealsotoodemanding.Weknowthatchildrendevelopatvariousrates,soatage5therewil lbeavariationofthezoneofproximaldevelopmentasateveryage.Somemighthavebeenbetterassignedtothegradeahead(thetalentedandgifted)andsomemighthavebeenbetterassignedtothegradebehind(theremedialandspecialneeds).Thatleavesagreatburdenontheteacher.Buthavingtokeepupwiththestandardsdayafterdaywhensomestudentsarefail ingtocomprehendtoday'sassignment(frustrated),andotherstudentsarefail ingtoseethevalueofschool(notchallenged)wil lbeafrustrationorachallengeforanyteacher.IdidnotseeanythingaboutmeasuringandweighingthingswhichmightbeanappropriateKindergartenactivity.
5/31/20149:38PM
11 Ifwearegoingtoencouragecriticalthinkingandinc ludec limatecontrolandhumansatfault,thebigbangandevolutioninthestandardsthenIsuggestweshouldinc ludeintell igentdesign,creationism.allthethingshumansaredoingtoprotecttheirnaturalresources.Thiswouldbewhatstudentsneedtodevelopcriticalthinking.
5/31/20142:43PM
12 Studentsneedtoknowthereismorethanonetheoryregardingtheoriginofl i fe.Evolutionisnottheonlytheory.
5/31/201411:10AM
13 ItlooksasthoughtheK-8gradestandardsarereasonable,butthenthehighschoolleveltakesthestandardstoalevelthatisfi l ledwithsocialism,oneworldview.Schoolshouldbejustthefactsandthenletthekidsmaketheirownindependentopinionsratherthendrivinganagenda.
5/31/201410:53AM
14 verypoliticallybiased-nomentionofcreationism-tomuchfocusonglobalwarming/c limatechangeandevolution
5/31/20145:01AM
15 No.Whataboutcreation?Theyteachevolutionbutthat'snotwhat'sacceptablewithourbeliefs. 5/30/201411:23AM
16 Pleasedonotimplementthesestandards.We(asparentswould)l ikemoreinputonstandardsthatareimplementedinNorthDakota.
5/30/201410:43AM
17 Outofkilterwithcommonsense. 5/28/201410:49PM
18 No 5/28/201410:46PM
19 No 5/28/201410:42PM
20 No 5/28/201410:20PM
21 Yes 5/28/20141:49PM
22 No.ThestandardsaresimplytransitionstoCommonCore.IkeephearingthatthisisalllocalcontrolandIamquitesurethatis,atworst,deceitful,andatbest,delusional.
5/28/20141:05PM
23 No.Creationismisnotpresentedasanalternative. 5/27/20149:07PM
24 NO.StudentsDONOTneedtospend8minutessolvingasimplemathproblemwhentheycanbedonein1minute.
5/27/20148:39PM
25 No 5/27/20141:57PM
26 Higherlevelvocabularythatwil lneedtobeunwrappedinunderstandablekidterms,butfirstIneedtoreallyread/rereadwhatthecoretopicisevenabout.
5/26/20143:42AM
27 No,absolutelynot. 5/20/20142:55PM
28 No 5/19/20149:27PM
29 No 5/16/20149:02PM
30 Theyarereasonable. 5/16/201412:06PM
31 Thestudentsarethereasonweareworkingonnewstandardsandcommoncorealignment,Iwouldliketoseea"studentversion"ofthestandardscreatedsostudentswouldknowatthebeginningofac lassexactlywhattheywil lbeinglearningandshouldknow.Oftentheparentsareblamedwhenastudentdoesnotdowell,socreatingadocumentforparents(whodon'tteach)wil lhaveanunderstandingofwhattheirchildshouldknow.
5/15/20141:48PM
32 Nooveremphasisonglobalwarmingandevolution.Whereisthehardsc ience? 5/14/20148:33AM
33 Notoomuchtimeisspentteachingstudentsthateverythinghumansdonegativelyimpacttheearth.
5/12/201412:05PM
Page 7
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
3/4
34 no,howaboutSCIENCE?Themostcriticalneedforstudentsistounderstandbasicsc ience,andwearesofarfromachievingthatgoalthatIthinkit’sadistractiontostartimmersingstudentsintheextraordinarycomplexitiesofc limatesc ience.
5/11/20143:03PM
35 No,theyareastepbackward 5/10/20149:27PM
36 Yes 5/3/201412:16PM
37 ImighthavemisseditbutIfeell ikeitsimportanttoteachthemaboutthetwotheoriesofwherehumanscamefrom,evolutionandcreation.Althoughyoucanonlybelieveinone,it'ssti l limportanttoteachthetwotheoriesevenifweneverfindoutwhichisactuallytrue.
5/2/20149:40AM
38 No 5/1/201410:12AM
39 No.Withoutevaluatingeverylevel,Ican'tseewhereconceptsaretaughtateachlevel.From3rdto5th,Idon'tseeanycontinuity.The5thgradestandardsseemeasierthan4thgradeintermsofabstractthought.Environment,agriculture,andnaturalresourcesshouldbecoveredatEVERYgradelevelastheyaresignificantinourexistenceandhowpeopleinteractwitheachimpactsthefutureofourplanet.
5/1/20144:23AM
40 Alternative"theories"tothebeginningofl i feneedtobepresented. 4/30/20143:40PM
41 evolutionisatheorynotfactandshouldbetaughtassuch 4/30/201412:42PM
42 I'mnotsureitcould,butifweteachstudentstoformulatequestionsandfindandcompareanswersbeforecomingtoaconclusion,thenwewil lhavetaughtthemtoteachthemselves.Again.Ihopescienceteachersaretaught-givenPD-onhowtoevaluatewebpagesandc itesources.Thestandardswil lbehardtomeetifthestudentsarejustshownhowtheteacherdidit.Orworse..thescienceteachertellsstudentstol istsourcesattheendwithoutintextc itationsforeachphotoorstatistic .ex-WHST.6-8.2Writeinformative/explanatorytextstoexamineatopicandconveyideas,concepts,andinformationthroughtheselection,organization,andanalysisofrelevantcontent.(MS-ESS3-1)WHST.6-8.9Drawevidencefrominformationaltextstosupportanalysis,reflection,andresearch.(MS-ESS3-1)
4/29/201412:33PM
43 Againmycommentsapplyonlytomiddleandhighschoolphysics.Notreally.ForinstancethereisnomentionofsoundinthestandardsPS4.Studentswouldlovetolearnaboutandtoplaysounds.GeometricalopticsisanotherimportantandfuntopicmissingfromHigh–schoolintheHSPS4.However,IviewtheNGSSnotasacurriculumstandard(pleasecheckmycommentsonquestion5and10)thusitdoesnotmatter.NGSSitselfstressesthat“theNGSSarestandardsorgoals,notcurriculum”andtheNGSSallow“Instructionalflexibil i ty”(NGSSIntroductionxii i-xiv)Teachersordistric tscanaddorremovecurricularcontent.
4/28/20149:03PM
44 No...theassessmentrequirementsaretoospecific . 4/28/20148:38AM
45 Thestandardsdonotinc ludeanyinstructiononthesc ientific methodormetric measurement.Manyofthestandardsseemtopluckoneveryspecific pieceofinformation(i.e.Newton'sThirdLawbutnotthe1stor2nd).
4/28/20148:37AM
46 Iseethemasagreatguidewithrequiredcourses,buttheysti l l failtoproviderecommendationsforupperelectivesinsc ience.Iknowthisisnotthegoalforallstudentstoknow,butwehaveahugepressuretosti l l tietothestandards.Idon'tknowhowtoreconcilethat.
4/27/20143:14PM
47 Iamsomewhatconcernedwiththestandardsatthehighschoollevel...thereisnotmuchthereforHumanAnatomy.Iguessmybiggestconcerniswhatdowedowithstudentswhowanttobecomedoctorsandnurses?InatypicalBiologycourse,IjustcoverthebasicsofthehumanbodybecauseweofferAnatomyasanelectivecourse.
4/27/20142:20AM
48 Everything?No.K-PS3-1MakeobservationstodeterminetheeffectofsunlightonEarth’ssurface.Thissoundsokbuttheapplicationistoosimple.Theassessmentispre-schoollevel.Theassessmentandactivitiesshouldbewhyweneedsunlightforl i fe,notjustdoesitmakesomethingwarmorcooler...K-ESS3-1.-Wellwritten,appropriate,andconnected.
4/25/20145:54PM
49 Yes,Idofeelthesestandardscoveravarietyofinstructionthatisnecessaryforthirdgraders. 4/25/20149:54AM
50 no 4/25/20147:39AM
51 No.Thestudentsneedtoknowthatevolutionisatheory.Notaprovenfact. 4/24/20149:07PM
52 Yes 4/24/20149:03PM
53 Yes. 4/24/20146:11PM
Page 8
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
4/4
54 Yes,thestandardsarequiteextensiveandscaffoldfromonegradetothenext. 4/24/20144:26PM
55 Ibelieveitisagoodbalanceofthingsthatneedtobecovered. 4/24/20141:24PM
56 AsIlookatthestandardsIdofeeltheycoverimportantinformationandskil ls.Howeversayingtheyareskil lsfor6-8ratherthanindividualgradesmakesitmoredifficulttoevaluatefor6thgrade
4/24/20149:56AM
57 Asaparent,Iwouldl iketoseemoretheoriesabouthowtheworldcouldhavecometobe.Inc ludingthecreationtheoryChristiansholdtobetrue.Idon'tl ikehowyou'reimplyingthatevolutionisfactwhenwedon'tknowhowtheworldcameabout.I'mallforteachingevolutionalongsidecreationandallowingeachfamilytodecidewhattheybelievetobetruebecauseanybeliefabouthowwegothereisjustthat:abelief.
4/24/20149:44AM
58 No,studentsshouldknowthatthereareothertheoriesabouttheoriginsoftheuniverse.(HS-ESS1-2)Wedon'tneedtonametheothertheoriesbutIbelievestudentsshouldbeawarethatthereareothers.
4/23/201412:18PM
59 ReadingthroughHS-ESS1andHSESS2Iobservedtwothings:thatthetheoryofEvolutionisstatedasabsolutefact,andthattheBigBangtheoryistheonlytheoryrepresented.Myintentinthiscommentisnottoarguefororagainstanytheoryofthebeginningsofearthandl ifeasweknowittoday,buttocommentthattherearenumerousparents,c itizens,sc ientists,akapeopleingeneralwhomaybelieveinothertheories.Sinceourunderstandingofsc ienceisconstantlychangingandhopefullyimproving,Itrulybelievethatteachersneedtoalwaysbecarefulinpresentingwidely-believedinformationasjustthat.Notasfact.WhileIunderstandthatthesearesciencestandards,Iwouldl iketoreferenceahistoricaleventasIrecalli tinvolvingsimilarc ircumstanceshavingtodowithsc ience.WhenGali leowasthinkingandresearchingdifferentsc ientific ideasabouttheearthandspace,theworldaroundhimallacceptedasfactthattheearthwasflat.Manygreatmindsandrenownedscientistsagreedthattherecouldbenootheroption,andanyideastothecontrarywereridiculousandchildish.Infact,manyoftheseleadershatedandscornedanyotherideas,notgivingthemanythought.Yetaswenowknow,Gali leowascorrectinhisthoughtthattheEarthmaynotbeflat,andinfactcouldveryl ikelybespherical.Thisstoryistosaythatonceagain,justbecausesomethingiswidelybelievedandaccepteddoesnotmakeitafact.
4/16/20142:46PM
60 No.Youarerepresentingthebigbangasfactandnottheory.WeareaGodfearingpeople.Teachersshouldbeabletoteachaboutcreationaswell.
4/14/20144:48PM
Page 9
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
1/7
Q7Dothestandardsincludeanythingthatstudentsdon'tneedtoknow?
Answered:50 Skipped:40
# Responses Date
1 Yes 6/2/20143:55PM
2 Thestandardsarefullofanumberoftheoriesthatarepresentedasfactinaveryone-sidedmanner.Examplesareglobalwarming,c limatechange,sustainabil ity,evolution,andthebigbang.
6/2/20142:28PM
3 Theoryasfact.Theoriesshouldbeintroducedassuchandthemajoropposingtheoryintroducedaswell.Thisisaproblemthroughout,ifyoucan'tintroducetheoriesandopposingorjustdifferenttheories,leavethemoutofthestandards!
6/2/201410:57AM
4 1.NGSSareneithereducationallyobjectivenorreligiouslyneutral.Anatheistic ormaterialisticworldviewisconsistentlyaffirmedthroughout.Thiswil lleadtoindoctrination,noteducation.2.Religiousquestionsareansweredbasedonadoctrineor“Rule”thatpermitsonlymaterialistic orfunctionallyatheistic answers.3.Onlymaterialistic explanationsforanyphenomenonaddressedbyscienceareallowed.4.Legitimatesc ientific critiquesofmaterialistic theoriesregardingtheoriginsoftheuniverse,ofl i fe,anditsdiversityarenotpresented.5.NGSSfailstodistinguishforstudentsthevariousdefinitionsofevolution,leadingthemtoassumethatthewordalwaysdenotesthesamething.6.Teachesevolutionasfactstartinginelementarygrades.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.7.Underlyinganti-fossilfuelthemesandgreenagendaconceptssuchastheenvironmentalactivism,sustainabil ity,socialjustice,populationcontrol,human-causedglobalwarming,renewableenergy,CO2levels,andoilspil lsareprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.8.Heavyfocusonthefoolishconceptthatall/mosthumanactionsleadtonegativeconsequencesfortheearth.9.TheconceptofcollaborationisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisshouldbere-focusedtoteachtheconceptofindividualismnotcollaborationandgroupthink.Pages34,40,45,47,49,50,51,53,71,79,89,91,97,100,116,120,124,13410.Thefocusoftechnologiesbeingdrivenbyc limate,naturalresources,andeconomicconditionsisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.Pages88,89,96,105,10711.RemoveESS3.Cinitsentiretyfrompages37-38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.12.RemoveK-ESS3-3initsentiretyfrompage38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.13.3-LS4onpage58isteachingevolutionasfactstartinginthe3rdgrade.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.14.3-LS4-4onpage58says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludethegreenhouseeffectorc limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechangeandthegreenhouseeffect.15.3-ESS2-1onpage60says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludec limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechange.16.Remove4-ESS3-1initsentiretyfrompage69.Theone-sidedtreatmentoffossilfuelsisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaanddefinitelyshouldn’tbetaughtto4thgraders.17.Remove5-ESS3-1andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage78.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.18.OneofthemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage83isto“constructexplanationsbasedonevidencetosupportfundamentalunderstandingsofnaturalselectionandevolution”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.19.ThemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage85toanswerquestionsabout“HowdohumanactivitiesaffectEarthsystems,Howdoweknowourglobalc limateischanging”andthesub-ideasabout“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseitemsshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.20.MS-LS4-6,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage99teachevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifitmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.21.RemoveMS-ESS3-3andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.22.RemoveMS-ESS3-4initsentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonoverpopulationandsustainabil ityappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol).23.RemoveMS-ESS3-5andESS3.Dintheirentiretyfrompage105.The“emphasisisonthemajorrolethathumanactivitiesplayincausingtheriseinglobal
6/1/201410:33PM
Page 10
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
2/7
temperatures”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.24.SomeofthehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage112areto“constructexplanationsfortheprocessesofnaturalselectionandevolutionandcommunicatehowmultiplel inesofevidencesupporttheseexplanations”andto“evaluateevidenceoftheconditionsthatmayresultinnewspeciesandunderstandtheroleofgenetic variationinnaturalselection”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.25.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationofESS2onpage113ofhaving“amajoremphasisonthemechanismsandimplicationsofc limatechange”isnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Thisshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.26.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage114of“Studentsunderstandthe[…]significantenvironmentalimpactsofhumanactivities[...]toexamineandconstructsolutionstothemanychallengesfac inglong-termhumansustainabil ityonEarth”andthesub-ideasof“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.27.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph2l ists“thespeedatwhichworldpopulationisgrowing”asaproblem.Thisappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol)andshouldberemoved.28.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3andparagraph6l ists“majorglobalproblems”and“majorglobalchallenges”asthingsneedingsolutions.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.29.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3statesthat“public safetyorenvironmentalprotectionmaybemoreimportantthancostorevenfunctionality”.Thismaybethemosttroublingstatementintheentiredocument.Itisincrediblyignorantanddangerousandshouldberemoved.30.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph4requiresstudents“totryandantic ipatepossiblesocietalandenvironmentalimpacts”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.31.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph5requiresthat“studentsapplytheirengineeringcapabil itiestoreducehumanimpactsonEarthsystems,andimprovesocialandenvironmentalcost-benefitratios(HS-ESS3-2,HS-ESS3-4)”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.32.ExamplesprovidedunderHS-PS3-3onpage120of“windturbines”and“solarcells”areone-sidedandpushingthegreenagenda.Theseshouldberemoved,howeveriftheseitemsareleftasexamples,theninternalcombustionengines,combustionturbines,steamturbines,boilers,andjetenginesshouldalsobeincludedasexamples.33.RemoveHS-LS2-7initsentiretyfrompage126.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.34.Removethe2ndparagraphsofLS2.CandLS4.Dfrompage127.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.35.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage127.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.36.HS-LS4-4,HS-LS4-5,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage130teachevolutionasfact.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.37.HS-LS4-5onpage130emphasizes“howchangestotheenvironmentsuchasdeforestation,fishing,applicationofferti l izers,drought,flood,andtherateofchangeoftheenvironmentaffectdistributionordisappearanceoftraitsinspecies”.Thisemphasisshouldberemovedasitisnothingmorethanenvironmentalandanti-agriculturepropaganda.38.RemoveLS4.Dinitsentiretyfrompage131.Thefocusonsustainabil ityandreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.39.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage131.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.40.HS-ESS1-2andthe3rdparagraphofESS1.Aonpage132focusesonprovingthebigbangtheoryratherthanjustpresentingitasatheory.Thisisone-sidedasnootherpossibil i tiesoftheearth’screation(suchasintell igentdesign)arepresented.41.RemoveHS-ESS2-2andHS-ESS2-4intheirentiretyfrompage134.Thefocusongreenhousegases,c limatechange,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.42.Removethe3rdparagraph“Changesintheatmosphereduetohumanactivityhaveincreasedcarbondioxideconcentrationsandthusaffectc limate.(HS-ESS2-6),(HS-ESS2-4)”ofESS2.Dfrompage135initsentirety.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.43.RemoveHS-ESS3initsentiretyfrompages137-138.Thefocusonsustainabil ity,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.44.ReviseHS-ETS1-1andthe2ndparagraphofETS1.Aonpage139toremovethefocuson“majorglobalchallenges”.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.
5 1.NGSSareneithereducationallyobjectivenorreligiouslyneutral.Anatheistic ormaterialisticworldviewisconsistentlyaffirmedthroughout.Thiswil lleadtoindoctrination,noteducation.2.Religiousquestionsareansweredbasedonadoctrineor“Rule”thatpermitsonlymaterialistic orfunctionallyatheistic answers.3.Onlymaterialistic explanationsforanyphenomenonaddressedbyscienceareallowed.4.Legitimatesc ientific critiquesofmaterialistic theoriesregardingtheoriginsoftheuniverse,ofl i fe,anditsdiversityarenotpresented.5.NGSSfailstodistinguishforstudentsthevariousdefinitionsofevolution,leadingthemtoassumethatthewordalwaysdenotesthesamething.6.Teachesevolutionasfactstartinginelementarygrades.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi t
6/1/201410:12PM
Page 11
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
3/7
mustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.7.Underlyinganti-fossilfuelthemesandgreenagendaconceptssuchastheenvironmentalactivism,sustainabil ity,socialjustice,populationcontrol,human-causedglobalwarming,renewableenergy,CO2levels,andoilspil lsareprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.8.Heavyfocusonthefoolishconceptthatall/mosthumanactionsleadtonegativeconsequencesfortheearth.9.TheconceptofcollaborationisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisshouldbere-focusedtoteachtheconceptofindividualismnotcollaborationandgroupthink.Pages34,40,45,47,49,50,51,53,71,79,89,91,97,100,116,120,124,13410.Thefocusoftechnologiesbeingdrivenbyc limate,naturalresources,andeconomicconditionsisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.Pages88,89,96,105,10711.RemoveESS3.Cinitsentiretyfrompages37-38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.12.RemoveK-ESS3-3initsentiretyfrompage38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.13.3-LS4onpage58isteachingevolutionasfactstartinginthe3rdgrade.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.14.3-LS4-4onpage58says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludethegreenhouseeffectorc limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechangeandthegreenhouseeffect.15.3-ESS2-1onpage60says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludec limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechange.16.Remove4-ESS3-1initsentiretyfrompage69.Theone-sidedtreatmentoffossilfuelsisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaanddefinitelyshouldn’tbetaughtto4thgraders.17.Remove5-ESS3-1andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage78.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.18.OneofthemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage83isto“constructexplanationsbasedonevidencetosupportfundamentalunderstandingsofnaturalselectionandevolution”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.19.ThemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage85toanswerquestionsabout“HowdohumanactivitiesaffectEarthsystems,Howdoweknowourglobalc limateischanging”andthesub-ideasabout“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseitemsshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.20.MS-LS4-6,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage99teachevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifitmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.21.RemoveMS-ESS3-3andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.22.RemoveMS-ESS3-4initsentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonoverpopulationandsustainabil ityappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol).23.RemoveMS-ESS3-5andESS3.Dintheirentiretyfrompage105.The“emphasisisonthemajorrolethathumanactivitiesplayincausingtheriseinglobaltemperatures”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.24.SomeofthehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage112areto“constructexplanationsfortheprocessesofnaturalselectionandevolutionandcommunicatehowmultiplel inesofevidencesupporttheseexplanations”andto“evaluateevidenceoftheconditionsthatmayresultinnewspeciesandunderstandtheroleofgenetic variationinnaturalselection”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.25.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationofESS2onpage113ofhaving“amajoremphasisonthemechanismsandimplicationsofc limatechange”isnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Thisshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.26.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage114of“Studentsunderstandthe[…]significantenvironmentalimpactsofhumanactivities[...]toexamineandconstructsolutionstothemanychallengesfac inglong-termhumansustainabil ityonEarth”andthesub-ideasof“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.27.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph2l ists“thespeedatwhichworldpopulationisgrowing”asaproblem.Thisappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol)andshouldberemoved.28.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3andparagraph6l ists“majorglobalproblems”and“majorglobalchallenges”asthingsneedingsolutions.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.29.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3statesthat“public safetyorenvironmentalprotectionmaybemoreimportantthancostorevenfunctionality”.Thismaybethemosttroublingstatementintheentiredocument.Itisincrediblyignorantanddangerousandshouldberemoved.30.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph4requiresstudents“totryandantic ipatepossiblesocietalandenvironmentalimpacts”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.31.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph5requiresthat“studentsapplytheirengineeringcapabil itiestoreducehumanimpactsonEarthsystems,andimprovesocialandenvironmentalcost-benefitratios(HS-ESS3-2,HS-ESS3-4)”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.32.ExamplesprovidedunderHS- Page 12
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
4/7
PS3-3onpage120of“windturbines”and“solarcells”areone-sidedandpushingthegreenagenda.Theseshouldberemoved,howeveriftheseitemsareleftasexamples,theninternalcombustionengines,combustionturbines,steamturbines,boilers,andjetenginesshouldalsobeincludedasexamples.33.RemoveHS-LS2-7initsentiretyfrompage126.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.34.Removethe2ndparagraphsofLS2.CandLS4.Dfrompage127.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.35.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage127.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.36.HS-LS4-4,HS-LS4-5,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage130teachevolutionasfact.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.37.HS-LS4-5onpage130emphasizes“howchangestotheenvironmentsuchasdeforestation,fishing,applicationofferti l izers,drought,flood,andtherateofchangeoftheenvironmentaffectdistributionordisappearanceoftraitsinspecies”.Thisemphasisshouldberemovedasitisnothingmorethanenvironmentalandanti-agriculturepropaganda.38.RemoveLS4.Dinitsentiretyfrompage131.Thefocusonsustainabil ityandreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.39.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage131.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.40.HS-ESS1-2andthe3rdparagraphofESS1.Aonpage132focusesonprovingthebigbangtheoryratherthanjustpresentingitasatheory.Thisisone-sidedasnootherpossibil i tiesoftheearth’screation(suchasintell igentdesign)arepresented.41.RemoveHS-ESS2-2andHS-ESS2-4intheirentiretyfrompage134.Thefocusongreenhousegases,c limatechange,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.42.Removethe3rdparagraph“Changesintheatmosphereduetohumanactivityhaveincreasedcarbondioxideconcentrationsandthusaffectc limate.(HS-ESS2-6),(HS-ESS2-4)”ofESS2.Dfrompage135initsentirety.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.43.RemoveHS-ESS3initsentiretyfrompages137-138.Thefocusonsustainabil ity,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.44.ReviseHS-ETS1-1andthe2ndparagraphofETS1.Aonpage139toremovethefocuson“majorglobalchallenges”.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.
6 1.NGSSareneithereducationallyobjectivenorreligiouslyneutral.Anatheistic ormaterialisticworldviewisconsistentlyaffirmedthroughout.Thiswil lleadtoindoctrination,noteducation.2.Religiousquestionsareansweredbasedonadoctrineor“Rule”thatpermitsonlymaterialistic orfunctionallyatheistic answers.3.Onlymaterialistic explanationsforanyphenomenonaddressedbyscienceareallowed.4.Legitimatesc ientific critiquesofmaterialistic theoriesregardingtheoriginsoftheuniverse,ofl i fe,anditsdiversityarenotpresented.5.NGSSfailstodistinguishforstudentsthevariousdefinitionsofevolution,leadingthemtoassumethatthewordalwaysdenotesthesamething.6.Teachesevolutionasfactstartinginelementarygrades.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.7.Underlyinganti-fossilfuelthemesandgreenagendaconceptssuchastheenvironmentalactivism,sustainabil ity,socialjustice,populationcontrol,human-causedglobalwarming,renewableenergy,CO2levels,andoilspil lsareprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.8.Heavyfocusonthefoolishconceptthatall/mosthumanactionsleadtonegativeconsequencesfortheearth.9.TheconceptofcollaborationisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisshouldbere-focusedtoteachtheconceptofindividualismnotcollaborationandgroupthink.Pages34,40,45,47,49,50,51,53,71,79,89,91,97,100,116,120,124,13410.Thefocusoftechnologiesbeingdrivenbyc limate,naturalresources,andeconomicconditionsisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.Pages88,89,96,105,10711.RemoveESS3.Cinitsentiretyfrompages37-38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.12.RemoveK-ESS3-3initsentiretyfrompage38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.13.3-LS4onpage58isteachingevolutionasfactstartinginthe3rdgrade.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.14.3-LS4-4onpage58says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludethegreenhouseeffectorc limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechangeandthegreenhouseeffect.15.3-ESS2-1onpage60says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludec limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechange.16.Remove4-ESS3-1initsentiretyfrompage69.Theone-sidedtreatmentoffossilfuelsisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaanddefinitelyshouldn’tbetaughtto4thgraders.17.Remove5-ESS3-1andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage78.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.18.OneofthemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage83isto“constructexplanationsbasedonevidencetosupportfundamentalunderstandingsofnaturalselectionandevolution”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.19.Themiddle
6/1/201410:09PM
Page 13
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
5/7
schoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage85toanswerquestionsabout“HowdohumanactivitiesaffectEarthsystems,Howdoweknowourglobalc limateischanging”andthesub-ideasabout“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseitemsshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.20.MS-LS4-6,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage99teachevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifitmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.21.RemoveMS-ESS3-3andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.22.RemoveMS-ESS3-4initsentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonoverpopulationandsustainabil ityappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol).23.RemoveMS-ESS3-5andESS3.Dintheirentiretyfrompage105.The“emphasisisonthemajorrolethathumanactivitiesplayincausingtheriseinglobaltemperatures”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.24.SomeofthehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage112areto“constructexplanationsfortheprocessesofnaturalselectionandevolutionandcommunicatehowmultiplel inesofevidencesupporttheseexplanations”andto“evaluateevidenceoftheconditionsthatmayresultinnewspeciesandunderstandtheroleofgenetic variationinnaturalselection”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.25.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationofESS2onpage113ofhaving“amajoremphasisonthemechanismsandimplicationsofc limatechange”isnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Thisshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.26.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage114of“Studentsunderstandthe[…]significantenvironmentalimpactsofhumanactivities[...]toexamineandconstructsolutionstothemanychallengesfac inglong-termhumansustainabil ityonEarth”andthesub-ideasof“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.27.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph2l ists“thespeedatwhichworldpopulationisgrowing”asaproblem.Thisappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol)andshouldberemoved.28.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3andparagraph6l ists“majorglobalproblems”and“majorglobalchallenges”asthingsneedingsolutions.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.29.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3statesthat“public safetyorenvironmentalprotectionmaybemoreimportantthancostorevenfunctionality”.Thismaybethemosttroublingstatementintheentiredocument.Itisincrediblyignorantanddangerousandshouldberemoved.30.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph4requiresstudents“totryandantic ipatepossiblesocietalandenvironmentalimpacts”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.31.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph5requiresthat“studentsapplytheirengineeringcapabil itiestoreducehumanimpactsonEarthsystems,andimprovesocialandenvironmentalcost-benefitratios(HS-ESS3-2,HS-ESS3-4)”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.32.ExamplesprovidedunderHS-PS3-3onpage120of“windturbines”and“solarcells”areone-sidedandpushingthegreenagenda.Theseshouldberemoved,howeveriftheseitemsareleftasexamples,theninternalcombustionengines,combustionturbines,steamturbines,boilers,andjetenginesshouldalsobeincludedasexamples.33.RemoveHS-LS2-7initsentiretyfrompage126.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.34.Removethe2ndparagraphsofLS2.CandLS4.Dfrompage127.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.35.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage127.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.36.HS-LS4-4,HS-LS4-5,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage130teachevolutionasfact.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.37.HS-LS4-5onpage130emphasizes“howchangestotheenvironmentsuchasdeforestation,fishing,applicationofferti l izers,drought,flood,andtherateofchangeoftheenvironmentaffectdistributionordisappearanceoftraitsinspecies”.Thisemphasisshouldberemovedasitisnothingmorethanenvironmentalandanti-agriculturepropaganda.38.RemoveLS4.Dinitsentiretyfrompage131.Thefocusonsustainabil ityandreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.39.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage131.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.40.HS-ESS1-2andthe3rdparagraphofESS1.Aonpage132focusesonprovingthebigbangtheoryratherthanjustpresentingitasatheory.Thisisone-sidedasnootherpossibil i tiesoftheearth’screation(suchasintell igentdesign)arepresented.41.RemoveHS-ESS2-2andHS-ESS2-4intheirentiretyfrompage134.Thefocusongreenhousegases,c limatechange,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.42.Removethe3rdparagraph“Changesintheatmosphereduetohumanactivityhaveincreasedcarbondioxideconcentrationsandthusaffectc limate.(HS-ESS2-6),(HS-ESS2-4)”ofESS2.Dfrompage135initsentirety.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.43.RemoveHS-ESS3initsentiretyfrompages137-138.Thefocusonsustainabil ity,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothing Page 14
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
6/7
morethanenvironmentalpropaganda.44.ReviseHS-ETS1-1andthe2ndparagraphofETS1.Aonpage139toremovethefocuson“majorglobalchallenges”.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.
7 Absolutely 6/1/20147:52PM
8 Yes,sexeducation,booksaboutBarackObama,andglobalwarming. 6/1/201410:04AM
9 Greatereffortshouldbefocusedonlearningtoshareandplaygamesthatwouldteachcooperationandenvironmentalconservation.K-ESS2-1Earth'sSystems(Meteorology)andK-ESS3-3EarthandHumanActivity(HumanGeography)Learningtocommunicatesolutionsforworldproblemswhentheyaresti l l learningtohaveanunderstandingaboutthemselves.Thestandardsarepremature.
5/31/20149:38PM
10 presentingc limatechangeisunnecessaryandone-sided. 5/31/20144:32PM
11 Entirelytomanystandardscoveringc limatechangeandhumanscontributing.Ibelievethisispoliticalagenda,whichhasnotbeenproven.Ifi tneedstobetalkedaboutinschoolsanddebatedthereisroomsinceitisonlythefloorandnottheceil ing.Il iketruthandallsides,itappearstobeveryonesided,leadingkidhowtothink.Weneedtoteachallsidestodevelopcriticalthinking.
5/31/20142:43PM
12 Theundertoneofearthisgreatandhumansarebadisnotnecessary.WeneedtocriticallylookatFACTSandnotjustassumptionswhenteachingourchildren.Weneedtoprovidebothsidesofthingsandnottrytocontroltheirmindsinthinkingoneway.Ourstatewil lloseit'sabil i tytochangethedialogueifweacceptthesestandards.
5/31/201410:53AM
13 Globalwarming?!Notnecessarysinceit'snotproven. 5/30/201411:23AM
14 Yes-teachingaboutevolutionwithoutanyregardofcreation,andteachingaboutglobalwarmingasasc ientific factwhenitisnotprovenasasc ientific fact
5/30/201410:43AM
15 GlobalWarming 5/29/20145:33PM
16 NotthatIamawareof. 5/28/201410:49PM
17 Yes 5/28/201410:46PM
18 Yes 5/28/201410:42PM
19 Yes 5/28/201410:20PM
20 Politicallycorrectsocialissuesdonotbelonginacriticalthinkingsociety. 5/28/20147:03PM
21 Plenty!Thesc iencefieldsarefullofplentyofthingstolearnthatareactualfactsandnotsimplytheories.Ifstudentswanttoaddsc iencesthatfocusoncertainfields,thenletthemchoosethatforthemselves.
5/28/20141:05PM
22 Globalwarmingpresentedasfact. 5/27/20149:07PM
23 Yep.Theyaskinappropriatequestionsofthestudentsl ike"areyourparentsdivorced?""Ifso,wouldyouratherl ivewiththeotherparent?""Haveyoubeensexuallyabused?"--ataFIRSTGRADELEVEL!INAPPROPRIATE!
5/27/20148:39PM
24 Yes 5/27/20143:28PM
25 yes-globalwarming??? 5/27/20141:57PM
26 Yes 5/27/20141:42PM
27 no 5/26/20143:42AM
28 Yes. 5/20/20142:55PM
29 Yes 5/16/20149:02PM
30 Theyarereasonable. 5/16/201412:06PM
31 Givingeamplessuchasrecylingglass,whichusesmoreresourcestodothanitdoestoproducemoreglass.
5/12/201412:05PM
32 Yes,the"facts"thathumanscausethec limatetochange. 5/10/20149:27PM
33 No 5/3/201412:16PM
34 No 5/2/20149:40AM
Page 15
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
7/7
35 Yes 5/1/201410:12AM
36 Presentingevolutionasafactissomethingthestudentsdon'tneedtoknow. 4/30/20143:40PM
37 evolutionisatheorynotfactandshouldbetaughtassuch 4/30/201412:42PM
38 Nothingjumpedoutatmethatwasunimportant,butIonlylookedatthemiddleschool 4/29/201412:33PM
39 Seeabove.HSPS4areparticularlytooambitiousanditisnotc learhowtoimplementthem.Thesearegoodgoalsperhaps,butwouldrequiresalotofwork.
4/28/20149:03PM
40 No 4/28/20148:38AM
41 Manystandardsrequirealargebaseofbackgroundknowledge.Usingstandardsbasedgradingisdifficultwhenseveralweeksofpre-instructionisneededbeforereachinginstructionofthestandardbecausesofewgradesaretakenunti ltheendoftheunit.
4/28/20148:37AM
42 Ithinktheyareagreatresourcefortherequiredcourses. 4/27/20143:14PM
43 No 4/27/20142:20AM
44 K-PS3-2Usetoolsandmaterialstodesignandbuildastructurethatwil lreducethewarmingeffectofsunlightonanarea.*Whyisthisastandard?Mostchildreninstinctivelyknowthis.Abetterstandardwouldbetodescribewhatwouldhappenwithoutthesun'swarmthorwithtoomuchsun.
4/25/20145:54PM
45 yes 4/25/20147:39AM
46 No 4/24/20149:03PM
47 Notreally.Therearealwayssomepiecesthatmightnotbeasimportant,butaresti l l worthlearningatleastonce.
4/24/20146:11PM
48 No,studentsneedtobeexposedtoawidevarietyofsubjectsandtopics. 4/24/20144:26PM
49 Idon'thaveaproblemwithgoodsciencethatisproven,andamnotopposedtounproventheoriesbeingtaughtasthat-theories.Butpresentingthetheoryofevolutionandoriginofspeciesasfactisdisappointingtome.Teachthetheories,butcallthemthat.Thereissti l l muchdebateandmanyproblemswiththistheorythathaveyettomeetsc ientific criteriatobecalledfactualdata.
4/24/20141:24PM
50 SinceScienceisnotmyfieldofstudyIfeelthatIcan'tevaluatewhethersomethingshouldn'tbeincluded
4/24/20149:56AM
Page 16
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
1/2
Q8Arethereredundanciesinthecontent?Answered:33 Skipped:57
# Responses Date
1 Yes,butredundancyisneededtokeepcertainideasfresh,l ikeareview. 6/2/201410:57AM
2 Yes,globalwarmingandsexeducation. 6/1/201410:04AM
3 Kindergartenstudentsshouldbetaughttol istenandobservenatureaswellashowtobeconfidentinspeakingandplaying.Thedailylessonplanandassessmentswil lnecessarilybeageinappropriateandtheslowstudentsexperiencefrustrationandthefaststudentswil lexperienceboredomnecessitatingtheteachertospentadisproportionateamountoftimehelpingtheslowstudents.Thefaststudentswil lbeignored.
5/31/20149:38PM
4 IhavecoveredthatClimatechangeandhumansatthefaultisPushedtothemaximum....... 5/31/20142:43PM
5 YES,itisfi l ledwithredundanciesofthesameagenda....earthgood,humansbad. 5/31/201410:53AM
6 YES!LOTS. 5/28/201410:49PM
7 Yes 5/28/201410:46PM
8 Yes 5/28/201410:20PM
9 No 5/28/20141:49PM
10 Yes. 5/28/20141:05PM
11 Obviously.YouDON'TneedtodrawshapesandsquarestosolveaNUMBERproblem! 5/27/20148:39PM
12 Yes 5/27/20141:42PM
13 Ireviewed2/3/4gradestandardsanddidnotreallyfindrepetitions. 5/26/20143:42AM
14 Ijustreviewedthecontent,sounti lIactuallyusedthestandardsIwouldnotknowforsureifchangesshouldbemade.Itmaytakeaschoolyearwith"input"fromeducatorstomakesureeverything'sjustright.
5/15/20141:48PM
15 Thereappearstobeatheme,thathumansareoverlydependentontechnology.Insomelessonplansitexplainstechnologyandhumanadvancementisabadthingbecauseitusesnaturalresources.Thenothersseemstopushfortheacceptanceoftechnology.
5/12/201412:05PM
16 Globalwarming 5/11/20143:03PM
17 Yes,inseveralplaces,ratherthancoveringabroadspectrumofsc ientific information. 5/10/20149:27PM
18 No 5/3/201412:16PM
19 NotthatIsaw 5/2/20149:40AM
20 perhaps 5/1/201410:12AM
21 Sincenoflowwasobservedfromgradetograde,Idon'tseehowtherecouldberedundancy.Rather,contentappearssegmentedwithnoattentiontostudentsmakingconnectionsbybuildingonpriorknowledge.
5/1/20144:23AM
22 Somecrossover,butthat'sgood. 4/29/201412:33PM
23 HSPS2Disc iplinaryCoreIdeasPS3.A:p.23reappearsonp.25 4/28/20149:03PM
24 Little 4/28/20148:38AM
25 Ididnotnoticeanythingoutsideofgeneralsc ientific method. 4/27/20143:14PM
26 No 4/27/20142:20AM
27 NotinKindergarten. 4/25/20145:54PM
28 actuallythisistheonepositive 4/25/20147:39AM
Page 17
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
2/2
29 Evolutionisatheorynotafactandshouldbetaughtasatheory. 4/24/20149:07PM
30 No 4/24/20149:03PM
31 No.Ithinkthestandardswerewellthoughtout. 4/24/20146:11PM
32 No,theprogressionfromgradetogradejustbuildsonthepriorknowledgefromthepreviousyear. 4/24/20144:26PM
33 Someredundancyisgood,butIdidn'tseeanythingthatwasunnecessary. 4/24/20141:24PM
Page 18
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
1/3
Q9Areanyofthestandardsconfusing?Ifso,pleaselistthosestandardsandexplain
whythestandardisconfusing.Answered:44 Skipped:46
# Responses Date
1 2-ESS2-3."Obtaininformationtoidentify..."Strangestarttothesimplestandardofknowingwatercanbeal iquidorsolid.3-ESS3-14-PS3-24-LS1-1
6/2/20143:55PM
2 Yes,allofthem!Confusinginthatitiswrittensostructurally,asifthesc iencesarenotchangingfields,removingnecessaryrelationshipsfromonetoanother.Asonetheorygathersevidenceandotherdonotthedirectioncanchange.Newfindingsaddssubjectsorremovesoldones.Thisrigidstructureisnotappropriateforthesubjects.AlthoughCrosscuttingconceptsprovidesawaytorelatetoothersubjectsitisverydifficulttomapout.
6/2/201410:57AM
3 1.Manyviewpointsareone-sidedandunsupportedbyfacts.2.Controversialissues(suchasc limatechange,renewableenergyandsustainabil ity)arenotpresentedobjectively.3.NGSSareone-sidedinthattheydisproportionatelyfocusonnegativeeffectsofhumaninteractionwiththeenvironment.
6/1/201410:33PM
4 1.Manyviewpointsareone-sidedandunsupportedbyfacts.2.Controversialissues(suchasc limatechange,renewableenergyandsustainabil ity)arenotpresentedobjectively.3.NGSSareone-sidedinthattheydisproportionatelyfocusonnegativeeffectsofhumaninteractionwiththeenvironment.
6/1/201410:12PM
5 1.Manyviewpointsareone-sidedandunsupportedbyfacts.2.Controversialissues(suchasc limatechange,renewableenergyandsustainabil ity)arenotpresentedobjectively.3.NGSSareone-sidedinthattheydisproportionatelyfocusonnegativeeffectsofhumaninteractionwiththeenvironment.
6/1/201410:09PM
6 No,asahistoryteacherIseethisasjustl ikeGermany1933.Indoctrinatingthestudentstobegoodlittlec itizens.Noactualeducationwhatsoever.
6/1/201410:04AM
7 IthinkattheKindergartenlevel,wecanteachthemtoconservewater,learntopickupl itterandonlytakepicturesinnationalparks,basicthingsl ikethat.WeshouldnotbeteachingMeteorologyK-ESS3-2atthislevel.Also,BiologyandZoologyK-ESS3-1isforanadvancedgradelevel.IthinkKindergartenwoulddowelltokeepwithlearningabouthowtoenjoypetsandzooanimals,IalsothinkthatdebateK-ESS2-2isanadvancedpre-frontalfunctionnotdevelopedadequatelyatthislevel.
5/31/20149:38PM
8 HS-ETS1-1,HS-ESS3-3,HS-ESS3-4,HS-ESS3-5,HS-ESS3-6'HS-ESS2-S,HS-ESS2-4,HS-ESS2-5,HS-ESS2-6,HS-ESS1-1,HS-ESS1-2,HS-LS4-4,HS-LSA-3,HS-LSA-2,HS-LS4-1,HSLSA-5,HS-LS4-6,MS-ESS3-4,MS-ESS3-5,K-PS3-1K-PS3-2,K-ESS2-2,K-ESS3-3,Iwouldl ikethemclarifiedcompletely.aretheybasedonfactassc ienceshouldbe..
5/31/20142:43PM
9 Whyarewetryingtodescribec limatechangeasthefaultofhumans?WeneedtolookattheHISTORYofourworldandmakemuchbetterchoicesonhowwediscussthechangesinc limate.Wewentfromglobalcoolingtoglobalwarmingtoc limatechange.HISTORYdoesnotl iebutwedonotknowwhatthefuturehasinstore....theweatherforecastcanchangeinminutesandyetyouarewil l ingtoteachourchildrenthatwecanforecastintothefutureonwhatwearedoingtoday.Really?Thatisnotteachingfacts,thatisteachinganagenda.
5/31/201410:53AM
10 Yes.Math...doesNOTmakesenseonlogicalthinking! 5/28/201410:49PM
11 YesAllOfThem 5/28/201410:46PM
12 Yes 5/28/201410:42PM
13 Yes 5/28/201410:20PM
14 Youhavetoputsomeworkandthoughtintothesestandardsbutthewaytheyhavebeendesignedandcolorcodedhashelped.
5/28/20141:49PM
Page 19
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
2/3
15 Whatisconfusingisthecontinualattempttolabel"CommonCore"withotherterminologyandexpectthepublic tobesatisfied.
5/28/20141:05PM
16 Notallowingthestudentstostackthenumberstoaddandsubtractisconfusing.THISISUNACCEPTABLE.AndweasNDparentswil lNOTallowthistocontinue.Nottomentioncommoncoremathtakesasimple2stepdivisionproblemanddragsitoutinto108steps.Iamsickandtiredofpeoplepushingtheprogramsaying"Commoncoremakesiteasierforthestudentstodothemathintheirhead."Letmeaskyouthis--What'seasiertodoinyourhead???2steps?OR108?!!
5/27/20148:39PM
17 Thestandardsarebiasedandnotentirelyaccurate. 5/27/20141:42PM
18 Some...thewordingisveryprofessionalandhightech.Theredexplanationswerehelpful. 5/26/20143:42AM
19 Yes,manyareconfusing. 5/20/20142:55PM
20 Math.....i t'simpossibletofigureout. 5/19/20149:27PM
21 Theengineeringstandardsneedc larificationstatements. 5/16/201412:06PM
22 Iamnotasc ienceteacher,butthestandardswereeasytounderstand. 5/15/20141:48PM
23 Yes,butIdidn'tkeepal ist. 5/10/20149:27PM
24 Thewordingismoredifficultforstudentstounderstand.Whatexactlyshouldtheyknow? 5/6/20149:55AM
25 No 5/3/201412:16PM
26 No 5/2/20149:40AM
27 mostofthem 5/1/201410:12AM
28 TheyareALLconfusing. 5/1/20144:23AM
29 evolutionisatheorynotfactandshouldbetaughtassuch 4/30/201412:42PM
30 noneconfusedme 4/29/201412:33PM
31 HSPS2:(HSPSp.5lastparagraph)ThoughNewton’sthirdlawisintroducedinMSPS2,inHSPS2Newton’ssecondlawissingledoutfromtheNewton’sthreelawsofmotion.Then,asifindependently,conservationofmomentumisreferredto.Allthreelawsarenecessarytounderstandmotionandtheconceptofequil ibrium.Conservationofmomentumfollowsfromthesecondlaw.Buttoexplainconservationofmomentumunderstandingofthethirdlawisalsorequired.ThethirdlawneedstoberevisitedatHSlevel.
4/28/20149:03PM
32 Almostallofthestandardsareconfusing.Standards 4/28/20148:38AM
33 LanguageofthestandardsisNOTstudentfriendly.Ican'tenvisionpostingtheseinmyc lassroombecausetheywouldbeveryuncleartomiddleschoolstudents.
4/28/20148:37AM
34 Nope.Therecommendedactivitiesandl imitationstolevelswasveryhelpful. 4/27/20143:14PM
35 No 4/27/20142:20AM
36 K-ESS2-2.Whatistheconnectionforthis?Habitat?Iwouldthinkwheredotheyl iveandhowdotheirbodiesandactionsfitthehabitatwouldbemoreappropriate.Thestandardseemsreversed.Itshouldbehowdoanimalsfittheirenvironmentinsteadofhowdoanimalschangetheenvironment.
4/25/20145:54PM
37 Whenweweretryingtopreparelessonsfornextyearandbecausethesestandardsarefairlynewitishardtofindspecific lessonsthatareappropriateforthirdgraders.Itwouldbeniceiftherewasmorecurriculumavailablethatmatchedthesestandards.
4/25/20149:54AM
38 yes 4/25/20147:39AM
39 No 4/24/20149:03PM
40 Theoneissueisthatwordingcouldbemoreparentandteacherfriendly.Itisnicewhenyoucansimplyreadastandardandunderstandwhatitissaying.
4/24/20146:11PM
41 No 4/24/20144:26PM
42 Notinmyopinion. 4/24/20141:24PM
43 Icanreadandunderstandthestandards 4/24/20149:56AM
Page 20
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
3/3
44 HS-LS4-1isconfusingtostudents.Thestandardwantstotreatevolutionasfactbutitfailstoextrapolatebacktotheoriginsofl i fe.Ibelievethisisconfusingtostudentsbecauseifyou'regoingtotellmethatweallhavecommonancestors,whatwastheoriginalancestor?Don'tgetmewrong,I'mgladthestandarddoesn'tgoallthewaybacktothefirstl i feformsbutIfeell ikethisiscowardly."Weknowwecan'tdefendtheideathatl i feemergedfromnon-life,sowewon'tputitinthestandards.However,wewil lsti l l inferthatevolutionistrueandweallhavecommonancestors.HS-LS4-Atellsstudentsthatthefossilrecordsupportsevolution.Thisisabsolutelynottrue.Evenpaleontologistswhobelieveinevolutionhavestoppedsayingthatthefossilrecordsupportsit.Wenowknowthatitdoesnot.
4/23/201412:18PM
Page 21
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
1/2
Q10Doestheintroductionhelpyouunderstandorinterpretthedocument?
Answered:43 Skipped:47
# Responses Date
1 Yes,al i ttle.Butitisstrangethatthisisoneof11surveyquestionson140pagesofmaterialthatstandstochangetheshapeofourchildren'sfutures.Howaboutasurveyquestionaboutwhetherthecontentofthestandardsisoffensiveorcontrarytomyfamily'sbeliefs?Orhowaboutasurveyquestionaboutwhetherthestandardsaredevelopmentallyappropriate?
6/2/20143:55PM
2 Yes,itexplainedalotonhowitwascreated,structuredandthepurpose,andhowtoreadit.UnfortunatelyIdonotagreewithmuchonanyofthoseexceptthepurpose.IagreethatstudentsintheUS,andmorelocallyND,needtohavemoretointeresttheminsc ienceandengineering,butthatiswheremyagreementwiththesestandardsend.Idonotbelievetheywil lacomplishthat,infactIthinkitwil l dotheopposite.
6/2/201410:57AM
3 1.Changethenameofthestandardsto“CommonCoreScienceStandards”sincethat’swhattheyreallyare.NumerousreferencesaremadethroughoutthedocumenttotheNGSSbeing“aligned”totheCommonCoreStateStandards.2.Paragraph2onpage8statesthattheNGSS“arearrangedinacoherentmanneracrossdisc iplinesandgradestoprovideallstudentsaninternationallybenchmarkedscienceeducation.”Pleasec iteindependentpeerreviewedscientificresearchtobackupthec laimthattheNGSSareinternationallybenchmarked.3.Remove“majorsocietalandenvironmentalchallenges”fromAppendixIonpage23.Engineeringisaboutmuchmorethanjustthesethings.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.
6/1/201410:33PM
4 1.Changethenameofthestandardsto“CommonCoreScienceStandards”sincethat’swhattheyreallyare.NumerousreferencesaremadethroughoutthedocumenttotheNGSSbeing“aligned”totheCommonCoreStateStandards.2.Paragraph2onpage8statesthattheNGSS“arearrangedinacoherentmanneracrossdisc iplinesandgradestoprovideallstudentsaninternationallybenchmarkedscienceeducation.”Pleasec iteindependentpeerreviewedscientificresearchtobackupthec laimthattheNGSSareinternationallybenchmarked.3.Remove“majorsocietalandenvironmentalchallenges”fromAppendixIonpage23.Engineeringisaboutmuchmorethanjustthesethings.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.
6/1/201410:12PM
5 1.Changethenameofthestandardsto“CommonCoreScienceStandards”sincethat’swhattheyreallyare.NumerousreferencesaremadethroughoutthedocumenttotheNGSSbeing“aligned”totheCommonCoreStateStandards.2.Paragraph2onpage8statesthattheNGSS“arearrangedinacoherentmanneracrossdisc iplinesandgradestoprovideallstudentsaninternationallybenchmarkedscienceeducation.”Pleasec iteindependentpeerreviewedscientificresearchtobackupthec laimthattheNGSSareinternationallybenchmarked.3.Remove“majorsocietalandenvironmentalchallenges”fromAppendixIonpage23.Engineeringisaboutmuchmorethanjustthesethings.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.
6/1/201410:09PM
6 No. 6/1/201410:04AM
7 Toomuchscienceforakindergartenstudent.ThereshouldnotbeanytestingatKindergartenlevel.Thereisenoughoversightbytheparents,teachers,administrators.IwouldsuggestthetheprimaryfactorinpassingfromKindergartentofirstgradeisuptotheteacherindiscussionwithinterestedothers.Idonotfeelthereshouldbeanystandardizedtestingunti laftergrade8.Theyshouldnotnecessarilyberequiredtopassatestthattestthingsthatarel ikelynotintheirzoneofproximaldevelopment.IthasbeenveryhelpfultolearnaboutVygotsky'szoneofproximaldevelopment.
5/31/20149:38PM
8 typical 5/31/20142:43PM
9 Yes. 5/31/201410:53AM
10 NO 5/28/201410:49PM
11 No 5/28/201410:46PM
12 No 5/28/201410:42PM
13 Notreally 5/28/201410:20PMPage 22
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
2/2
14 Yes. 5/28/20141:49PM
15 No;itcomesacrossasapersuasivespeech,usingterminologythatattemptstoleadonetobelieveallstudents,nomattertheirlearningstyleoraptitudeorcareerpathchoice,mustandwil llearnthesamethings,thesameways.
5/28/20141:05PM
16 Nope. 5/27/20148:39PM
17 yes 5/27/20141:57PM
18 No 5/27/20141:42PM
19 sortof 5/26/20143:42AM
20 Yes. 5/16/201412:06PM
21 Theintroductionwasveryhelpful.Itshouldnotbeoverlooked. 5/15/20141:48PM
22 Noitdoesn't. 5/12/201412:05PM
23 Notreally.Itishigh-soundingrhetoric ,butemptyofcontent. 5/10/20149:27PM
24 Yes 5/3/201412:16PM
25 Yes 5/2/20149:40AM
26 no 5/1/201410:12AM
27 Theintroductionsoundsl ikeacollegesyllabus.Itisnotuserfriendly.Itisadisjointedpuzzlel iketherestofthedocument.
5/1/20144:23AM
28 Yes,ithelped. 4/29/201412:33PM
29 First,itneedstobec learwhatthestandardsarefor.AsweheardduringtheNDSTAspringmeeting(February21-22,2014,VCSU)thesestandards,astheystand,areforaguideforassessmentforstudentslearningoutcomes.Distric tsareresponsiblefordevelopingtheircurriculumdetails.Someguidanceonhowstric tlytofollowNGSSshouldbegiveninthefinalstandards,wherecurrentlyitislefttodiscretionoftheindividualteachersorthedistric ts.Itshouldbec learlystatedwheretherearespecificsthatteachersarerequiredtofollow,andwhichwil lbecheckedintheassessments.
4/28/20149:03PM
30 Tosomedegree. 4/28/20148:38AM
31 yes,excellentideatogiveasummaryofthestandardsandexpectations 4/27/20146:50PM
32 Ifanything,Ithinkithelpsmetogetmyheadtotherightlevelofperspective.Thedangeristhatthestandardscanbetoonebulousortheygotmisinterpretedasaguidlineforcurriculum.Theintroputsthingsinproperperspective.
4/27/20143:14PM
33 Yes 4/27/20142:20AM
34 Well,yes,itsummarizesnicely,butthestatement:"influenceofengineering,technology,andscienceonsocietyandthenaturalworldarecalledoutasorganizingconceptsforthesedisc iplinarycoreideas."-Thisdoesnotsaytomethisisaboutsc ience.Scienceisaboutthescientific method,questioninganddiscovering.Thissays,"Howdoeseverythingaffectme..."
4/25/20145:54PM
35 Yes 4/25/20149:54AM
36 no 4/25/20147:39AM
37 Yes 4/24/20149:07PM
38 Yes,Ialsoappreciatethespiralofcontentknowledge. 4/24/20149:03PM
39 Yes. 4/24/20146:11PM
40 Thishelpsc larifythedocument. 4/24/20144:26PM
41 yes. 4/24/20141:24PM
42 ok 4/24/20149:56AM
43 Yes. 4/16/20142:46PM
Page 23
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
1/4
Q11Othercomments:Answered:44 Skipped:46
# Responses Date
1 Thestandardsseemtoinc ludeanunbalancedviewoftopicsl ikeevolutionandglobalwarming.TheydonotrepresentthevaluesofNorthDakota.Alsotheylacksomeofthemaththatisinthesciences.Theformersc iencestandardsinNDinthelowergradesmademuchmoresenseinaskingthestudentstodothingsattheirdevelopmentalabil i ty.
6/2/20143:55PM
2 Thenegativeone-sidedtreatmentofagricultureandfossilfuelsisaself-defeatingapproachtoeducatingNorthDakota'schildren.NorthDakota'seconomyandfutureisverydependentontheseindustriesanditisveryconcerningtoseethattheywil lbetreatedsonegativelyinthepublicschools.
6/2/20142:28PM
3 Whocanweapproachorcontactabouthavingourvoiceheardonthistopic? 6/2/201412:00PM
4 IwishIwouldhaveknownaboutthisearlier,itwasnotpublic lyknownasmostotherparentsItalkedtohadnoideathiswasonthetableandwil lprobablyfindoutwhenimplemented.Therewasnopublic notificationinthenewsorothersources,andnowwewil lhaveourchildrensubjecttosomethingthatmakesnosense.Thereasonforthisstandardistogeneratemoreinterest,butastandardwil lnotdothat,teacherswil l.Therearemanyeffortsallreadyforthat,Ithinkthestateshouldgivemoresupporttothoseeffortsandnotimplementaonesizefitsallnationallygeneratedstandard.OneexamplewouldbetheEnergyCurriculumcurrentlybeingcreatedbytheGreatPlainsEnergyCooridoratBSC,othersaretheteachersconferencesprovidedbyindustriesthroughoutthestateandaccredited.Wealwaystalkabout"rigor",butthatisnottheissue.Ifwejustneededtobemorerigorousthenrequiremorehomework,whichisabadidea.Thestandardswil lnotgenerateinterestorimprovedperformance,butstifflecreativityandthesc ientific process.
6/2/201410:57AM
5 1.FordhamInstitutegradedtheNGSS“C”.2.ThefederalgovernmentthroughfederalagenciessuchastheEPAwasheavilyinvolvedindevelopingtheNGSS.3.Anti-fossilfuelthemesareparticularlyconcerningforNorthDakotasincesuchalargeportionofthestate’seconomyisdependentontheenergyindustrywhichisprimarilyfossil-fuelbased.4.Focusonfederalandinternationalregulationinsteadoffreedomandenterprise.5.Thecommentsubmittaltooliscumbersometouseandthereisnoconfirmationcopyofthecommentswhenyouc licksubmit.ItjustsaysthankyousoI'mnotsurewhetherallmycommentswentthroughornot.6.Thecommentsubmittaldeadlineistoosoon.Thecommitteehasbeenreviewingthesefornearlyayearbutthepublic commentperiodisonly5weeks?
6/1/201410:33PM
6 1.FordhamInstitutegradedtheNGSS“C”.2.ThefederalgovernmentthroughfederalagenciessuchastheEPAwasheavilyinvolvedindevelopingtheNGSS.3.Anti-fossilfuelthemesareparticularlyconcerningforNorthDakotasincesuchalargeportionofthestate’seconomyisdependentontheenergyindustrywhichisprimarilyfossil-fuelbased.4.Focusonfederalandinternationalregulationinsteadoffreedomandenterprise.
6/1/201410:12PM
7 1.FordhamInstitutegradedtheNGSS“C”.2.ThefederalgovernmentthroughfederalagenciessuchastheEPAwasheavilyinvolvedindevelopingtheNGSS.3.Anti-fossilfuelthemesareparticularlyconcerningforNorthDakotasincesuchalargeportionofthestate’seconomyisdependentontheenergyindustrywhichisprimarilyfossil-fuelbased.4.Focusonfederalandinternationalregulationinsteadoffreedomandenterprise.
6/1/201410:09PM
8 IunderstandthatthedesignofCommonCoreandNGSSisthatteacherswil lbeteachingthesamethingonanyparticulardaysothatthosewhomovecanexpecttheverysamecurriculawherevertheymove.Somuchforschoolchoice,whereveryougoyouonlyhaveonechoice:CommonCoreandNGSSConsideringthattheNGSSarecopyright.Thatleavesmewithtwochoices:acceptitaswrittenorreject.IfKindergartenstudentshaveabadyear,Ipredicttheyareofftoapooreducation.IfNGSSarenotKindergartenfriendly,IthinkweshouldrejectNGSSakaNorthDakotaScienceContentStandards.
5/31/20149:38PM
9 Iwouldl ikeNDsayNotomoreofthesecommonstandards.WeareaProsperousNationbasedonCapitalismletsdoouronthing.
5/31/20142:43PM
Page 24
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
2/4
10 Idonotbelievethatweshouldadoptthesesc iencestandards.OurStatehasplentyofteachersandprofessorsthatcancomeupwithstandardsthatarenotdrivendownbythefederalgovernment.WeneedtolookattheBIGpicturesandseethatthestandardswil lproduceanationalcurriculum.Howcanitnot?Thebooks,tests,andassessmentswil lallbedrivenbysomeone,something,otherthanourstateandlocalschooldistric ts.Ithinkitistimethatweusethe4C'screativity,collaboration,criticalthinkingandcommonsensetothinkthisthroughasawholeandnotjustfixoureyesonthestandards.Allofthestandardswil lbecomesointertwinedthattherewil lbenowaytogetoutifwewantto.Wewil lbecomeaslavetothesestandardsandallthatitbecomes....nowandintothefuture.Ibelievewehaveenoughgreatmindsinourstatetocomeupwithstandardsthatarenotpreparedandhandedtousinapackageasthe"answer"toourchildren'ssc ienceeducation.
5/31/201410:53AM
11 let'sdevelopourownstandards-notthecopyrightedstandards 5/31/20145:01AM
12 Pleasedonotimplementthesesc iencestandards.Getparentsinvolvedandlet'skeepourschoolcurriculumatalocallevel.Nomoredirectionfromthenationalgovernment-thesearenottheirchildren-andwedon'twanttheirinfluenceinourNDschools.
5/30/201411:23AM
13 ThesenewsciencestandardsandCommonCorearebeingsomewhat"forced"onuswithveryl i ttletransparency.Ifwequestionthem,thenwearedeemedasnotwantinghighstandardsforourchildren.WewereabletovoiceourconcernsatanopenforumattheChamberofCommerceinMarch2014butourconcernswerenottakenseriouslywithanyconcertedefforttotrulyunderstandorl istentous.Ourconcernsarerealandwetakeourchildren'seducationveryseriouslywhichiswhywehavedecidedtoHomeschoolourchildreninthefallof2014.WearedisappointedinthedirectionofoureducationsysteminNorthDakota.Pleasel isten-let'shaveanopendiscussionandaddresstherealconcernswehaveasparentssincetheseareOURchildren.Thankyou.
5/30/201410:43AM
14 PLEASEdonotimplementthese! 5/29/20145:33PM
15 ASACITIZENOF"THISCOUNTRY"......ANDARETIREDRESIDENTOFBISMARCK.....PARENTOFFOURGROWENCHILDREN....ANDNOWGRANDCHILDREN....THECOMMONCOREPROGRAMISTHEIMPLANTATIONOF"SOCIALISM"INTOOURSCHOOLSANDTHEGOVERNMENTCONTROLLING"OURCHILDREN'SMINDSANDLIVES".THIS"WILLLEAD"TOTHEDESTRUCTIONOF"OURUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAN".
5/29/20143:13PM
16 Pleasedonotlowerourstandardsbyexceptingthese.NDisawealthystateandwedonotneedtobeboughtoutandrunbythefeds.CommonCoreisanefforttoregionalize,replacelocalgovernmentwithboardsoffederallyappointmentbureaucrats.Thiswil lendthefreedomparentshavetochooseneighborhoodswithgoodschoolsbecausetaxfundswil lbedistributedequal.Therewil lbenoescapeinhomeschoolingorprivateeducationduetonationaltesting.Studentswil lbesubjecttoeducationmandatesimplementedbytheFederalGovernment.Letuswakeuplikethestatesthatalreadyhave-Virginia,Georgia,Indiana,Utah,SCandothershavestartedeffortsto"nix"it.Thinkofyourchildrenandyourgrandchildren.Theyareourfuture.
5/29/20141:03AM
17 Soundsl ikepropaganda!DoNOTlikeit. 5/28/201410:49PM
18 Asaconcernedparent.IstrongrejectCommonCorestandards.Thishasnotbeenatransparentdiscussion.Atabareminimum,thisprocessneedstoslowdowntoallowtimeforopenandthoroughdiscussion.Thecurrentprocessgivesmethefeelingtheproponentswanttohurrythisintothesystemthroughthebackdoorbecausetheyknowitcannotstandonitsownandgainsupportfromawellinformedvoterbase.NorthDakotansarebetterthanthis.
5/28/20147:03PM
19 parentsandteacherscanruneducationbetterthanatopdownapproachfromthefederalgovernment
5/28/20144:50PM
20 Itissuggestedthatteachingk-2andgrades5-6that"engineeringanddesign"shouldbetaught.Whynotfocusontheseprimarythings:reading,writing,math.Fromthatfoundation,addlogic.Whenreadingthisproposal,itappearsthatstartinginkindergarten,public schoolsaremoldingstudentstoabasicformoftechnologycareers,thattheassumptionispublic schoolsmustturnouttechnologypeopletofi l l thefutureworkforce.Themanyreferencesto"c limatechange"and"bigbangtheory"andnoreference(thatIcouldfind)toanyothertheoriesinthehighergradessciencestellsmethereisnoroomfordebate.Thepurposeofpublic educationistoeducatechildrentoread,write,andbeprofic ientinmath.History,geography,languageandsciencecanbelearnedbestwhenkidscanfirstbeprofic ientinthebasics.Thepushtoturnoutchildrentobecapableworkersisnotthe"job"ofDPI;itistheirjobtoeducate.Yes,technologyiseverywhereandstudentsshouldknowsomethingaboutit,butitshouldbeuti l izedtohelpintheireducation,notproduceworkers.
5/28/20141:05PM
Page 25
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
3/4
21 Ihaven'treadthestandards,butIwanttoencourageyoutomakethemasrigorousaspossible.Pleasedon'tcavetopoliticalpressureonsubjectsl ikeevolution,theoriginsoftheuniverseandclimatechange.Teachkidsreal,truesc ience-thekindsc ientistssupport,notreligiouspseudo-science.
5/27/201410:53PM
22 DROPCOMMONCOREFROMNORTHDAKOTASCHOOLS.NORTHDAKOTAPARENTSAREAGAINSTITANDSEVERALOTHERSTATESAREWORKINGTOWITHDRAWFROMCOMMONCOREASWELL.GOBACKTOTHEPREVIOUSSTANDARDSWEHADBEFORECOMMONCORE.
5/27/20148:39PM
23 NDdoesnotneedandshouldnottakepartinanytypeof"national"standards.ND,also,shouldnotuseanyportionofthestandardstocreatourownstandards....whichtechnicallycan'tbedoneanyways,sincethenationalstandardsarecopyrightedandmayonlybeusedasawhole.DoourchildrenaserviceanddoNOTallowthesestandardsintoourgreatstate.
5/27/20143:28PM
24 verypoor,globalwarmingetc..HowdoesthisbenefitSTEMeducation?ITDOESN'T 5/27/20141:57PM
25 Thechangetotheeducationsystemisacompletejoke.Educationneedstobeleftuptotheteachersandtheparents.Thegovernmenthasnorighttointerveneintheeducationsystem.Numerousstudieshaveshownasteadydeclineineducationandtestscoresthelongerthegovernmentisinvolved.TheimplementationoftheCommonCoreisoutrageous!Theteachingisdifficult,mystudentshateit,Iamseeingthemmorestressedandconfusedthaneverbefore!Weneedtomakeeducationfunandinterestingtoourstudents.Thenonstopmemorize,regurgitate,andtestisridiculous!!Iamseeingmoreandmorefamiliespull ingfrompublic schooltohomeschoolbecauseofhowbadtheschoolsandeducationisgetting.Thegovernmentneedstobackoffandlettheparentsandteacherstakeoverthechildren'seducationinstead!!!!!!!!!
5/27/20141:42PM
26 Thereisahugedifferencebetweenintendedcurriculumandenactedcurriculum.Thestandardslookgoodandourstatehascreatedanattractivedocument.But,asateacherandparentIammoreconcernedabouthowNorthDakotawil lensurethateducatorsacrossthestatearecoveringthestandards.Frommyobservationandafterputtingmyownkidsthroughhighschoolandcollegesometeachershavetoomuchautonomy.Administratorslookatlessonplansonlytoseeiftheyarefi l ledin.Theydon'toverseewhatisactuallyenactedinthec lassroom.Ibelievethereshouldbestatewideteachercoaches.
5/15/20141:48PM
27 Iabsolutelydisagreewiththecontentthathasbeeninc ludedthatisopinionandnotfact.Itgivesapoorexampleofhowscienceshouldbeused.
5/14/20148:33AM
28 Thereisahugeamountofroominthesesc iencelessonstopushadoomandgloomoutlookontoourchildren.Teachingthemtofeelbadforconsumingnaturalresources,andthatifi twasn'tforhumanstheearthwouldbemuchbetteroff.Childrenarescaredintothinkingthatanyminutetheicecapswil lmeltandallthecutefurryanimalsintheworldwil lperishbecausetheywereselfishenoughtobebornasaeviloverconsuminghuman.Idon'twantmychildrenunabletosleepanightbecausetheyaretooworriedabouttheaffectsoftheircarbonfootprintontheplanet.
5/12/201412:05PM
29 Nomoreofthisnonsense,NDhasdonefinebefore,nomoretakingtheeasywayout.Notothesestandards.
5/11/20143:03PM
30 ItwouldbeasaddayinNorthDakotaifthestateacceptsthesestandards 5/10/20149:27PM
31 Idisagreewiththedataminingthatgoesalongwithcommoncore.Thereisnoprivacyanymoreofourkids.Istronglyopposethestandardsofcommoncorethatdonotallowindividualstoexcel.Thestandardsonlyhurtkidswithdisabil i ties,astheyareexpectedto"achieve"thesameresultsasalltheotherkids.Istronglyopposethesubtlepropagandathatthesestandardsimposeonmykids.Ifthesestandardsaresogreatwhyaresomanystatesbail ingoffofthissinkingship.Pleaseconsiderthefutureofourgreatstate'schildrenandstoptryingtopushandimplementcommoncore.Themoneythestatereceivedbythefederalgovernmentisn'tworthourkid'sfuture.Pleasecometoyoursensesandseethatthiswil lonlysetourkidsbackwards,notmovethemforwardasallthel iesdescribe.Icountmykidslucky,theyarealreadyinhighschool,andcanthinkforthemselves,canseewhentheyarebeingl iedto,andhaveenoughselfesteemtovoicetheiroppositiontobeusedaspartofafailedfederalexperiment.
5/7/20147:15AM
32 Inmy27yearsofteaching,withapresentfocusonteachingallsc iencesectionsatthe4thgradelevel,Ihaveneverseenadocumentsodisjointed.Areeducatorsactuallywritingthesestandards?Theyappeartobewrittenbyindividualswhodonotunderstanddevelopmentallevelsof3-5elementarylearners.Thestandardsaretoodifficultandhavenoconnectiontoeachlevel.Itsaddensmegreatlytothinkthatthesestandardscouldactuallybeadopted.Myrecommendation?Startover.
5/1/20144:23AM
Page 26
NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey
4/4
33 Concerningyourchangingthetreatmentofevolutionas"fact"ratherthan"theory",Ioppose.Iamnotopposedtoteachingevolutionastheory,butwouldl ikeconsiderationofthebeliefof"creation"aswell.thinkitisgoodsciencetolookatalloftheideasandteachchildrenhowtothink.Promotingevolutionasafactwhentheevidencecannotbeprovenscientificallyisnotgoodscience.Iwouldaskyoutoconsiderotherviewsofthebeginningofl i fe.
4/30/20143:40PM
34 evolutionisatheorynotfactandshouldbetaughtassuch 4/30/201412:42PM
35 AsaChristianparent,IbelievethatwewerecreatedbyalovingGod,inHisimage.Myconcernsareregardingtheteachingofevolution.Iunderstandthattherearethosewhobelieveinthetheoryofevolution.I'mjustaskingthepublic schoolstopleasenotteachevolutionasafact,butratherasthetheorythatitis.I'dalsoaskthatschoolswouldgiveequalconsiderationtothoseofuswhobelieveincreationismandreturntoteachingcreationasanalternatetheory.
4/30/20148:58AM
36 Ifthedocumentismostlyl ine-by-linecopyofnationalNGSSstandardsthenitisimportanttohighlighttheNDadditions/deletionsfromtheoriginaldocument:WhichpartsareuniquetotheNDstandards,i.e.,whichpartsarenotinoriginalnationalNGSS.
4/28/20149:03PM
37 Ithinkthathavingyoungstudentsespeciallyingradesk-2giveexplanationswil lbequitedifficult.Criticalthinkingquestionsfortheyoungchildrenwil lbedifficult.
4/27/20146:50PM
38 Amuch-improveddraftandproduct.Veryintuitiveandveryhelpful.Idon'tseetoomanypeopleleftwonderingwhatismeantbythewordingorintent.Welldone,people!
4/27/20143:14PM
39 Itisaviolationofthe10thAmendmenttotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericatohaveaWashingtonmandateforeducation.
4/25/20147:39AM
40 Wedon'tmindourkidslearningevolutionintheirpublic school,butitshouldbtaughtasatheoryasitisnotafact.Thanku!
4/24/20149:07PM
41 yes 4/24/20149:56AM
42 IamanengineeringgraduatefromNDSUandhaveagreatrespectforsc ienceandthesc iencecommunity.Thefactisthereisnotheorythatmeetsthesc ientific methodfortheoriginofcreationandhumans.EvolutionandBigBangaretheories.Intell igentDesignisatheory.Biblicalcreationisatheory.Ifirmlybelievethatseveralsidestothisdiscussionmustbepresentedtoourchildren.Itisawrongapproachforthefutureofourchildrentopresentevolutionasfactorbigbangastheonlytheorytoexplaintheoriginsoftheuniverse.Allofthesetheoriesstartwithsomeassumptions.
4/23/20142:42PM
43 I'mnotaskingformuch.I'mNOTaskingforCreationismorIntell igentDesigntobeinsertedintothestandards.I'mnotaskingfortheBigBangTheorytoberemoved.I'msimplyaskingthecommitteetoacknowledgethatthereareothertheoriesabouttheoriginsoftheuniverse.Ibelievethatacommentaryl inecanbeaddedthatwil lencourageanopendiscussioninourc lassrooms.Thecommentarycouldread,""Becausetheoriginsoftheuniverseisoneofthegreatmysteriesofl i fe,therearemanytheoriesthatpeoplebelievein."Ourpoorstudentswhodon'tbelieveintheBigBangtheoryhaveenduredenoughpersecutionandbullying.AllI'maskingforisanopendiscussion.Recently,whenBil lNyedebatedKenHaminapublic forum,Bil lNye(afamousevolutionist)statedthattheoriginofl i feandouruniversewas"agreatmystery."Ihaveanewfoundrespectforhimtoadmitit.NowI'maskingforthecommitteetorecognizethatwhenitcomestoouroriginswedon'thavealltheanswers,soweshouldteachourchildrenthatwedo.Thankyouforyourconsideration.
4/23/201412:18PM
44 Thankyouforreadingmycomments,Ihopethatyouwil lseethemforwhattheyareandnotdismissthemiftheyaredifferentfromwhatyouthink.
4/16/20142:46PM
Page 27
Lignite Coal: America’s Abundant Energy Resource www.lignite.com
Jason Bohrer, President & CEO Lignite Energy Council PO Box 2277 Bismarck, ND 58502 Telephone: (701) 258-7117 Fax: (701) 258-2755
May 29, 2014
Greg Gallagher
Assessment Director
Department of Public Instruction
600 East Boulevard
Bismarck, ND 58505
RE: Department of Public Instruction’s proposed new state science content standards.
Dear Mr. Gallagher,
The Lignite Energy Council appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on the
Department of Public Instruction’s proposed science standards. The LEC is a regional, non-profit
organization whose primary mission is to enhance, preserve, and protect the development and use of
lignite coal as an affordable and reliable energy source. The LEC’s membership includes: 1) producers
of lignite coal who have an ownership interest in and who mine lignite; 2) users of lignite who operate
lignite-fired electric generating plants and the nation’s only commercial-scale “synfuels” plant that
converts lignite into pipeline-quality natural gas; and 3) suppliers of goods and services to the lignite
coal industry. The LEC is submitting these comments out of concern that some of the content as
proposed will result in inaccurate and misleading education with respect to the environmental impacts
of lignite production and power generation.
As a general matter, the LEC strongly supports and encourages science education as a core
part of a K-12 curriculum. The LEC has a long history of providing fact-based energy instruction
opportunities for education professionals. One example is through an annual continued education
seminar sponsored by the LEC and accredited by North Dakota State University, the University of
North Dakota, and Minot State University. The seminar has hosted more than 3,000 teachers over 28
years and provides educators with the information and educational material they need to teach their
students about how lignite is mined and used to produce electricity for homes, farms, and businesses in
the Upper Midwest.
Building upon this legacy, the LEC has partnered with the North Dakota Petroleum Council to
hold an “Energy Tour” for college professors and administrators in August. The two-day event will
give college professors from the University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University plus
college presidents from Minot, Bismarck and Wahpeton a chance to hear from experts about how
Page 28
Lignite Coal: America’s Abundant Energy Resource www.lignite.com
energy, economics and the environment are intertwined. Additionally, they will tour energy facilities
such as an oil rig, coal mine, power plant and oil refinery.
The LEC and other North Dakota energy industry representatives are also working in
conjunction with entities such as the Department of Public Instruction, State Historical Society and
North Dakota institutions of higher education on a North Dakota Studies Energy Curriculum project.
The project includes the development of an energy curriculum for 4th
and 8th
grade students to include
relevant information about North Dakota’s robust energy resources. Content and online modules will
provide more educated citizens and contributors to North Dakota’s future workforce.
An important principle of science is that the study of our natural world remains largely
composed of theories in pursuit of proof. As such, it is important that subject matter being presented to
students as part of the science curriculum should not be used to teach “standards” in the absence of
hard facts to support the conclusion drawn by the standard. For example, the explanation behind MS-
ESS3-5 (p. 105) asserts that the “[e]mphasis is on the major role that human activities play in causing
the rise in global temperatures.” It is concerning that the proposed standards would utilize a term as
subjective as “major” when the extent of the role of human activity on the atmosphere remains subject
to great debate. Similar assertions are made in MS-ESS3.D, HS-ESS2.D, and elsewhere throughout
the document.
As evidence of this uncertainty, the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change raises new questions concerning the level of increase in temperatures associated with
increased carbon dioxide emissions, otherwise known as “climate sensitivity.” The IPCC’s report
states that “[i]n contrast to AR4, no best estimate for [Effective Climate Sensitivity] is given because
of a lack of agreement on the best estimate across lines of evidence and studies and an improved
understanding of the uncertainties in estimates based on the observed warming,” and that “[i]n
estimates based on the observed warming the most likely value is sensitive to observational and model
uncertainties, internal climate variability and to assumptions about the prior distribution of [Effective
Climate Sensitivity].”1 Case in point, the IPCC report further states that even as global greenhouse gas
emissions during the last decade “were the highest in human history,”2 the “rate of warming over the
past 15 years is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.”3
The LEC agrees with the statement made under HS-ESS3 Crosscutting Concepts: “Empirical
evidence is required to differentiate between the cause and correlation and make claims about specific
causes and effects.” However, many of the current theories of climate science rely on models that have
yet to be verified through empirical data. As such, the LEC would recommend that the final standards
further link this caveat to the Disciplinary Core Ideas pertaining to the impacts of human activity on
global climate.
The Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) presented under HS-ETS1-A states that “[h]umanity faces
major global challenges today, such as the need for supplies of clean water and food or for energy
sources that minimize pollution, which can be addressed through engineering.” The LEC supports this
principle but would recommend that the DCI be further clarified that engineering and technology have
and continue to minimize pollution from existing energy sources such that coal-fired power and
environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. For example, despite increasing the use of coal
1 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/review/WG1AR5_SubstantiveEditsList_All_Final.pdf
2 http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter5.pdf
3 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/plattner15paris.pdf
Page 29
Lignite Coal: America’s Abundant Energy Resource www.lignite.com
for stable, baseload electricity by over 180 percent over the past 40 years, emissions of criteria
pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide have decreased by 80 percent4. The LEC also
recommends that this DCI acknowledges the societal advantages and dramatic increase in the overall
standard of living that are made possible by reliable and affordable access to energy and electricity,
particularly as technology continues to advance.
In conclusion, the proposed standards seek to cover a multitude of complex scientific concepts.
The LEC strongly believes that a comprehensive and fact-based science curriculum is essential for K-
12 students. Overall, the proposed standards largely provide the foundation for such. However, the
LEC respectfully requests that any final standards be revised to more accurately ensure that theory is
not presented as fact, and that the standards provide the flexibility for students to draw their own
conclusions or beliefs based on sound science.
Again, the LEC has long history of working with educators to provide information and data on
power generation as well as associated environmental impacts and mitigation. Thank you for your
attention to these comments and please do not hesitate to use the LEC as a resource as you move
forward with the proposed standards.
Sincerely,
LIGNITE ENERGY COUNCIL
Jason Bohrer
President & CEO
4 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/pdf/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants-final.pdf
Page 30