Science Standards and the State Board of Education

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is duking it out over science standards today. The second draft of the new science standards were posted on the SBOE website on Nov 12. Reading through the 54-page document for high school science reveals lots of references to "strengths and weaknesses" and "limitations" of scientific theories and the inclusion of language that allows for interesting topics to be brought up in science class. From section 112.43(b)(2):

Students should know that some questions are outside the realm of science because they deal with phenomena that are not scientifically testable.

I checked the definition of "phenomena" in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary just to be sure I was right about what that sentence means. Phenomena has the definitions of "observable facts or events" and "something experienced through the senses rather than thought or intuition". So the new standards are opening the door to teaching ghost hunting in science class?

The above quote -- "phenomena that are not scientifically testable" -- appears in all the sections: physics, chemistry, earth and space science, and the rest of the public school science disciplines. But, really, what might they teach in chemistry that is not observable, testable, and reproducible? In high school chemistry, we read the theory and some history on how the theory came to be, then we performed the experiments that proved the theory. Physics? Engineering? This is a phrase aimed squarely at evolution.

Tonight (Wed, Nov 19), the SBOE is listening to testimony from the public about the standards. Overwhelmingly, Texas scientists, schoolteachers, religious leaders, and laypeople support maintaining high standards for science in the public school classroom. It's only some of the board members who want to dilute education in Texas.

Steve Schafersman makes an excellent point in his liveblog of the hearings:

Students must learn the basics of a science and of scientific theories before they gain the ability to be able to evaluate or criticize anything about them, including hypotheses. Asking them to "critique" the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory is irresponsible. Not only would they not have the knowledge to do so, but the concept is wrong.

While he writes this in summary of several points made by speakers, it is an excellent counterpoint to Cynthia Dunbar's earlier mention of "academic freedom".

The hearings are over for the evening, but the assault on science in the classroom will continue.

Read the second draft of the science standards (pdf format).
Read the liveblog of the testimonies before the SBOE from the Texas Freedom Network: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.
Read the liveblog of the testimonies before the SBOE from Steve Schafersman at the Evo.Sphere blog on the chron.commons.