This is the time — you can give feedback on the Minnesota science standards, and you can also apply to be on the standards writing committee. Here’s where you have a chance to make a difference.
The Minnesota Department of Education is now soliciting feedback from the public on the current Science Standards via an online survey. The survey will be open until February 21, 2008.
First, review the current Science Standards on the Science Standards Web page.
Then take the Science Standards online survey.
Applications are also being accepted for individuals interested in serving on the Science Standards Revision Committee. Before applying to the committee, please read the Assumptions and the Timeline documents posted on the MDE Science Standards Web page. Serving on the committee means a commitment of at least one meeting a month, from March 2008 through February 2009. The initial 2-day meeting is scheduled for March 4-5, 2008, and is required of all committee members. Applicants who are selected for the committee will be notified on or before February 21, 2008. (Applications accepted January 8-21, 2008.)
First, read the Assumptions and the Timeline documents posted on the Science Standards Web page.
Then, apply for the Science Standards Committee.
If you have questions about the Science Standards or the revision process, please contact Clark Erickson, State Science Education Specialist, at 651-582-8753.
Please share this information with your district and school staff, particularly teachers or administrators involved in science education.
If you understand the science and want to contribute to the next set of standards for the state of Minnesota, get to work. Remember, the current standards were written under the malignant influence of Cheri Yecke, and they’re good given the difficulty of the conditions, thanks to the hard work of the previous committee. We can make these standards a shining example for the rest of the country this time.
Are you rascals in Minnesota going to insist on teaching evolution as a fact instead of as a theory? Boy, I hope not!
(After all, it’s both.)
Oh those poor students. Being submitted to cephalopod physiology, cephalopod anatomy, cephalopod psychology, and how to get a zebra fish drunk.
Bob
Depending on the meeting times and place (I didnt see it on the website) I’ll likely throw my hat in the fire. (Ugh, what am I thinking!)
Nevermind, using a blue background in Word can lead to problems…
All Meeting Times: 9 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Location: Minnesota Department of Education – Roseville, MN
Yeah, those meeting times are awful — they make it very difficult for people outside the twin cities and nearby suburbs to attend. One constant source of annoyance here is the way our one major metropolitan area rather completely dominates everything, at the expense of rural Minnesota.
I’ll still be applying.
Was it a nice hat?
Yeah-huh.
OH MY GOD!!!!!!
I strongly urge people to get involved in the standards writing process. The ID creationists got their crap into the process in Ohio by loading up the writing committees, and it took years of work to pry it out of our state standards. Prevention is the best medicine!
We are stuck with it, but the whole idea of the general public deciding on science standards is foolish. Science standards should be written by scientists. PZ, your’re applying, what mechanism within the selection process would bar you from being on this committee?
In addition to #8’s comment–and I’m a non USA-ian so bear with me–but does the general population get a say in teaching standards for all subjects in your country or just science standards? Do they ask Joe Sixpack for input on what to teach in Math class? Art? Woodwork? PE? Modern Languages? History? Everything? Either way, I think I’m beginning to see the reasons for some of your problems.
Well PZ if we both get on the committee, the meeting is near my house, so you’re welcome to load up on coffee with me beforehand.
And yes, the general public has a stake in all public school standards. However the other ones are not as politically charged.
I am saddened that I could have input into the Science standards for High School kids in Minnesota. Being as I don’t quite have my bachelor’s in HISTORY yet. But my word could stand as much as PZ’s if he is not on the Committee. Man talk about a promotion.
Make sure they include some lessons from the holy bibble.
To echo the comments here, why the heck does the general public have input on “Science Standards”?
Holy smokes, the state of Minnesota has hundreds of the (presumably) top science educators in the world on their payroll already. Why not look to them for advice on what Minnesotans should be learning in science?
Well, it is public education, after all, and its raison d’etre is to educate people so they can be informed voters; why shouldn’t the public have a say in determining minimum curriculum standards, in science and in all fields?
Of course, being a stakeholder doesn’t magically make anyone an expert. Prudent stakeholders will, therefore, hire experts to advise them… as you indicate:
Presumably that’s exactly what states do. Except Texas and Florida, of course. And Kansas. And maybe Delaware. South Dakota?… oh, dear… 8^(
A clarification of my previous comment (#8). Since there is an application process and presumably a limited number of committee seats available, how are they apportioned: by region of the state, first-come-first served basis. ‘random’ drawing, viewpoints represented? What circumstance would allow for an honest persons’ application ‘in-good-faith’ to be turned down and s/he not be allowed to serve?
Re #10 – the science committee wasn’t nearly as politically charged as the social studies committee which met at the same time as we did. We could hear their fights through closed doors!
I put my name in again. Glutton for punishment I guess. Actually it wasn’t that bad last time and, with the work of groups like Tonka Focus and MnCSE, I think the IDists are wounded in MN. Not dead, just wounded.
So does that mean then that we can all have a say in what they teach in their churches? Can we get on their committees and demand they change their book to take account of other theories? After all, creation is just a revelation and not a fact right? There are plenty of alternative explanations. Teach the controversy, let the kids make up their own minds.
…just saying…
In reply to AlanWCan: “. . .does the general population get a say in teaching standards for all subjects in your country or just science standards?”
Yes, my friend, they damn sure do. Please recall that America is a republic. The chief feature of which is that the seat of power resides in the people; the general population, the little guy. And yes, Joe Sixpack. Even me. And you as well, should you choose to become a citizen of this country.
The difficulty arises when too many people have been fooled into believing that we are a democracy in which the will of the majority is paramount. The problem with this notion is that too few people will declare their own will due to the illusion that some elected or appointed “official representative” will faithfully “represent” them in the legislative process. Because some citizens will neglect their civil responsibilities (like speaking up and voting) in favor of letting someone else do it for them (which does not happen), it comes as no surprise that those who would serve only themselves have carte blanch to legislate as they (a minority) please. This is the source not only of much consternation for concerned citizens but also the flow of mega bucks to special interest groups, media outlets and superstitious fools who contribute nothing to the welfare of the republic.
Only through good education in the rights, and more importantly, the responsibilities of citizenship can a nation such as America prosper. After all, if one member of a family doesn’t take care of his chores, someone else will have to take time away from their’s in order to care for his. This results in two jobs poorly done.
One constant source of annoyance here is the way our one major metropolitan area rather completely dominates everything, at the expense of rural Minnesota.
I ran into this in most stuff in the state (and for a large time I was only as far as Mankato). One of the things I really appreciated about the folks at OutFront Minnesota (the primary LGBT org in the state) is that they made an early decision that the annual conference would be held outside the Twin Cities. Excellent strategic planning on their part.
I feel weird, as an outsider, but is there an organizational base through which organizing is taking place? The reason I ask is this: wouldn’t coordinating activities (writing of certain standards, recruiting candidates, educating board members, legislative education, etc.) work better, and be a more efficient approach? Additionally, these various tactics can be organized with a particular strategy in mind. Coordination, division of labor, mobilization of resources, education of constituencies, etc. How’s the organizing?
“Yes, my friend, they damn sure do. Please recall that America is a republic. The chief feature of which is that the seat of power resides in the people; the general population, the little guy. And yes, Joe Sixpack. Even me. And you as well, should you choose to become a citizen of this country.”
Is that really a good thing, though? Do you also have a say in what operations a surgeon is allowed to perform, and for which conditions?
In Britain, there are school governors (parents, usually) that are required to allocate the money, and we can certainly make our feelings known to those who produce the national curriculum, but it would be insane to allow unqualified members of the public to vote on what are often fairly complex, specialized subjects. That, we leave to scientists, experts and educators – no? Maybe I am missing something. You are going to have to convince me that it is a good idea, given the current circumstances.
Is that really a good thing, though? Do you also have a say in what operations a surgeon is allowed to perform, and for which conditions?
you should have read the rest of his post, which is predicated on the following lead:
The difficulty arises when too many people have been fooled into believing that we are a democracy in which the will of the majority is paramount.
Oh, the naievete in some of these comments! The idea behind public input into the standards is not to have any clueless joe sixpack write the standards.
It is vital for the republic that people with a variety of qualifications contribute to writing the standards for the following reasons:
1. College professors need to have input into what they expect for readiness in the subjects they will teach.
2. Business and employers need to be involved so that they will have input on the technological skills they expect for their future employees.
3. People in local governments need to have input so that they can work with a sufficiently educated citizenry so that they can formulate comprehensive plans.
4. Teachers need to have input so that they can formulate curricula that work with the children they are expected to educate.
5. Parents need to be involved so that they can make sure that their childrens’ educations have lasting value.
The people that the Dept is looking for will have some value to contribute to the entirety of the standards if not all of them are scientists. It’s part of that whole diversity thing.
If you take the time to review the assumptions each applicant needs to agree to in order to be considered for the committee, you will see the following item:
This section may need to be re-worded so that demagogues such as John West can’t claim that it opens the door to Intelligent Design or Critical Analysis. But the statement itself is sound because it is intended to teach that science has no permanent fixity. Everything is open to challenge, but it must be done using real science, evidence and technology.
The real entertainment will come when the committee presents its proposed standards to the public in Town Halls. This is where the creo’s will come out and attack evolution as just a theory. One after the other, but those creeps will not be able to get their crap into their standards as much as their pastor tells them to raise their voices.
Once the committee has written its final draft, the legislature will need to approve them and they will be subject to revision. It happened in 2004 that creationist legislators tried to add their piece during final budget negotiations, thinking that the other legislators were to exhausted to put up a fight. Tim Mahoney was among many Democrats to laugh them down, and the legislatures passed and the governor signed the current standards.
Minnesota has no State School Board like Florida does. This seems like a much saner way to do things, to me.
These assumptions set the tone going in that “critical analysis” bullshit will not be part of the standards.
Okay, Damian, I’ll take this slowly. Please attend.
In order to create an environment in which people of diverse proclivities might coexist and prosper, for their own gain as well as for the gain of the community at large, it is necessary for the people to actually declare what they would prefer and how they will tolerate being governed. From the bottom up, not from the top down. For an example please read the Declaration of Independence with particular attention to the list of grievances against the Crown during the colonial era of American history. In fact, read it through several times and savor the deep down satisfaction of getting an asshole to comprehend his foolishness.
To be in charge of a nation or a kindergarten requires the same talents. To be in charge of any society requires that those ruling actually know the aspirations of those that they are ruling. This is the mistake made by Britain during (before and after) colonial times. Their smug assumption was that they could extend their authority across the Atlantic. No detailed description of the results of that delusion is necessary here. It is history
Having thus enlightened yourself you are now qualified to answer this question, one that has been continually well posited and rarely well answered. To wit:
How shall those who we charge to make the rules know how to rule if they are not informed of the will of those who will allow themselves to be ruled? Further, how shall they know unless they are told by those who would willing be ruled? Provided, of course, that those who are ruled are actually able to articulate their desires and aspirations.
Hope this answers your question. Of course, this does not answer all questions concerning authority nor does it fully anticipate challenges that will come in the future. Nevertheless, it is probably the best basis for self-governance to come down the pike since there has been pikes. And pikes are, as you will note, man-made.
.
Thanks for the back up, Ichthyic. I have appreciated your posts for some time now and acknowledge your godless heathenism and your impressive command of fact and insight. As well as your cozy turn of phrase. I look forward to more of the same.
OT and frivolous, but do you have fins?
I can swim but I have a hell of a time staying on the surface. Full submersion is my preference. It seems to be more efficient than thrashing about on the meniscus.
Full immersion and E Pluribus Unum!
More @ Damian, re: “Do you also have a say in what operations a surgeon is allowed to perform, and for which conditions?”
Of course not. I am not trained in neuro-surgery. But I have been educated and I have seen for my self that self governance is way hard. One has to pay attention. I was fortunate in having dedicated teachers (in gummint schools, oh my!) who made it their business to instruct me on the basic principles of the Constitution and the intent of its framers with reference to how they imagined a successful way for people to coexist and mitigate their differences. My parents also did yeoman’s work is this sense.
The idea that faith trumps knowledge was never a part of the fabric of building this nation. That puny stuff is sufficient for private conversation but is helpless when dealing with a large population with diverse philosophies. This is not to equate diverse philosophies as coequal with any useful mode of governance. Rather it is the notion that we are free to give each other the grace to hold manifold ideas in our personal lives. This with the caveat that we do not, ever, insist that others hold to the same. If not, whence the cherished line, “O’re the land of the free, and the home of the brave?”
Are you a patriot? Do you love America? Do you love the whole world yet find yourself at a loss to explain all the horror that it contains? Yes? Good. Do you automatically default to the notion that all people are deserving of respect? If you answer yes then I will walk beside you to the gates of Cthulu’s deeps. But if you acquiesce to the notion that a government of any kind is justified in telling me (you) what is important and what is acceptable, well, podner, here is where the trail comes to a fork. I have chosen my way. And you can go your own way.
“Okay, Damian, I’ll take this slowly. Please attend.”
Well, I’d like to thank Mike Haubrich for actually pointing to the fact that there is little difference between our two nations, in that respect.
As for the condescension, Crudley Wrott, it has been noted.
I don’t buy the whole “bottom up” idea, especially for public education. The general population isn’t trained to know about science, therefore how can we take their demands seriously when it comes to teaching it? As far as I’m concerned, there should be national guidelines, designed by experts in the field, for the basic knowledge that needs to be taught at each grade level. More can certainly be taught, but there needs to be a minimum level of competency gained. That means we don’t see the whole “we don’t like that durned evilution” nonsense, the parents don’t have any control over the basic curriculum. It also helps when students are transferring from one city to another or one state to another, they’re still learning the same basic ideas no matter where they go.
Yeah, I know, it’s too logical, it’ll never fly, right?
I don’t understand this idea people have that the committee will be full of Joe Sixpack unqualified mouth breathers. The last time around I was on the Earth & Space Science subcommittee. We had five Ph D’s (one of whom now works at NCAR) and four actual earth science school teachers. We we’re all “the public” but damn well qualified for the job. For the committee as a whole, there were very few “just folks” with the political appointees being painfully obvious and woefully out manned.
If you have a hour to kill I can talk about my experiences on the final draft writing committee….
Damn the typos in the last post! Should not post anything before coffee.
I would advise setting depicted object commercializing, let me explicate. You can get a video professionally created for just about $47.00 97.00 (30-60 seconds) viewing your high-performance desk drawer slide. You can even try how sweet it is to destruct your rivals and blast it around over 100 internet video sites for as little as $5.00 per site to be done manualy!You can get keyword search done for you professionally, identifying the keyword phrases that will get you a nice amount of search volum, yes with shorter competing pages. Thank you for this article! I’ve just learned a surely perfect news archive about seo advertising Seek it!