Science sucked into rules review
Climate change debate highlights political slant in Idaho science guidelines
Idaho’s science standards were sucked into the black hole of legislative rules review last week where testimony debated climate change, and human impact on the environment.
“There is a lot of information out there. Depending on who is listening and what their bias is to start with is who they think did the best,” said House Education Committee Chairman Representative Lance Clow, R-Twin Falls.
Contrary to the English Language Arts and Mathematics hearings, this meeting focused on global climate change, human and natural impact on the environment, independent student inference, and educator regulated scientific processes.
After passing the science standards only two years ago the committee wasn’t interested in listening to opinionated statements without a factual base.
“Some people talked in general statements about things, it’s hard to focus in and [decide] is this something we need to fix? Is it a section of a standard we need to fix or a general ‘I don’t like’ or ‘I do like’ something,” said Clow. “We [as a committee] need to see someone [say] here is a standard and an example of why we don’t like it.”
Public testimony circled around the content’s political bias, language in the further explanation, and content limits. The opposition argued that the standards presented an unbalanced version of science through conclusionary language. Speakers were particularly passionate about how the science guidelines describe the causes and effects of climate change.
“One of the problems in the area of climate change are statements that seem to support one side of an argument versus the other,” said Clow. “Instead of saying students should understand what natural and human activities impact climate, or may impact climate, it should be more generic.”
Overall, the opposition didn’t have a conflict with the standards but with the supporting content. Unlike ELA and Math, Idaho’s Science guidelines are more direct about how to develop curriculum through defined limitations and elaborated examples.
“By putting it in [the standards] we are saying you should go in that particular direction,” said Clow. “[For] example it says include negative biological impacts of wind turbines, erosion due to deforestation, loss of habitat due to dams, loss of habitat due to surface mining, and air pollution [from burning of fossil fuels]. Why is it only the negative impacts we should be teaching our children? What are the positive impacts?”
Rep. Clow anticipates that the committee will come to a conclusion before the end of the week. There is no conclusive date but he is expecting to see a few motions come forward.
“Many of the standards are going to be dealt with pretty routinely and then I think there’s a few of them that are going to get some attention,” said Clow.
“A few that I wouldn’t necessarily have expected.”
Madison Hardy is an intern with the University of Idaho McClure Center for Public Policy Research and the UI JAMM News Service.