A draft of Arizona鈥檚 K-12 standards for science teaching significantly weakens the teaching of evolution鈥攁nd many critics in the state attribute the new wording directly to Diane Douglas, the state superintendent of education.
Late revisions made to portray evolution as less than settled fact and substitute other terms, like 鈥渂iological diversity,鈥� in some language. Here are two representative examples, one from the draft鈥檚 鈥渃ore ideas鈥� and another from the high school section of the draft. (Click to see the full size.)
The draft also deletes an earlier standard directing students to analyze and interpret 鈥渟upporting evidence for the Big Bang theory and the scale of the Universe鈥� in favor of new language directing them to 鈥渃ritique ... theories related to the scale and expansion of the universe.鈥�
Where the changes came from exactly is unclear. They first showed up in a redlined copy that emerged this spring from an internal review at the Arizona Department of Education. The current draft differs substantially from the one crafted by a team of more than 100 educators, curriculum specialists, and science experts last year, and also introduces some errors, the writers said.
鈥淲e were appalled. Just appalled,鈥� said Barbara Reinert, the science specialist for the Scottsdale, Ariz., district, who served on the standards-writing team, after she and colleagues saw the new draft. 鈥淭hey didn鈥檛 look anything like the ones we wrote.鈥�
Many critics point the finger directly at Arizona schools chief Diane Douglas for the changes, especially after a video emerged last week of her remarks at a political event for Republican candidates. At that meeting, she said she supported the teaching of 鈥渋ntelligent design,鈥� the idea that life is too complex to have evolved on its own without the hand of a presumably omnipotent designer.
Intelligent design, a dressed-up form of creationism, was deemed in a 2005 U.S. federal district court ruling to violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The term intelligent design doesn鈥檛 appear in the standards, and in an interview with the Capital Media Service, Douglas said her November remarks reflected her personal beliefs. But that the current draft could open the door to teachers introducing that concept.
She also said that 鈥渆volution is a theory in many ways,鈥� which confuses the scientific use of the word theory with the way people use it in everyday speech. In science, the term theory actually refers to a well-researched and empirically tested explanation鈥攏ot a good guess.
A spokesman for Douglas sent this statement in response to a request for comment:
I would like to clear up the misinformation that was reported regarding our upcoming Arizona Science Standards. Evolution is still a standard that will be taught under the Arizona Science Standards. In addition, you will not find creationism or Intelligent Design included anywhere in the Arizona Science Standards. The recording of me talking about Intelligent Design was taken at a political function where I expressed my personal belief that Intelligent Design should also be taught along with the theory of evolution. Although that is my personal belief, my belief is not included in the Arizona Science Standards."
Evolution Remains a School Debate
For educators like Reinert, the evolution pieces in the standards are doubly frustrating because they bring up tired arguments long dismissed by virtually all scientists. (In a few more years, K-12 education will reach the 100-year anniversary of the 1925 Scopes 鈥淢onkey Trial鈥� over the teaching of evolution in Tennessee.)
鈥淚t鈥檚 not even an argument in science and not even up for debate. It鈥檚 so pass茅,鈥� Reinert said.
Arizona鈥檚 debate has surprising parallels to a similar situation that emerged last year in neighboring New Mexico. Last October, that state altered language in the Next Generation Science Standards, which the state was considering for adoption, on climate change and on evolution. Those changes, as 澳门跑狗论坛 reported at the time, also appear to have been driven by political forces within the state鈥檚 education department. The reaction from science teachers in New Mexico was so strong that the state ended up reversing many of those changes, but not all of them.
In Arizona, as in New Mexico, at least one education department staffer quit over the revisions.
Lacey Wieser, until recently the science director at the Arizona education department, said supervisors told her to make the changes, which she believes were coming from the superintendent鈥檚 office. She quit the following week upon realizing that the standards writers probably would not be able to reverse the changes.
鈥淎ll I knew was that this wasn鈥檛 good science, and that they broke the progressions and development of standards that the committee worked hard to build,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he way evolution has been changed makes every science teacher in the state vulnerable. [Teachers will think], 鈥業f I want to keep my job I have to do something incompetent in my field.鈥�
鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to come across as a bitter ex-employee,鈥� Wieser continued. 鈥淚鈥檓 not. I just don鈥檛 want Arizona to have bad standards and for kids to learn in an scientifically inaccurate way.鈥�
The standards are still undergoing public comment and will be revised again by the writing committee鈥攁nd potentially by the department. A final draft will go to the state board of education sometime this spring.
Arizona鈥檚 draft does not include the NGSS, which currently guide science teaching in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
CORRECTED: A previous version misstated the court that ruled on intelligent design in 2005.