Jack Krebs

Speech to the Board of Education, February 8, 2000, supporting their previous decision to have the science standards reviewed by an objective, outside group

Good morning.

Today I am here as a member of Kansas Citizens for Science, an organization of parents, students, educators, and scientists dedicated to improving the quality of science education in Kansas.

We believe that the review of the science standards that you will be considering later today is an important next step. Various parties in Kansas have defended the current standards, and various parties have pointed to a variety of flaws. Also, the standards have gone through several revisions by several sets of authors.

We believe that an external review by a competent group, knowledgeable of the science standards of other states and countries, would be the best way for the Board to assure the citizens of Kansas that our science standards will indeed lead the way in providing quality science education for our children.

Let me expand on four reasons why a review is necessary at this point.

At the December Board meeting, you watched a video on bad textbooks, where it was shown that inaccuracies and inconsistencies were all too common. In addition, the video showed that one of the sources of error was that the actual writing of the book was done piece-meal, and by people who were less-qualified than the cited authors of the book. In discussing this video, the Board commented on the possible need for a review process for textbooks in Kansas in order to avoid these inferior products. If this is a desirable thing in regard to textbooks, surely such a review would be beneficial for the standards themselves, which define the basic learning outcomes those textbooks are meant to address.

Secondly, these are science standards, and one of the central tenets of the scientific process is the idea of peer review. Knowledge in science gets refined and corrected in part because the peer-review process requires that material stand up to examination and criticism by others before publication. Subjecting our standards to such a review process would be in keeping with the spirit of science, and we would benefit by listening to an evaluation by those knowledgeable with the efforts of other states, our peers in this process, to define quality science standards.

A third reason is this: We now compete in a global marketplace, and for a number of years we have cited “world-class standards" as our goal. When I was working on the state math standards many years ago, we consulted the standards of other developed countries as well as those of states and national organizations in America, and in many cases found American standards lacking. A nationally qualified reviewer will be able to offer constructive advice so as to ensure that our standards are indeed “world-class”, as we have said we want them to be.

A fourth, and final reason, for sending the standards out for review is this: without a doubt, this issue has become politicized in Kansas, and emotions have run high. All parties have become embroiled in the emotions of the situation, and the outcome has now been tied to higher political stakes. The central goal of a quality education for our children has begun to be lost as these other issues have arisen. The view of a group looking solely at the educational issues, and not at all the lines drawn in the sand by the adults in Kansas, will do us a favor by giving us their unbiased, objective opinion. I think we owe it to the children of Kansas to at least listen to others who are not as politically and emotionally involved as we are.

For these four reasons, the members of Kansas Citizens for Science strongly support your decision to have the Kansas science standards reviewed by a knowledgeable, competent outside reviewer, and to take seriously the feedback and advice that you receive.

Thank you.