UDK Article 12/99

Dec. 23, 1999

Kansas BOE votes to have science standards externally reviewed

By Jim O'Malley

Kansan.com writer

Online editor's note: this story got lost in the shuffle. It is a little old, but we believe it is still relevant.

Last week's State Board of Education meeting began with controversy and ended with a surprising 9-1 vote to send the Board's controversial science education standards out for external review.

The board's agenda included a public comment session and consideration of two revised versions of the science standards. Revision was required after three science organizations withdrew copyright permission for the use of their work in the Board's standards. The groups withdrew permission because they considered the Board's removal of evolution from the standards to be scientifically unsound.

Professor call Board uncivil

Doug Ruden, assistant professor of molecular biosciences, opened the public comment session. He said he represented a new group, ROUND, for Remove Our Uncivil Science Delegates. Ruden said Board chairwoman Linda Holloway was uncivil for trying to have Steve Case, director of the Kansas Collaborative Research Network, arrested.

Holloway told Ruden his statement was inaccurate.

Case was on the original committee of 27 educators and scientists appointed by the Board in 1998 to write science standards. He has opposed the Board's 6-4 decision in August to remove important parts of evolutionary theory from the committee's standards and to add language changing the definition of science.

Case said after the meeting that in October, he sent Holloway an e-mail message threatening to sue her for defamation for statements she made in the media. Case said Holloway took this as a physical threat and went to the Shawnee police with it, but did not pursue the matter. No arrest warrant was filed on him, he said.

Adrian Melott, professor of physics and astronomy, told the Board it had removed not just evolution from the standards, but also discussion of global warming. Melott said this was because Biblical creationists believe that environmental concerns are pointless because the earth is in its last days.

Only one of the eight speakers at the public comment session, Dave Penny of Lawrence, supported the Board majority.

Standards linked to Creationists

Steve Case and Oskaloosa teacher Jack Krebs spoke at the meeting on behalf of Kansas Citizens for Science. They told the Board that almost all the additions the Board made to the original committee's standards came from a previously undisclosed draft linked to creationist leader Tom Willis.

The Web site of the National Committee for Excellence in Science Education, a group that supports the Board's standards, contains a Microsoft Word document called citizen's draft A8, which the site invites visitors to download.

The Web site said that the Board's standards were close to the citizen's draft. Most of the additions to the original writing committee's standards are identical to language in the citizen's draft.

The properties box of the Word document lists Tom Willis as the author, and the saved changes in the document show that it was revised on the Willis computer and sent to the computer of a Steven E. Abrams.

Abrams was one of three Board members who drafted the standards adopted in August by adding and removing language from the original committee's work.

Abrams said that he consulted with Willis and other citizens when writing the standards, but that as far as he knew, no other Board members met with Willis.

Tom Willis is president of the Missouri-based Creation Science Association for Mid-America, which holds that Genesis is a historical and scientific account of the creation of the earth and the origin of life.

The Creation Science Association's Web site at said the group's leaders helped the Board write its science standards.

Willis said he and a group of citizens wrote rough drafts of standards on his computer, but that he personally wrote only a small portion of them. He said he met twice with Board member Steve Abrams.

Willis said, "The Board probably learned something from the citizen's committee."

But Willis said who wrote the standards was not as important as their content. He defended the Board's standards as superior to the original committee's work, which he said treated evolution like religious dogma..

Board member Scott Hill, who worked with Abrams to write the standards adopted in August, said creationists did not write the standards.

Hill said in October, "I did not consult with Tom Willis or Creation Science. If someone is trying to tie the standards we passed to creation science you should seriously question their motives."

After last week's Board meeting, Hill said none of the three Board members who drafted the August standards had copies of the citizen's draft.

"The truth, which is apparently inconvenient for our open forum screamers, is that the three board members worked solely off the 27-member document," Hill said.

Board Member Harold Voth, who worked with Hill and Abrams on the standards adopted in August, said he was a little surprised by the information about the creationist influence. "I didn't realize that there had been that kind of influence on the standards," he said.

Board member Bill Wagnon, who voted against the August standards, said he was deeply disturbed by the information.

"It demonstrates clearly that non-science, non-school improvement forces are driving this situation," he said. "Our children will be the losers."

Board votes for external review

Shawnee Mission biology teacher Ken Bingman told the Board it had butchered the original writing committee's standards by removing evolution and the geologic time scale, and changing the definition of science to accommodate creationism.

Bingman, who was on the original writing committee, challenged the Board to put the standards out for external review.

"Let's see how scientifically sound your work is," he said.

Bingman said the original committee's work was reviewed externally by the Council on Basic Education, and received high marks.

Board member Janet Waugh, who was in the minority in August, said she took up Bingman's suggestion and moved to send the revised standards out for review.

But because there were two revised versions to choose from, Abrams made an amended motion to approve one version with a minor change and send it out for review. This motion passed 9-1.

Board members said external review would cost between $10,000 and $20,000 and would take until March. The Board did not decide who would review the standards

Waugh said that external review would have to be put out for bid and that the Board would have to vote on what group would do the review

She said, "An unbiased external review should resolve the debate as to whether the document we adopted is good science education or inferior science education."

Bill Wagnon was the lone dissenter on the Board. He said, "I voted against sending the document out to some external reviewer because the standards are fatally flawed and don't deserve our spending any more time or resources on them."

Doug Ruden said the vote for external review was a major turning point in the science standards debate. No respectable outside reviewer would accept the Board's standards, he said.

Adrian Melott agreed. He called the vote a hopeful sign and said he couldn't imagine the standards getting a good review.

Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education said she expected knowledgeable reviewers to advise the Board to repair its standards by including the concept of evolution as it is understood in the scientific community.

But Tom Willis said that he didn't think there were any unbiased reviewing agencies.

"The board would be within its prerogatives to ignore any negative reviews," he said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Headlines | Feedback | Services | Staff | Site Index