No one came to the Board of Education Standards last Friday in Aberdeen to comment on proposed standards for K-12 science and government/public administration. Either the Board’s disregard of overwhelming testimony against the Noem/Hillsdale K-12 social studies standards last spring signaled that public participation in the standards process is futile or the absence of the Governor’s political point-scoring in the science and gov/pub-admin curricula has left actual educators free to create responsible, workable standards that don’t prompt any civic outrage.
The proposed standards have drawn a few written comments. Douglas High School career and technical educator Karline Clark, the only commenter on the proposed gov/pub-admin standards says the board should restore accounting to the standards:
In comparing the current and proposed Government & Public Administrations pathways, I noticed the Accounting I & II courses have been removed from the proposed. I argue they still need to be included. Accounting is a major administrative role in both the government and in public industries. Many CEO’s come from a chief financial officer position that originates with Accounting backgrounds [Karline Clark, public comment to Board of Education Standards, 2023.10.04].
The seemingly minor proposed science standards have drawn three comments. Garretson HS science teacher Travis Ehrisman says relabeling “MS” and “HS” as “6-8” and “9-12” is unnecessary. Parent Ashley Armstrong expresses her appreciation that the science standards were reviewed by actual science teachers. Watertown science teacher Kaitlynn Krack says the reviewers erred in removing a standard on embryological development:
Currently the State is recommending the removal of the following standard: Analyze displays of pictorial data to compare patterns of similarities in the embryological development across multiple species to identify relationships not evident in the fully formed anatomy. (SEP: 4; DCI: LS4.A ; CCC: Patterns)
I strongly oppose the removal of this standard. This standard represents one of the most important methods in which zoological animals are classified. Removal of this standard would greatly hinder our students understanding of how we classify organisms. As a zoology teacher, this standard represents a very important portion of knowledge that my students need to understand.
Please reconsider the removal of this standard, as it is an important concept, especially to biology and zoology based high school courses [Kaitlynn Krack, public comment to Board of Education Standards, 2023.10.17].
Hey, South Dakota does love embryos. The more time kids spend looking at fetuses and all of their embryonic appendages, the better, right?
The Board of Education Standards will hold three more hearings on the revised science standards and government/public administration standards, in Sioux Falls on November 20, Pierre on January 22, and Rapid City on April 22. If you would like to add to the paltry public comment submitted so far, read the proposed changes on the Department of Education’s website first (science here, gov/pub-admin here), then go to the Google Forms where the Department of Education is collecting written comments (science comments here, gov/pub-admin comments here. And who knows: with no apparent political pressure on these sets of curriculum standards, maybe the Board of Education Standards will actually listen to you this time!
This is exactly the brand of apathy Mrs. Noem works so hard to cultivate so the Earth haters in South Dakota’s wretched legislature. Good job, Kristi!
*so do*
Absent political interference, what is left to say?
I think the suggestions in the comments are solid. No doubt the omitted standards were keenly removed to hinder the cultivation of woke students.
Of course a SD arm of counterfeit Christians and thieves in power don’t want people to know the difference between a zygote and a human infant. And they sure as heck do not want anyone to know legal accounting practices so no one will notice discrepancies in the columns of the state’s books. Real shifty. Good eye, teachers. These are important comments that should be supported. I’ll use Mr. H’s links to chime in in solidarity with the teachers.
Accounting I & II are essential offerings for High School students. These two courses provide a solid foundation for real-world application, financial literacy, career preparation, business understanding, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and ethical behavior.
Sacrificing these opportunities is overlooking a strong foundation for future successes for South Dakota students.
I think the science standards are pretty good. I focused on life sciences because that’s where my expertise was. There’s a lot more I’d add regarding photosynthesis, particularly different carboxylation pathways that have evolved and how that affects the habitats they seem to have adapted to, Also, I’d like some introduction into epigenetics, which is a hot topic for research now. It seems basic high school ecology deals more with stability of ecological systems, but disturbances in ecosystems has been a big issue as some some ecosystems require some distrubance (fire, some grazing, bison wallows or badger or prairie dog disturbance) to maintain viability. I’d like some discussion of that.
For Lar and his close personal friend grudznick, our dream is to re-wild the west. That requires disturbance of ecosystems and human organisms and even sewage ash.
South Dakotans, as a general rule, don’t know much about Science and don’t want to find out. They, as a general rule, prefer mythology.
Wouldn’t want kids to know that mammal embryos look a lot like human embryos or that dolphin embryos have 4 limbs and then (usually) absorb the hind two.
Grudz, you are a hoot, and a very disturbed individual.
Arlo, I haven’t reviewed the test scores in the last 20+ years, but South Dakota students traditionally scored high on standardized tests on science. If those tests are valid, South Dakota students receive a good education in science. I would expect with all the emphasis on STEM over the last decade or so I would expect science education to have maintained its excellence.
I’ll comment, if SD residents won’t.
Bottom line first. “Drop SD’s proposed Hillsdale standards and teach from this postulate.”
The universe keeps churning things up and naturally new things become possible.
From AI Research – The Law of Increasing Functional Information, often referenced in the context of biology and information theory, suggests that natural processes tend to generate increasingly complex and functional information over time.
In simple terms, it suggests that the complexity and information present in biological systems tend to increase rather than decrease over generations. This concept challenges the idea that complex and functional biological structures could arise through random chance alone.
According to this principle, living organisms exhibit complex and highly specified structures and functions that are unlikely to have emerged through purely random processes. Instead, it proposes that the information necessary to build and sustain these complex biological systems must have been added over time through various mechanisms, such as genetic mutations, natural selection, and other evolutionary processes.
For example, when considering the evolution of new traits or features in a population, the Law of Increasing Functional Information suggests that the genetic changes responsible for these adaptations would require the addition of helpful or advantageous genetic information, rather than the removal or reduction of existing information.
However, it’s important to note that the Law of Increasing Functional Information is a concept primarily discussed within certain creationist and intelligent design frameworks, and it is not widely accepted within the scientific community. The majority of scientists and experts in the field of biology do not see it as a valid scientific principle, as it conflicts with the consensus understanding of evolutionary theory, which relies on natural selection acting on genetic variation to explain the emergence of complex biological systems.
I am chiming in to clarify the importance of the embryonic development standard that is currently being proposed for removal. Embryonic comparison and development is currently one of the standard ways in which scientists classify organisms. Comparison of embryos at their earliest stages sets whether an animal is a mammal, fish, reptile, etc. That is one half of the meaning of this method, the other half being evolutionary lines. Comparison of embryonic development as well as embryo similarities shows us where a common ancestor may have been located. How zygotes form into more complex embryos shows evolutionary similarities, indicating common ancestry.
Removal of this standard feels like a shift towards creationist ideology. Students should understand the current scientific processes that biologists and embryologists utilize to determine species as well as evolutionary pathways that were undertaken to get to the current species.
This was, as far as I could tell, the only standard that was completely removed, not rewritten. It strikes me as odd that the only standard diametrically opposed to intelligent design or creationism was the one removed.
I only chime into this because the article and author seem to be implying the keeping of this standard promotes creationist and intelligent design and while it may seem that way to someone reading the standard, it is simply not the case.