Oklahoma legislators block new science standards over climate change

Another state has left its school board without a clear idea of what to do with recently formulated science standards. Following the lead of Wyoming, an Oklahoma House committee voted to reject the state school board's adoption of new standards that were built on top of the Next Generation Science Standards. If adopted by the full legislature, the move will leave the state stuck using out-of-date standards that were recently given a failing grade in an independent analysis.

The legislators' reasons for objecting to the new standards aren't clear, but an audio of the hearing at which the standards were rejected is available. In it, Tiffany Neill, the director of science education for the State Board of Education, describes the process by which the new standards were created. Although Oklahoma did not adopt the Next Generation Science Standards, the committee that formulated the new rules was heavily influenced by them.

In addition, Neill said that the standards attempted to address subjects with the full education experience in mind; when the same subject was covered in a later grade, the standards attempted to build on the knowledge covered previously rather than simply repeating the lesson at a somewhat more sophisticated level. Finally—and this is apparently where the legislators' issues come in—the new standards added a separate Earth sciences section for the first time.

As the questions began, one legislator started by saying that the standards appear harmless: "It all sounds very innocuous and again, something you might even think kids ought to be studying." But he then went on to say that appearances could be deceiving:

You know, there's been a lot of recent criticisms in some sectors as to maybe some of the hyperbole—what some consider hyperbole—relative to climate change. I know it's a very, very difficult, very controversial subject. The president made some recent pronouncements on it. Very dire pronouncements actually. Do you believe that those sections specifically relating to weather and climate, particularly at the early ages, as it's emphasized here in the new standards, could potentially be utilized to inculcate into some pretty young, impressionable minds a fairly one-sided view as to that controversial subject that is very much in dispute among even the academics?

Presumably, Neill is aware that climate change isn't actually "in dispute" within the academic community. Nevertheless, she chose to respond to the question by noting that subjects like weather and the climate had always been in the standards and that there really wasn't anything new here—it's just better organized and structured.

But that was only the start. Further questioning indicated that legislators felt the standards were a bit negative. "I was wondering whether you can tell me, from a clarification standpoint," asked one legislator, "whether or not this could be used solely for more of an agenda-driven curriculum, demonstrating that people are the problem and not that there are some positive things that people have done to impact the environment?"

Quickly, things got political. "This is for 7th grade Earth and human activity—again, this is [section] C: 'analyze and interpret data on natural hazards to forecast future catastrophic events and inform the development of technologies to mitigate their effects.' Again, to me that sounds like something that just came out of one of the president's recent statements or press releases," ran a complaint. Another, complaining that the standards recognized that human consumption of natural resources could affect the Earth, called the concept "Malthusian" and said it's "been discredited."

While Neill was attempting to handle these increasingly emotional attacks, the chair of the hearing cut her off and called for a vote. The revised standards were rejected.

More specifically, the legislature is given a chance to review any rules formulated by the executive branch. The new standards were simply added to a bill that contains a list of rules that were being rejected; that bill still has to go before the full House.

Should they be rejected, the state will be stuck with its previous science standards. Unfortunately, an independent evaluation of those standards found them to fall short. "Woefully little science content appears," the evaluation found, "and what is present is often flat-out wrong, oddly worded, or not up to grade."

Listing image by Leigh Jay Temple