Listen up, Science Standard debaters: Students are thinking people, not sheets of blank paper.
The Next Generation Science Standards are designed to raise the bar and improve K-12 science education. A main objection in this state is that the standards aren’t aligned with “Wyoming values,” according to the interest group Wyoming Citizens Opposing Common Core. The group objects to passages that mention evolution, suggest government regulations to solve environmental problems and attribute climate change to humans.
I don’t agree with all of those positions either, but I’m offended by their assumption that students need to be protected from these views. I feel this argument implies we go to school to be indoctrinated. It’s as if they assume that once students are programmed to think something, we’ll believe it forever, so we should see only approved propaganda. This is ridiculous!
Banning the Next Generation Science Standards would delay improving Wyoming’s education system and won’t protect young people from “objectionable” views. Students encounter all kinds of political views in school, at home, on the Internet and on television. The goal of education isn’t to tell us what to think; rather, it is to teach us how to evaluate issues and decide where we stand.
I believe critical thinking matters more than the details of the curriculum. If students can argue from evidence, assess different viewpoints and reason logically, they won’t be warped by political views in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science class, incidentally, is a great place to learn these skills.
The Next Generation Science Standards emphasize the scientific method that’s common across subjects from physics to biology. Facts like “we see the sun rise, pass overhead and set every day,” are supposed to be separate from interpretations like “the earth is the center of the universe.” Interpretations such as the arrangement of the solar system can change as science advances, but facts remain facts. Both are presented in class, but students learn to tell the difference. They also learn to support statements with evidence: “I believe this is a spider because it spins a web and has eight legs.” In my opinion, this is a good way to think about politics and separate hot air from substance.
I think the state legislature was right to remove the ban on the science standards. Even though a few points in the standards seem to show a left-wing bias, I believe it’s OK to use them. Students have many sources available to find political ideas and won’t be indoctrinated by one or two environmental science classes. Finally, the standards themselves mitigate the problem: scientific thinking helps students recognize bias and make up their own minds.
