north dakota common core survey

North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft:

Public Comment Survey

Comments through June 3, 2014g ,

43

40

45

50

Survey Respondents

32

10

15

20

25

30

35

2

4

10 0

1

7

0

5

Administrator Community Member

Higher Education

Parent Principal School Board Member

Student Teacher Other

7Strongly Agree

The standards are clear

17

20

Disagree

Agree

38

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

The standards are clear

Disagree

Agree

Administrator

Community Member

Higher Education

Parent

Principal

School Board Member

Student

Teacher

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strongly Disagree

Other

7Strongly Agree

The standards represent an appropriate level of rigor

12

19

Disagree

Agree

44

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

The standards represent an appropriate level of rigor

Disagree

Agree

Administrator

Community Member

Higher Education

Parent

Principal

School Board Member

Student

Teacher

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Strongly Disagree

Other

6Strongly Agree

The number of standards per grade is reasonable for a given school year or course strand

13

22

Disagree

Agree

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

The number of standards per grade is reasonable for a given school year or course strand

Disagree

AgreeAdministrator

Community Member

Higher Education

Parent

Principal

School Board Member

Student

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Strongly Disagree

Student

Teacher

Other

6Excellent

Overall rating for the standards

15

11

Fair

Good

52

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Poor

Excellent

Overall rating for the standards

Fair

Good

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Poor

Administrator Community Member Higher Education

Parent Principal School Board Member

Student Teacher Other

NorthDakotaScienceContentStandards,PreliminaryDraft:PublicCommentSurvey

1/4

Q6Dothestandardscovereverythingthatisimportantforallstudentstoknow?

Answered:60 Skipped:30

# Responses Date

1 Ifeelitisimportantforstudentsinsc iencetoknowthattherearemanytheoriesofevolution. 6/2/20149:37PM

2 No. 6/2/20143:55PM

3 Absolutelynot. 6/2/201412:00PM

4 No,thereissomuchtheyshouldatleastbeintroducedtobeforebeingoutofhighschool.Onethingnotlargelycoveredinthesestandardsisnuclearprocesses,it'smoreofasidenote.Thisisbecomingmoreandmorecommoninoureverydayl ife,fromfoodpreparationtoresearchingtheuniverse,medicaldiagnosisandtreatmenttoenergyproduction.Ithasimpactsonchemistry,physics,andmore.Thismustatleastbecoveredintheextentitisused.Anotherthatisglazedoveristherelationshipbetweenelectric ity,magnetism,waves,andgravity.Asresearchhasshowntheseareallrelatedatasubatomiclevel,especiallyelectric ityandmagnetism(refertoFarradayandthefirstmotorandthengenerator).Nottomentiontherelationshipbetweenchemistryandelectric ity.Somanyrelationshipsareglazedoverandwil lbemissedbythesestandardsastheysplitideasoutandseparatethemfromoneanother.Thebiggestmissingitemofalliscounterargumenttotheories,specifficallyglobalc limatechange.ThemostacceptedargumentisHumancausedclimatechangeasthe"major"factor,butnaturalcausesmaybethe"major"factor.ManyoftheIPCC'sfindingsbasedonpoormodelsareinc ludedinthestandardsasfactsbutnoneofthecontradictoryfindingsare,suchastheNIPCC'scomparisonofthemodelstoempericaldata.Globalc limatehistoryisnotcovered,mostlybecauseitissti l l notunderstood,butthatiswhyopposingviewsshouldbeintroduced,yetthestandardsareonesidedandstudentswil lhavetofallonthatsidetomeetthestandard,removingthesc ientific process.

6/2/201410:57AM

5 1.RecommendedpracticesdominatetheNGSSattheexpenseofessentialknowledge,whichshouldbethefocusofsc iencestandards.2.Contentandskil lsthatareaboveandbeyondthestandards(suchasthermodynamics,stoichiometry,solutionchemistryandnitrogencycles)butthatwon’tbepartoftheassessmentswil lbeneglectedbecauseteacherswil lteachtothetest.3.Severalopportunitiestobuildimportantl inksbetweengrade-appropriatemathandrequiredsciencecontentaremissed.

6/1/201410:33PM


6/1/201410:12PM


6/1/201410:09PM

8 Absolutelynot 6/1/20147:52PM

9 No,studentsneedtolearnactualmathandsc ience. 6/1/201410:04AM


2/4

10 Iamawareofakindergartenteacherwhoc laimedthattheexpectationsoftheCommonCorearetoodemandingforakindergartenstudent.AndIfeeltheexpectationsoftheNGSSarealsotoodemanding.Weknowthatchildrendevelopatvariousrates,soatage5therewil lbeavariationofthezoneofproximaldevelopmentasateveryage.Somemighthavebeenbetterassignedtothegradeahead(thetalentedandgifted)andsomemighthavebeenbetterassignedtothegradebehind(theremedialandspecialneeds).Thatleavesagreatburdenontheteacher.Buthavingtokeepupwiththestandardsdayafterdaywhensomestudentsarefail ingtocomprehendtoday'sassignment(frustrated),andotherstudentsarefail ingtoseethevalueofschool(notchallenged)wil lbeafrustrationorachallengeforanyteacher.IdidnotseeanythingaboutmeasuringandweighingthingswhichmightbeanappropriateKindergartenactivity.

5/31/20149:38PM

11 Ifwearegoingtoencouragecriticalthinkingandinc ludec limatecontrolandhumansatfault,thebigbangandevolutioninthestandardsthenIsuggestweshouldinc ludeintell igentdesign,creationism.allthethingshumansaredoingtoprotecttheirnaturalresources.Thiswouldbewhatstudentsneedtodevelopcriticalthinking.

5/31/20142:43PM

12 Studentsneedtoknowthereismorethanonetheoryregardingtheoriginofl i fe.Evolutionisnottheonlytheory.

5/31/201411:10AM

13 ItlooksasthoughtheK-8gradestandardsarereasonable,butthenthehighschoolleveltakesthestandardstoalevelthatisfi l ledwithsocialism,oneworldview.Schoolshouldbejustthefactsandthenletthekidsmaketheirownindependentopinionsratherthendrivinganagenda.

5/31/201410:53AM

14 verypoliticallybiased-nomentionofcreationism-tomuchfocusonglobalwarming/c limatechangeandevolution

5/31/20145:01AM

15 No.Whataboutcreation?Theyteachevolutionbutthat'snotwhat'sacceptablewithourbeliefs. 5/30/201411:23AM

16 Pleasedonotimplementthesestandards.We(asparentswould)l ikemoreinputonstandardsthatareimplementedinNorthDakota.

5/30/201410:43AM

17 Outofkilterwithcommonsense. 5/28/201410:49PM

18 No 5/28/201410:46PM

19 No 5/28/201410:42PM

20 No 5/28/201410:20PM

21 Yes 5/28/20141:49PM

22 No.ThestandardsaresimplytransitionstoCommonCore.IkeephearingthatthisisalllocalcontrolandIamquitesurethatis,atworst,deceitful,andatbest,delusional.

5/28/20141:05PM

23 No.Creationismisnotpresentedasanalternative. 5/27/20149:07PM

24 NO.StudentsDONOTneedtospend8minutessolvingasimplemathproblemwhentheycanbedonein1minute.

5/27/20148:39PM

25 No 5/27/20141:57PM

26 Higherlevelvocabularythatwil lneedtobeunwrappedinunderstandablekidterms,butfirstIneedtoreallyread/rereadwhatthecoretopicisevenabout.

5/26/20143:42AM

27 No,absolutelynot. 5/20/20142:55PM

28 No 5/19/20149:27PM

29 No 5/16/20149:02PM

30 Theyarereasonable. 5/16/201412:06PM

31 Thestudentsarethereasonweareworkingonnewstandardsandcommoncorealignment,Iwouldliketoseea"studentversion"ofthestandardscreatedsostudentswouldknowatthebeginningofac lassexactlywhattheywil lbeinglearningandshouldknow.Oftentheparentsareblamedwhenastudentdoesnotdowell,socreatingadocumentforparents(whodon'tteach)wil lhaveanunderstandingofwhattheirchildshouldknow.

5/15/20141:48PM

32 Nooveremphasisonglobalwarmingandevolution.Whereisthehardsc ience? 5/14/20148:33AM

33 Notoomuchtimeisspentteachingstudentsthateverythinghumansdonegativelyimpacttheearth.

5/12/201412:05PM


3/4

34 no,howaboutSCIENCE?Themostcriticalneedforstudentsistounderstandbasicsc ience,andwearesofarfromachievingthatgoalthatIthinkit’sadistractiontostartimmersingstudentsintheextraordinarycomplexitiesofc limatesc ience.

5/11/20143:03PM

35 No,theyareastepbackward 5/10/20149:27PM

36 Yes 5/3/201412:16PM

37 ImighthavemisseditbutIfeell ikeitsimportanttoteachthemaboutthetwotheoriesofwherehumanscamefrom,evolutionandcreation.Althoughyoucanonlybelieveinone,it'ssti l limportanttoteachthetwotheoriesevenifweneverfindoutwhichisactuallytrue.

5/2/20149:40AM

38 No 5/1/201410:12AM

39 No.Withoutevaluatingeverylevel,Ican'tseewhereconceptsaretaughtateachlevel.From3rdto5th,Idon'tseeanycontinuity.The5thgradestandardsseemeasierthan4thgradeintermsofabstractthought.Environment,agriculture,andnaturalresourcesshouldbecoveredatEVERYgradelevelastheyaresignificantinourexistenceandhowpeopleinteractwitheachimpactsthefutureofourplanet.

5/1/20144:23AM

40 Alternative"theories"tothebeginningofl i feneedtobepresented. 4/30/20143:40PM

41 evolutionisatheorynotfactandshouldbetaughtassuch 4/30/201412:42PM

42 I'mnotsureitcould,butifweteachstudentstoformulatequestionsandfindandcompareanswersbeforecomingtoaconclusion,thenwewil lhavetaughtthemtoteachthemselves.Again.Ihopescienceteachersaretaught-givenPD-onhowtoevaluatewebpagesandc itesources.Thestandardswil lbehardtomeetifthestudentsarejustshownhowtheteacherdidit.Orworse..thescienceteachertellsstudentstol istsourcesattheendwithoutintextc itationsforeachphotoorstatistic .ex-WHST.6-8.2Writeinformative/explanatorytextstoexamineatopicandconveyideas,concepts,andinformationthroughtheselection,organization,andanalysisofrelevantcontent.(MS-ESS3-1)WHST.6-8.9Drawevidencefrominformationaltextstosupportanalysis,reflection,andresearch.(MS-ESS3-1)

4/29/201412:33PM

43 Againmycommentsapplyonlytomiddleandhighschoolphysics.Notreally.ForinstancethereisnomentionofsoundinthestandardsPS4.Studentswouldlovetolearnaboutandtoplaysounds.GeometricalopticsisanotherimportantandfuntopicmissingfromHigh–schoolintheHSPS4.However,IviewtheNGSSnotasacurriculumstandard(pleasecheckmycommentsonquestion5and10)thusitdoesnotmatter.NGSSitselfstressesthat“theNGSSarestandardsorgoals,notcurriculum”andtheNGSSallow“Instructionalflexibil i ty”(NGSSIntroductionxii i-xiv)Teachersordistric tscanaddorremovecurricularcontent.

4/28/20149:03PM

44 No...theassessmentrequirementsaretoospecific . 4/28/20148:38AM

45 Thestandardsdonotinc ludeanyinstructiononthesc ientific methodormetric measurement.Manyofthestandardsseemtopluckoneveryspecific pieceofinformation(i.e.Newton'sThirdLawbutnotthe1stor2nd).

4/28/20148:37AM

46 Iseethemasagreatguidewithrequiredcourses,buttheysti l l failtoproviderecommendationsforupperelectivesinsc ience.Iknowthisisnotthegoalforallstudentstoknow,butwehaveahugepressuretosti l l tietothestandards.Idon'tknowhowtoreconcilethat.

4/27/20143:14PM

47 Iamsomewhatconcernedwiththestandardsatthehighschoollevel...thereisnotmuchthereforHumanAnatomy.Iguessmybiggestconcerniswhatdowedowithstudentswhowanttobecomedoctorsandnurses?InatypicalBiologycourse,IjustcoverthebasicsofthehumanbodybecauseweofferAnatomyasanelectivecourse.

4/27/20142:20AM

48 Everything?No.K-PS3-1MakeobservationstodeterminetheeffectofsunlightonEarth’ssurface.Thissoundsokbuttheapplicationistoosimple.Theassessmentispre-schoollevel.Theassessmentandactivitiesshouldbewhyweneedsunlightforl i fe,notjustdoesitmakesomethingwarmorcooler...K-ESS3-1.-Wellwritten,appropriate,andconnected.

4/25/20145:54PM

49 Yes,Idofeelthesestandardscoveravarietyofinstructionthatisnecessaryforthirdgraders. 4/25/20149:54AM

50 no 4/25/20147:39AM

51 No.Thestudentsneedtoknowthatevolutionisatheory.Notaprovenfact. 4/24/20149:07PM

52 Yes 4/24/20149:03PM

53 Yes. 4/24/20146:11PM


4/4

54 Yes,thestandardsarequiteextensiveandscaffoldfromonegradetothenext. 4/24/20144:26PM

55 Ibelieveitisagoodbalanceofthingsthatneedtobecovered. 4/24/20141:24PM

56 AsIlookatthestandardsIdofeeltheycoverimportantinformationandskil ls.Howeversayingtheyareskil lsfor6-8ratherthanindividualgradesmakesitmoredifficulttoevaluatefor6thgrade

4/24/20149:56AM

57 Asaparent,Iwouldl iketoseemoretheoriesabouthowtheworldcouldhavecometobe.Inc ludingthecreationtheoryChristiansholdtobetrue.Idon'tl ikehowyou'reimplyingthatevolutionisfactwhenwedon'tknowhowtheworldcameabout.I'mallforteachingevolutionalongsidecreationandallowingeachfamilytodecidewhattheybelievetobetruebecauseanybeliefabouthowwegothereisjustthat:abelief.

4/24/20149:44AM

58 No,studentsshouldknowthatthereareothertheoriesabouttheoriginsoftheuniverse.(HS-ESS1-2)Wedon'tneedtonametheothertheoriesbutIbelievestudentsshouldbeawarethatthereareothers.

4/23/201412:18PM

59 ReadingthroughHS-ESS1andHSESS2Iobservedtwothings:thatthetheoryofEvolutionisstatedasabsolutefact,andthattheBigBangtheoryistheonlytheoryrepresented.Myintentinthiscommentisnottoarguefororagainstanytheoryofthebeginningsofearthandl ifeasweknowittoday,buttocommentthattherearenumerousparents,c itizens,sc ientists,akapeopleingeneralwhomaybelieveinothertheories.Sinceourunderstandingofsc ienceisconstantlychangingandhopefullyimproving,Itrulybelievethatteachersneedtoalwaysbecarefulinpresentingwidely-believedinformationasjustthat.Notasfact.WhileIunderstandthatthesearesciencestandards,Iwouldl iketoreferenceahistoricaleventasIrecalli tinvolvingsimilarc ircumstanceshavingtodowithsc ience.WhenGali leowasthinkingandresearchingdifferentsc ientific ideasabouttheearthandspace,theworldaroundhimallacceptedasfactthattheearthwasflat.Manygreatmindsandrenownedscientistsagreedthattherecouldbenootheroption,andanyideastothecontrarywereridiculousandchildish.Infact,manyoftheseleadershatedandscornedanyotherideas,notgivingthemanythought.Yetaswenowknow,Gali leowascorrectinhisthoughtthattheEarthmaynotbeflat,andinfactcouldveryl ikelybespherical.Thisstoryistosaythatonceagain,justbecausesomethingiswidelybelievedandaccepteddoesnotmakeitafact.

4/16/20142:46PM

60 No.Youarerepresentingthebigbangasfactandnottheory.WeareaGodfearingpeople.Teachersshouldbeabletoteachaboutcreationaswell.

4/14/20144:48PM


1/7

Q7Dothestandardsincludeanythingthatstudentsdon'tneedtoknow?


# Responses Date

1 Yes 6/2/20143:55PM

2 Thestandardsarefullofanumberoftheoriesthatarepresentedasfactinaveryone-sidedmanner.Examplesareglobalwarming,c limatechange,sustainabil ity,evolution,andthebigbang.

6/2/20142:28PM

3 Theoryasfact.Theoriesshouldbeintroducedassuchandthemajoropposingtheoryintroducedaswell.Thisisaproblemthroughout,ifyoucan'tintroducetheoriesandopposingorjustdifferenttheories,leavethemoutofthestandards!

6/2/201410:57AM

4 1.NGSSareneithereducationallyobjectivenorreligiouslyneutral.Anatheistic ormaterialisticworldviewisconsistentlyaffirmedthroughout.Thiswil lleadtoindoctrination,noteducation.2.Religiousquestionsareansweredbasedonadoctrineor“Rule”thatpermitsonlymaterialistic orfunctionallyatheistic answers.3.Onlymaterialistic explanationsforanyphenomenonaddressedbyscienceareallowed.4.Legitimatesc ientific critiquesofmaterialistic theoriesregardingtheoriginsoftheuniverse,ofl i fe,anditsdiversityarenotpresented.5.NGSSfailstodistinguishforstudentsthevariousdefinitionsofevolution,leadingthemtoassumethatthewordalwaysdenotesthesamething.6.Teachesevolutionasfactstartinginelementarygrades.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.7.Underlyinganti-fossilfuelthemesandgreenagendaconceptssuchastheenvironmentalactivism,sustainabil ity,socialjustice,populationcontrol,human-causedglobalwarming,renewableenergy,CO2levels,andoilspil lsareprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.8.Heavyfocusonthefoolishconceptthatall/mosthumanactionsleadtonegativeconsequencesfortheearth.9.TheconceptofcollaborationisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisshouldbere-focusedtoteachtheconceptofindividualismnotcollaborationandgroupthink.Pages34,40,45,47,49,50,51,53,71,79,89,91,97,100,116,120,124,13410.Thefocusoftechnologiesbeingdrivenbyc limate,naturalresources,andeconomicconditionsisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.Pages88,89,96,105,10711.RemoveESS3.Cinitsentiretyfrompages37-38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.12.RemoveK-ESS3-3initsentiretyfrompage38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.13.3-LS4onpage58isteachingevolutionasfactstartinginthe3rdgrade.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.14.3-LS4-4onpage58says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludethegreenhouseeffectorc limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechangeandthegreenhouseeffect.15.3-ESS2-1onpage60says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludec limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechange.16.Remove4-ESS3-1initsentiretyfrompage69.Theone-sidedtreatmentoffossilfuelsisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaanddefinitelyshouldn’tbetaughtto4thgraders.17.Remove5-ESS3-1andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage78.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.18.OneofthemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage83isto“constructexplanationsbasedonevidencetosupportfundamentalunderstandingsofnaturalselectionandevolution”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.19.ThemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage85toanswerquestionsabout“HowdohumanactivitiesaffectEarthsystems,Howdoweknowourglobalc limateischanging”andthesub-ideasabout“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseitemsshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.20.MS-LS4-6,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage99teachevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifitmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.21.RemoveMS-ESS3-3andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.22.RemoveMS-ESS3-4initsentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonoverpopulationandsustainabil ityappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol).23.RemoveMS-ESS3-5andESS3.Dintheirentiretyfrompage105.The“emphasisisonthemajorrolethathumanactivitiesplayincausingtheriseinglobal

6/1/201410:33PM


2/7

temperatures”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.24.SomeofthehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage112areto“constructexplanationsfortheprocessesofnaturalselectionandevolutionandcommunicatehowmultiplel inesofevidencesupporttheseexplanations”andto“evaluateevidenceoftheconditionsthatmayresultinnewspeciesandunderstandtheroleofgenetic variationinnaturalselection”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.25.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationofESS2onpage113ofhaving“amajoremphasisonthemechanismsandimplicationsofc limatechange”isnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Thisshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.26.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage114of“Studentsunderstandthe[…]significantenvironmentalimpactsofhumanactivities[...]toexamineandconstructsolutionstothemanychallengesfac inglong-termhumansustainabil ityonEarth”andthesub-ideasof“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.27.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph2l ists“thespeedatwhichworldpopulationisgrowing”asaproblem.Thisappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol)andshouldberemoved.28.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3andparagraph6l ists“majorglobalproblems”and“majorglobalchallenges”asthingsneedingsolutions.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.29.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3statesthat“public safetyorenvironmentalprotectionmaybemoreimportantthancostorevenfunctionality”.Thismaybethemosttroublingstatementintheentiredocument.Itisincrediblyignorantanddangerousandshouldberemoved.30.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph4requiresstudents“totryandantic ipatepossiblesocietalandenvironmentalimpacts”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.31.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph5requiresthat“studentsapplytheirengineeringcapabil itiestoreducehumanimpactsonEarthsystems,andimprovesocialandenvironmentalcost-benefitratios(HS-ESS3-2,HS-ESS3-4)”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.32.ExamplesprovidedunderHS-PS3-3onpage120of“windturbines”and“solarcells”areone-sidedandpushingthegreenagenda.Theseshouldberemoved,howeveriftheseitemsareleftasexamples,theninternalcombustionengines,combustionturbines,steamturbines,boilers,andjetenginesshouldalsobeincludedasexamples.33.RemoveHS-LS2-7initsentiretyfrompage126.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.34.Removethe2ndparagraphsofLS2.CandLS4.Dfrompage127.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.35.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage127.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.36.HS-LS4-4,HS-LS4-5,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage130teachevolutionasfact.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.37.HS-LS4-5onpage130emphasizes“howchangestotheenvironmentsuchasdeforestation,fishing,applicationofferti l izers,drought,flood,andtherateofchangeoftheenvironmentaffectdistributionordisappearanceoftraitsinspecies”.Thisemphasisshouldberemovedasitisnothingmorethanenvironmentalandanti-agriculturepropaganda.38.RemoveLS4.Dinitsentiretyfrompage131.Thefocusonsustainabil ityandreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.39.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage131.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.40.HS-ESS1-2andthe3rdparagraphofESS1.Aonpage132focusesonprovingthebigbangtheoryratherthanjustpresentingitasatheory.Thisisone-sidedasnootherpossibil i tiesoftheearth’screation(suchasintell igentdesign)arepresented.41.RemoveHS-ESS2-2andHS-ESS2-4intheirentiretyfrompage134.Thefocusongreenhousegases,c limatechange,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.42.Removethe3rdparagraph“Changesintheatmosphereduetohumanactivityhaveincreasedcarbondioxideconcentrationsandthusaffectc limate.(HS-ESS2-6),(HS-ESS2-4)”ofESS2.Dfrompage135initsentirety.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.43.RemoveHS-ESS3initsentiretyfrompages137-138.Thefocusonsustainabil ity,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.44.ReviseHS-ETS1-1andthe2ndparagraphofETS1.Aonpage139toremovethefocuson“majorglobalchallenges”.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.

5 1.NGSSareneithereducationallyobjectivenorreligiouslyneutral.Anatheistic ormaterialisticworldviewisconsistentlyaffirmedthroughout.Thiswil lleadtoindoctrination,noteducation.2.Religiousquestionsareansweredbasedonadoctrineor“Rule”thatpermitsonlymaterialistic orfunctionallyatheistic answers.3.Onlymaterialistic explanationsforanyphenomenonaddressedbyscienceareallowed.4.Legitimatesc ientific critiquesofmaterialistic theoriesregardingtheoriginsoftheuniverse,ofl i fe,anditsdiversityarenotpresented.5.NGSSfailstodistinguishforstudentsthevariousdefinitionsofevolution,leadingthemtoassumethatthewordalwaysdenotesthesamething.6.Teachesevolutionasfactstartinginelementarygrades.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi t

6/1/201410:12PM


3/7

mustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.7.Underlyinganti-fossilfuelthemesandgreenagendaconceptssuchastheenvironmentalactivism,sustainabil ity,socialjustice,populationcontrol,human-causedglobalwarming,renewableenergy,CO2levels,andoilspil lsareprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.8.Heavyfocusonthefoolishconceptthatall/mosthumanactionsleadtonegativeconsequencesfortheearth.9.TheconceptofcollaborationisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisshouldbere-focusedtoteachtheconceptofindividualismnotcollaborationandgroupthink.Pages34,40,45,47,49,50,51,53,71,79,89,91,97,100,116,120,124,13410.Thefocusoftechnologiesbeingdrivenbyc limate,naturalresources,andeconomicconditionsisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.Pages88,89,96,105,10711.RemoveESS3.Cinitsentiretyfrompages37-38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.12.RemoveK-ESS3-3initsentiretyfrompage38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.13.3-LS4onpage58isteachingevolutionasfactstartinginthe3rdgrade.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.14.3-LS4-4onpage58says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludethegreenhouseeffectorc limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechangeandthegreenhouseeffect.15.3-ESS2-1onpage60says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludec limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechange.16.Remove4-ESS3-1initsentiretyfrompage69.Theone-sidedtreatmentoffossilfuelsisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaanddefinitelyshouldn’tbetaughtto4thgraders.17.Remove5-ESS3-1andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage78.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.18.OneofthemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage83isto“constructexplanationsbasedonevidencetosupportfundamentalunderstandingsofnaturalselectionandevolution”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.19.ThemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage85toanswerquestionsabout“HowdohumanactivitiesaffectEarthsystems,Howdoweknowourglobalc limateischanging”andthesub-ideasabout“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseitemsshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.20.MS-LS4-6,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage99teachevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifitmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.21.RemoveMS-ESS3-3andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.22.RemoveMS-ESS3-4initsentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonoverpopulationandsustainabil ityappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol).23.RemoveMS-ESS3-5andESS3.Dintheirentiretyfrompage105.The“emphasisisonthemajorrolethathumanactivitiesplayincausingtheriseinglobaltemperatures”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.24.SomeofthehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage112areto“constructexplanationsfortheprocessesofnaturalselectionandevolutionandcommunicatehowmultiplel inesofevidencesupporttheseexplanations”andto“evaluateevidenceoftheconditionsthatmayresultinnewspeciesandunderstandtheroleofgenetic variationinnaturalselection”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.25.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationofESS2onpage113ofhaving“amajoremphasisonthemechanismsandimplicationsofc limatechange”isnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Thisshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.26.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage114of“Studentsunderstandthe[…]significantenvironmentalimpactsofhumanactivities[...]toexamineandconstructsolutionstothemanychallengesfac inglong-termhumansustainabil ityonEarth”andthesub-ideasof“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.27.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph2l ists“thespeedatwhichworldpopulationisgrowing”asaproblem.Thisappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol)andshouldberemoved.28.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3andparagraph6l ists“majorglobalproblems”and“majorglobalchallenges”asthingsneedingsolutions.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.29.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3statesthat“public safetyorenvironmentalprotectionmaybemoreimportantthancostorevenfunctionality”.Thismaybethemosttroublingstatementintheentiredocument.Itisincrediblyignorantanddangerousandshouldberemoved.30.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph4requiresstudents“totryandantic ipatepossiblesocietalandenvironmentalimpacts”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.31.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph5requiresthat“studentsapplytheirengineeringcapabil itiestoreducehumanimpactsonEarthsystems,andimprovesocialandenvironmentalcost-benefitratios(HS-ESS3-2,HS-ESS3-4)”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.32.ExamplesprovidedunderHS-


4/7

PS3-3onpage120of“windturbines”and“solarcells”areone-sidedandpushingthegreenagenda.Theseshouldberemoved,howeveriftheseitemsareleftasexamples,theninternalcombustionengines,combustionturbines,steamturbines,boilers,andjetenginesshouldalsobeincludedasexamples.33.RemoveHS-LS2-7initsentiretyfrompage126.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.34.Removethe2ndparagraphsofLS2.CandLS4.Dfrompage127.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.35.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage127.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.36.HS-LS4-4,HS-LS4-5,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage130teachevolutionasfact.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.37.HS-LS4-5onpage130emphasizes“howchangestotheenvironmentsuchasdeforestation,fishing,applicationofferti l izers,drought,flood,andtherateofchangeoftheenvironmentaffectdistributionordisappearanceoftraitsinspecies”.Thisemphasisshouldberemovedasitisnothingmorethanenvironmentalandanti-agriculturepropaganda.38.RemoveLS4.Dinitsentiretyfrompage131.Thefocusonsustainabil ityandreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.39.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage131.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.40.HS-ESS1-2andthe3rdparagraphofESS1.Aonpage132focusesonprovingthebigbangtheoryratherthanjustpresentingitasatheory.Thisisone-sidedasnootherpossibil i tiesoftheearth’screation(suchasintell igentdesign)arepresented.41.RemoveHS-ESS2-2andHS-ESS2-4intheirentiretyfrompage134.Thefocusongreenhousegases,c limatechange,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.42.Removethe3rdparagraph“Changesintheatmosphereduetohumanactivityhaveincreasedcarbondioxideconcentrationsandthusaffectc limate.(HS-ESS2-6),(HS-ESS2-4)”ofESS2.Dfrompage135initsentirety.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.43.RemoveHS-ESS3initsentiretyfrompages137-138.Thefocusonsustainabil ity,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.44.ReviseHS-ETS1-1andthe2ndparagraphofETS1.Aonpage139toremovethefocuson“majorglobalchallenges”.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.

6 1.NGSSareneithereducationallyobjectivenorreligiouslyneutral.Anatheistic ormaterialisticworldviewisconsistentlyaffirmedthroughout.Thiswil lleadtoindoctrination,noteducation.2.Religiousquestionsareansweredbasedonadoctrineor“Rule”thatpermitsonlymaterialistic orfunctionallyatheistic answers.3.Onlymaterialistic explanationsforanyphenomenonaddressedbyscienceareallowed.4.Legitimatesc ientific critiquesofmaterialistic theoriesregardingtheoriginsoftheuniverse,ofl i fe,anditsdiversityarenotpresented.5.NGSSfailstodistinguishforstudentsthevariousdefinitionsofevolution,leadingthemtoassumethatthewordalwaysdenotesthesamething.6.Teachesevolutionasfactstartinginelementarygrades.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.7.Underlyinganti-fossilfuelthemesandgreenagendaconceptssuchastheenvironmentalactivism,sustainabil ity,socialjustice,populationcontrol,human-causedglobalwarming,renewableenergy,CO2levels,andoilspil lsareprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.8.Heavyfocusonthefoolishconceptthatall/mosthumanactionsleadtonegativeconsequencesfortheearth.9.TheconceptofcollaborationisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisshouldbere-focusedtoteachtheconceptofindividualismnotcollaborationandgroupthink.Pages34,40,45,47,49,50,51,53,71,79,89,91,97,100,116,120,124,13410.Thefocusoftechnologiesbeingdrivenbyc limate,naturalresources,andeconomicconditionsisprevalentthroughouttheNGSS.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.Pages88,89,96,105,10711.RemoveESS3.Cinitsentiretyfrompages37-38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.12.RemoveK-ESS3-3initsentiretyfrompage38.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.13.3-LS4onpage58isteachingevolutionasfactstartinginthe3rdgrade.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.14.3-LS4-4onpage58says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludethegreenhouseeffectorc limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechangeandthegreenhouseeffect.15.3-ESS2-1onpage60says“Assessmentdoesnotinc ludec limatechange.”Thisc larificationshouldn’tevenbeneeded.Thirdgradersshouldnotbelearningaboutthetheoriesofc limatechange.16.Remove4-ESS3-1initsentiretyfrompage69.Theone-sidedtreatmentoffossilfuelsisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaanddefinitelyshouldn’tbetaughtto4thgraders.17.Remove5-ESS3-1andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage78.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.18.OneofthemiddleschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage83isto“constructexplanationsbasedonevidencetosupportfundamentalunderstandingsofnaturalselectionandevolution”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifi tmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.19.Themiddle

6/1/201410:09PM


5/7

schoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage85toanswerquestionsabout“HowdohumanactivitiesaffectEarthsystems,Howdoweknowourglobalc limateischanging”andthesub-ideasabout“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseitemsshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.20.MS-LS4-6,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage99teachevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandifitmustbetaught,itshouldn’tbetaughtunti llatergradesandasatheorynotfact.21.RemoveMS-ESS3-3andESS3.Cintheirentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.22.RemoveMS-ESS3-4initsentiretyfrompage105.Thefocusonoverpopulationandsustainabil ityappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol).23.RemoveMS-ESS3-5andESS3.Dintheirentiretyfrompage105.The“emphasisisonthemajorrolethathumanactivitiesplayincausingtheriseinglobaltemperatures”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.24.SomeofthehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofLS4onpage112areto“constructexplanationsfortheprocessesofnaturalselectionandevolutionandcommunicatehowmultiplel inesofevidencesupporttheseexplanations”andto“evaluateevidenceoftheconditionsthatmayresultinnewspeciesandunderstandtheroleofgenetic variationinnaturalselection”.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.25.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationofESS2onpage113ofhaving“amajoremphasisonthemechanismsandimplicationsofc limatechange”isnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Thisshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.26.ThehighschoolperformanceexpectationsofESS3onpage114of“Studentsunderstandthe[…]significantenvironmentalimpactsofhumanactivities[...]toexamineandconstructsolutionstothemanychallengesfac inglong-termhumansustainabil ityonEarth”andthesub-ideasof“humanimpactonEarthsystems,andglobalc limatechange”arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.Theseshouldberemovedfromtheperformanceexpectations.27.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph2l ists“thespeedatwhichworldpopulationisgrowing”asaproblem.Thisappearstobeadvocatingforabortion(i.e.populationcontrol)andshouldberemoved.28.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3andparagraph6l ists“majorglobalproblems”and“majorglobalchallenges”asthingsneedingsolutions.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.29.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph3statesthat“public safetyorenvironmentalprotectionmaybemoreimportantthancostorevenfunctionality”.Thismaybethemosttroublingstatementintheentiredocument.Itisincrediblyignorantanddangerousandshouldberemoved.30.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph4requiresstudents“totryandantic ipatepossiblesocietalandenvironmentalimpacts”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.31.Thehighschoolengineeringdesignsectiononpage115paragraph5requiresthat“studentsapplytheirengineeringcapabil itiestoreducehumanimpactsonEarthsystems,andimprovesocialandenvironmentalcost-benefitratios(HS-ESS3-2,HS-ESS3-4)”.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropagandaandshouldberemoved.32.ExamplesprovidedunderHS-PS3-3onpage120of“windturbines”and“solarcells”areone-sidedandpushingthegreenagenda.Theseshouldberemoved,howeveriftheseitemsareleftasexamples,theninternalcombustionengines,combustionturbines,steamturbines,boilers,andjetenginesshouldalsobeincludedasexamples.33.RemoveHS-LS2-7initsentiretyfrompage126.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.34.Removethe2ndparagraphsofLS2.CandLS4.Dfrompage127.Thefocusonreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.35.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage127.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.36.HS-LS4-4,HS-LS4-5,LS4.B,andLS4.Conpage130teachevolutionasfact.Onceagain,thistreatsevolutionasfact.Evolutionissti l l atheoryandshouldbetaughtasatheorynotfact.37.HS-LS4-5onpage130emphasizes“howchangestotheenvironmentsuchasdeforestation,fishing,applicationofferti l izers,drought,flood,andtherateofchangeoftheenvironmentaffectdistributionordisappearanceoftraitsinspecies”.Thisemphasisshouldberemovedasitisnothingmorethanenvironmentalandanti-agriculturepropaganda.38.RemoveLS4.Dinitsentiretyfrompage131.Thefocusonsustainabil ityandreducinghumanimpactsonearthisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.39.Remove“andtoconsidersocial,culturalandenvironmentalimpacts”fromETS1.Bonpage131.Thefocusontheseimpactsispushingthegreenagenda.40.HS-ESS1-2andthe3rdparagraphofESS1.Aonpage132focusesonprovingthebigbangtheoryratherthanjustpresentingitasatheory.Thisisone-sidedasnootherpossibil i tiesoftheearth’screation(suchasintell igentdesign)arepresented.41.RemoveHS-ESS2-2andHS-ESS2-4intheirentiretyfrompage134.Thefocusongreenhousegases,c limatechange,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.42.Removethe3rdparagraph“Changesintheatmosphereduetohumanactivityhaveincreasedcarbondioxideconcentrationsandthusaffectc limate.(HS-ESS2-6),(HS-ESS2-4)”ofESS2.Dfrompage135initsentirety.Thisisnothingmorethanenvironmentalpropaganda.43.RemoveHS-ESS3initsentiretyfrompages137-138.Thefocusonsustainabil ity,humanimpactsontheenvironment,modelingc limatechange,etc.arenothing


6/7

morethanenvironmentalpropaganda.44.ReviseHS-ETS1-1andthe2ndparagraphofETS1.Aonpage139toremovethefocuson“majorglobalchallenges”.Thisfocusonglobalismisanun-Americanidealandshouldberemoved.

7 Absolutely 6/1/20147:52PM

8 Yes,sexeducation,booksaboutBarackObama,andglobalwarming. 6/1/201410:04AM

9 Greatereffortshouldbefocusedonlearningtoshareandplaygamesthatwouldteachcooperationandenvironmentalconservation.K-ESS2-1Earth'sSystems(Meteorology)andK-ESS3-3EarthandHumanActivity(HumanGeography)Learningtocommunicatesolutionsforworldproblemswhentheyaresti l l learningtohaveanunderstandingaboutthemselves.Thestandardsarepremature.

5/31/20149:38PM

10 presentingc limatechangeisunnecessaryandone-sided. 5/31/20144:32PM

11 Entirelytomanystandardscoveringc limatechangeandhumanscontributing.Ibelievethisispoliticalagenda,whichhasnotbeenproven.Ifi tneedstobetalkedaboutinschoolsanddebatedthereisroomsinceitisonlythefloorandnottheceil ing.Il iketruthandallsides,itappearstobeveryonesided,leadingkidhowtothink.Weneedtoteachallsidestodevelopcriticalthinking.

5/31/20142:43PM

12 Theundertoneofearthisgreatandhumansarebadisnotnecessary.WeneedtocriticallylookatFACTSandnotjustassumptionswhenteachingourchildren.Weneedtoprovidebothsidesofthingsandnottrytocontroltheirmindsinthinkingoneway.Ourstatewil lloseit'sabil i tytochangethedialogueifweacceptthesestandards.

5/31/201410:53AM

13 Globalwarming?!Notnecessarysinceit'snotproven. 5/30/201411:23AM

14 Yes-teachingaboutevolutionwithoutanyregardofcreation,andteachingaboutglobalwarmingasasc ientific factwhenitisnotprovenasasc ientific fact

5/30/201410:43AM

15 GlobalWarming 5/29/20145:33PM

16 NotthatIamawareof. 5/28/201410:49PM

17 Yes 5/28/201410:46PM

18 Yes 5/28/201410:42PM

19 Yes 5/28/201410:20PM

20 Politicallycorrectsocialissuesdonotbelonginacriticalthinkingsociety. 5/28/20147:03PM

21 Plenty!Thesc iencefieldsarefullofplentyofthingstolearnthatareactualfactsandnotsimplytheories.Ifstudentswanttoaddsc iencesthatfocusoncertainfields,thenletthemchoosethatforthemselves.

5/28/20141:05PM

22 Globalwarmingpresentedasfact. 5/27/20149:07PM

23 Yep.Theyaskinappropriatequestionsofthestudentsl ike"areyourparentsdivorced?""Ifso,wouldyouratherl ivewiththeotherparent?""Haveyoubeensexuallyabused?"--ataFIRSTGRADELEVEL!INAPPROPRIATE!

5/27/20148:39PM

24 Yes 5/27/20143:28PM

25 yes-globalwarming??? 5/27/20141:57PM

26 Yes 5/27/20141:42PM

27 no 5/26/20143:42AM

28 Yes. 5/20/20142:55PM

29 Yes 5/16/20149:02PM

30 Theyarereasonable. 5/16/201412:06PM

31 Givingeamplessuchasrecylingglass,whichusesmoreresourcestodothanitdoestoproducemoreglass.

5/12/201412:05PM

32 Yes,the"facts"thathumanscausethec limatetochange. 5/10/20149:27PM

33 No 5/3/201412:16PM

34 No 5/2/20149:40AM


7/7

35 Yes 5/1/201410:12AM

36 Presentingevolutionasafactissomethingthestudentsdon'tneedtoknow. 4/30/20143:40PM


38 Nothingjumpedoutatmethatwasunimportant,butIonlylookedatthemiddleschool 4/29/201412:33PM

39 Seeabove.HSPS4areparticularlytooambitiousanditisnotc learhowtoimplementthem.Thesearegoodgoalsperhaps,butwouldrequiresalotofwork.

4/28/20149:03PM

40 No 4/28/20148:38AM

41 Manystandardsrequirealargebaseofbackgroundknowledge.Usingstandardsbasedgradingisdifficultwhenseveralweeksofpre-instructionisneededbeforereachinginstructionofthestandardbecausesofewgradesaretakenunti ltheendoftheunit.

4/28/20148:37AM

42 Ithinktheyareagreatresourcefortherequiredcourses. 4/27/20143:14PM

43 No 4/27/20142:20AM

44 K-PS3-2Usetoolsandmaterialstodesignandbuildastructurethatwil lreducethewarmingeffectofsunlightonanarea.*Whyisthisastandard?Mostchildreninstinctivelyknowthis.Abetterstandardwouldbetodescribewhatwouldhappenwithoutthesun'swarmthorwithtoomuchsun.

4/25/20145:54PM

45 yes 4/25/20147:39AM

46 No 4/24/20149:03PM

47 Notreally.Therearealwayssomepiecesthatmightnotbeasimportant,butaresti l l worthlearningatleastonce.

4/24/20146:11PM

48 No,studentsneedtobeexposedtoawidevarietyofsubjectsandtopics. 4/24/20144:26PM

49 Idon'thaveaproblemwithgoodsciencethatisproven,andamnotopposedtounproventheoriesbeingtaughtasthat-theories.Butpresentingthetheoryofevolutionandoriginofspeciesasfactisdisappointingtome.Teachthetheories,butcallthemthat.Thereissti l l muchdebateandmanyproblemswiththistheorythathaveyettomeetsc ientific criteriatobecalledfactualdata.

4/24/20141:24PM

50 SinceScienceisnotmyfieldofstudyIfeelthatIcan'tevaluatewhethersomethingshouldn'tbeincluded

4/24/20149:56AM


1/2

Q8Arethereredundanciesinthecontent?Answered:33 Skipped:57

# Responses Date

1 Yes,butredundancyisneededtokeepcertainideasfresh,l ikeareview. 6/2/201410:57AM

2 Yes,globalwarmingandsexeducation. 6/1/201410:04AM

3 Kindergartenstudentsshouldbetaughttol istenandobservenatureaswellashowtobeconfidentinspeakingandplaying.Thedailylessonplanandassessmentswil lnecessarilybeageinappropriateandtheslowstudentsexperiencefrustrationandthefaststudentswil lexperienceboredomnecessitatingtheteachertospentadisproportionateamountoftimehelpingtheslowstudents.Thefaststudentswil lbeignored.

5/31/20149:38PM

4 IhavecoveredthatClimatechangeandhumansatthefaultisPushedtothemaximum....... 5/31/20142:43PM

5 YES,itisfi l ledwithredundanciesofthesameagenda....earthgood,humansbad. 5/31/201410:53AM

6 YES!LOTS. 5/28/201410:49PM

7 Yes 5/28/201410:46PM

8 Yes 5/28/201410:20PM

9 No 5/28/20141:49PM

10 Yes. 5/28/20141:05PM

11 Obviously.YouDON'TneedtodrawshapesandsquarestosolveaNUMBERproblem! 5/27/20148:39PM

12 Yes 5/27/20141:42PM

13 Ireviewed2/3/4gradestandardsanddidnotreallyfindrepetitions. 5/26/20143:42AM

14 Ijustreviewedthecontent,sounti lIactuallyusedthestandardsIwouldnotknowforsureifchangesshouldbemade.Itmaytakeaschoolyearwith"input"fromeducatorstomakesureeverything'sjustright.

5/15/20141:48PM

15 Thereappearstobeatheme,thathumansareoverlydependentontechnology.Insomelessonplansitexplainstechnologyandhumanadvancementisabadthingbecauseitusesnaturalresources.Thenothersseemstopushfortheacceptanceoftechnology.

5/12/201412:05PM

16 Globalwarming 5/11/20143:03PM

17 Yes,inseveralplaces,ratherthancoveringabroadspectrumofsc ientific information. 5/10/20149:27PM

18 No 5/3/201412:16PM

19 NotthatIsaw 5/2/20149:40AM

20 perhaps 5/1/201410:12AM

21 Sincenoflowwasobservedfromgradetograde,Idon'tseehowtherecouldberedundancy.Rather,contentappearssegmentedwithnoattentiontostudentsmakingconnectionsbybuildingonpriorknowledge.

5/1/20144:23AM

22 Somecrossover,butthat'sgood. 4/29/201412:33PM

23 HSPS2Disc iplinaryCoreIdeasPS3.A:p.23reappearsonp.25 4/28/20149:03PM

24 Little 4/28/20148:38AM

25 Ididnotnoticeanythingoutsideofgeneralsc ientific method. 4/27/20143:14PM

26 No 4/27/20142:20AM

27 NotinKindergarten. 4/25/20145:54PM

28 actuallythisistheonepositive 4/25/20147:39AM


2/2

29 Evolutionisatheorynotafactandshouldbetaughtasatheory. 4/24/20149:07PM

30 No 4/24/20149:03PM

31 No.Ithinkthestandardswerewellthoughtout. 4/24/20146:11PM

32 No,theprogressionfromgradetogradejustbuildsonthepriorknowledgefromthepreviousyear. 4/24/20144:26PM

33 Someredundancyisgood,butIdidn'tseeanythingthatwasunnecessary. 4/24/20141:24PM


1/3

Q9Areanyofthestandardsconfusing?Ifso,pleaselistthosestandardsandexplain

whythestandardisconfusing.Answered:44 Skipped:46

# Responses Date

1 2-ESS2-3."Obtaininformationtoidentify..."Strangestarttothesimplestandardofknowingwatercanbeal iquidorsolid.3-ESS3-14-PS3-24-LS1-1

6/2/20143:55PM

2 Yes,allofthem!Confusinginthatitiswrittensostructurally,asifthesc iencesarenotchangingfields,removingnecessaryrelationshipsfromonetoanother.Asonetheorygathersevidenceandotherdonotthedirectioncanchange.Newfindingsaddssubjectsorremovesoldones.Thisrigidstructureisnotappropriateforthesubjects.AlthoughCrosscuttingconceptsprovidesawaytorelatetoothersubjectsitisverydifficulttomapout.

6/2/201410:57AM

3 1.Manyviewpointsareone-sidedandunsupportedbyfacts.2.Controversialissues(suchasc limatechange,renewableenergyandsustainabil ity)arenotpresentedobjectively.3.NGSSareone-sidedinthattheydisproportionatelyfocusonnegativeeffectsofhumaninteractionwiththeenvironment.

6/1/201410:33PM


6/1/201410:12PM


6/1/201410:09PM

6 No,asahistoryteacherIseethisasjustl ikeGermany1933.Indoctrinatingthestudentstobegoodlittlec itizens.Noactualeducationwhatsoever.

6/1/201410:04AM

7 IthinkattheKindergartenlevel,wecanteachthemtoconservewater,learntopickupl itterandonlytakepicturesinnationalparks,basicthingsl ikethat.WeshouldnotbeteachingMeteorologyK-ESS3-2atthislevel.Also,BiologyandZoologyK-ESS3-1isforanadvancedgradelevel.IthinkKindergartenwoulddowelltokeepwithlearningabouthowtoenjoypetsandzooanimals,IalsothinkthatdebateK-ESS2-2isanadvancedpre-frontalfunctionnotdevelopedadequatelyatthislevel.

5/31/20149:38PM

8 HS-ETS1-1,HS-ESS3-3,HS-ESS3-4,HS-ESS3-5,HS-ESS3-6'HS-ESS2-S,HS-ESS2-4,HS-ESS2-5,HS-ESS2-6,HS-ESS1-1,HS-ESS1-2,HS-LS4-4,HS-LSA-3,HS-LSA-2,HS-LS4-1,HSLSA-5,HS-LS4-6,MS-ESS3-4,MS-ESS3-5,K-PS3-1K-PS3-2,K-ESS2-2,K-ESS3-3,Iwouldl ikethemclarifiedcompletely.aretheybasedonfactassc ienceshouldbe..

5/31/20142:43PM

9 Whyarewetryingtodescribec limatechangeasthefaultofhumans?WeneedtolookattheHISTORYofourworldandmakemuchbetterchoicesonhowwediscussthechangesinc limate.Wewentfromglobalcoolingtoglobalwarmingtoc limatechange.HISTORYdoesnotl iebutwedonotknowwhatthefuturehasinstore....theweatherforecastcanchangeinminutesandyetyouarewil l ingtoteachourchildrenthatwecanforecastintothefutureonwhatwearedoingtoday.Really?Thatisnotteachingfacts,thatisteachinganagenda.

5/31/201410:53AM

10 Yes.Math...doesNOTmakesenseonlogicalthinking! 5/28/201410:49PM

11 YesAllOfThem 5/28/201410:46PM

12 Yes 5/28/201410:42PM

13 Yes 5/28/201410:20PM

14 Youhavetoputsomeworkandthoughtintothesestandardsbutthewaytheyhavebeendesignedandcolorcodedhashelped.

5/28/20141:49PM


2/3

15 Whatisconfusingisthecontinualattempttolabel"CommonCore"withotherterminologyandexpectthepublic tobesatisfied.

5/28/20141:05PM

16 Notallowingthestudentstostackthenumberstoaddandsubtractisconfusing.THISISUNACCEPTABLE.AndweasNDparentswil lNOTallowthistocontinue.Nottomentioncommoncoremathtakesasimple2stepdivisionproblemanddragsitoutinto108steps.Iamsickandtiredofpeoplepushingtheprogramsaying"Commoncoremakesiteasierforthestudentstodothemathintheirhead."Letmeaskyouthis--What'seasiertodoinyourhead???2steps?OR108?!!

5/27/20148:39PM

17 Thestandardsarebiasedandnotentirelyaccurate. 5/27/20141:42PM

18 Some...thewordingisveryprofessionalandhightech.Theredexplanationswerehelpful. 5/26/20143:42AM

19 Yes,manyareconfusing. 5/20/20142:55PM

20 Math.....i t'simpossibletofigureout. 5/19/20149:27PM

21 Theengineeringstandardsneedc larificationstatements. 5/16/201412:06PM

22 Iamnotasc ienceteacher,butthestandardswereeasytounderstand. 5/15/20141:48PM

23 Yes,butIdidn'tkeepal ist. 5/10/20149:27PM

24 Thewordingismoredifficultforstudentstounderstand.Whatexactlyshouldtheyknow? 5/6/20149:55AM

25 No 5/3/201412:16PM

26 No 5/2/20149:40AM

27 mostofthem 5/1/201410:12AM

28 TheyareALLconfusing. 5/1/20144:23AM


30 noneconfusedme 4/29/201412:33PM

31 HSPS2:(HSPSp.5lastparagraph)ThoughNewton’sthirdlawisintroducedinMSPS2,inHSPS2Newton’ssecondlawissingledoutfromtheNewton’sthreelawsofmotion.Then,asifindependently,conservationofmomentumisreferredto.Allthreelawsarenecessarytounderstandmotionandtheconceptofequil ibrium.Conservationofmomentumfollowsfromthesecondlaw.Buttoexplainconservationofmomentumunderstandingofthethirdlawisalsorequired.ThethirdlawneedstoberevisitedatHSlevel.

4/28/20149:03PM

32 Almostallofthestandardsareconfusing.Standards 4/28/20148:38AM

33 LanguageofthestandardsisNOTstudentfriendly.Ican'tenvisionpostingtheseinmyc lassroombecausetheywouldbeveryuncleartomiddleschoolstudents.

4/28/20148:37AM

34 Nope.Therecommendedactivitiesandl imitationstolevelswasveryhelpful. 4/27/20143:14PM

35 No 4/27/20142:20AM

36 K-ESS2-2.Whatistheconnectionforthis?Habitat?Iwouldthinkwheredotheyl iveandhowdotheirbodiesandactionsfitthehabitatwouldbemoreappropriate.Thestandardseemsreversed.Itshouldbehowdoanimalsfittheirenvironmentinsteadofhowdoanimalschangetheenvironment.

4/25/20145:54PM

37 Whenweweretryingtopreparelessonsfornextyearandbecausethesestandardsarefairlynewitishardtofindspecific lessonsthatareappropriateforthirdgraders.Itwouldbeniceiftherewasmorecurriculumavailablethatmatchedthesestandards.

4/25/20149:54AM

38 yes 4/25/20147:39AM

39 No 4/24/20149:03PM

40 Theoneissueisthatwordingcouldbemoreparentandteacherfriendly.Itisnicewhenyoucansimplyreadastandardandunderstandwhatitissaying.

4/24/20146:11PM

41 No 4/24/20144:26PM

42 Notinmyopinion. 4/24/20141:24PM

43 Icanreadandunderstandthestandards 4/24/20149:56AM


3/3

44 HS-LS4-1isconfusingtostudents.Thestandardwantstotreatevolutionasfactbutitfailstoextrapolatebacktotheoriginsofl i fe.Ibelievethisisconfusingtostudentsbecauseifyou'regoingtotellmethatweallhavecommonancestors,whatwastheoriginalancestor?Don'tgetmewrong,I'mgladthestandarddoesn'tgoallthewaybacktothefirstl i feformsbutIfeell ikethisiscowardly."Weknowwecan'tdefendtheideathatl i feemergedfromnon-life,sowewon'tputitinthestandards.However,wewil lsti l l inferthatevolutionistrueandweallhavecommonancestors.HS-LS4-Atellsstudentsthatthefossilrecordsupportsevolution.Thisisabsolutelynottrue.Evenpaleontologistswhobelieveinevolutionhavestoppedsayingthatthefossilrecordsupportsit.Wenowknowthatitdoesnot.

4/23/201412:18PM


1/2

Q10Doestheintroductionhelpyouunderstandorinterpretthedocument?


# Responses Date

1 Yes,al i ttle.Butitisstrangethatthisisoneof11surveyquestionson140pagesofmaterialthatstandstochangetheshapeofourchildren'sfutures.Howaboutasurveyquestionaboutwhetherthecontentofthestandardsisoffensiveorcontrarytomyfamily'sbeliefs?Orhowaboutasurveyquestionaboutwhetherthestandardsaredevelopmentallyappropriate?

6/2/20143:55PM

2 Yes,itexplainedalotonhowitwascreated,structuredandthepurpose,andhowtoreadit.UnfortunatelyIdonotagreewithmuchonanyofthoseexceptthepurpose.IagreethatstudentsintheUS,andmorelocallyND,needtohavemoretointeresttheminsc ienceandengineering,butthatiswheremyagreementwiththesestandardsend.Idonotbelievetheywil lacomplishthat,infactIthinkitwil l dotheopposite.

6/2/201410:57AM

3 1.Changethenameofthestandardsto“CommonCoreScienceStandards”sincethat’swhattheyreallyare.NumerousreferencesaremadethroughoutthedocumenttotheNGSSbeing“aligned”totheCommonCoreStateStandards.2.Paragraph2onpage8statesthattheNGSS“arearrangedinacoherentmanneracrossdisc iplinesandgradestoprovideallstudentsaninternationallybenchmarkedscienceeducation.”Pleasec iteindependentpeerreviewedscientificresearchtobackupthec laimthattheNGSSareinternationallybenchmarked.3.Remove“majorsocietalandenvironmentalchallenges”fromAppendixIonpage23.Engineeringisaboutmuchmorethanjustthesethings.Thisisjustanotherexampleofpushingthegreenandglobalagenda.

6/1/201410:33PM


6/1/201410:12PM


6/1/201410:09PM

6 No. 6/1/201410:04AM

7 Toomuchscienceforakindergartenstudent.ThereshouldnotbeanytestingatKindergartenlevel.Thereisenoughoversightbytheparents,teachers,administrators.IwouldsuggestthetheprimaryfactorinpassingfromKindergartentofirstgradeisuptotheteacherindiscussionwithinterestedothers.Idonotfeelthereshouldbeanystandardizedtestingunti laftergrade8.Theyshouldnotnecessarilyberequiredtopassatestthattestthingsthatarel ikelynotintheirzoneofproximaldevelopment.IthasbeenveryhelpfultolearnaboutVygotsky'szoneofproximaldevelopment.

5/31/20149:38PM

8 typical 5/31/20142:43PM

9 Yes. 5/31/201410:53AM

10 NO 5/28/201410:49PM

11 No 5/28/201410:46PM

12 No 5/28/201410:42PM

13 Notreally 5/28/201410:20PM


2/2

14 Yes. 5/28/20141:49PM

15 No;itcomesacrossasapersuasivespeech,usingterminologythatattemptstoleadonetobelieveallstudents,nomattertheirlearningstyleoraptitudeorcareerpathchoice,mustandwil llearnthesamethings,thesameways.

5/28/20141:05PM

16 Nope. 5/27/20148:39PM

17 yes 5/27/20141:57PM

18 No 5/27/20141:42PM

19 sortof 5/26/20143:42AM

20 Yes. 5/16/201412:06PM

21 Theintroductionwasveryhelpful.Itshouldnotbeoverlooked. 5/15/20141:48PM

22 Noitdoesn't. 5/12/201412:05PM

23 Notreally.Itishigh-soundingrhetoric ,butemptyofcontent. 5/10/20149:27PM

24 Yes 5/3/201412:16PM

25 Yes 5/2/20149:40AM

26 no 5/1/201410:12AM

27 Theintroductionsoundsl ikeacollegesyllabus.Itisnotuserfriendly.Itisadisjointedpuzzlel iketherestofthedocument.

5/1/20144:23AM

28 Yes,ithelped. 4/29/201412:33PM

29 First,itneedstobec learwhatthestandardsarefor.AsweheardduringtheNDSTAspringmeeting(February21-22,2014,VCSU)thesestandards,astheystand,areforaguideforassessmentforstudentslearningoutcomes.Distric tsareresponsiblefordevelopingtheircurriculumdetails.Someguidanceonhowstric tlytofollowNGSSshouldbegiveninthefinalstandards,wherecurrentlyitislefttodiscretionoftheindividualteachersorthedistric ts.Itshouldbec learlystatedwheretherearespecificsthatteachersarerequiredtofollow,andwhichwil lbecheckedintheassessments.

4/28/20149:03PM

30 Tosomedegree. 4/28/20148:38AM

31 yes,excellentideatogiveasummaryofthestandardsandexpectations 4/27/20146:50PM

32 Ifanything,Ithinkithelpsmetogetmyheadtotherightlevelofperspective.Thedangeristhatthestandardscanbetoonebulousortheygotmisinterpretedasaguidlineforcurriculum.Theintroputsthingsinproperperspective.

4/27/20143:14PM

33 Yes 4/27/20142:20AM

34 Well,yes,itsummarizesnicely,butthestatement:"influenceofengineering,technology,andscienceonsocietyandthenaturalworldarecalledoutasorganizingconceptsforthesedisc iplinarycoreideas."-Thisdoesnotsaytomethisisaboutsc ience.Scienceisaboutthescientific method,questioninganddiscovering.Thissays,"Howdoeseverythingaffectme..."

4/25/20145:54PM

35 Yes 4/25/20149:54AM

36 no 4/25/20147:39AM

37 Yes 4/24/20149:07PM

38 Yes,Ialsoappreciatethespiralofcontentknowledge. 4/24/20149:03PM

39 Yes. 4/24/20146:11PM

40 Thishelpsc larifythedocument. 4/24/20144:26PM

41 yes. 4/24/20141:24PM

42 ok 4/24/20149:56AM

43 Yes. 4/16/20142:46PM


1/4

Q11Othercomments:Answered:44 Skipped:46

# Responses Date

1 Thestandardsseemtoinc ludeanunbalancedviewoftopicsl ikeevolutionandglobalwarming.TheydonotrepresentthevaluesofNorthDakota.Alsotheylacksomeofthemaththatisinthesciences.Theformersc iencestandardsinNDinthelowergradesmademuchmoresenseinaskingthestudentstodothingsattheirdevelopmentalabil i ty.

6/2/20143:55PM

2 Thenegativeone-sidedtreatmentofagricultureandfossilfuelsisaself-defeatingapproachtoeducatingNorthDakota'schildren.NorthDakota'seconomyandfutureisverydependentontheseindustriesanditisveryconcerningtoseethattheywil lbetreatedsonegativelyinthepublicschools.

6/2/20142:28PM

3 Whocanweapproachorcontactabouthavingourvoiceheardonthistopic? 6/2/201412:00PM

4 IwishIwouldhaveknownaboutthisearlier,itwasnotpublic lyknownasmostotherparentsItalkedtohadnoideathiswasonthetableandwil lprobablyfindoutwhenimplemented.Therewasnopublic notificationinthenewsorothersources,andnowwewil lhaveourchildrensubjecttosomethingthatmakesnosense.Thereasonforthisstandardistogeneratemoreinterest,butastandardwil lnotdothat,teacherswil l.Therearemanyeffortsallreadyforthat,Ithinkthestateshouldgivemoresupporttothoseeffortsandnotimplementaonesizefitsallnationallygeneratedstandard.OneexamplewouldbetheEnergyCurriculumcurrentlybeingcreatedbytheGreatPlainsEnergyCooridoratBSC,othersaretheteachersconferencesprovidedbyindustriesthroughoutthestateandaccredited.Wealwaystalkabout"rigor",butthatisnottheissue.Ifwejustneededtobemorerigorousthenrequiremorehomework,whichisabadidea.Thestandardswil lnotgenerateinterestorimprovedperformance,butstifflecreativityandthesc ientific process.

6/2/201410:57AM

5 1.FordhamInstitutegradedtheNGSS“C”.2.ThefederalgovernmentthroughfederalagenciessuchastheEPAwasheavilyinvolvedindevelopingtheNGSS.3.Anti-fossilfuelthemesareparticularlyconcerningforNorthDakotasincesuchalargeportionofthestate’seconomyisdependentontheenergyindustrywhichisprimarilyfossil-fuelbased.4.Focusonfederalandinternationalregulationinsteadoffreedomandenterprise.5.Thecommentsubmittaltooliscumbersometouseandthereisnoconfirmationcopyofthecommentswhenyouc licksubmit.ItjustsaysthankyousoI'mnotsurewhetherallmycommentswentthroughornot.6.Thecommentsubmittaldeadlineistoosoon.Thecommitteehasbeenreviewingthesefornearlyayearbutthepublic commentperiodisonly5weeks?

6/1/201410:33PM

6 1.FordhamInstitutegradedtheNGSS“C”.2.ThefederalgovernmentthroughfederalagenciessuchastheEPAwasheavilyinvolvedindevelopingtheNGSS.3.Anti-fossilfuelthemesareparticularlyconcerningforNorthDakotasincesuchalargeportionofthestate’seconomyisdependentontheenergyindustrywhichisprimarilyfossil-fuelbased.4.Focusonfederalandinternationalregulationinsteadoffreedomandenterprise.

6/1/201410:12PM

7 1.FordhamInstitutegradedtheNGSS“C”.2.ThefederalgovernmentthroughfederalagenciessuchastheEPAwasheavilyinvolvedindevelopingtheNGSS.3.Anti-fossilfuelthemesareparticularlyconcerningforNorthDakotasincesuchalargeportionofthestate’seconomyisdependentontheenergyindustrywhichisprimarilyfossil-fuelbased.4.Focusonfederalandinternationalregulationinsteadoffreedomandenterprise.

6/1/201410:09PM

8 IunderstandthatthedesignofCommonCoreandNGSSisthatteacherswil lbeteachingthesamethingonanyparticulardaysothatthosewhomovecanexpecttheverysamecurriculawherevertheymove.Somuchforschoolchoice,whereveryougoyouonlyhaveonechoice:CommonCoreandNGSSConsideringthattheNGSSarecopyright.Thatleavesmewithtwochoices:acceptitaswrittenorreject.IfKindergartenstudentshaveabadyear,Ipredicttheyareofftoapooreducation.IfNGSSarenotKindergartenfriendly,IthinkweshouldrejectNGSSakaNorthDakotaScienceContentStandards.

5/31/20149:38PM

9 Iwouldl ikeNDsayNotomoreofthesecommonstandards.WeareaProsperousNationbasedonCapitalismletsdoouronthing.

5/31/20142:43PM


2/4

10 Idonotbelievethatweshouldadoptthesesc iencestandards.OurStatehasplentyofteachersandprofessorsthatcancomeupwithstandardsthatarenotdrivendownbythefederalgovernment.WeneedtolookattheBIGpicturesandseethatthestandardswil lproduceanationalcurriculum.Howcanitnot?Thebooks,tests,andassessmentswil lallbedrivenbysomeone,something,otherthanourstateandlocalschooldistric ts.Ithinkitistimethatweusethe4C'screativity,collaboration,criticalthinkingandcommonsensetothinkthisthroughasawholeandnotjustfixoureyesonthestandards.Allofthestandardswil lbecomesointertwinedthattherewil lbenowaytogetoutifwewantto.Wewil lbecomeaslavetothesestandardsandallthatitbecomes....nowandintothefuture.Ibelievewehaveenoughgreatmindsinourstatetocomeupwithstandardsthatarenotpreparedandhandedtousinapackageasthe"answer"toourchildren'ssc ienceeducation.

5/31/201410:53AM

11 let'sdevelopourownstandards-notthecopyrightedstandards 5/31/20145:01AM

12 Pleasedonotimplementthesesc iencestandards.Getparentsinvolvedandlet'skeepourschoolcurriculumatalocallevel.Nomoredirectionfromthenationalgovernment-thesearenottheirchildren-andwedon'twanttheirinfluenceinourNDschools.

5/30/201411:23AM

13 ThesenewsciencestandardsandCommonCorearebeingsomewhat"forced"onuswithveryl i ttletransparency.Ifwequestionthem,thenwearedeemedasnotwantinghighstandardsforourchildren.WewereabletovoiceourconcernsatanopenforumattheChamberofCommerceinMarch2014butourconcernswerenottakenseriouslywithanyconcertedefforttotrulyunderstandorl istentous.Ourconcernsarerealandwetakeourchildren'seducationveryseriouslywhichiswhywehavedecidedtoHomeschoolourchildreninthefallof2014.WearedisappointedinthedirectionofoureducationsysteminNorthDakota.Pleasel isten-let'shaveanopendiscussionandaddresstherealconcernswehaveasparentssincetheseareOURchildren.Thankyou.

5/30/201410:43AM

14 PLEASEdonotimplementthese! 5/29/20145:33PM

15 ASACITIZENOF"THISCOUNTRY"......ANDARETIREDRESIDENTOFBISMARCK.....PARENTOFFOURGROWENCHILDREN....ANDNOWGRANDCHILDREN....THECOMMONCOREPROGRAMISTHEIMPLANTATIONOF"SOCIALISM"INTOOURSCHOOLSANDTHEGOVERNMENTCONTROLLING"OURCHILDREN'SMINDSANDLIVES".THIS"WILLLEAD"TOTHEDESTRUCTIONOF"OURUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAN".

5/29/20143:13PM

16 Pleasedonotlowerourstandardsbyexceptingthese.NDisawealthystateandwedonotneedtobeboughtoutandrunbythefeds.CommonCoreisanefforttoregionalize,replacelocalgovernmentwithboardsoffederallyappointmentbureaucrats.Thiswil lendthefreedomparentshavetochooseneighborhoodswithgoodschoolsbecausetaxfundswil lbedistributedequal.Therewil lbenoescapeinhomeschoolingorprivateeducationduetonationaltesting.Studentswil lbesubjecttoeducationmandatesimplementedbytheFederalGovernment.Letuswakeuplikethestatesthatalreadyhave-Virginia,Georgia,Indiana,Utah,SCandothershavestartedeffortsto"nix"it.Thinkofyourchildrenandyourgrandchildren.Theyareourfuture.

5/29/20141:03AM

17 Soundsl ikepropaganda!DoNOTlikeit. 5/28/201410:49PM

18 Asaconcernedparent.IstrongrejectCommonCorestandards.Thishasnotbeenatransparentdiscussion.Atabareminimum,thisprocessneedstoslowdowntoallowtimeforopenandthoroughdiscussion.Thecurrentprocessgivesmethefeelingtheproponentswanttohurrythisintothesystemthroughthebackdoorbecausetheyknowitcannotstandonitsownandgainsupportfromawellinformedvoterbase.NorthDakotansarebetterthanthis.

5/28/20147:03PM

19 parentsandteacherscanruneducationbetterthanatopdownapproachfromthefederalgovernment

5/28/20144:50PM

20 Itissuggestedthatteachingk-2andgrades5-6that"engineeringanddesign"shouldbetaught.Whynotfocusontheseprimarythings:reading,writing,math.Fromthatfoundation,addlogic.Whenreadingthisproposal,itappearsthatstartinginkindergarten,public schoolsaremoldingstudentstoabasicformoftechnologycareers,thattheassumptionispublic schoolsmustturnouttechnologypeopletofi l l thefutureworkforce.Themanyreferencesto"c limatechange"and"bigbangtheory"andnoreference(thatIcouldfind)toanyothertheoriesinthehighergradessciencestellsmethereisnoroomfordebate.Thepurposeofpublic educationistoeducatechildrentoread,write,andbeprofic ientinmath.History,geography,languageandsciencecanbelearnedbestwhenkidscanfirstbeprofic ientinthebasics.Thepushtoturnoutchildrentobecapableworkersisnotthe"job"ofDPI;itistheirjobtoeducate.Yes,technologyiseverywhereandstudentsshouldknowsomethingaboutit,butitshouldbeuti l izedtohelpintheireducation,notproduceworkers.

5/28/20141:05PM


3/4

21 Ihaven'treadthestandards,butIwanttoencourageyoutomakethemasrigorousaspossible.Pleasedon'tcavetopoliticalpressureonsubjectsl ikeevolution,theoriginsoftheuniverseandclimatechange.Teachkidsreal,truesc ience-thekindsc ientistssupport,notreligiouspseudo-science.

5/27/201410:53PM

22 DROPCOMMONCOREFROMNORTHDAKOTASCHOOLS.NORTHDAKOTAPARENTSAREAGAINSTITANDSEVERALOTHERSTATESAREWORKINGTOWITHDRAWFROMCOMMONCOREASWELL.GOBACKTOTHEPREVIOUSSTANDARDSWEHADBEFORECOMMONCORE.

5/27/20148:39PM

23 NDdoesnotneedandshouldnottakepartinanytypeof"national"standards.ND,also,shouldnotuseanyportionofthestandardstocreatourownstandards....whichtechnicallycan'tbedoneanyways,sincethenationalstandardsarecopyrightedandmayonlybeusedasawhole.DoourchildrenaserviceanddoNOTallowthesestandardsintoourgreatstate.

5/27/20143:28PM

24 verypoor,globalwarmingetc..HowdoesthisbenefitSTEMeducation?ITDOESN'T 5/27/20141:57PM

25 Thechangetotheeducationsystemisacompletejoke.Educationneedstobeleftuptotheteachersandtheparents.Thegovernmenthasnorighttointerveneintheeducationsystem.Numerousstudieshaveshownasteadydeclineineducationandtestscoresthelongerthegovernmentisinvolved.TheimplementationoftheCommonCoreisoutrageous!Theteachingisdifficult,mystudentshateit,Iamseeingthemmorestressedandconfusedthaneverbefore!Weneedtomakeeducationfunandinterestingtoourstudents.Thenonstopmemorize,regurgitate,andtestisridiculous!!Iamseeingmoreandmorefamiliespull ingfrompublic schooltohomeschoolbecauseofhowbadtheschoolsandeducationisgetting.Thegovernmentneedstobackoffandlettheparentsandteacherstakeoverthechildren'seducationinstead!!!!!!!!!

5/27/20141:42PM

26 Thereisahugedifferencebetweenintendedcurriculumandenactedcurriculum.Thestandardslookgoodandourstatehascreatedanattractivedocument.But,asateacherandparentIammoreconcernedabouthowNorthDakotawil lensurethateducatorsacrossthestatearecoveringthestandards.Frommyobservationandafterputtingmyownkidsthroughhighschoolandcollegesometeachershavetoomuchautonomy.Administratorslookatlessonplansonlytoseeiftheyarefi l ledin.Theydon'toverseewhatisactuallyenactedinthec lassroom.Ibelievethereshouldbestatewideteachercoaches.

5/15/20141:48PM

27 Iabsolutelydisagreewiththecontentthathasbeeninc ludedthatisopinionandnotfact.Itgivesapoorexampleofhowscienceshouldbeused.

5/14/20148:33AM

28 Thereisahugeamountofroominthesesc iencelessonstopushadoomandgloomoutlookontoourchildren.Teachingthemtofeelbadforconsumingnaturalresources,andthatifi twasn'tforhumanstheearthwouldbemuchbetteroff.Childrenarescaredintothinkingthatanyminutetheicecapswil lmeltandallthecutefurryanimalsintheworldwil lperishbecausetheywereselfishenoughtobebornasaeviloverconsuminghuman.Idon'twantmychildrenunabletosleepanightbecausetheyaretooworriedabouttheaffectsoftheircarbonfootprintontheplanet.

5/12/201412:05PM

29 Nomoreofthisnonsense,NDhasdonefinebefore,nomoretakingtheeasywayout.Notothesestandards.

5/11/20143:03PM

30 ItwouldbeasaddayinNorthDakotaifthestateacceptsthesestandards 5/10/20149:27PM

31 Idisagreewiththedataminingthatgoesalongwithcommoncore.Thereisnoprivacyanymoreofourkids.Istronglyopposethestandardsofcommoncorethatdonotallowindividualstoexcel.Thestandardsonlyhurtkidswithdisabil i ties,astheyareexpectedto"achieve"thesameresultsasalltheotherkids.Istronglyopposethesubtlepropagandathatthesestandardsimposeonmykids.Ifthesestandardsaresogreatwhyaresomanystatesbail ingoffofthissinkingship.Pleaseconsiderthefutureofourgreatstate'schildrenandstoptryingtopushandimplementcommoncore.Themoneythestatereceivedbythefederalgovernmentisn'tworthourkid'sfuture.Pleasecometoyoursensesandseethatthiswil lonlysetourkidsbackwards,notmovethemforwardasallthel iesdescribe.Icountmykidslucky,theyarealreadyinhighschool,andcanthinkforthemselves,canseewhentheyarebeingl iedto,andhaveenoughselfesteemtovoicetheiroppositiontobeusedaspartofafailedfederalexperiment.

5/7/20147:15AM

32 Inmy27yearsofteaching,withapresentfocusonteachingallsc iencesectionsatthe4thgradelevel,Ihaveneverseenadocumentsodisjointed.Areeducatorsactuallywritingthesestandards?Theyappeartobewrittenbyindividualswhodonotunderstanddevelopmentallevelsof3-5elementarylearners.Thestandardsaretoodifficultandhavenoconnectiontoeachlevel.Itsaddensmegreatlytothinkthatthesestandardscouldactuallybeadopted.Myrecommendation?Startover.

5/1/20144:23AM


4/4

33 Concerningyourchangingthetreatmentofevolutionas"fact"ratherthan"theory",Ioppose.Iamnotopposedtoteachingevolutionastheory,butwouldl ikeconsiderationofthebeliefof"creation"aswell.thinkitisgoodsciencetolookatalloftheideasandteachchildrenhowtothink.Promotingevolutionasafactwhentheevidencecannotbeprovenscientificallyisnotgoodscience.Iwouldaskyoutoconsiderotherviewsofthebeginningofl i fe.

4/30/20143:40PM


35 AsaChristianparent,IbelievethatwewerecreatedbyalovingGod,inHisimage.Myconcernsareregardingtheteachingofevolution.Iunderstandthattherearethosewhobelieveinthetheoryofevolution.I'mjustaskingthepublic schoolstopleasenotteachevolutionasafact,butratherasthetheorythatitis.I'dalsoaskthatschoolswouldgiveequalconsiderationtothoseofuswhobelieveincreationismandreturntoteachingcreationasanalternatetheory.

4/30/20148:58AM

36 Ifthedocumentismostlyl ine-by-linecopyofnationalNGSSstandardsthenitisimportanttohighlighttheNDadditions/deletionsfromtheoriginaldocument:WhichpartsareuniquetotheNDstandards,i.e.,whichpartsarenotinoriginalnationalNGSS.

4/28/20149:03PM

37 Ithinkthathavingyoungstudentsespeciallyingradesk-2giveexplanationswil lbequitedifficult.Criticalthinkingquestionsfortheyoungchildrenwil lbedifficult.

4/27/20146:50PM

38 Amuch-improveddraftandproduct.Veryintuitiveandveryhelpful.Idon'tseetoomanypeopleleftwonderingwhatismeantbythewordingorintent.Welldone,people!

4/27/20143:14PM

39 Itisaviolationofthe10thAmendmenttotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericatohaveaWashingtonmandateforeducation.

4/25/20147:39AM

40 Wedon'tmindourkidslearningevolutionintheirpublic school,butitshouldbtaughtasatheoryasitisnotafact.Thanku!

4/24/20149:07PM

41 yes 4/24/20149:56AM

42 IamanengineeringgraduatefromNDSUandhaveagreatrespectforsc ienceandthesc iencecommunity.Thefactisthereisnotheorythatmeetsthesc ientific methodfortheoriginofcreationandhumans.EvolutionandBigBangaretheories.Intell igentDesignisatheory.Biblicalcreationisatheory.Ifirmlybelievethatseveralsidestothisdiscussionmustbepresentedtoourchildren.Itisawrongapproachforthefutureofourchildrentopresentevolutionasfactorbigbangastheonlytheorytoexplaintheoriginsoftheuniverse.Allofthesetheoriesstartwithsomeassumptions.

4/23/20142:42PM

43 I'mnotaskingformuch.I'mNOTaskingforCreationismorIntell igentDesigntobeinsertedintothestandards.I'mnotaskingfortheBigBangTheorytoberemoved.I'msimplyaskingthecommitteetoacknowledgethatthereareothertheoriesabouttheoriginsoftheuniverse.Ibelievethatacommentaryl inecanbeaddedthatwil lencourageanopendiscussioninourc lassrooms.Thecommentarycouldread,""Becausetheoriginsoftheuniverseisoneofthegreatmysteriesofl i fe,therearemanytheoriesthatpeoplebelievein."Ourpoorstudentswhodon'tbelieveintheBigBangtheoryhaveenduredenoughpersecutionandbullying.AllI'maskingforisanopendiscussion.Recently,whenBil lNyedebatedKenHaminapublic forum,Bil lNye(afamousevolutionist)statedthattheoriginofl i feandouruniversewas"agreatmystery."Ihaveanewfoundrespectforhimtoadmitit.NowI'maskingforthecommitteetorecognizethatwhenitcomestoouroriginswedon'thavealltheanswers,soweshouldteachourchildrenthatwedo.Thankyouforyourconsideration.

4/23/201412:18PM

44 Thankyouforreadingmycomments,Ihopethatyouwil lseethemforwhattheyareandnotdismissthemiftheyaredifferentfromwhatyouthink.

4/16/20142:46PM

Lignite Coal: America’s Abundant Energy Resource www.lignite.com

Jason Bohrer, President & CEO Lignite Energy Council PO Box 2277 Bismarck, ND 58502 Telephone: (701) 258-7117 Fax: (701) 258-2755

May 29, 2014

Greg Gallagher

Assessment Director

Department of Public Instruction

600 East Boulevard

Bismarck, ND 58505

RE: Department of Public Instruction’s proposed new state science content standards.

Dear Mr. Gallagher,

The Lignite Energy Council appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on the

Department of Public Instruction’s proposed science standards. The LEC is a regional, non-profit

organization whose primary mission is to enhance, preserve, and protect the development and use of

lignite coal as an affordable and reliable energy source. The LEC’s membership includes: 1) producers

of lignite coal who have an ownership interest in and who mine lignite; 2) users of lignite who operate

lignite-fired electric generating plants and the nation’s only commercial-scale “synfuels” plant that

converts lignite into pipeline-quality natural gas; and 3) suppliers of goods and services to the lignite

coal industry. The LEC is submitting these comments out of concern that some of the content as

proposed will result in inaccurate and misleading education with respect to the environmental impacts

of lignite production and power generation.

As a general matter, the LEC strongly supports and encourages science education as a core

part of a K-12 curriculum. The LEC has a long history of providing fact-based energy instruction

opportunities for education professionals. One example is through an annual continued education

seminar sponsored by the LEC and accredited by North Dakota State University, the University of

North Dakota, and Minot State University. The seminar has hosted more than 3,000 teachers over 28

years and provides educators with the information and educational material they need to teach their

students about how lignite is mined and used to produce electricity for homes, farms, and businesses in

the Upper Midwest.

Building upon this legacy, the LEC has partnered with the North Dakota Petroleum Council to

hold an “Energy Tour” for college professors and administrators in August. The two-day event will

give college professors from the University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University plus

college presidents from Minot, Bismarck and Wahpeton a chance to hear from experts about how

http://www.lignite.com/


energy, economics and the environment are intertwined. Additionally, they will tour energy facilities

such as an oil rig, coal mine, power plant and oil refinery.

The LEC and other North Dakota energy industry representatives are also working in

conjunction with entities such as the Department of Public Instruction, State Historical Society and

North Dakota institutions of higher education on a North Dakota Studies Energy Curriculum project.

The project includes the development of an energy curriculum for 4th

and 8th

grade students to include

relevant information about North Dakota’s robust energy resources. Content and online modules will

provide more educated citizens and contributors to North Dakota’s future workforce.

An important principle of science is that the study of our natural world remains largely

composed of theories in pursuit of proof. As such, it is important that subject matter being presented to

students as part of the science curriculum should not be used to teach “standards” in the absence of

hard facts to support the conclusion drawn by the standard. For example, the explanation behind MS-

ESS3-5 (p. 105) asserts that the “[e]mphasis is on the major role that human activities play in causing

the rise in global temperatures.” It is concerning that the proposed standards would utilize a term as

subjective as “major” when the extent of the role of human activity on the atmosphere remains subject

to great debate. Similar assertions are made in MS-ESS3.D, HS-ESS2.D, and elsewhere throughout

the document.

As evidence of this uncertainty, the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change raises new questions concerning the level of increase in temperatures associated with

increased carbon dioxide emissions, otherwise known as “climate sensitivity.” The IPCC’s report

states that “[i]n contrast to AR4, no best estimate for [Effective Climate Sensitivity] is given because

of a lack of agreement on the best estimate across lines of evidence and studies and an improved

understanding of the uncertainties in estimates based on the observed warming,” and that “[i]n

estimates based on the observed warming the most likely value is sensitive to observational and model

uncertainties, internal climate variability and to assumptions about the prior distribution of [Effective

Climate Sensitivity].”1 Case in point, the IPCC report further states that even as global greenhouse gas

emissions during the last decade “were the highest in human history,”2 the “rate of warming over the

past 15 years is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.”3

The LEC agrees with the statement made under HS-ESS3 Crosscutting Concepts: “Empirical

evidence is required to differentiate between the cause and correlation and make claims about specific

causes and effects.” However, many of the current theories of climate science rely on models that have

yet to be verified through empirical data. As such, the LEC would recommend that the final standards

further link this caveat to the Disciplinary Core Ideas pertaining to the impacts of human activity on

global climate.

The Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) presented under HS-ETS1-A states that “[h]umanity faces

major global challenges today, such as the need for supplies of clean water and food or for energy

sources that minimize pollution, which can be addressed through engineering.” The LEC supports this

principle but would recommend that the DCI be further clarified that engineering and technology have

and continue to minimize pollution from existing energy sources such that coal-fired power and

environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. For example, despite increasing the use of coal

1 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/review/WG1AR5_SubstantiveEditsList_All_Final.pdf

2 http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter5.pdf

3 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/plattner15paris.pdf


https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/review/WG1AR5_SubstantiveEditsList_All_Final.pdf

http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter5.pdf

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/plattner15paris.pdf


for stable, baseload electricity by over 180 percent over the past 40 years, emissions of criteria

pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide have decreased by 80 percent4. The LEC also

recommends that this DCI acknowledges the societal advantages and dramatic increase in the overall

standard of living that are made possible by reliable and affordable access to energy and electricity,

particularly as technology continues to advance.

In conclusion, the proposed standards seek to cover a multitude of complex scientific concepts.

The LEC strongly believes that a comprehensive and fact-based science curriculum is essential for K-

12 students. Overall, the proposed standards largely provide the foundation for such. However, the

LEC respectfully requests that any final standards be revised to more accurately ensure that theory is

not presented as fact, and that the standards provide the flexibility for students to draw their own

conclusions or beliefs based on sound science.

Again, the LEC has long history of working with educators to provide information and data on

power generation as well as associated environmental impacts and mitigation. Thank you for your

attention to these comments and please do not hesitate to use the LEC as a resource as you move

forward with the proposed standards.

Sincerely,

LIGNITE ENERGY COUNCIL

Jason Bohrer

President & CEO

4 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/pdf/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants-final.pdf


http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/pdf/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants-final.pdf

north dakota common core survey

Documents