Wyoming is the first state to block a new set of national science standards, but a week after Gov. Matt Mead signed off on the change, education advocates are still digesting what the action means for the state.
Some say the provision, which came through a last-minute budget footnote, blocks the state from considering any part of the Next Generation Science Standards, a set of K-12 standards developed by national science education groups and representatives from 26 states. Others, including the provision's author, say it prevents the wholesale adoption of the standards as they are written.
And why do Wyoming lawmakers have a problem with the new science standards which were introduced to upgrade the old standards that were over fifteen years old and terribly outdated?
Religious objections to he teaching of evolution?
Concern over instruction about the Big Bang that some Fundamentalists consider an affront to their belief system?
Nope.
One of lawmakers' big concerns with the Next Generation Science Standards is an expectation that students will understand humans have significantly altered the Earth's biosphere. In other words, the standards say global warming is real.
That's a problem for some Wyoming lawmakers.
"[The standards] handle global warming as settled science," said Rep. Matt Teeters, a Republican from Lingle who was one of the footnote's authors. "There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming."
Teeters said teaching global warming as fact would wreck Wyoming's economy, as the state is the nation's largest energy exporter, and cause other unwanted political ramifications.
Micheli, the state board of education chairman, agreed.
"I don't accept, personally, that [climate change] is a fact," Micheli said. "[The standards are] very prejudiced in my opinion against fossil-fuel development."
To be clear this is a decision based solely on a fear that teaching that climate change is both real, and impacted by the actions of mankind, will have political repercussions and a short term financial impact.
One could perhaps understand the argument against evolution, based on fear that it will undermine religious belief, but this one is based solely on the fact that the politicians fear that children learning about climate change will grow up to be too informed to support oil drilling and fossil fuel exploitation.
It is really rare to have an argument against science education be quite this transparent.
This has Koch money all over it.
ReplyDeleteSchmucks
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, Wyoming has made a lot of money off of the oil and gas industries. Small towns like Pinedale have reaped huge profits, thus enabling them to build amazing recreational facilities and a fire department with equipment that much larger cities can only dream about.
ReplyDeleteYour comment isn't being "fair." It's giving an explanation why these guys want to undermine the education of their state's children. Money trumps education, I guess.
DeleteThere is no "fair" when education is suppressed so that a state can continue to reap the financial benefits of ignorance.
DeleteTwo words - Wyoming Coal. They are the nation's #1 producer of coal - about 40%. Can't be teaching that coal is baaad.
ReplyDeleteAlso, too dick cheeney.
another two words: Bakken shale
ReplyDeleteoh and fracking
Ron Micheli, an old fart who spend most of his time up to his knees in bullshit (literally) destroys Wyoming education.
ReplyDeleteFace palm. Double face palm.
ReplyDeleteThere are no words to express how completely embarrassed I am that I live in this state.
Mortified comes slightly close.
To be sure though, I do my fair share of trying to be a thorn in the Conservatives' collective sides down here in the Wild, Wild West of Wyoming.
Sheesh.
My only hope is that this story will gain enough national attention that our esteemed Governor Matt Mead and the Knights of his Round Table (Rep. Matt Teeters included) will take a serious pounding in the standing of the rest of the country.
A girl can dream, eh?
I live in WY and honestly think this has nothing to do with education and everything to do with protecting the Coal/Fracking/Drilling industry.
ReplyDeleteFace it.....if you have an administration that allows this type of information in education, then you cannot defend the industry that drives your economy. You cannot say the information is true in education, if you promote public policy that is the exact opposite.
It's all about money.
Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Really Starting To Scare Conservatives
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/18/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-really-starting-to-scare-conservatives/
Gee, Mr Teeters, with all this fracking, polluting tons of water for nothing, and making faucets blow torches after big Oil promised to seal the wells, one would think global warming is real and it's a real danger.
ReplyDeleteIn the 70's, it was global cooling--a new ice age. then it was global warming, because the temps started to get warmer. Major predictions were made that by 2014, we'd have to tell our kids about snow, because it would be a thing of the past. Then we found via released emails, that the scientists were using some questionable data collecting methods, and assumptions, and it was quickly pushed under the rug, while we changed the verbage to climate change. The verbage was changed because overall temperatures were questionable at best. This past year, scientist went into icy areas to show just how much the ice has shrunk, only to get stuck in the ice, and the ice chopping boat that was to rescue them, also got stuck in the ice because there was so much of it. (Sorry. I just find that very ironic!) When Scientist do such a 180 a couple of times, each time claiming that it is part of the same problem (too cold, too hot, no too much ice because of global warming)... It is too much to swallow!
ReplyDeleteLet me also state that I do believe that humans are helping to change the planet. Duh. BUT, the solutions are where we differ! Why is it SO very IMPORTANT that we switch to solar, when we have to get our solar parts from China (where we KNOW that they don't care how it is processed, thus causing more toxins in the air), then shipped (more toxins), and shipped from the coast (more toxins)... etc. By the time it gets to your house and installed, it has already cost more in toxins than the cost of your electric will be for at least 20 years! THIS IS NOT BETTER!!! Yes, some do choose to use more earth friendly devices, light bulbs, etc, but it is still OUR CHOICE!!! Most people will recycle. It is better for the environment. sure. I do, but if/when it is mandated that you WILL RECYCLE!!! I just want to stand with my hands on my hips and say--No. I don't think so! There are better ways to help the environment, but giving money to companies like Solyndra (spelling?!?) that goes bankrupt a year later is NOT a good idea. These companies were never vetted. They weren't looked into to see if the money would actually do what it should be doing, they just said--Environmentally friendly--GIVE MONEY... then looked the other way when it went under.
Point? oh, yes. Just because we disagree on the method of solutions, or even the problem, doesn't mean that I hate the environment, nor does it mean that I am a science hating, religious, creationist, zealot that should be silenced by any means necessary.