Discussion of Proposed Science S

Discussion of Proposed Science Standards
from the December 1, 2005 Minnetonka School Board

Editors' Note: The Minnetonka School Board voted on December 15, 2005 not to accept Mr. Eaton's and Mr. Wenmark's recommended changes to the district's science standards. On December 20, 2005, in a U.S. federal district court, Judge John Jones III ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Dover, Pennsylvania school board to require the introduction of intelligent design creationism concepts in public school biology classes. Mr. Eaton resigned from the Minnetonka School Board on January 31, 2006.

Why TonkaFocus is concerned about this discussion:

Mr. Eaton suggested wording changes which sound suspiciously like language favored by intelligent design/creationism proponents. This is a danger for two reasons –

1) It would compromise the excellence of public education in the Minnetonka Schools

2) It could make our district vulnerable to a legal battle over intelligent design/creationism

Mr. Wenmark’s comments may be cause for concern as well.

TonkaFocus transcribed this discussion from a DVD provided by the school district.

Discussion pertaining to possible openings for intelligent design/creationism is highlighted in red type.

After you’ve read this summary, you may wish to contact the Minnetonka School Board and Superintendent Dr. Dennis Peterson – one e-mail reaches them all: schoolboard@minnetonka.k12.mn.us

From pages 14 & 15 of The State of State Science Standards, published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, December 7, 2005 and available on their web site:

“The promoters of intelligent design creationism have perforce retreated to arguments that invoke the popular and conveniently vague educationist formula, “critical thinking.” The claim now is that evidence against “Darwinism” exists, that curriculum-makers should include it as an exercise in critical thinking, and that “freedom of speech” or “fairness” requires that they do so. The hidden agenda is to introduce doubt—any possible doubt—about evolution at the critical early stage of introduction to the relevant science. However, political assertions and public relations escapades to the contrary, no sound evidence has so far been adduced against descent with modification. In the (at least) two-billion-year history of life on this planet, evolution has been a fact”. (page 14)

“A standards document that gives evolutionary science appropriate weight, at least within biology, that introduces the main lines of evidence, including findings in the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, and development, and that connects all this with Earth history, merits a “3.” The above, but with some big gaps, gets a “2.” (page 15)

The Fordham Institute assigned Minnesota’s evolution coverage a score of 2, with an overall grade for our state science standards of B. (pages 45 & 46)

“The student will recognize that science and technology are influenced by cultural backgrounds and beliefs and by social needs, attitudes, values and limitations.” Yes, certainly! But the whole point of a K-12 science education is to establish beyond misgivings that there are sound practices, elaborated over more than 300 years, taken very seriously in the natural sciences, whose purpose is—precisely—

to detect and eliminate biases due to “social needs, attitudes, values and limitations.” Grade: “B.”

Further context: Minnetonka is not adopting new science standards; we are meshing our existing standards, adopted by the Board in 2003, with the state standards, to make sure we align with required state testing.

DENNIS PETERSON: Claudia Risnes, Executive Director of Teaching and Learning led the process to integrate Minnetonka Standards with new State Standards. Process they hope to follow is to present 12/1, review and discuss and to propose adoption on 12/15. If the board believes they are not ready at that time they can delay further.

CLAUDIA RISNES: We’re here to present the Minnetonka Science Standards for your discussion, recommending that we use the same science standards that this board has previously approved in July of 2003. What we’d like to share with you this evening is the reformatting of the Science Standards and we are pleased that we have finished this. It as a massive project and we were trying to take a very large document of science standards that had been in a Word document and put it into a spreadsheet so we can make sure, as we write curriculum, purchase materials and work with the standards, that we are certain that what we are doing helps prepare the students for any testing that they will be doing through the state or any other exams that they will have so we are sure that we have connected our standards with the states standards.

I’d like to introduce Gwynneth Wacker, Biology teacher at MHS and one of the co-chairs for 6-12 district science and Dawn Norton, the other co-chair for district 6-12 science and a Biology teacher MHS. We are prepared, really prepared to answer any of your questions having to do with Biology and we feel that they can answer a number of other areas also for secondary science. Also happy to have Jenn Fuchs here, our Assessment Director; she brings some expertise in the state science test and will share some information on the science test.

If there are questions we cannot answer, we will be happy to write those down and find answers for you and get them to you between now and the next meeting or at the next meeting. Would also like to express great appreciation to others that worked on the standards but are not here this evening. Karen Newell, Kim Carlson, and all the other teachers who participated in writing these standards.

Moving ahead with contents, the reason we brought the science standards back up, because they have been approved, and we have the state standards within our own standards and additional standards that are up and beyond the state standards and benchmarks. In July 2003 the state adopted science standards and they were formatted differently. There is a sheet in your packet that shows the state format as compared to our original document of science standards. We originally set up standards in 8 areas using the language of a standard being the big broad area of the eight standards. The state when they began to write the Minnesota academic standards started to use a format calling the big areas like in Soc Areas, strands and sub-strands and each of those sub-strands had standards and benchmarks. So what we began working with last year was taking our 8 strands, as they would be looked at now, and work that content back into the four areas. So it was a giant puzzle for us to make sure we repositioned that content where it would fit with the state standards in the strands of the state. An example of that would be in area of our Standard 7: Science in personal and social perspective. Most of those ended up in the State Strand: History and Nature of Science under either Historical Perspective or Scientific Enterprise. So our teachers needed to look back in particular to three of our own standards: Science and Technology, Science in Personal and Social Perspective, and Communication Skills in Science, and reposition those within the strands and sub-strands of the State.

After we started working with that we wanted to make sure that we could get all of that into a spreadsheet format so we could look at aligning particular strands or sub-strands K-12. We could look at the articulation K-12 and have that be visual and make sure that there are no gaps in the preparation for the students as they transition from grade level.

Next thing we needed to do, because the first writing of the standards was in the time of the Profile of Learning and so we used a different language and process as the state led us through the Minnesota State Academic Standards. We became much more focused on the measurable aspect of the benchmark. When we originally wrote them, we wrote detailed language on how we would assess that and how we would instruct that benchmark. In our spreadsheet we put a column, which is usually part of curriculum, which is leading us into the curriculum development, and we titled that Instructional or Strategy. So we moved those comments out of the benchmark area into the Instruction area.

I’d like to have Jen (Fuchs, Assessment Director) come up and talk about the Science Testing.

JENN FUCHS: The State has been adamant with the State Science Assessments in making sure we are assessing students they way that they learn Science. So that it is an interactive environment when they are taking the assessment. We are going to start doing that on a pilot basis this year and the assessment will be online and operations in 2008. This year we will have an interactive assessment and in 2008/2009 we are moving to all assessments being computer based online. The state web site has a rough demo of what the students will see on the Science Assessment.

The other unique thing about the science assessment is that it will be the only assessment that’s going to be a grade-band test. Even though we will assess in 5^th grade, it will be on content from 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th grade. Same thing for the 8th grade assessment, covering 6^th, 7th and 8^th grades. That’s why having this format (the worksheet showing alignment of Minnetonka standards with the state standards) in the Excel format is important because we need to have all grades accountable. In the High School there is a little more leeway. They allow HS to chose when they want to give that assessment because it’s (assessing) only Life Science. So some districts will give it after the sophomore year depending on when they are giving their Life Science. So the assessment at the HS will only be on Life Science content and then the Nature of Science within a Life Science context. The other grades, Elementary 3^rd grade and 5thgrade tests, will cover all content areas.

PEGGY STEFAN: Will we then have students choose which year they would like to take the test depending on when they took Biology?

JENN FUCHS: (No answer was heard on tape. Presume an affirmative nod was given)

JENN FUCHS: The company the State has contracted with is NCS Pearson. The people who are doing the actual integration is a Minnesota company, KGB, and they work with local science teachers and science specialists at the assessment company, NCS Pearson.

WILLIAM WENMARK: We can talk about this later, but where does this fall into the companionship with the Northwestern (Northwestern Evalution Association, www.nwea.org, which specializes in adaptive testing. Minnetonka has been exploring using this.) that are looking for strand / thread analysis for all of the grades, you were talking about in the study session, do those two assessments work together?

JENN FUCHS: Yes, because the NWEA assessment is aligned to the MN Standards, as is the MCA. (Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments)

JENN FUCHS: Yes. The state department has not set when they want the students to take the tests but they are talking about having a district-wide assessment date and not individual dates. So it will be consistent for students.

CLAUDIA RISNES: One thing I neglected to mention is the packet of standards that you have this evening does not include some courses. We worked hard to try to get them all done but we didn’t get them into the computer. We will bring the next time, grade 8, Physics, Anatomy, principles of Biology, Chem Com, and Environmental Biology.

I want to spend a couple minutes on K-5 and then if Dawn or Gwyneth would like to speak they can add some things, like how these standards play out in the classroom.

Look at K-5 standards, directed to Grade 1. One thing Karen Newell worked on last year was to take the packet of science standards in narrative form and make sure that at each grade level the units that students worked with matched up with the standards. Some of the standards moved and we can teach things in grade bands, like Jen mentioned, but we need to make sure the standards are within the grade band. So there were some units we needed to move by one grade band; teachers get attached to the units they teach so it was not always an easy task.

In grade one, in addition to safety, which we have put into all the grade levels, look at History and Nature of Science and we have added a number of additional Minnetonka standards and benchmarks into the History and Nature of Science. So we are enhancing what students are doing at that grade level. Then we have Physical Science; structure of matter, Physical Science - Forces of Nature, and then Earth and Space having to do with climate, weather, Earth and space with the Universe, and then Life Science.

As we structure the units with the kits and supplies teachers scheduled at the beginning of the year, they are shipped out, returned and restocked and sent back out. We have a very strong Elementary Science program that is interactive and hands on. The science units required at the Elementary level are: Wild about Weather, Solids and Liquids, and Primarily Plants. Then there are options for teachers that want to do more science at that level. Life Science, at the end of grade one, several of the standards and sub-strands are taught in Health, having to do with the students recognizing germs and how they are spread person to person.

Every grade level has required science units and kits that match the standards and bring up compliance and give students opportunity to learn.

I will send around an example (presented to Wenmark) of intention in using the original Science standards and then cross out and additions so you could see easily where we moved things to and how things were moved and what was eliminated at various grade levels. It worked at the elementary level and as we went up in courses it became unmanageable. I just wanted you to see the process we went through. If you could just pass that around.

ERIN ADAMS: Before we open up for questions I’d like to clarify that for K-12 you really didn’t create or write any new standards. It was really a housekeeping task, if you will, to reformat them for the state?

CLAUDIA RISNES: Correct. We were aligning what we already had approved to the state standards and their structure.

WILLIAM WENMARK: Madam Chair, before I pass this along, a quick question. If it is lined out what happened to it?

PEGGY STEFAN: Can we ask questions about any grade or do you want us to stay on K-5?

PEGGY STEFAN: I was struck as I went through, and I don’t recall going through this, and I don’t have a specific recollection of a couple years ago when we went through, that we have added so much more than the State Standards, and I was wondering - were the state standards intended to be a comprehensive standard for curriculum or were they meant to be the minimum standards?

CLAUDIA RISNES: Madam Chair, may I refer that back to Mr. Eaton. We had met with him and talked a bit about the state and its purpose.

(Editors’ note: Ms. Risnes seems to refer to a meeting on November 30 with Dave Eaton and Dawn Norton and Gwyneth Walker, the district’s co-chairs for Grade 6-12 science.)

DAVE EATON: The instructions the committee was given was to aim for a hurdle that top schools, middle schools, and some of the schools that can’t offer the depth of programs that Minnetonka offers. The first draft came back and they said it was far too detailed, there was too much in it. So the one we have in front of us from the state today we have removed about a third of the standards. We were trying to get it to be a hurdle that every school could get their kids over. That was the philosophy and I think it’s quite natural a lot of schools will add to it because it wasn’t meant to be a top shelf program.

(Editors’ note: You can download a copy of the Minnesota Science Standards from the MN Dept. of Education:

PEGGY STEFAN: When it came back to the committee, as being too detailed, was that because it was too prescriptive under the standard areas or was it because it was the quantity of material?

DAVE EATON: It was the quantity. They said it was too much. So I’d say quantity and depth.

PEGGY STEFAN: It seems in some particular areas there are a lot more than there are in other classroom areas. Do you feel, and other professionals feel as though these standards can be covered in an each 9-month course?

DAWN NORTON: If you were to lay out any one of the courses’ state standards and lay the Minnetonka standards next to them, they look voluminous. Almost overwhelming, if you will. But they are the standards we have been operating under for the last several years. I don’t want to speak for everyone else but we feel like we’ve had good success in maintaining Minnetonka standards and what this document shows is how we’re sliding those Minnetonka standards, which are much more detailed, into the state standards and verifying that our great volumes are certainly meeting our state standards.

ERIN ADAMS: Mr. Eaton, could you preface your remarks if you would, about your involvement in the State Science Committee. Several years have passed and everyone who’s hearing your explanation may not realize you had the opportunity to serve.

DAVE EATON: I’d be glad to. The state selected people from different backgrounds, educational and experience wise. I was selected to be on the committee that wrote the first couple of drafts and that was, I believe 65-70 people. When that was done, that draft was taken around the state to 14 different cities to get public input, and then out of that group they selected 13 people, and I was in that group of 13, that was the final writing committee to write the last draft and that had to go through the House and Senate. I did not realize when I volunteered for this committee that you have to actually work a standard all the way through the Legislature and it’s signed by the Governor and it becomes statute. I had no idea. So it was a lot more detailed, a lot more drawn out process.

DAVE EATON: I just have a couple of observations and we touched on this some when we met before. I was quite amazed with the amount of feedback we got from the public when we went around and presented these drafts. Probably 80% of the comments came in on how are you going to teach evolution? So that’s a very sensitive topic and can get controversial. So when we wrote these standards we spent more time on the few strands and sub-strands talking about evolution than the whole rest of the standard, which dismayed me because my interest is in Chemistry and Physics especially. I didn’t get to spend a lot of time on that or as much because we focused on that.

(Editors’ note: According to other committee members and observers, it’s true that the committee spent an inordinate amount of time on evolution; this was because Mr. Eaton and other proponents of Intelligent Design and/or creationism insisted on language that opens the door to criticizing evolution as the foundation of biology. Mr. Eaton authored a “minority report” objecting to the way evolution is covered in the state standards. The report can be seen on the web site of Intelligent Design Network: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Minority Report.pdf

DAVE EATON: So because of that time I wanted to make sure our Minnetonka Standards are in alignment with the State Standards and if I can refer to the State ChemistryX and ChemistryG pg. 7 of 15. First: Scientific Enterprise, in the benchmark “Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria, they should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticisms, report methods procedures, and make knowledge public”. I would recommend the addition of a comment, “be free from philosophical bias” and that could be inserted anywhere. For example, be open to criticism, be free from philosophical bias, to report methods and procedures and make knowledge public. The reason I’m recommending that is we got a lot of concern about teaching evolution in a dogmatic way that it’s a fact, not a theory. There was concern from the public around that. And on the other side, to bring in a religious, philosophical slant and start affecting the way we teach science with religious viewpoints and neither of those belong in the science classroom. So, I would make that as a friendly recommendation.

(Editors’ note: Mr. Eaton’s suggested wording “free from philosophical bias” opens us to the probable next strategy of IDists (Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design Network, Thomas Moore Law Center, etc.) If “Darwinism” (creationists’ term for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution) is seen as akin to atheism or theism - religion - and public schools can’t teach theism (or atheism), then public schools can’t teach Darwin’s theory of evolution. Or if they do teach evolution, it should be “balanced” by teaching “alternative theories” like Intelligent Design. The IDists may look for a teacher who’s prevented from presenting “alternative theories” (Scopes in reverse) or they may look for a likely school district with vulnerable standards for a court challenge. Please remember that an argument is already being made in the national media by the Discovery Institute that Minnesota’s science standards contain a provision for teaching criticism of evolution. Mr. Eaton himself makes this argument in his April 24, 2005 Star Tribune article. The Minnesota standards provide for students to understand how scientific theories and concepts are examined critically with scientific methodology; they do not provide for religious or philosophical criticism.)

DAVE EATON: The second one that is in the same vein is page 30 of 35 of the General Biology Standards. (of the Minnetonka Science Standards) And again, because we spent so much time on this I’m… we spent a lot of time wordsmithing these standards. This is Life Science, sub-strand E., benchmark 5 “ the Student will understand that the great diversity of organisms is the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution that has filled every available niche with life forms”. One of the things we were very careful on is under History and Nature of Science, which, of course overarches all of the other strands. We said things like “must follow the rules of logic and reporting and be falsifiable and open to criticism.” That ‘open to criticism’ was extremely critical because we want critical analysis to be done not just on physics theories but we also want critical analysis in the classroom on the theory of evolution. So, when I read, “that the student will understand that the diversity of organisms IS the result of evolution” that sounds like it’s a forgone conclusion, it’s a fact. So I would recommend going back and bringing that in alignment with the state standard, putting some phrase about openness to criticism in that particular benchmark.

(Editors’ note: The “we” Mr. Eaton refers to here apparently means the three members out of 65+ who signed his minority report. The wider standards committee clearly meant, and wrote into the standards, that students should understand how scientific concepts and theories are examined critically with scientific methodology; they purposely did not single out evolution for special critical attention.)

DAVE EATON: The other thing I want to applaud is I saw several strands, for example, Earth Science, we had really neat stuff that we had to take out because they told us we had to cut it down by a third. And that was just an arbitrary chop out a third of it, so we started taking things out and I saw in Earth Science and also Chemistry you guys added back in some of the things we had to take out at the state level. I was glad to see that.

I’m a huge fan of Science and I’m excited about the great program we’ve got at Minnetonka. We talked about challenging kids and getting them excited and keeping the curiosity alive. I would love to see more and more kids at Minnetonka choose science as a career path because it’s a very exciting field and very rewarding, and so I appreciate the time you guys spent with me yesterday.

DAVE EATON: Well, we covered about 10 of them last night so yes; those were the only two that I had.

ERIN ADAMS: I lost track are the two particular ones you pulled out in ChemX and Chem G page 7 of 15, and General Biology page 30 of 35; those are local (Minnetonka) standards.

DAVE EATON: Yes, and those are places where I think we could bring them in more alignment with the State Standards.

ERIN ADAMS: Because you don’t feel they are reflective of the direction from the State?

DAVE EATON: Well, they were really close except for a little phrase here and word there.

CAROL EASTLAND: To that point, I would like to ask a question. If you look at page 29, right before that, and let me understand the different prints. The regular print is the State Standards and the italic is ours? Correct? OK. So, I’m looking at that State Standard on page 29 “The student will understand how biological evolution provides a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms, as well as for the striking molecular similarities observed among the diverse species of living organisms”

ERIN ADAMS: I’m sorry, Carol, you’ve lost me a little bit. Which particular strand are you on?

CAROL EASTLAND: Page 29. And that is the exactly the same as our Minnetonka Standard. The benchmark #4 “The student will use biological evolution to explain the diversity of species”. It seems like…well our statement is a little bit more complete, but it seems like it’s just an expansion of that very same thing. To Dave Eaton: I guess I’m asking what your question is?

CAROL EASTLAND: Or you’re asking to add something to the state’s standards?

DAVE EATON: If you look at the wording we used on # 4 “The student will use biological evolution to explain the diversity of species” - very carefully chosen words there. It’s one thing to say ‘Here’s a scientific theory and I’m going to ask you to apply that scientific theory to make an explanation - that’s a big difference from saying ‘this is a fact’.

So there’s a big difference in saying, ‘ the student will use, or the student’s going to apply this theory to explain diversity of species’. So we spent a long time on those words making sure that we’re saying, we’re asking you to apply something. If you contrast that with the next page ‘that the student will understand that the diversity of organisms is the result of evolution’ that’s going too far. That’s making an assumptive statement that it is a fact and that’s something we’re very careful not to cross the line over. In fact if you look at #5 there, what I just read, if you look at the one before that, that’s in italics bold, it’s actually a state standard.

Here’s another example of some careful wordsmithing: “The student will understand how biological evolution provides a scientific explanation for the fossil record…blah, blah, blah…” So it is AN explanation, A explanation. SO we’re getting away from teaching a theory as a fact. We were very, very cautious about doing that. So the student will understand how biological evolution provides A scientific explanation… Does that help?

CAROL EASTLAND: It does. So you’re suggesting that concern would be addressed if you just added in the word “MAY” be the result?

(Editors’ note: We’re on dangerous ground here. If the theory of evolution “may” explain the diversity of life on Earth, then other ideas, scientific or religious, “may” also explain this. Mr. Eaton uses confusing language about “fact” vs. “theory.” In science, theories do not become facts; theories explain facts. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have to account for the facts scientific discovery tells us about the development of life on Earth.)

PEGGY STEFAN: We’re just discussing tonight, possibilities that we can ponder. Is that correct?

ERIN ADAMS: Exactly. Back to page 30 of 35 - Ms Eastland has suggested one language change that addresses one of your concerns. I’m just thinking about #4 on 29, the student will use biological evolution to explain...Would perhaps the language be “ The student will use biological evolution to explain the great diversity of organisms”?

ERIN ADAMS: I’m listening to what you said. And you said you are comfortable with #4 and it was deliberately written.

ERIN ADAMS: Because it’s asking students to apply something that they’ve learned, naming Biological Evolution and apply it as an explanation of the diversity of species. Right?

ERIN ADAMS: And I’m just trying to follow the line of thought from being comfortable with #4 and having some concerns with #5, along the lines of the suggestions that Carol had to parallel the language in #4 , “the student will use Biological Evolution to explain the great diversity of organisms as being the result of more than 3.5 million years of evolution …

I’m really talking as I’m thinking. I’m trying to understand why #4 is OK and #5 is not ? And would we be more in line with the State if we used the language in 4 and imbed in 5?

DAVE EATON: Yeah, I just know that was carefully considered - here’s a theory; we can force all the students to apply that theory without crossing over the line in saying that’s a fact.

ERIN ADAMS: (To Gwyneth Walker, co-chair of grade 6-12 science) Would you like to comment?

GWYNNETH WACKER: I think that your wording that the student “will use”, and I may not be repeating this verbatim, that the student “will use biological evolution to explain the great diversity of organisms as the result of more than 3.5 million years” … you are following the scientific theory then. The scientific method, under the understanding of biological evolution, you are using biological evolution to explain the diversity of organisms being more than 3.5 million year old.

PEGGY STEFAN: You're OK with that? Or you’re reiterating what she (Erin) is saying?

GWYNNETH WACKER: By putting it under the category of Biological Evolution that follows naturally then, according to scientific theory, that the diversity of organisms is the result of more that 3.5 million years following biological evolution.

ERIN ADAMS: Anyone else? (Seeing William Wenmark indicating a desire to speak): Bill?

WILLIAM WENMARK: Gwyneth, thank you for your work, all of you. How in that reference would you explain the Cambrian explosion? How would you incorporate that into, or would you?

(Editors’ note: More information on how creationists use the “Cambrian explosion” to cast doubt on evolution is available here:

GWYNNETH WACKER: They use the Cambrian explosion with the recent research that they now have the idea that due to Pangaea, having been all the continents together, that you had what was called ‘snowball earth’ and that because the drastic change in temperature, the earth became very cold and there was not enough opportunity in that environment to allow the species to diversify greatly. As Pangaea broke up into the two larger continents that allowed the temperatures to rise and oceans change and became more hospitable, as did the lands that then had the ability for the species to spread, to find different niches and diversify.

WILLIAM WENMARK: And, maybe to Mr. Eaton, did the science standard discuss that record? And particularly in the aspect to when it occurred in this particular discussion?

DAVE EATON: We talked a lot about areas in evolutionary theory that are still being discussed, they are controversial, an example is snowball earth is one mind set. I got to go hear a symposium with, they flew in top evolutionists from all over the country to Gustavus (Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter) a couple of years ago. We had a couple of students down there; there were about 3,000 high school students down there. At one point they had a panel of these top evolutionists talking about what could have caused the Cambrian explosion because it was such a sudden event in the fossil record, and there were four panelists and they all had different theories. So it was interesting to hear them talk about the trade offs and why they thought is was one verses another. That was one example where there’s an unsettled question out there as far as where did those life forms come from? What caused that sudden change? So we didn’t put that in the standard, that was just too much detail. But that is an example of where you could talk about some of the unanswered questions in evolution. Let the kids know there’s some work for them to do.

(Editors’ note: There are many unanswered questions in science, and no one is asking that we deny students the opportunity to explore them. But students need to learn how to use scientific methodology to explore science.)

JUDY ERDAHL: I’d just like to propose specific language, if you’d like to write it down, Dave. And if this works, I just took the two and combined them, maybe it won’t, but we always throw things out at each other and don’t come out with a complete thing. So I have “the student will understand…

JUDY ERDAHL: “The student will understand the great diversity of organisms and will use Biological Evolution to explain how 3.5 billion years of evolution has filled every available niche with life forms.”

(Editors’ note: Without seeing the standards side by side for comparison, it’s hard to say what changes are being proposed. But this wording sounds like what Mr. Eaton asked for earlier in the meeting, and therefore should be regarded with caution: “It’s one thing to say ‘Here’s a scientific theory and I’m going to ask you to apply that scientific theory to make an explanation - that’s a big difference from saying ‘this is a fact’. So there’s a big difference in saying, ‘ the student will use, or the student’s going to apply this theory to explain diversity of species’. So we spent a long time on those words making sure that we’re saying, we’re asking you to apply something. If you contrast that with the next page ‘that the student will understand that the diversity of organisms is the result of evolution’ that’s going too far. That’s making an assumptive statement that it is a fact and that’s something we’re very careful not to cross the line over.” )

DAVE EATON: That sounded like in the spirit of the state standard. Because you are applying it, you’re using Biological Evolution to explain something.

(Editors’ note: Again, a dangerous distinction. He’s leading Minnetonka students to believe there are serious flaws in the theory of evolution, an opinion completely unsupported by mainstream science.)

DAWN NORTON: I think it’s also important to maybe remind everyone that the italicized Minnetonka Standards were adopted several years ago, coming from the National Science Standards. I don’t know what use the state’s standards made of the already established National Standards but these things that you see in italics are coming from the National Standards. So, the wording you see here is directly out of the National Science Standards and we’re just following suit at what was present at that level.

DAVE EATON: I can answer that. We had the National standard printed out right next to us as we were writing this up, they had also picked three other states that were held up as having better than average science standards; we had those in front of us as well. Some of the National Science Standards we accepted, some of them we rejected. While they are, is it NAS? - I’m not sure who does those national standards, some of them we liked and some of them frankly, we didn’t like and we didn’t use them.

CAROL EASTLAND: I would just like to ask our science teachers, then, if they feel that that wording that Ms. Erdahl suggested would follow and be in keeping with the sequence and address…

“The student will understand the great diversity of organisms and will use Biological Evolution to explain how 3.5 billion years of evolution has filled every available niche with life forms”

ERIN ADAMS: I’d like to take some time to ask a few questions. I think that you can’t pick up a news magazine in the last month with out having the issue of intelligent design brought up. I think that is on the radar screen for many people in our community. I would appreciate your perspective on the answers to some simple questions. Do the State Standards in any way require the teaching of intelligent design? The flip side is, do they allow the teaching of intelligent design? I’m just wondering as someone who needs to prepare students to succeed on a state mandated test, do we need to be mindful of that issue? And are we required by the state to teach it?

GWYNNETH WACKER: When I look at the state standards and I look at the Minnetonka Standards, I teach evolution. I teach it in the context of the scientific method and I teach it as a theory that is constantly changing with all the new information that is being gathered. I can only speak for myself, that I do no see special creation or pan-spermia as coming into play in the science classroom, unless it is asked for in another curriculum.

CLAUDIA RISNES: I’ll defer to Jenn Fuchs. Jenn is also a biology teacher and helped write specifications for the State Standards. I am lucky to be at the table with three such knowledgeable people. I will defer to them in the area of science.

JENN FUCHS: In 2003, my role was with working with the assessment company that assisted with developing these standards and helping pull together the science assessment test that you saw the sample for before this evening. So I can speak a little bit about what the tactical committee’s mindset was when they were developing some of the specifications. With the State Standards, they are set, as Mr. Eaton mentioned, at a minimalist level. One reason for that is not only because not all students in the state could reach a different level but mostly it has to do with how long can we assess our students? When we start developing our standards they are based on the assessments. In order to develop a valid assessment you need about 12-15 questions per strand. So we have 4 strands that we are assessing on the science test. That tells you that we need about 60 questions or so on the test if we have 4 strands. If we break up those 4 strands we will have a total from the section which covers change over time of 3-4 questions. And when you look at those standards and the test specifications and break that down even further, the question that will address evolution will be 1-2 questions per test form. So when we have 1-2 questions for each student we are covering the minimal understanding of evolution at that level. So we will not be assessing our students at the state level as far as different theories of evolution, intelligent design vs. other theories because we will have 1-2 questions on that entire assessment.

WILLIAM WENMARK: Excellent discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair for bringing up the question. Let me relate it and come back to it in another way when you are teaching in the classroom. If a student, and I appreciate the explanation of the assessment need to identify strands and threads and questions that would assess a certain level of understanding. If we only did that you guys could be robots in the classroom and you are not that. You also respond, often times, from stimulus that comes from the student who’s acquiring knowledge from things that they may have been exposed to. So while the Cambrian explosion is not in anywhere of this because it is considered, like Mr. Eaton said, just so much that you can’t require it, But if a student asked you about it would you talk about it in your classroom, and tell them what the Cambrian explosion was all about even though it wasn’t going to be on an assessment?

DAWN NORTON: Certainly, to the best of our knowledge we’re going to address all those questions in the area of evolution and change over time and developmental biology and the entire field of genetics, which has absolutely, has amazing and dynamic things happening. So we get this all the time and to the best of our ability we address those questions and even go so far as to point students in the right direction to do further research or try to provide them with resources outside of the classroom.

WILLIAM WENMARK: And exactly to that point. That’s very interesting because I would expect that. I would expect that. Similarly, as was raised in the question by Madam Chair to you, it’s more than just looking up the Cambrian explosion on google; it is the newspapers, intelligent design. And clearly that is going to stimulate a student to ask you, because they revere you as being in a field of study and they are in high school, to tell them about intelligent design. I think we have to figure out some way to answer that question. I don’t think that we can say we’re not going to talk about it because it doesn’t belong here, because you guys would never do that. You would engage that opportunity to have a teachable moment. And so I’m very open in asking how that question would be answered. Not necessarily implying that it should be a standard or part of an assessment but if the question was asked, as I would imagine many questions are asked, even some that don’t make any sense, how are they be answered and how would we be prepared, without getting into the divisiveness that certainly we all saw that got going in this community during the election. I don’t think it should have ever been a divisive kind of thing or brought up as a special interest thing I thought-just talk about it, guys. Nobody saying that this was the only way. There’s a whole bunch of people that have different ideas and that’s the richness of education is not saying there’s only one idea. Let’s talk about all these things that are being debated. Particularly if it’s showing up in the public record on a constant basis. How would you propose that we address that?

GWYNNETH WACKER: When I teach it, and I can specifically talk to it because I have been teaching it in the Advanced Placement and the International Baccalaureate courses, I use it as a teachable moment, as you put it, to show how scientific method works. I go through - let’s make a hypothesis, let’s do some background research. Can we collect data on it? Can we set up an experiment? Can we analyze the data? And based on that we can talk about the different approaches and then show, OK, do these follow the scientific method or not? That’s one way to approach it if a student asks about that.

WILLIAM WENMARK: I think that’s going to be important to allow the teachers to have a somewhat of a little deference here. At least be prepared, as a chair of the department, to help the other teachers in this area to be able to address that in a consistent, open, you know this is one of those questions we are going to get, how are we going to deal with it. And not be frightened by it as though we can’t touch that because that’s politically, for some people, a football they like to throw around the field in the community a lot. Well, OK fine let them play their own game. But we also have to expose the students to the fact that this is going to happen when they go to the real world and the real world is in the classroom and you guys do such a great job of doing that. Hopefully we can, you can come up with some ideas how are we going to answer the question, because they are going to ask it.

(Editor’s note: “Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.” And “People who do not understand that concept can never be real scientists, and should not be allowed to misrepresent science to young people from whom the ranks of the next generation of scientists will be drawn.” Richard E. Dickerson, 1992, Journal of Molecular Evolution)

WILLIAM WENMARK: Bob, thanks. I’m having a nice colloquy here and it was nicely interrupted. I‘m having a great conversation…

ROBERT QUAM: I’m not interrupting; I’m asking if you heard what she said?

WILLIAM WENMARK: Do you have a question to ask Bob, to Gwyneth or someone else, you can do that, but I’m not engaged with you right now. I’m not engaged with you right now, Bob. To Gwyneth Walker: Thank you, it was a great answer I appreciate it very much.

ERIN ADAMS: Under the academic standards for science in grade 6, and I’m sure this is a strand that is woven throughout the history and science category. But when I was reading these standards with some of the issues in mind, I thought it was very instructive on page 1 of the grade 6 packet, third box down, grade 6 History of Nature and Science: “The student will understand that science is a way of knowing about the world that is characterized by empirical criteria, logical argument and skeptical review.” And that the benchmark for that is that: “1. The student will distinguish between scientific evidence and personal opinion.” And then down 4 boxes from the bottom, again from History of Nature and Science, under Scientific Inquiry “The student will understand that scientific inquiry is used in systematic ways to investigate the natural world.” And the benchmark is “1. The student will identify questions that can be answered through scientific investigation and those that cannot.” And so not only are you as Biology teachers charged with teaching the curriculum content of Biology, but as instructors in science and the discipline of science teaching, the scientific mindset and scientific method and scrutinizing through acceptable review what is science and what is not. And that is part of your profession.

DAWN NORTON: And certainly along with that always emphasizing that this is not a dogmatic process. If there is anything this looks like a very long list of things to do with kids and then test at the end, that makes a scientist get a funny felling in their stomach because what is really the essence of what we do is to have students understand process along with the long list of things to know. That’s a common place in our classroom that we look to challenge thinking and understand that if anything, we emphasize it, we embrace the idea that we don’t know everything, that’s why science is exciting.

ERIN ADAMS: And again in the same packet, on page 2 of 8 grade seven, again in History and Nature of Science, one of the benchmarks, number 9, second box, far right hand column: “the student will develop the ability to listen to and respect”, and I think must be a typo, “and those proposed by other students. They should remain open to and acknowledge different ideas and explanations, be able to accept skepticisms of others, and can consider alternative explanations.” And number 14 on that same page: “the student should know science investigation sometimes results in new ideas or phenomena for study, generates new methods or procedures for and investigation or develop new technologies to improve the collection of data.” So again, the discipline of science sort of overarching.

ERIN ADAMS: And so I think that understanding the History and Nature of Science, which I think is a really essential standard and benchmark, is essential and goes a long way towards claiming for science what is science and what isn’t science, and that the inquiry into science and part of that is learning that the discipline of approaching questions scientifically and recognizing that not all areas of existence can be explained scientifically.

WILLIAM WENMARK: Thank you Madam Chair, great points highlighted here as well, and I think that answers the question earlier. I’ve got an interesting question because throughout, let me give you an example of the Minnetonka Academic Standards on General Biology, the one through 35, and again it’s through a whole bunch of the documents. Go to page 5 and go to the top and go to the benchmark under history and scientific inquiry and in the benchmarks, 1-1, it mentions that mathematics is important in all aspects of scientific inquiry. And as Ms. Risnes knows, and we’ve talked before, one of the things that I am particularly interested in is, is there a collaboration as we are educating children through our system and we have mathematics curriculum that we have currently being used to train our children as they are coming up through our schools. Do you have some input, some discussion with that curriculum and those teachers to say ‘by the way let me look at it and here’s an area where if they are going to come up through the high school, eventually they will, that there are certain things you would like to emphasize or you’d like them to emphasize so they can master this. And may I commingle, just a bit, that you’d mentioned earlier was in the ability of the state assessment-testing tool it had the phonics, it had the vocabulary, it had the pronunciation, so I embrace Language Arts as well. Because Science is another language and math is another language, so let me get my question short. Do you have an opportunity to contribute to the math curriculum to help you, even though it’s in another area of education?

DAWN NORTON: Not by formal design. And there probably should be more of that and I think I hear that. But, certainly informally, as a part of everything we do, we are involving ourselves in interdisciplinary experiences. Whether it is an orchestrated event with teachers in other subject areas or we’re bringing things in and it travels with the kids from one place to another and it manifests in that way, it certainly is happening. I like your observation that it would be nice to have it be an orchestrated activity on our part.

WILLIAM WENMARK: As we move forward in our effort and our vision as a world class organization, it’s just my personal belief that that would be a world class organization where everyone is talking about the things that not only I’m not involved in today but I will, a number of years from now, be involved in. I’d like to see that, it would be very exciting, if we could address that.

ERIN ADAMS: Bob and then Judy and then we will address the board on how much more time they would like to give to this tonight.

ROBERT QUAM: Just in following up with what he said, when I was teaching and when I talk to teachers one of the things they always ask for is more time to collaborate. So I would say it behooves this board to provide you (teachers) the opportunity to do what you just asked about. So I’ll lay it back on you guys. (Board members) Give them a little more time. OK. Thank you.

JUDY ERDAHL: Am I wrong in not understanding? Isn’t that exactly what the IB Curriculum does? It weaves all of those subjects together like that? Or do I not understand it?

(Editors’ note: Ms. Erdahl is correct that our International Baccalaureate curriculum weaves subjects together in challenging ways; it also relies heavily on students’ critically analyzing their reading and research. Mr. Eaton and Mr. Wenmark voted with the rest of the Board to bring IB to Minnetonka in 2003; they’ve since become vehement opponents of the program, saying it conflicts with American values and promotes atheism.)

CLAUDIA RISNES: It does for students, and that is the connection that is the strength of that program. I think there are places where we definitely need to do more of that and do a better job. I think it happens very much at the elementary level where one teacher teaches all the subjects and so it’s very natural and we have had a great deal of connection, math and science at the elementary. Liz Meyers has worked with Karen Newell last year and they started to put together assessments where they would use mathematics to do the assessments in science. I know that with Jenn here we should be able to do more of that kind of connection. I would agree we need more time to collaborate, particularly at the middle level where the teachers are on teams so they are working with other groups, and so I think that might happen more because they are interdisciplinary.

JUDY ERDAHL: Having a student at the elementary level they do that quite a bit and it’s a wonderful way to learn.

GWYNNETH WACKER: You were mentioning the IB program and I was just recently able to talk and correspond with Mr. Kennedy, who teaches the Theory of Knowledge class, about his discussions and we started talking because IB teachers do meet once in a while. We do have the ability to bounce ideas or topics off of one another. So that was very helpful to find out what he was talking about right now in his class and what I was talking about in mine and I sent him my calendar for the month so he could thread some info into his course. IB does provide that.

JUDY ERDAHL: And I guess that was what I was trying to reference. That we already have a model set in place to use. We do need to do that. It is important to give our educators that opportunity to share their knowledge and skills and see how much further they can help those students get excited about learning.

ERIN ADAMS: I need to ask the board if you want to continue to discuss tonight, if there are any other specific recommendations or changes? I’m concerned, as a mother of someone who will be in 12^th grade in 2008 and also as a board member; I’m really concerned about taking a graduation-dependant test in the spring of Senior year. Most of our students take Biology as seniors, can you speak to that? Do we change our scope and sequence? Are we going to wait and see what happens when we get there? Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there are significant numbers that take Life Sciences in 11^th grade.

DAWN NORTON: I'll just throw out a comment. I don’t think it’s graduation dependent. I think it’s for date and feed back. It is designed to be an exit test, but if a senior takes that exit test and doesn’t perform on the test that well, they’re not behooved to come back and repeat the course and test again.

(Editors’ note: Minnetonka volunteered to be among the first districts to test students on the state requirement of completion of a high school Biology course; testing begins statewide in 2008.)

DAWN NORTON: As of now, and I don’t know what the planning is, it is not performance exit.

JENN FUCHS: Currently, No Child Left Behind only requires that we give exit exams for reading and mathematics. And the state hasn’t indicated that they will be adding Science to the mix.

GWYNNETH WACKER: If I can comment on that and maybe I should talk to Ms Fuchs privately, but it is nice to see that they have this test in both a visual form for differentiation, which is fantastic. It is nice and one of the things we were talking with Mr. Eaton yesterday was to see if there might not be some way that we can get some time to put tests like that in our courses as well so students who will then go on to college who will also be having exams like this on computer will become much more comfortable with using these types of tests. It’s not just the material, it’s the medium in which it is taught and we are trying to teach students to be successful outside of their high school career. It would be visionary.

DAVE EATON: Just one clarification. We don’t yet have Physics and a couple of other standards. Will we get those before we vote on them? Because I would like to have some time to look at them before we vote.

DR. PETERSON: You absolutely will. It will follow a similar sequence. You will not be asked to vote on that next time. I think they will be ready for the 15^th.

ERIN ADAMS: So we’ll vote on the 15^th, if the board feels ready, on what was presented tonight.

DR. PETERSON: If you are ready on what was presented tonight. But not on things that will be presented on the 15^th.

PEGGY STEFAN: It will be helpful for us to know what your timeline is and what happens next to see if we want to break up that vote.

ERIN ADAMS: And I would ask, and it seems so simplistic, but it makes a difference. If we are going to divide the vote based on the standards and the timeline that they’re presented to us that they be presented on different colored paper.

I’m going to call for a break and let’s reconvene at 9:30p. Thank you very, very much for your time and hard work.

Contact the 7 members of the Minnetonka School Board and Superintendent Dr. Dennis Peterson with one e-mail to: schoolboard@minnetonka.k12.mn.us