Montana students, teachers blast bill that would limit science education to ‘scientific fact’

[Frank Robert]

​

​

Several Montana middle- and high-school students said Monday that a lawmaker did not correctly interpret scientific theory and that his bill would ban common theories, like gravity, from being taught in schools – hampering their education and futures in STEM fields.​

​

They, along with several award-winning Montana science teachers and representatives from the Board of Public Education and other organizations, testified in opposition to Sen. Daniel Emrich’s Senate Bill 235 in its first hearing Monday at the Senate Education and Cultural Resources Committee.​

​

The bill from the Great Falls Republican seeks to create a new portion of law that states that all science education “may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.” It would also have school boards review all science materials to be sure they only use “scientific fact” in a “strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted” fashion.​

​

Further, starting in July 2025, it would allow parents to appeal a board’s alleged “lack of compliance” to a county superintendent and the superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction.​

​

However, teachers and students said his bill was little more than a threat to public education and the STEM – or science, technology, engineering and math – community, as well as a poor measure to consider when Montana is trying to recruit more teachers, not lose them....​

​

Rob Jensen, a former Hellgate High School teacher who won the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science in 2019, said he was not exaggerating when he called the bill “the most extreme anti-science legislation I’ve ever seen in this country.”​

​

He said it made a 1925 case in Tennessee involving a science teacher teaching evolution who was put on trial “look like a period of Enlightenment.”​

​

Lindsey Read, a senior at Capital High School in Helena, told the committee the measure would strip teachers of the ability to teach virtually any science.​

​

“Science is not a collection of indisputable facts; rather, it is a series of best explanations,” she said, explaining the difference between scientific theory and the word “theory” as it is commonly used.​

​

Read More...​

 

[keith99]

Anyone else read far enough down to see that Emrich was home schooled?

 

[Shemjaza]

Anyone else read far enough down to see that Emrich was home schooled?

I'm surprised they didn't directly quote Answers in Genesis or use the phrase "Operational science".

 

[Bradskii]

​

Several Montana middle- and high-school students said Monday that a lawmaker did not correctly interpret scientific theory and that his bill would ban common theories, like gravity, from being taught in schools – hampering their education and futures in STEM fields.​

​

They, along with several award-winning Montana science teachers and representatives from the Board of Public Education and other organizations, testified in opposition to Sen. Daniel Emrich’s Senate Bill 235 in its first hearing Monday at the Senate Education and Cultural Resources Committee.​

​

The bill from the Great Falls Republican seeks to create a new portion of law that states that all science education “may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.” It would also have school boards review all science materials to be sure they only use “scientific fact” in a “strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted” fashion.​

​

Further, starting in July 2025, it would allow parents to appeal a board’s alleged “lack of compliance” to a county superintendent and the superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction.​

​

However, teachers and students said his bill was little more than a threat to public education and the STEM – or science, technology, engineering and math – community, as well as a poor measure to consider when Montana is trying to recruit more teachers, not lose them....​

​

Rob Jensen, a former Hellgate High School teacher who won the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science in 2019, said he was not exaggerating when he called the bill “the most extreme anti-science legislation I’ve ever seen in this country.”​

​

He said it made a 1925 case in Tennessee involving a science teacher teaching evolution who was put on trial “look like a period of Enlightenment.”​

​

Lindsey Read, a senior at Capital High School in Helena, told the committee the measure would strip teachers of the ability to teach virtually any science.​

​

“Science is not a collection of indisputable facts; rather, it is a series of best explanations,” she said, explaining the difference between scientific theory and the word “theory” as it is commonly used.​

​

Read More...​

This from the bill:

'Whereas a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria it is a theory which is defined as speculation...'

Apart from the bad English, that makes no sense. A theory is an explanation of the 'observable and repeatable' facts. Whoever wrote that (Enrich?) is scientifically illiterate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Anyone else read far enough down to see that Emrich was home schooled?

I missed it. I shouldn't have been a surprise though. Is there anything in education that had done more damage than the spread of "homeschooling"?

 

[Shemjaza]

This from the bill:

'Whereas a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria it is a theory which is defined as speculation...'

Apart from the bad English, that makes no sense. A theory is an explanation of the 'observable and repeatable' facts.

Oh yeah?

Have you ever seen a new chimp evolve in a lab? Checkmate!

 

[Frank Robert]

Anyone else read far enough down to see that Emrich was home schooled?

So far it's mostly Christians who have been home schooled. As these red state bills continue to pass the next generation of home schooled will be anybody but Christians.

 

[Tuur]

​

View attachment 327901​

​

Several Montana middle- and high-school students said Monday that a lawmaker did not correctly interpret scientific theory and that his bill would ban common theories, like gravity, from being taught in schools – hampering their education and futures in STEM fields.​

​

They, along with several award-winning Montana science teachers and representatives from the Board of Public Education and other organizations, testified in opposition to Sen. Daniel Emrich’s Senate Bill 235 in its first hearing Monday at the Senate Education and Cultural Resources Committee.​

​

The bill from the Great Falls Republican seeks to create a new portion of law that states that all science education “may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.” It would also have school boards review all science materials to be sure they only use “scientific fact” in a “strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted” fashion.​

​

Further, starting in July 2025, it would allow parents to appeal a board’s alleged “lack of compliance” to a county superintendent and the superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction.​

​

However, teachers and students said his bill was little more than a threat to public education and the STEM – or science, technology, engineering and math – community, as well as a poor measure to consider when Montana is trying to recruit more teachers, not lose them....​

​

Rob Jensen, a former Hellgate High School teacher who won the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science in 2019, said he was not exaggerating when he called the bill “the most extreme anti-science legislation I’ve ever seen in this country.”​

​

He said it made a 1925 case in Tennessee involving a science teacher teaching evolution who was put on trial “look like a period of Enlightenment.”​

​

Lindsey Read, a senior at Capital High School in Helena, told the committee the measure would strip teachers of the ability to teach virtually any science.​

​

“Science is not a collection of indisputable facts; rather, it is a series of best explanations,” she said, explaining the difference between scientific theory and the word “theory” as it is commonly used.​

​

Read More...​

Here is the bill in question. Times being what they are, it's good to read such things for ourselves:

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

To read the text, look at the upper left at Current Bill Text.

 

[Tuur]

I missed it. I shouldn't have been a surprise though. Is there anything in education that had done more damage than the spread of "homeschooling"?

Have you looked at what passes for literature books? The content was similar to ye olde days when I attended, but the text books are so busy. They are filled with sidebars and such that are a distraction from the text. Then there are history books. To call one our children had vapid would be an insult to the word. We're talking factual errors here and more fluff than meaningful content.

My experience with home schoolers is a mixed bag. All tend to follow a curriculum (there are home school oriented stores that supply textbooks and related material) but how well it's taught is another story. Many home schoolers also lack a structured class setting, which can make it harder to adjust to structured settings in college. All varies with the skills of the parents in teaching: You can know the material backwards and forwards, but presenting it is another thing.

Unfortunately, regular schools can be a mixed bag, too, and some of our children's friends who attended other schools showed a lack of what we considered basic knowledge for that grade level. Can't say if that was the teachers or not, but that's what we noticed.

 

[Tuur]

Despite the hyperbole in the news story, the main flaw with the bill is that science is a method of inquiry. With it you can determine facts and create models of how things work that are called laws, but the facts themselves aren't science. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem much attention given to teaching the scientific method in schools.

 

[keith99]

As used in this section, "scientific fact" means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon.

Does this mean everything from the Manhattan Project is out because that was far from natural. As written this also excludes any summary information as it is singular. And of course it also excludes observations of planetary movement as we can't roll back the clock and repeat a measurement.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh yeah?

Have you ever seen a new chimp evolve in a lab? Checkmate!

Curses! Foiled again...

 

[Tuur]

Does this mean everything from the Manhattan Project is out because that was far from natural. As written this also excludes any summary information as it is singular. And of course it also excludes observations of planetary movement as we can't roll back the clock and repeat a measurement.

If planetary orbits weren't repeatable, it wouldn't be possible to calculate them from several observations. Nor would it have been possible to notice Newtonian physics was missing something with Mercury's orbit.

 

[Shemjaza]

If planetary orbits weren't repeatable, it wouldn't be possible to calculate them from several observations. Nor would it have been possible to notice Newtonian physics was missing something with Mercury's orbit.

I agree... but the problem is that the usage of the term "repeatable" in the context of science education often seems to exclude the repeatable evidence for radiometric dating, evolution and the cosmology of the early universe.

 

[Tuur]

I agree... but the problem is that the usage of the term "repeatable" in the context of science education often seems to exclude the repeatable evidence for radiometric dating, evolution and the cosmology of the early universe.

If we have reached the point where some things must never be questioned, then we have replaced science with dogma. A secular dogma, but dogma just the same.

 

[Shemjaza]

If we have reached the point where some things must never be questioned, then we have replaced science with dogma. A secular dogma, but dogma just the same.

Not implied by what I said.

The issue is dishonesty and hypocrisy. The standard that allows evidence for evolution and the big bang to be abandoned as "not repeatable" would also apply to the orbit of Pluto.

 

[Tuur]

Believe what you wish.

 

[Shemjaza]

Believe what you wish.

I prefer evidence.

 

[Tuur]

I prefer evidence.

Yet you stretch this to include orbits. That's so far out there, it's past the Kuiper Belt. The last time I checked, orbits are based in laws of motion that are based on repeatable laws of motion. If they weren't, it would be impossible to calculate them at all. You also stretched this to cover radioactive decay, something that's repeatable. Only when you get to cosmology are you drawing close to the issue, and only with evolution have you reached it.

Frankly, I haven't been impressed by the arguments presented here against the bill. It's possible to make strong arguments against it, but you aren't going to do it by claiming it would affect teaching of radioactive decay and something as basic as the movement of an object. I have the strong suspicion that the real issue is a member of a state legislature dared to say anything about what is taught. Horrors!

 

[Estrid]

I agree... but the problem is that the usage of the term "repeatable" in the context of science education often seems to exclude the repeatable evidence for radiometric dating, evolution and the cosmology of the early universe.

What's repeatable? The orbits are never
zactly the same.