Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, January 3, 2006

State science standards sent for rewrite

January 3, 2006

Advertisement

— The State Board of Education isn't through with the science standards yet.

Because of copyright disputes, portions of the standards are having to be rewritten, a process that could take several more weeks and cost several thousand more dollars.

In a move that caught worldwide attention, the 6-4 majority on the board in November approved science standards that criticize evolution and were drawn up by proponents of intelligent design.

The board majority says the standards give students a balanced view of evolution, but critics say the standards promote creationism.

But even before the vote was made, major science organizations - the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Assn. - notified the Kansas Department of Education that the state couldn't use its copyright material in the standards.

That has meant that the standards have been sent for review to a law firm that specializes in intellectual property.

"That is going on right now," said Dan Biles, an attorney who represents the board.

Any language in the standards identified as copyright expressions will have to be rewritten, a job that will fall to the Department of Education, Biles said.

"You rewrite it so that it becomes your expression and not theirs," he said.

Biles said he expected the process to cost a few thousand dollars in legal fees. And, he said, he doesn't expect any difficulties in rewriting.

Once the standards are rewritten, the board may look at them again. That could occur as early as February.

"The staff will review those parts of the standards that might be identified as copyrightable and will change those," said board member Bill Wagnon, D-Topeka, whose district includes Lawrence and who opposes the standards.

The state has gone through the exercise before.

In 1999, a board majority de-emphasized evolution in the standards and the same two groups withheld their permission to use copyright language. Two years later, a newly elected board reinstated evolution.

-Staff writer Scott Rothschild can be reached at (785) 354-4222.

Comments

craigers 9 years, 1 month ago

No comments yet from anybody? Either we are tired of having the same discussion everyday or nobody is up yet.

badger 9 years, 1 month ago

Personally, I'm just amused at:

" Two years later, a newly elected board reinstated evolution."

I never knew they actually had that kind of power over nature.

"You there! You with the slightly more advantageous coloring! I'm from the state Board of Education, and you'll have to stop adapting to your environment. Please surrender your concealment advantage and cease passing on your genes at an increased rate!"

time passes

"Sorry about that, old chap. Carry on as you were..."

snerk

Jamesaust 9 years, 1 month ago

"...that the state couldn't use its copyright material in the standards."

What's with the Germanic double noun?

Doesn't the editor mean 'copyrighted material'? The BOE doesn't want the copyright; they want the material.

To the BOE: just use material without a copyright -- "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Its free, unrestricted, true ... and most importantly gets to your point rather than dancing around it.

fossilhunter 9 years, 1 month ago

The arrogance is astonishing...the BoE knows more about science than: Nobel prize-winning scientists, The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teacher's Association. Really, the BoE should start publishing some papers! With a think-tank like that going to waste....

Calliope877 9 years, 1 month ago

Wendt,

I've heard of that book and it's on my "wish list".:) Doesn't one of the gnostic gospels mention reincarnation? It seems that I heard somewhere that it was, but I'm probably mistaken.

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 1 month ago

Dan Biles said "You rewrite it so that it becomes your expression and not theirs,".

An example of the rewritten science standards reflecting the KBOE:

Things Kansus skool chidr... kids shud no about sciunce: 1. God creeated evertheen. B. Thee Urth is five thousund yeers ole. 4. Moses road a tiranno, turana, tyrrany... a big meen old dinosore. 4. Objektiv facs are jist God testin yur fathe. G. Dont bee gettin all upity and smart-like.

Mr_Christopher 9 years, 1 month ago

So the Kansas BOE is taking Kansas further down the road to ignoance and bliss? Nothing new here to comment on.

Steve "the world is less than 10,000 years old" Abrams is smiling. Steve's goal of dumbing down Kansas school children is nothing new.

Mr_Christopher 9 years, 1 month ago

I hope the new science standard will include teaching the 139 page ruling handed down by Judge Jones concerning intelligent design creationism and science.

That document will help kids distinguish between what is science and what is not. An important social studies lesson that includes the Constitution can be derived from it as well.

Perhaps the KBOE members might try reading it.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 9 years, 1 month ago

All I can say is that I hope they put a stop to these religious fanatics before we are having roadside bombs and RPGs aimed at targets in this country by the emboldened radical religious jihad that is brewing in some areas of this land.

LarryFarma 9 years, 1 month ago

Posted by Jamesaust on January 3, 2006 at 10:38 a.m.

"...that the state couldn't use its copyright material in the standards."

What's with the Germanic double noun?

Doesn't the editor mean 'copyrighted material'? The BOE doesn't want the copyright; they want the material.

My Webster's New World Dictionary says that "copyright" can be used as an adjective. Usage makes changes of the part of speech acceptable. For example, some used to consider it to be incorrect to use "source" as a verb, but now it is considered to be acceptable.

LarryFarma 9 years, 1 month ago

Why did the NAS and NSTA deny the Kansas school board the right to use their copyrighted material? Isn't that cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

And do the NAS and NSTA receive government funding? If they do, then shouldn't their written material be in the public domain instead of being copyrighted?

Also, what in the copyrighted material made the NAS and the NSTA decide to deny the Kansas school board the right to use it? What does the copyrighted material say? Just curious.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.