North Dakota Science Content 

Standards, Preliminary Draft:
Public Comment Survey
Comments through June 3, 2014 g ,
43
40
45
50
Survey Respondents
32
10
15
20
25
30
35
2
4
1
0 0
1
7
0
5
Administrator Community 
Member
Higher 
Education
Parent Principal School Board 
Member
Student Teacher Other
Page 1
7 Strongly 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
Page 2
7 Strongly 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
Page 3
6 Strongly 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
Agree
Administrator
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
Page 4
6 Excellent
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
Page 5
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
1 / 4
Q6 Do the standards cover everything that
is important for all students to know?
Answered: 60 Skipped: 30
# Responses Date
1 I feel i t i s i mportant for students i n sci ence to know that there are many theori es of evol uti on. 6/2/2014 9:37 PM
2 No. 6/2/2014 3:55 PM
3 Absol utel y not. 6/2/2014 12:00 PM
4 No, there i s so much they shoul d at l east be i ntroduced to before bei ng out of hi gh school . One
thi ng not l argel y covered i n these standards i s nucl ear processes, i t's more of a si de note. Thi s i s
becomi ng more and more common i n our everyday l i fe, from food preparati on to researchi ng the
uni verse, medi cal di agnosi s and treatment to energy producti on. It has i mpacts on chemi stry,
physi cs, and more. Thi s must at l east be covered i n the extent i t i s used. Another that i s gl azed over
i s the rel ati onshi p between el ectri ci ty, magneti sm, waves, and gravi ty. As research has shown these
are al l rel ated at a subatomi c l evel , especi al l y el ectri ci ty and magneti sm (refer to Farraday and the
fi rst motor and then generator). Not to menti on the rel ati onshi p between chemi stry and el ectri ci ty.
So many rel ati onshi ps are gl azed over and wi l l be mi ssed by these standards as they spl i t i deas out
and separate them from one another. The bi ggest mi ssi ng i tem of al l i s counter argument to
theori es, speci ffi cal l y gl obal cl i mate change. The most accepted argument i s Human caused
cl i mate change as the "maj or" factor, but natural causes may be the "maj or" factor. Many of the
IPCC's fi ndi ngs based on poor model s are i ncl uded i n the standards as facts but none of the
contradi ctory fi ndi ngs are, such as the NIPCC's compari son of the model s to emperi cal data.
Gl obal cl i mate hi story i s not covered, mostl y because i t i s sti l l not understood, but that i s why
opposi ng vi ews shoul d be i ntroduced, yet the standards are one si ded and students wi l l have to fal l
on that si de to meet the standard, removi ng the sci enti fi c process.
6/2/2014 10:57 AM
5 1. Recommended practi ces domi nate the NGSS at the expense of essenti al knowl edge, whi ch
shoul d be the focus of sci ence standards. 2. Content and ski l l s that are above and beyond the
standards (such as thermodynami cs, stoi chi ometry, sol uti on chemi stry and ni trogen cycl es) but that
won’t be part of the assessments wi l l be negl ected because teachers wi l l teach to the test. 3.
Several opportuni ti es to bui l d i mportant l i nks between grade- appropri ate math and requi red
sci ence content are mi ssed.
6/1/2014 10:33 PM
6 1. Recommended practi ces domi nate the NGSS at the expense of essenti al knowl edge, whi ch
shoul d be the focus of sci ence standards. 2. Content and ski l l s that are above and beyond the
standards (such as thermodynami cs, stoi chi ometry, sol uti on chemi stry and ni trogen cycl es) but that
won’t be part of the assessments wi l l be negl ected because teachers wi l l teach to the test. 3.
Several opportuni ti es to bui l d i mportant l i nks between grade- appropri ate math and requi red
sci ence content are mi ssed.
6/1/2014 10:12 PM
7 1. Recommended practi ces domi nate the NGSS at the expense of essenti al knowl edge, whi ch
shoul d be the focus of sci ence standards. 2. Content and ski l l s that are above and beyond the
standards (such as thermodynami cs, stoi chi ometry, sol uti on chemi stry and ni trogen cycl es) but that
won’t be part of the assessments wi l l be negl ected because teachers wi l l teach to the test. 3.
Several opportuni ti es to bui l d i mportant l i nks between grade- appropri ate math and requi red
sci ence content are mi ssed.
6/1/2014 10:09 PM
8 Absol utel y not 6/1/2014 7:52 PM
9 No, students need to l earn actual math and sci ence. 6/1/2014 10:04 AM
Page 6
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
2 / 4
10 I am aware of a ki ndergarten teacher who cl ai med that the expectati ons of the Common Core are
too demandi ng for a ki ndergarten student. And I feel the expectati ons of the NGSS are al so too
demandi ng. We know that chi l dren devel op at vari ous rates, so at age 5 there wi l l be a vari ati on of
the zone of proxi mal devel opment as at every age. Some mi ght have been better assi gned to the
grade ahead (the tal ented and gi fted) and some mi ght have been better assi gned to the grade
behi nd (the remedi al and speci al needs). That l eaves a great burden on the teacher. But havi ng to
keep up wi th the standards day after day when some students are fai l i ng to comprehend today's
assi gnment (frustrated), and other students are fai l i ng to see the val ue of school (not chal l enged)
wi l l be a frustrati on or a chal l enge for any teacher. I di d not see anythi ng about measuri ng and
wei ghi ng thi ngs whi ch mi ght be an appropri ate Ki ndergarten acti vi ty.
5/31/2014 9:38 PM
11 If we are goi ng to encourage cri ti cal thi nki ng and i ncl ude cl i mate control and humans at faul t, the
bi g bang and evol uti on i n the standards then I suggest we shoul d i ncl ude i ntel l i gent desi gn,
creati oni sm . al l the thi ngs humans are doi ng to protect thei r natural resources. Thi s woul d be what
students need to devel op cri ti cal thi nki ng.
5/31/2014 2:43 PM
12 Students need to know there i s more than one theory regardi ng the ori gi n of l i fe. Evol uti on i s not
the onl y theory.
5/31/2014 11:10 AM
13 It l ooks as though the K-8 grade standards are reasonabl e, but then the hi gh school l evel takes the
standards to a l evel that i s fi l l ed wi th soci al i sm, one worl d vi ew. School shoul d be j ust the facts and
then l et the ki ds make thei r own i ndependent opi ni ons rather then dri vi ng an agenda.
5/31/2014 10:53 AM
14 very pol i ti cal l y bi ased - no menti on of creati oni sm - to much focus on gl obal warmi ng/cl i mate
change and evol uti on
5/31/2014 5:01 AM
15 No. What about creati on? They teach evol uti on but that's not what's acceptabl e wi th our bel i efs. 5/30/2014 11:23 AM
16 Pl ease do not i mpl ement these standards. We (as parents woul d) l i ke more i nput on standards that
are i mpl emented i n North Dakota.
5/30/2014 10:43 AM
17 Out of ki l ter wi th common sense. 5/28/2014 10:49 PM
18 No 5/28/2014 10:46 PM
19 No 5/28/2014 10:42 PM
20 No 5/28/2014 10:20 PM
21 Yes 5/28/2014 1:49 PM
22 No. The standards are si mpl y transi ti ons to Common Core. I keep heari ng that thi s i s al l l ocal
control and I am qui te sure that i s, at worst, decei tful , and at best, del usi onal .
5/28/2014 1:05 PM
23 No. Creati oni sm i s not presented as an al ternati ve. 5/27/2014 9:07 PM
24 NO. Students DO NOT need to spend 8 mi nutes sol vi ng a si mpl e math probl em when they can be
done i n 1 mi nute.
5/27/2014 8:39 PM
25 No 5/27/2014 1:57 PM
26 Hi gher l evel vocabul ary that wi l l need to be unwrapped i n understandabl e ki d terms, but fi rst I need
to real l y read/reread what the core topi c i s even about.
5/26/2014 3:42 AM
27 No, absol utel y not. 5/20/2014 2:55 PM
28 No 5/19/2014 9:27 PM
29 No 5/16/2014 9:02 PM
30 They are reasonabl e. 5/16/2014 12:06 PM
31 The students are the reason we are worki ng on new standards and common core al i gnment, I woul d
l i ke to see a "student versi on" of the standards created so students woul d know at the begi nni ng of a
cl ass exactl y what they wi l l bei ng l earni ng and shoul d know. Often the parents are bl amed when a
student does not do wel l , so creati ng a document for parents (who don't teach) wi l l have an
understandi ng of what thei r chi l d shoul d know.
5/15/2014 1:48 PM
32 No overemphasi s on gl obal warmi ng and evol uti on. Where i s the hard sci ence? 5/14/2014 8:33 AM
33 No too much ti me i s spent teachi ng students that everythi ng humans do negati vel y i mpact the
earth.
5/12/2014 12:05 PM
Page 7
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
3 / 4
34 no, how about SCIENCE? The most cri ti cal need for students i s to understand basi c sci ence, and
we are so far from achi evi ng that goal that I thi nk i t’s a di stracti on to start i mmersi ng students i n the
extraordi nary compl exi ti es of cl i mate sci ence.
5/11/2014 3:03 PM
35 No, they are a step backward 5/10/2014 9:27 PM
36 Yes 5/3/2014 12:16 PM
37 I mi ght have mi ssed i t but I feel l i ke i ts i mportant to teach them about the two theori es of where
humans came from, evol uti on and creati on. Al though you can onl y bel i eve i n one, i t's sti l l
i mportant to teach the two theori es even i f we never fi nd out whi ch i s actual l y true.
5/2/2014 9:40 AM
38 No 5/1/2014 10:12 AM
39 No. Wi thout eval uati ng every l evel , I can't see where concepts are taught at each l evel . From 3rd
to 5th, I don't see any conti nui ty. The 5th grade standards seem easi er than 4th grade i n terms of
abstract thought. Envi ronment, agri cul ture, and natural resources shoul d be covered at EVERY
grade l evel as they are si gni fi cant i n our exi stence and how peopl e i nteract wi th each i mpacts the
future of our pl anet.
5/1/2014 4:23 AM
40 Al ternati ve "theori es" to the begi nni ng of l i fe need to be presented. 4/30/2014 3:40 PM
41 evol uti on i s a theory not fact and shoul d be taught as such 4/30/2014 12:42 PM
42 I'm not sure i t coul d, but i f we teach students to formul ate questi ons and fi nd and compare answers
before comi ng to a concl usi on, then we wi l l have taught them to teach themsel ves. Agai n. I hope
sci ence teachers are taught- gi ven PD- on how to eval uate web pages and ci te sources. The
standards wi l l be hard to meet i f the students are j ust shown how the teacher di d i t. Or worse..the
sci ence teacher tel l s students to l i st sources at the end wi thout i n text ci tati ons for each photo or
stati sti c. ex- WHST.6-8.2 Wri te i nformati ve/expl anatory texts to exami ne a topi c and convey i deas,
concepts, and i nformati on through the sel ecti on, organi zati on, and anal ysi s of rel evant content.
(MS-ESS3-1) WHST.6-8.9 Draw evi dence from i nformati onal texts to support anal ysi s, refl ecti on,
and research. (MS-ESS3-1)
4/29/2014 12:33 PM
43 Agai n my comments appl y onl y to mi ddl e and hi gh school physi cs. Not real l y. For i nstance there i s
no menti on of sound i n the standards PS4. Students woul d l ove to l earn about and to pl ay sounds.
Geometri cal opti cs i s another i mportant and fun topi c mi ssi ng from Hi gh –school i n the HSPS4.
However, I vi ew the NGSS not as a curri cul um standard (pl ease check my comments on questi on 5
and 10) thus i t does not matter. NGSS i tsel f stresses that “the NGSS are standards or goal s, not
curri cul um” and the NGSS al l ow “Instructi onal fl exi bi l i ty” (NGSS Introducti on xi i i -xi v) Teachers or
di stri cts can add or remove curri cul ar content.
4/28/2014 9:03 PM
44 No...the assessment requi rements are too speci fi c. 4/28/2014 8:38 AM
45 The standards do not i ncl ude any i nstructi on on the sci enti fi c method or metri c measurement.
Many of the standards seem to pl uck one very speci fi c pi ece of i nformati on (i .e. Newton's Thi rd
Law but not the 1st or 2nd).
4/28/2014 8:37 AM
46 I see them as a great gui de wi th requi red courses, but they sti l l fai l to provi de recommendati ons for
upper el ecti ves i n sci ence. I know thi s i s not the goal for al l students to know, but we have a huge
pressure to sti l l ti e to the standards. I don't know how to reconci l e that.
4/27/2014 3:14 PM
47 I am somewhat concerned wi th the standards at the hi gh school l evel ...there i s not much there for
Human Anatomy. I guess my bi ggest concern i s what do we do wi th students who want to become
doctors and nurses? In a typi cal Bi ol ogy course, I j ust cover the basi cs of the human body because
we offer Anatomy as an el ecti ve course.
4/27/2014 2:20 AM
48 Everythi ng? No. K-PS3-1 Make observati ons to determi ne the effect of sunl i ght on Earth’s surface.
Thi s sounds ok but the appl i cati on i s too si mpl e. The assessment i s pre-school l evel . The
assessment and acti vi ti es shoul d be why we need sunl i ght for l i fe, not j ust does i t make somethi ng
warm or cool er... K-ESS3-1.- Wel l wri tten, appropri ate, and connected.
4/25/2014 5:54 PM
49 Yes, I do feel these standards cover a vari ety of i nstructi on that i s necessary for thi rd graders. 4/25/2014 9:54 AM
50 no 4/25/2014 7:39 AM
51 No. The students need to know that evol uti on i s a theory. Not a proven fact. 4/24/2014 9:07 PM
52 Yes 4/24/2014 9:03 PM
53 Yes . 4/24/2014 6:11 PM
Page 8
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
4 / 4
54 Yes, the standards are qui te extensi ve and scaffol d from one grade to the next. 4/24/2014 4:26 PM
55 I bel i eve i t i s a good bal ance of thi ngs that need to be covered. 4/24/2014 1:24 PM
56 As I l ook at the standards I do feel they cover i mportant i nformati on and ski l l s. However sayi ng they
are ski l l s for 6-8 rather than i ndi vi dual grades makes i t more di ffi cul t to eval uate for 6th grade
4/24/2014 9:56 AM
57 As a parent, I woul d l i ke to see more theori es about how the worl d coul d have come to be.
Incl udi ng the creati on theory Chri sti ans hol d to be true. I don't l i ke how you're i mpl yi ng that
evol uti on i s fact when we don't know how the worl d came about. I'm al l for teachi ng evol uti on
al ongsi de creati on and al l owi ng each fami l y to deci de what they bel i eve to be true because any
bel i ef about how we got here i s j ust that: a bel i ef.
4/24/2014 9:44 AM
58 No, students shoul d know that there are other theori es about the ori gi ns of the uni verse. (HS-ESS1-
2) We don't need to name the other theori es but I bel i eve students shoul d be aware that there are
others.
4/23/2014 12:18 PM
59 Readi ng through HS-ESS1 and HS ESS2 I observed two thi ngs: that the theory of Evol uti on i s
stated as absol ute fact, and that the Bi g Bang theory i s the onl y theory represented. My i ntent i n
thi s comment i s not to argue for or agai nst any theory of the begi nni ngs of earth and l i fe as we
know i t today, but to comment that there are numerous parents, ci ti zens, sci enti sts, aka peopl e i n
general who may bel i eve i n other theori es. Si nce our understandi ng of sci ence i s constantl y
changi ng and hopeful l y i mprovi ng, I trul y bel i eve that teachers need to al ways be careful i n
presenti ng wi del y-bel i eved i nformati on as j ust that. Not as fact. Whi l e I understand that these are
sci ence standards, I woul d l i ke to reference a hi stori cal event as I recal l i t i nvol vi ng si mi l ar
ci rcumstances havi ng to do wi th sci ence. When Gal i l eo was thi nki ng and researchi ng di fferent
sci enti fi c i deas about the earth and space, the worl d around hi m al l accepted as fact that the earth
was fl at. Many great mi nds and renowned sci enti sts agreed that there coul d be no other opti on,
and any i deas to the contrary were ri di cul ous and chi l di sh. In fact, many of these l eaders hated
and scorned any other i deas, not gi vi ng them any thought. Yet as we now know, Gal i l eo was
correct i n hi s thought that the Earth may not be fl at, and i n fact coul d very l i kel y be spheri cal . Thi s
story i s to say that once agai n, j ust because somethi ng i s wi del y bel i eved and accepted does not
make i t a fact.
4/16/2014 2:46 PM
60 No. You are representi ng the bi g bang as fact and not theory. We are a God feari ng peopl e.
Teachers shoul d be abl e to teach about creati on as wel l .
4/14/2014 4:48 PM
Page 9
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
1 / 7
Q7 Do the standards include anything that
students don't need to know?
Answered: 50 Skipped: 40
# Responses Date
1 Yes 6/2/2014 3:55 PM
2 The standards are ful l of a number of theori es that are presented as fact i n a very one-si ded
manner. Exampl es are gl obal warmi ng, cl i mate change, sustai nabi l i ty, evol uti on, and the bi g
bang.
6/2/2014 2:28 PM
3 Theory as fact. Theori es shoul d be i ntroduced as such and the maj or opposi ng theory i ntroduced
as wel l . Thi s i s a probl em throughout, i f you can't i ntroduce theori es and opposi ng or j ust di fferent
theori es, l eave them out of the standards!
6/2/2014 10:57 AM
4 1. NGSS are nei ther educati onal l y obj ecti ve nor rel i gi ousl y neutral . An athei sti c or materi al i sti c
worl dvi ew i s consi stentl y affi rmed throughout. Thi s wi l l l ead to i ndoctri nati on, not educati on. 2.
Rel i gi ous questi ons are answered based on a doctri ne or “Rul e” that permi ts onl y materi al i sti c or
functi onal l y athei sti c answers. 3. Onl y materi al i sti c expl anati ons for any phenomenon addressed by
sci ence are al l owed. 4. Legi ti mate sci enti fi c cri ti ques of materi al i sti c theori es regardi ng the ori gi ns
of the uni verse, of l i fe, and i ts di versi ty are not presented. 5. NGSS fai l s to di sti ngui sh for students
the vari ous defi ni ti ons of evol uti on, l eadi ng them to assume that the word al ways denotes the same
thi ng. 6. Teaches evol uti on as fact starti ng i n el ementary grades. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and i f i t
must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 7. Underl yi ng anti -
fossi l fuel themes and green agenda concepts such as the envi ronmental acti vi sm, sustai nabi l i ty,
soci al j usti ce, popul ati on control , human-caused gl obal warmi ng, renewabl e energy, CO2 l evel s,
and oi l spi l l s are preval ent throughout the NGSS. 8. Heavy focus on the fool i sh concept that
al l /most human acti ons l ead to negati ve consequences for the earth. 9. The concept of
col l aborati on i s preval ent throughout the NGSS. Thi s shoul d be re-focused to teach the concept of
i ndi vi dual i sm not col l aborati on and groupthi nk. Pages 34, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 71, 79, 89,
91, 97, 100, 116, 120, 124, 134 10. The focus of technol ogi es bei ng dri ven by cl i mate, natural
resources, and economi c condi ti ons i s preval ent throughout the NGSS. Thi s i s j ust another
exampl e of pushi ng the green and gl obal agenda. Pages 88, 89, 96, 105, 107 11. Remove
ESS3.C i n i ts enti rety from pages 37-38. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda. 12. Remove K-ESS3-3 i n i ts enti rety from page 38. The
focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 13. 3-
LS4 on page 58 i s teachi ng evol uti on as fact starti ng i n the 3rd grade. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory
and i f i t must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 14. 3-LS4-
4 on page 58 says “Assessment does not i ncl ude the greenhouse effect or cl i mate change.” Thi s
cl ari fi cati on shoul dn’t even be needed. Thi rd graders shoul d not be l earni ng about the theori es of
cl i mate change and the greenhouse effect. 15. 3-ESS2-1 on page 60 says “Assessment does not
i ncl ude cl i mate change.” Thi s cl ari fi cati on shoul dn’t even be needed. Thi rd graders shoul d not be
l earni ng about the theori es of cl i mate change. 16. Remove 4-ESS3-1 i n i ts enti rety from page 69.
The one-si ded treatment of fossi l fuel s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda and
defi ni tel y shoul dn’t be taught to 4th graders. 17. Remove 5-ESS3-1 and ESS3.C i n thei r enti rety
from page 78. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental
propaganda. 18. One of the mi ddl e school performance expectati ons of LS4 on page 83 i s to
“construct expl anati ons based on evi dence to support fundamental understandi ngs of natural
sel ecti on and evol uti on”. Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and i f i t
must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 19. The mi ddl e
school performance expectati ons of ESS3 on page 85 to answer questi ons about “How do human
acti vi ti es affect Earth systems, How do we know our gl obal cl i mate i s changi ng” and the sub-i deas
about “human i mpact on Earth systems, and gl obal cl i mate change” are nothi ng more than
envi ronmental propaganda. These i tems shoul d be removed from the performance expectati ons.
20. MS-LS4-6, LS4.B, and LS4.C on page 99 teach evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and
i f i t must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 21. Remove
MS-ESS3-3 and ESS3.C i n thei r enti rety from page 105. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on
earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 22. Remove MS-ESS3-4 i n i ts enti rety from
page 105. The focus on overpopul ati on and sustai nabi l i ty appears to be advocati ng for aborti on
(i .e. popul ati on control ). 23. Remove MS-ESS3-5 and ESS3.D i n thei r enti rety from page 105. The
“emphasi s i s on the maj or rol e that human acti vi ti es pl ay i n causi ng the ri se i n gl obal
6/1/2014 10:33 PM
Page 10
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
2 / 7
temperatures”. Thi s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 24. Some of the hi gh school
performance expectati ons of LS4 on page 112 are to “construct expl anati ons for the processes of
natural sel ecti on and evol uti on and communi cate how mul ti pl e l i nes of evi dence support these
expl anati ons” and to “eval uate evi dence of the condi ti ons that may resul t i n new speci es and
understand the rol e of geneti c vari ati on i n natural sel ecti on”. Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as
fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and shoul d be taught as a theory not fact. 25. The hi gh school
performance expectati on of ESS2 on page 113 of havi ng “a maj or emphasi s on the mechani sms
and i mpl i cati ons of cl i mate change” i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. Thi s shoul d
be removed from the performance expectati ons. 26. The hi gh school performance expectati ons of
ESS3 on page 114 of “Students understand the […] si gni fi cant envi ronmental i mpacts of human
acti vi ti es [...] to exami ne and construct sol uti ons to the many chal l enges faci ng l ong-term human
sustai nabi l i ty on Earth” and the sub-i deas of “human i mpact on Earth systems, and gl obal cl i mate
change” are nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. These shoul d be removed from the
performance expectati ons. 27. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115
paragraph 2 l i sts “the speed at whi ch worl d popul ati on i s growi ng” as a probl em. Thi s appears to be
advocati ng for aborti on (i .e. popul ati on control ) and shoul d be removed. 28. The hi gh school
engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 3 and paragraph 6 l i sts “maj or gl obal probl ems”
and “maj or gl obal chal l enges” as thi ngs needi ng sol uti ons. Thi s focus on gl obal i sm i s an un-
Ameri can i deal and shoul d be removed. 29. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page
115 paragraph 3 states that “publ i c safety or envi ronmental protecti on may be more i mportant than
cost or even functi onal i ty”. Thi s may be the most troubl i ng statement i n the enti re document. It i s
i ncredi bl y i gnorant and dangerous and shoul d be removed. 30. The hi gh school engi neeri ng
desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 4 requi res students “to try and anti ci pate possi bl e soci etal
and envi ronmental i mpacts”. Thi s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda and shoul d be
removed. 31. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 5 requi res that
“students appl y thei r engi neeri ng capabi l i ti es to reduce human i mpacts on Earth systems, and
i mprove soci al and envi ronmental cost-benefi t rati os (HS-ESS3-2, HS-ESS3-4)”. Thi s i s nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda and shoul d be removed. 32. Exampl es provi ded under HS-
PS3-3 on page 120 of “wi nd turbi nes” and “sol ar cel l s” are one-si ded and pushi ng the green
agenda. These shoul d be removed, however i f these i tems are l eft as exampl es, then i nternal
combusti on engi nes, combusti on turbi nes, steam turbi nes, boi l ers, and j et engi nes shoul d al so be
i ncl uded as exampl es. 33. Remove HS-LS2-7 i n i ts enti rety from page 126. The focus on reduci ng
human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 34. Remove the 2nd
paragraphs of LS2.C and LS4.D from page 127. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s
nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 35. Remove “and to consi der soci al , cul tural and
envi ronmental i mpacts” from ETS1.B on page 127. The focus on these i mpacts i s pushi ng the
green agenda. 36. HS-LS4-4, HS-LS4-5, LS4.B, and LS4.C on page 130 teach evol uti on as fact.
Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and shoul d be taught as a theory
not fact. 37. HS-LS4-5 on page 130 emphasi zes “how changes to the envi ronment such as
deforestati on, fi shi ng, appl i cati on of ferti l i zers, drought, fl ood, and the rate of change of the
envi ronment affect di stri buti on or di sappearance of trai ts i n speci es”. Thi s emphasi s shoul d be
removed as i t i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental and anti -agri cul ture propaganda. 38. Remove
LS4.D i n i ts enti rety from page 131. The focus on sustai nabi l i ty and reduci ng human i mpacts on
earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 39. Remove “and to consi der soci al ,
cul tural and envi ronmental i mpacts” from ETS1.B on page 131. The focus on these i mpacts i s
pushi ng the green agenda. 40. HS-ESS1-2 and the 3rd paragraph of ESS1.A on page 132 focuses
on provi ng the bi g bang theory rather than j ust presenti ng i t as a theory. Thi s i s one-si ded as no
other possi bi l i ti es of the earth’s creati on (such as i ntel l i gent desi gn) are presented. 41. Remove HS-
ESS2-2 and HS-ESS2-4 i n thei r enti rety from page 134. The focus on greenhouse gases, cl i mate
change, human i mpacts on the envi ronment, model i ng cl i mate change, etc. are nothi ng more
than envi ronmental propaganda. 42. Remove the 3rd paragraph “Changes i n the atmosphere due
to human acti vi ty have i ncreased carbon di oxi de concentrati ons and thus affect cl i mate. (HS-
ESS2- 6),(HS-ESS2-4)” of ESS2.D from page 135 i n i ts enti rety. Thi s i s nothi ng more than
envi ronmental propaganda. 43. Remove HS-ESS3 i n i ts enti rety from pages 137-138. The focus on
sustai nabi l i ty, human i mpacts on the envi ronment, model i ng cl i mate change, etc. are nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda. 44. Revi se HS-ETS1-1 and the 2nd paragraph of ETS1.A
on page 139 to remove the focus on “maj or gl obal chal l enges”. Thi s focus on gl obal i sm i s an un-
Ameri can i deal and shoul d be removed.
5 1. NGSS are nei ther educati onal l y obj ecti ve nor rel i gi ousl y neutral . An athei sti c or materi al i sti c
worl dvi ew i s consi stentl y affi rmed throughout. Thi s wi l l l ead to i ndoctri nati on, not educati on. 2.
Rel i gi ous questi ons are answered based on a doctri ne or “Rul e” that permi ts onl y materi al i sti c or
functi onal l y athei sti c answers. 3. Onl y materi al i sti c expl anati ons for any phenomenon addressed by
sci ence are al l owed. 4. Legi ti mate sci enti fi c cri ti ques of materi al i sti c theori es regardi ng the ori gi ns
of the uni verse, of l i fe, and i ts di versi ty are not presented. 5. NGSS fai l s to di sti ngui sh for students
the vari ous defi ni ti ons of evol uti on, l eadi ng them to assume that the word al ways denotes the same
thi ng. 6. Teaches evol uti on as fact starti ng i n el ementary grades. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and i f i t
6/1/2014 10:12 PM
Page 11
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
3 / 7
must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 7. Underl yi ng anti -
fossi l fuel themes and green agenda concepts such as the envi ronmental acti vi sm, sustai nabi l i ty,
soci al j usti ce, popul ati on control , human-caused gl obal warmi ng, renewabl e energy, CO2 l evel s,
and oi l spi l l s are preval ent throughout the NGSS. 8. Heavy focus on the fool i sh concept that
al l /most human acti ons l ead to negati ve consequences for the earth. 9. The concept of
col l aborati on i s preval ent throughout the NGSS. Thi s shoul d be re-focused to teach the concept of
i ndi vi dual i sm not col l aborati on and groupthi nk. Pages 34, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 71, 79, 89,
91, 97, 100, 116, 120, 124, 134 10. The focus of technol ogi es bei ng dri ven by cl i mate, natural
resources, and economi c condi ti ons i s preval ent throughout the NGSS. Thi s i s j ust another
exampl e of pushi ng the green and gl obal agenda. Pages 88, 89, 96, 105, 107 11. Remove
ESS3.C i n i ts enti rety from pages 37-38. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda. 12. Remove K-ESS3-3 i n i ts enti rety from page 38. The
focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 13. 3-
LS4 on page 58 i s teachi ng evol uti on as fact starti ng i n the 3rd grade. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory
and i f i t must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 14. 3-LS4-
4 on page 58 says “Assessment does not i ncl ude the greenhouse effect or cl i mate change.” Thi s
cl ari fi cati on shoul dn’t even be needed. Thi rd graders shoul d not be l earni ng about the theori es of
cl i mate change and the greenhouse effect. 15. 3-ESS2-1 on page 60 says “Assessment does not
i ncl ude cl i mate change.” Thi s cl ari fi cati on shoul dn’t even be needed. Thi rd graders shoul d not be
l earni ng about the theori es of cl i mate change. 16. Remove 4-ESS3-1 i n i ts enti rety from page 69.
The one-si ded treatment of fossi l fuel s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda and
defi ni tel y shoul dn’t be taught to 4th graders. 17. Remove 5-ESS3-1 and ESS3.C i n thei r enti rety
from page 78. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental
propaganda. 18. One of the mi ddl e school performance expectati ons of LS4 on page 83 i s to
“construct expl anati ons based on evi dence to support fundamental understandi ngs of natural
sel ecti on and evol uti on”. Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and i f i t
must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 19. The mi ddl e
school performance expectati ons of ESS3 on page 85 to answer questi ons about “How do human
acti vi ti es affect Earth systems, How do we know our gl obal cl i mate i s changi ng” and the sub-i deas
about “human i mpact on Earth systems, and gl obal cl i mate change” are nothi ng more than
envi ronmental propaganda. These i tems shoul d be removed from the performance expectati ons.
20. MS-LS4-6, LS4.B, and LS4.C on page 99 teach evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and
i f i t must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 21. Remove
MS-ESS3-3 and ESS3.C i n thei r enti rety from page 105. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on
earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 22. Remove MS-ESS3-4 i n i ts enti rety from
page 105. The focus on overpopul ati on and sustai nabi l i ty appears to be advocati ng for aborti on
(i .e. popul ati on control ). 23. Remove MS-ESS3-5 and ESS3.D i n thei r enti rety from page 105. The
“emphasi s i s on the maj or rol e that human acti vi ti es pl ay i n causi ng the ri se i n gl obal
temperatures”. Thi s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 24. Some of the hi gh school
performance expectati ons of LS4 on page 112 are to “construct expl anati ons for the processes of
natural sel ecti on and evol uti on and communi cate how mul ti pl e l i nes of evi dence support these
expl anati ons” and to “eval uate evi dence of the condi ti ons that may resul t i n new speci es and
understand the rol e of geneti c vari ati on i n natural sel ecti on”. Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as
fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and shoul d be taught as a theory not fact. 25. The hi gh school
performance expectati on of ESS2 on page 113 of havi ng “a maj or emphasi s on the mechani sms
and i mpl i cati ons of cl i mate change” i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. Thi s shoul d
be removed from the performance expectati ons. 26. The hi gh school performance expectati ons of
ESS3 on page 114 of “Students understand the […] si gni fi cant envi ronmental i mpacts of human
acti vi ti es [...] to exami ne and construct sol uti ons to the many chal l enges faci ng l ong-term human
sustai nabi l i ty on Earth” and the sub-i deas of “human i mpact on Earth systems, and gl obal cl i mate
change” are nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. These shoul d be removed from the
performance expectati ons. 27. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115
paragraph 2 l i sts “the speed at whi ch worl d popul ati on i s growi ng” as a probl em. Thi s appears to be
advocati ng for aborti on (i .e. popul ati on control ) and shoul d be removed. 28. The hi gh school
engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 3 and paragraph 6 l i sts “maj or gl obal probl ems”
and “maj or gl obal chal l enges” as thi ngs needi ng sol uti ons. Thi s focus on gl obal i sm i s an un-
Ameri can i deal and shoul d be removed. 29. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page
115 paragraph 3 states that “publ i c safety or envi ronmental protecti on may be more i mportant than
cost or even functi onal i ty”. Thi s may be the most troubl i ng statement i n the enti re document. It i s
i ncredi bl y i gnorant and dangerous and shoul d be removed. 30. The hi gh school engi neeri ng
desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 4 requi res students “to try and anti ci pate possi bl e soci etal
and envi ronmental i mpacts”. Thi s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda and shoul d be
removed. 31. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 5 requi res that
“students appl y thei r engi neeri ng capabi l i ti es to reduce human i mpacts on Earth systems, and
i mprove soci al and envi ronmental cost-benefi t rati os (HS-ESS3-2, HS-ESS3-4)”. Thi s i s nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda and shoul d be removed. 32. Exampl es provi ded under HS-
Page 12
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
4 / 7
PS3-3 on page 120 of “wi nd turbi nes” and “sol ar cel l s” are one-si ded and pushi ng the green
agenda. These shoul d be removed, however i f these i tems are l eft as exampl es, then i nternal
combusti on engi nes, combusti on turbi nes, steam turbi nes, boi l ers, and j et engi nes shoul d al so be
i ncl uded as exampl es. 33. Remove HS-LS2-7 i n i ts enti rety from page 126. The focus on reduci ng
human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 34. Remove the 2nd
paragraphs of LS2.C and LS4.D from page 127. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s
nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 35. Remove “and to consi der soci al , cul tural and
envi ronmental i mpacts” from ETS1.B on page 127. The focus on these i mpacts i s pushi ng the
green agenda. 36. HS-LS4-4, HS-LS4-5, LS4.B, and LS4.C on page 130 teach evol uti on as fact.
Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and shoul d be taught as a theory
not fact. 37. HS-LS4-5 on page 130 emphasi zes “how changes to the envi ronment such as
deforestati on, fi shi ng, appl i cati on of ferti l i zers, drought, fl ood, and the rate of change of the
envi ronment affect di stri buti on or di sappearance of trai ts i n speci es”. Thi s emphasi s shoul d be
removed as i t i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental and anti -agri cul ture propaganda. 38. Remove
LS4.D i n i ts enti rety from page 131. The focus on sustai nabi l i ty and reduci ng human i mpacts on
earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 39. Remove “and to consi der soci al ,
cul tural and envi ronmental i mpacts” from ETS1.B on page 131. The focus on these i mpacts i s
pushi ng the green agenda. 40. HS-ESS1-2 and the 3rd paragraph of ESS1.A on page 132 focuses
on provi ng the bi g bang theory rather than j ust presenti ng i t as a theory. Thi s i s one-si ded as no
other possi bi l i ti es of the earth’s creati on (such as i ntel l i gent desi gn) are presented. 41. Remove HS-
ESS2-2 and HS-ESS2-4 i n thei r enti rety from page 134. The focus on greenhouse gases, cl i mate
change, human i mpacts on the envi ronment, model i ng cl i mate change, etc. are nothi ng more
than envi ronmental propaganda. 42. Remove the 3rd paragraph “Changes i n the atmosphere due
to human acti vi ty have i ncreased carbon di oxi de concentrati ons and thus affect cl i mate. (HS-
ESS2- 6),(HS-ESS2-4)” of ESS2.D from page 135 i n i ts enti rety. Thi s i s nothi ng more than
envi ronmental propaganda. 43. Remove HS-ESS3 i n i ts enti rety from pages 137-138. The focus on
sustai nabi l i ty, human i mpacts on the envi ronment, model i ng cl i mate change, etc. are nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda. 44. Revi se HS-ETS1-1 and the 2nd paragraph of ETS1.A
on page 139 to remove the focus on “maj or gl obal chal l enges”. Thi s focus on gl obal i sm i s an un-
Ameri can i deal and shoul d be removed.
6 1. NGSS are nei ther educati onal l y obj ecti ve nor rel i gi ousl y neutral . An athei sti c or materi al i sti c
worl dvi ew i s consi stentl y affi rmed throughout. Thi s wi l l l ead to i ndoctri nati on, not educati on. 2.
Rel i gi ous questi ons are answered based on a doctri ne or “Rul e” that permi ts onl y materi al i sti c or
functi onal l y athei sti c answers. 3. Onl y materi al i sti c expl anati ons for any phenomenon addressed by
sci ence are al l owed. 4. Legi ti mate sci enti fi c cri ti ques of materi al i sti c theori es regardi ng the ori gi ns
of the uni verse, of l i fe, and i ts di versi ty are not presented. 5. NGSS fai l s to di sti ngui sh for students
the vari ous defi ni ti ons of evol uti on, l eadi ng them to assume that the word al ways denotes the same
thi ng. 6. Teaches evol uti on as fact starti ng i n el ementary grades. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and i f i t
must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 7. Underl yi ng anti -
fossi l fuel themes and green agenda concepts such as the envi ronmental acti vi sm, sustai nabi l i ty,
soci al j usti ce, popul ati on control , human-caused gl obal warmi ng, renewabl e energy, CO2 l evel s,
and oi l spi l l s are preval ent throughout the NGSS. 8. Heavy focus on the fool i sh concept that
al l /most human acti ons l ead to negati ve consequences for the earth. 9. The concept of
col l aborati on i s preval ent throughout the NGSS. Thi s shoul d be re-focused to teach the concept of
i ndi vi dual i sm not col l aborati on and groupthi nk. Pages 34, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 71, 79, 89,
91, 97, 100, 116, 120, 124, 134 10. The focus of technol ogi es bei ng dri ven by cl i mate, natural
resources, and economi c condi ti ons i s preval ent throughout the NGSS. Thi s i s j ust another
exampl e of pushi ng the green and gl obal agenda. Pages 88, 89, 96, 105, 107 11. Remove
ESS3.C i n i ts enti rety from pages 37-38. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda. 12. Remove K-ESS3-3 i n i ts enti rety from page 38. The
focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 13. 3-
LS4 on page 58 i s teachi ng evol uti on as fact starti ng i n the 3rd grade. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory
and i f i t must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 14. 3-LS4-
4 on page 58 says “Assessment does not i ncl ude the greenhouse effect or cl i mate change.” Thi s
cl ari fi cati on shoul dn’t even be needed. Thi rd graders shoul d not be l earni ng about the theori es of
cl i mate change and the greenhouse effect. 15. 3-ESS2-1 on page 60 says “Assessment does not
i ncl ude cl i mate change.” Thi s cl ari fi cati on shoul dn’t even be needed. Thi rd graders shoul d not be
l earni ng about the theori es of cl i mate change. 16. Remove 4-ESS3-1 i n i ts enti rety from page 69.
The one-si ded treatment of fossi l fuel s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda and
defi ni tel y shoul dn’t be taught to 4th graders. 17. Remove 5-ESS3-1 and ESS3.C i n thei r enti rety
from page 78. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental
propaganda. 18. One of the mi ddl e school performance expectati ons of LS4 on page 83 i s to
“construct expl anati ons based on evi dence to support fundamental understandi ngs of natural
sel ecti on and evol uti on”. Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and i f i t
must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 19. The mi ddl e
6/1/2014 10:09 PM
Page 13
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
5 / 7
school performance expectati ons of ESS3 on page 85 to answer questi ons about “How do human
acti vi ti es affect Earth systems, How do we know our gl obal cl i mate i s changi ng” and the sub-i deas
about “human i mpact on Earth systems, and gl obal cl i mate change” are nothi ng more than
envi ronmental propaganda. These i tems shoul d be removed from the performance expectati ons.
20. MS-LS4-6, LS4.B, and LS4.C on page 99 teach evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and
i f i t must be taught, i t shoul dn’t be taught unti l l ater grades and as a theory not fact. 21. Remove
MS-ESS3-3 and ESS3.C i n thei r enti rety from page 105. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on
earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 22. Remove MS-ESS3-4 i n i ts enti rety from
page 105. The focus on overpopul ati on and sustai nabi l i ty appears to be advocati ng for aborti on
(i .e. popul ati on control ). 23. Remove MS-ESS3-5 and ESS3.D i n thei r enti rety from page 105. The
“emphasi s i s on the maj or rol e that human acti vi ti es pl ay i n causi ng the ri se i n gl obal
temperatures”. Thi s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 24. Some of the hi gh school
performance expectati ons of LS4 on page 112 are to “construct expl anati ons for the processes of
natural sel ecti on and evol uti on and communi cate how mul ti pl e l i nes of evi dence support these
expl anati ons” and to “eval uate evi dence of the condi ti ons that may resul t i n new speci es and
understand the rol e of geneti c vari ati on i n natural sel ecti on”. Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as
fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and shoul d be taught as a theory not fact. 25. The hi gh school
performance expectati on of ESS2 on page 113 of havi ng “a maj or emphasi s on the mechani sms
and i mpl i cati ons of cl i mate change” i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. Thi s shoul d
be removed from the performance expectati ons. 26. The hi gh school performance expectati ons of
ESS3 on page 114 of “Students understand the […] si gni fi cant envi ronmental i mpacts of human
acti vi ti es [...] to exami ne and construct sol uti ons to the many chal l enges faci ng l ong-term human
sustai nabi l i ty on Earth” and the sub-i deas of “human i mpact on Earth systems, and gl obal cl i mate
change” are nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. These shoul d be removed from the
performance expectati ons. 27. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115
paragraph 2 l i sts “the speed at whi ch worl d popul ati on i s growi ng” as a probl em. Thi s appears to be
advocati ng for aborti on (i .e. popul ati on control ) and shoul d be removed. 28. The hi gh school
engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 3 and paragraph 6 l i sts “maj or gl obal probl ems”
and “maj or gl obal chal l enges” as thi ngs needi ng sol uti ons. Thi s focus on gl obal i sm i s an un-
Ameri can i deal and shoul d be removed. 29. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page
115 paragraph 3 states that “publ i c safety or envi ronmental protecti on may be more i mportant than
cost or even functi onal i ty”. Thi s may be the most troubl i ng statement i n the enti re document. It i s
i ncredi bl y i gnorant and dangerous and shoul d be removed. 30. The hi gh school engi neeri ng
desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 4 requi res students “to try and anti ci pate possi bl e soci etal
and envi ronmental i mpacts”. Thi s i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda and shoul d be
removed. 31. The hi gh school engi neeri ng desi gn secti on on page 115 paragraph 5 requi res that
“students appl y thei r engi neeri ng capabi l i ti es to reduce human i mpacts on Earth systems, and
i mprove soci al and envi ronmental cost-benefi t rati os (HS-ESS3-2, HS-ESS3-4)”. Thi s i s nothi ng
more than envi ronmental propaganda and shoul d be removed. 32. Exampl es provi ded under HS-
PS3-3 on page 120 of “wi nd turbi nes” and “sol ar cel l s” are one-si ded and pushi ng the green
agenda. These shoul d be removed, however i f these i tems are l eft as exampl es, then i nternal
combusti on engi nes, combusti on turbi nes, steam turbi nes, boi l ers, and j et engi nes shoul d al so be
i ncl uded as exampl es. 33. Remove HS-LS2-7 i n i ts enti rety from page 126. The focus on reduci ng
human i mpacts on earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 34. Remove the 2nd
paragraphs of LS2.C and LS4.D from page 127. The focus on reduci ng human i mpacts on earth i s
nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 35. Remove “and to consi der soci al , cul tural and
envi ronmental i mpacts” from ETS1.B on page 127. The focus on these i mpacts i s pushi ng the
green agenda. 36. HS-LS4-4, HS-LS4-5, LS4.B, and LS4.C on page 130 teach evol uti on as fact.
Once agai n, thi s treats evol uti on as fact. Evol uti on i s sti l l a theory and shoul d be taught as a theory
not fact. 37. HS-LS4-5 on page 130 emphasi zes “how changes to the envi ronment such as
deforestati on, fi shi ng, appl i cati on of ferti l i zers, drought, fl ood, and the rate of change of the
envi ronment affect di stri buti on or di sappearance of trai ts i n speci es”. Thi s emphasi s shoul d be
removed as i t i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental and anti -agri cul ture propaganda. 38. Remove
LS4.D i n i ts enti rety from page 131. The focus on sustai nabi l i ty and reduci ng human i mpacts on
earth i s nothi ng more than envi ronmental propaganda. 39. Remove “and to consi der soci al ,
cul tural and envi ronmental i mpacts” from ETS1.B on page 131. The focus on these i mpacts i s
pushi ng the green agenda. 40. HS-ESS1-2 and the 3rd paragraph of ESS1.A on page 132 focuses
on provi ng the bi g bang theory rather than j ust presenti ng i t as a theory. Thi s i s one-si ded as no
other possi bi l i ti es of the earth’s creati on (such as i ntel l i gent desi gn) are presented. 41. Remove HS-
ESS2-2 and HS-ESS2-4 i n thei r enti rety from page 134. The focus on greenhouse gases, cl i mate
change, human i mpacts on the envi ronment, model i ng cl i mate change, etc. are nothi ng more
than envi ronmental propaganda. 42. Remove the 3rd paragraph “Changes i n the atmosphere due
to human acti vi ty have i ncreased carbon di oxi de concentrati ons and thus affect cl i mate. (HS-
ESS2- 6),(HS-ESS2-4)” of ESS2.D from page 135 i n i ts enti rety. Thi s i s nothi ng more than
envi ronmental propaganda. 43. Remove HS-ESS3 i n i ts enti rety from pages 137-138. The focus on
sustai nabi l i ty, human i mpacts on the envi ronment, model i ng cl i mate change, etc. are nothi ng
Page 14
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
6 / 7
more than envi ronmental propaganda. 44. Revi se HS-ETS1-1 and the 2nd paragraph of ETS1.A
on page 139 to remove the focus on “maj or gl obal chal l enges”. Thi s focus on gl obal i sm i s an un-
Ameri can i deal and shoul d be removed.
7 Absol utel y 6/1/2014 7:52 PM
8 Yes, sex educati on, books about Barack Obama, and gl obal warmi ng. 6/1/2014 10:04 AM
9 Greater effort shoul d be focused on l earni ng to share and pl ay games that woul d teach
cooperati on and envi ronmental conservati on. K-ESS2-1 Earth's Systems (Meteorol ogy) and K-
ESS3-3 Earth and Human Acti vi ty (Human Geography) Learni ng to communi cate sol uti ons for
worl d probl ems when they are sti l l l earni ng to have an understandi ng about themsel ves. The
standards are premature.
5/31/2014 9:38 PM
10 presenti ng cl i mate change i s unnecessary and one-si ded. 5/31/2014 4:32 PM
11 Enti rel y to many standards coveri ng cl i mate change and humans contri buti ng. I bel i eve thi s i s
pol i ti cal agenda, whi ch has not been proven. If i t needs to be tal ked about i n school s and debated
there i s room si nce i t i s onl y the fl oor and not the cei l i ng. I l i ke truth and al l si des , i t appears to be
very one si ded, l eadi ng ki d how to thi nk. We need to teach al l si des to devel op cri ti cal thi nki ng.
5/31/2014 2:43 PM
12 The under tone of earth i s great and humans are bad i s not necessary. We need to cri ti cal l y l ook at
FACTS and not j ust assumpti ons when teachi ng our chi l dren. We need to provi de both si des of
thi ngs and not try to control thei r mi nds i n thi nki ng one way. Our state wi l l l ose i t's abi l i ty to change
the di al ogue i f we accept these standards.
5/31/2014 10:53 AM
13 Gl obal warmi ng?! Not necessary si nce i t's not proven. 5/30/2014 11:23 AM
14 Yes - teachi ng about evol uti on wi thout any regard of creati on, and teachi ng about gl obal warmi ng
as a sci enti fi c fact when i t i s not proven as a sci enti fi c fact
5/30/2014 10:43 AM
15 Gl obal Warmi ng 5/29/2014 5:33 PM
16 Not that I am aware of. 5/28/2014 10:49 PM
17 Yes 5/28/2014 10:46 PM
18 Yes 5/28/2014 10:42 PM
19 Yes 5/28/2014 10:20 PM
20 Pol i ti cal l y correct soci al i ssues do not bel ong i n a cri ti cal thi nki ng soci ety. 5/28/2014 7:03 PM
21 Pl enty! The sci ence fi el ds are ful l of pl enty of thi ngs to l earn that are actual facts and not si mpl y
theori es. If students want to add sci ences that focus on certai n fi el ds, then l et them choose that for
themsel ves.
5/28/2014 1:05 PM
22 Gl obal warmi ng presented as fact. 5/27/2014 9:07 PM
23 Yep. They ask i nappropri ate questi ons of the students l i ke "are your parents di vorced?" "If so, woul d
you rather l i ve wi th the other parent?" "Have you been sexual l y abused?" -- at a FIRST GRADE
LEVEL! INAPPROPRIATE!
5/27/2014 8:39 PM
24 Yes 5/27/2014 3:28 PM
25 yes- gl obal warmi ng??? 5/27/2014 1:57 PM
26 Yes 5/27/2014 1:42 PM
27 no 5/26/2014 3:42 AM
28 Yes. 5/20/2014 2:55 PM
29 Yes 5/16/2014 9:02 PM
30 They are reasonabl e. 5/16/2014 12:06 PM
31 Gi vi ng eampl es such as recyl i ng gl ass, whi ch uses more resources to do than i t does to produce
more gl ass.
5/12/2014 12:05 PM
32 Yes, the "facts" that humans cause the cl i mate to change. 5/10/2014 9:27 PM
33 No 5/3/2014 12:16 PM
34 No 5/2/2014 9:40 AM
Page 15
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
7 / 7
35 Yes 5/1/2014 10:12 AM
36 Presenti ng evol uti on as a fact i s somethi ng the students don't need to know. 4/30/2014 3:40 PM
37 evol uti on i s a theory not fact and shoul d be taught as such 4/30/2014 12:42 PM
38 Nothi ng j umped out at me that was uni mportant, but I onl y l ooked at the mi ddl e school 4/29/2014 12:33 PM
39 See above. HS PS4 are parti cul arl y too ambi ti ous and i t i s not cl ear how to i mpl ement them.
These are good goal s perhaps, but woul d requi res a l ot of work.
4/28/2014 9:03 PM
40 No 4/28/2014 8:38 AM
41 Many standards requi re a l arge base of background knowl edge. Usi ng standards based gradi ng i s
di ffi cul t when several weeks of pre-i nstructi on i s needed before reachi ng i nstructi on of the standard
because so few grades are taken unti l the end of the uni t.
4/28/2014 8:37 AM
42 I thi nk they are a great resource for the requi red courses. 4/27/2014 3:14 PM
43 No 4/27/2014 2:20 AM
44 K-PS3-2 Use tool s and materi al s to desi gn and bui l d a structure that wi l l reduce the warmi ng effect
of sunl i ght on an area.* Why i s thi s a standard? Most chi l dren i nsti ncti vel y know thi s. A better
standard woul d be to descri be what woul d happen wi thout the sun's warmth or wi th too much sun.
4/25/2014 5:54 PM
45 yes 4/25/2014 7:39 AM
46 No 4/24/2014 9:03 PM
47 Not real l y. There are al ways some pi eces that mi ght not be as i mportant, but are sti l l worth l earni ng
at l east once.
4/24/2014 6:11 PM
48 No, students need to be exposed to a wi de vari ety of subj ects and topi cs. 4/24/2014 4:26 PM
49 I don't have a probl em wi th good sci ence that i s proven, and am not opposed to unproven theori es
bei ng taught as that - theori es. But presenti ng the theory of evol uti on and ori gi n of speci es as fact
i s di sappoi nti ng to me. Teach the theori es, but cal l them that. There i s sti l l much debate and
many probl ems wi th thi s theory that have yet to meet sci enti fi c cri teri a to be cal l ed factual data.
4/24/2014 1:24 PM
50 Si nce Sci ence i s not my fi el d of study I feel that I can't eval uate whether some thi ng shoul dn't be
i ncl uded
4/24/2014 9:56 AM
Page 16
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
1 / 2
Q8 Are there redundancies in the content?
Answered: 33 Skipped: 57
# Responses Date
1 Yes, but redundancy i s needed to keep certai n i deas fresh, l i ke a revi ew. 6/2/2014 10:57 AM
2 Yes, gl obal warmi ng and sex educati on. 6/1/2014 10:04 AM
3 Ki ndergarten students shoul d be taught to l i sten and observe nature as wel l as how to be confi dent
i n speaki ng and pl ayi ng.The dai l y l esson pl an and assessments wi l l necessari l y be age
i nappropri ate and the sl ow students experi ence frustrati on and the fast students wi l l experi ence
boredom necessi tati ng the teacher to spent a di sproporti onate amount of ti me hel pi ng the sl ow
students. The fast students wi l l be i gnored.
5/31/2014 9:38 PM
4 I have covered that Cl i mate change and humans at the faul t i s Pushed to the maxi mum....... 5/31/2014 2:43 PM
5 YES, i t i s fi l l ed wi th redundanci es of the same agenda....earth good, humans bad. 5/31/2014 10:53 AM
6 YES! LOTS. 5/28/2014 10:49 PM
7 Yes 5/28/2014 10:46 PM
8 Yes 5/28/2014 10:20 PM
9 No 5/28/2014 1:49 PM
10 Yes. 5/28/2014 1:05 PM
11 Obvi ousl y. You DON'T need to draw shapes and squares to sol ve a NUMBER probl em! 5/27/2014 8:39 PM
12 Yes 5/27/2014 1:42 PM
13 I revi ewed 2/3/4 grade standards and di d not real l y fi nd repeti ti ons. 5/26/2014 3:42 AM
14 I j ust revi ewed the content, so unti l I actual l y used the standards I woul d not know for sure i f
changes shoul d be made. It may take a school year wi th "i nput" from educators to make sure
everythi ng's j ust ri ght.
5/15/2014 1:48 PM
15 There appears to be a theme, that humans are overl y dependent on technol ogy. In some l esson
pl ans i t expl ai ns technol ogy and human advancement i s a bad thi ng because i t uses natural
resources. Then others seems to push for the acceptance of technol ogy.
5/12/2014 12:05 PM
16 Gl obal warmi ng 5/11/2014 3:03 PM
17 Yes, i n several pl aces, rather than coveri ng a broad spectrum of sci enti fi c i nformati on. 5/10/2014 9:27 PM
18 No 5/3/2014 12:16 PM
19 Not that I saw 5/2/2014 9:40 AM
20 perhaps 5/1/2014 10:12 AM
21 Si nce no fl ow was observed from grade to grade, I don't see how there coul d be redundancy.
Rather, content appears segmented wi th no attenti on to students maki ng connecti ons by bui l di ng
on pri or knowl edge.
5/1/2014 4:23 AM
22 Some cross over, but that's good. 4/29/2014 12:33 PM
23 HSPS2 Di sci pl i nary Core Ideas PS3.A: p. 23 reappears on p.25 4/28/2014 9:03 PM
24 Li ttl e 4/28/2014 8:38 AM
25 I di d not noti ce anythi ng outsi de of general sci enti fi c method. 4/27/2014 3:14 PM
26 No 4/27/2014 2:20 AM
27 Not i n Ki ndergarten. 4/25/2014 5:54 PM
28 actual l y thi s i s the one posi ti ve 4/25/2014 7:39 AM
Page 17
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
2 / 2
29 Evol uti on i s a theory not a fact and shoul d be taught as a theory. 4/24/2014 9:07 PM
30 No 4/24/2014 9:03 PM
31 No. I thi nk the standards were wel l thought out. 4/24/2014 6:11 PM
32 No, the progressi on from grade to grade j ust bui l ds on the pri or knowl edge from the previ ous year. 4/24/2014 4:26 PM
33 Some redundancy i s good, but I di dn't see anythi ng that was unnecessary. 4/24/2014 1:24 PM
Page 18
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
1 / 3
Q9 Are any of the standards confusing? If
so, please list those standards and explain
why the standard is confusing.
Answered: 44 Skipped: 46
# Responses Date
1 2-ESS2-3. "Obtai n i nformati on to i denti fy ..." Strange start to the si mpl e standard of knowi ng water
can be a l i qui d or sol i d. 3-ESS3-1 4-PS3-2 4-LS1-1
6/2/2014 3:55 PM
2 Yes, al l of them! Confusi ng i n that i t i s wri tten so structural l y, as i f the sci ences are not changi ng
fi el ds, removi ng necessary rel ati onshi ps from one to another. As one theory gathers evi dence and
other do not the di recti on can change. New fi ndi ngs adds subj ects or removes ol d ones. Thi s ri gi d
structure i s not appropri ate for the subj ects. Al though Crosscutti ng concepts provi des a way to
rel ate to other subj ects i t i s very di ffi cul t to map out.
6/2/2014 10:57 AM
3 1. Many vi ewpoi nts are one-si ded and unsupported by facts. 2. Controversi al i ssues (such as cl i mate
change, renewabl e energy and sustai nabi l i ty) are not presented obj ecti vel y. 3. NGSS are one-
si ded i n that they di sproporti onatel y focus on negati ve effects of human i nteracti on wi th the
envi ronment.
6/1/2014 10:33 PM
4 1. Many vi ewpoi nts are one-si ded and unsupported by facts. 2. Controversi al i ssues (such as cl i mate
change, renewabl e energy and sustai nabi l i ty) are not presented obj ecti vel y. 3. NGSS are one-
si ded i n that they di sproporti onatel y focus on negati ve effects of human i nteracti on wi th the
envi ronment.
6/1/2014 10:12 PM
5 1. Many vi ewpoi nts are one-si ded and unsupported by facts. 2. Controversi al i ssues (such as cl i mate
change, renewabl e energy and sustai nabi l i ty) are not presented obj ecti vel y. 3. NGSS are one-
si ded i n that they di sproporti onatel y focus on negati ve effects of human i nteracti on wi th the
envi ronment.
6/1/2014 10:09 PM
6 No, as a hi story teacher I see thi s as j ust l i ke Germany 1933. Indoctri nati ng the students to be good
l i ttl e ci ti zens. No actual educati on whatsoever.
6/1/2014 10:04 AM
7 I thi nk at the Ki ndergarten l evel , we can teach them to conserve water, l earn to pi ck up l i tter and
onl y take pi ctures i n nati onal parks, basi c thi ngs l i ke that. We shoul d not be teachi ng Meteorol ogy
K-ESS3-2 at thi s l evel . Al so, Bi ol ogy and Zool ogy K-ESS3-1 i s for an advanced grade l evel . I thi nk
Ki ndergarten woul d do wel l to keep wi th l earni ng about how to enj oy pets and zoo ani mal s, I al so
thi nk that debate K-ESS2-2 i s an advanced pre-frontal functi on not devel oped adequatel y at thi s
l evel .
5/31/2014 9:38 PM
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, I woul d l i ke them cl ari fi ed
compl etel y. are they based on fact as sci ence shoul d be..
5/31/2014 2:43 PM
9 Why are we tryi ng to descri be cl i mate change as the faul t of humans? We need to l ook at the
HISTORY of our worl d and make much better choi ces on how we di scuss the changes i n cl i mate.
We went from gl obal cool i ng to gl obal warmi ng to cl i mate change. HISTORY does not l i e but we
do not know what the future has i n store....the weather forecast can change i n mi nutes and yet you
are wi l l i ng to teach our chi l dren that we can forecast i nto the future on what we are doi ng today.
Real l y? That i s not teachi ng facts, that i s teachi ng an agenda.
5/31/2014 10:53 AM
10 Yes. Math... does NOT make sense on l ogi cal thi nki ng! 5/28/2014 10:49 PM
11 Yes Al l Of Them 5/28/2014 10:46 PM
12 Yes 5/28/2014 10:42 PM
13 Yes 5/28/2014 10:20 PM
14 You have to put some work and thought i nto these standards but the way they have been desi gned
and col or coded has hel ped.
5/28/2014 1:49 PM
Page 19
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
2 / 3
15 What i s confusi ng i s the conti nual attempt to l abel "Common Core" wi th other termi nol ogy and
expect the publ i c to be sati sfi ed.
5/28/2014 1:05 PM
16 Not al l owi ng the students to stack the numbers to add and subtract i s confusi ng. THIS IS
UNACCEPTABLE. And we as ND parents wi l l NOT al l ow thi s to conti nue. Not to menti on common
core math takes a si mpl e 2 step di vi si on probl em and drags i t out i nto 108 steps. I am si ck and ti red
of peopl e pushi ng the program sayi ng "Common core makes i t easi er for the students to do the
math i n thei r head." Let me ask you thi s -- What's easi er to do i n your head??? 2 steps? OR 108?!!
5/27/2014 8:39 PM
17 The standards are bi ased and not enti rel y accurate. 5/27/2014 1:42 PM
18 Some...the wordi ng i s very professi onal and hi gh tech. The red expl anati ons were hel pful . 5/26/2014 3:42 AM
19 Yes, many are confusi ng. 5/20/2014 2:55 PM
20 Math..... i t's i mpossi bl e to fi gure out. 5/19/2014 9:27 PM
21 The engi neeri ng standards need cl ari fi cati on statements. 5/16/2014 12:06 PM
22 I am not a sci ence teacher, but the standards were easy to understand. 5/15/2014 1:48 PM
23 Yes, but I di dn't keep a l i st. 5/10/2014 9:27 PM
24 The wordi ng i s more di ffi cul t for students to understand. What exactl y shoul d they know? 5/6/2014 9:55 AM
25 No 5/3/2014 12:16 PM
26 No 5/2/2014 9:40 AM
27 most of them 5/1/2014 10:12 AM
28 They are ALL confusi ng. 5/1/2014 4:23 AM
29 evol uti on i s a theory not fact and shoul d be taught as such 4/30/2014 12:42 PM
30 none confused me 4/29/2014 12:33 PM
31 HS PS2: (HSPS p.5 l ast paragraph) Though Newton’s thi rd l aw i s i ntroduced i n MSPS2, i n HSPS2
Newton’s second l aw i s si ngl ed out from the Newton’s three l aws of moti on. Then, as i f
i ndependentl y, conservati on of momentum i s referred to. Al l three l aws are necessary to understand
moti on and the concept of equi l i bri um. Conservati on of momentum fol l ows from the second l aw.
But to expl ai n conservati on of momentum understandi ng of the thi rd l aw i s al so requi red. The thi rd
l aw needs to be revi si ted at HS l evel .
4/28/2014 9:03 PM
32 Al most al l of the standards are confusi ng. Standards 4/28/2014 8:38 AM
33 Language of the standards i s NOT student fri endl y. I can't envi si on posti ng these i n my cl assroom
because they woul d be very uncl ear to mi ddl e school students.
4/28/2014 8:37 AM
34 Nope. The recommended acti vi ti es and l i mi tati ons to l evel s was very hel pful . 4/27/2014 3:14 PM
35 No 4/27/2014 2:20 AM
36 K-ESS2-2. What i s the connecti on for thi s? Habi tat? I woul d thi nk where do they l i ve and how do
thei r bodi es and acti ons fi t the habi tat woul d be more appropri ate. The standard seems reversed. It
shoul d be how do ani mal s fi t thei r envi ronment i nstead of how do ani mal s change the
envi ronment.
4/25/2014 5:54 PM
37 When we were tryi ng to prepare l essons for next year and because these standards are fai rl y new i t
i s hard to fi nd speci fi c l essons that are appropri ate for thi rd graders. It woul d be ni ce i f there was
more curri cul um avai l abl e that matched these standards.
4/25/2014 9:54 AM
38 yes 4/25/2014 7:39 AM
39 No 4/24/2014 9:03 PM
40 The one i ssue i s that wordi ng coul d be more parent and teacher fri endl y. It i s ni ce when you can
si mpl y read a standard and understand what i t i s sayi ng.
4/24/2014 6:11 PM
41 No 4/24/2014 4:26 PM
42 Not i n my opi ni on. 4/24/2014 1:24 PM
43 I can read and understand the standards 4/24/2014 9:56 AM
Page 20
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
3 / 3
44 HS-LS4-1 i s confusi ng to students. The standard wants to treat evol uti on as fact but i t fai l s to
extrapol ate back to the ori gi ns of l i fe. I bel i eve thi s i s confusi ng to students because i f you're goi ng
to tel l me that we al l have common ancestors, what was the ori gi nal ancestor? Don't get me wrong,
I'm gl ad the standard doesn't go al l the way back to the fi rst l i fe forms but I feel l i ke thi s i s cowardl y.
"We know we can't defend the i dea that l i fe emerged from non-l i fe, so we won't put i t i n the
standards. However, we wi l l sti l l i nfer that evol uti on i s true and we al l have common ancestors. HS-
LS4-A tel l s students that the fossi l record supports evol uti on. Thi s i s absol utel y not true. Even
pal eontol ogi sts who bel i eve i n evol uti on have stopped sayi ng that the fossi l record supports i t. We
now know that i t does not.
4/23/2014 12:18 PM
Page 21
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
1 / 2
Q10 Does the introduction help you
understand or interpret the document?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 47
# Responses Date
1 Yes, a l i ttl e. But i t i s strange that thi s i s one of 11 survey questi ons on 140 pages of materi al that
stands to change the shape of our chi l dren's futures. How about a survey questi on about whether
the content of the standards i s offensi ve or contrary to my fami l y's bel i efs? Or how about a survey
questi on about whether the standards are devel opmental l y appropri ate?
6/2/2014 3:55 PM
2 Yes, i t expl ai ned a l ot on how i t was created, structured and the purpose, and how to read i t.
Unfortunatel y I do not agree wi th much on any of those except the purpose. I agree that students i n
the US, and more l ocal l y ND, need to have more to i nterest them i n sci ence and engi neeri ng, but
that i s where my agreement wi th these standards end. I do not bel i eve they wi l l acompl i sh that, i n
fact I thi nk i t wi l l do the opposi te.
6/2/2014 10:57 AM
3 1. Change the name of the standards to “Common Core Sci ence Standards” si nce that’s what they
real l y are. Numerous references are made throughout the document to the NGSS bei ng “al i gned”
to the Common Core State Standards. 2. Paragraph 2 on page 8 states that the NGSS “are
arranged i n a coherent manner across di sci pl i nes and grades to provi de al l students an
i nternati onal l y benchmarked sci ence educati on.” Pl ease ci te i ndependent peer revi ewed sci enti fi c
research to back up the cl ai m that the NGSS are i nternati onal l y benchmarked. 3. Remove “maj or
soci etal and envi ronmental chal l enges” from Appendi x I on page 23. Engi neeri ng i s about much
more than j ust these thi ngs. Thi s i s j ust another exampl e of pushi ng the green and gl obal agenda.
6/1/2014 10:33 PM
4 1. Change the name of the standards to “Common Core Sci ence Standards” si nce that’s what they
real l y are. Numerous references are made throughout the document to the NGSS bei ng “al i gned”
to the Common Core State Standards. 2. Paragraph 2 on page 8 states that the NGSS “are
arranged i n a coherent manner across di sci pl i nes and grades to provi de al l students an
i nternati onal l y benchmarked sci ence educati on.” Pl ease ci te i ndependent peer revi ewed sci enti fi c
research to back up the cl ai m that the NGSS are i nternati onal l y benchmarked. 3. Remove “maj or
soci etal and envi ronmental chal l enges” from Appendi x I on page 23. Engi neeri ng i s about much
more than j ust these thi ngs. Thi s i s j ust another exampl e of pushi ng the green and gl obal agenda.
6/1/2014 10:12 PM
5 1. Change the name of the standards to “Common Core Sci ence Standards” si nce that’s what they
real l y are. Numerous references are made throughout the document to the NGSS bei ng “al i gned”
to the Common Core State Standards. 2. Paragraph 2 on page 8 states that the NGSS “are
arranged i n a coherent manner across di sci pl i nes and grades to provi de al l students an
i nternati onal l y benchmarked sci ence educati on.” Pl ease ci te i ndependent peer revi ewed sci enti fi c
research to back up the cl ai m that the NGSS are i nternati onal l y benchmarked. 3. Remove “maj or
soci etal and envi ronmental chal l enges” from Appendi x I on page 23. Engi neeri ng i s about much
more than j ust these thi ngs. Thi s i s j ust another exampl e of pushi ng the green and gl obal agenda.
6/1/2014 10:09 PM
6 No. 6/1/2014 10:04 AM
7 Too much sci ence for a ki ndergarten student. There shoul d not be any testi ng at Ki ndergarten
l evel . There i s enough oversi ght by the parents, teachers, admi ni strators. I woul d suggest the the
pri mary factor i n passi ng from Ki ndergarten to fi rst grade i s up to the teacher i n di scussi on wi th
i nterested others. I do not feel there shoul d be any standardi zed testi ng unti l after grade 8. They
shoul d not necessari l y be requi red to pass a test that test thi ngs that are l i kel y not i n thei r zone of
proxi mal devel opment. It has been very hel pful to l earn about Vygotsky's zone of proxi mal
devel opment.
5/31/2014 9:38 PM
8 typi cal 5/31/2014 2:43 PM
9 Yes. 5/31/2014 10:53 AM
10 NO 5/28/2014 10:49 PM
11 No 5/28/2014 10:46 PM
12 No 5/28/2014 10:42 PM
13 Not real l y 5/28/2014 10:20 PM
Page 22
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
2 / 2
14 Yes. 5/28/2014 1:49 PM
15 No; i t comes across as a persuasi ve speech, usi ng termi nol ogy that attempts to l ead one to bel i eve
al l students, no matter thei r l earni ng styl e or apti tude or career path choi ce, must and wi l l l earn the
same thi ngs, the same ways.
5/28/2014 1:05 PM
16 Nope. 5/27/2014 8:39 PM
17 yes 5/27/2014 1:57 PM
18 No 5/27/2014 1:42 PM
19 sort of 5/26/2014 3:42 AM
20 Yes. 5/16/2014 12:06 PM
21 The i ntroducti on was very hel pful . It shoul d not be overl ooked. 5/15/2014 1:48 PM
22 No i t doesn't. 5/12/2014 12:05 PM
23 Not real l y. It i s hi gh-soundi ng rhetori c, but empty of content. 5/10/2014 9:27 PM
24 Yes 5/3/2014 12:16 PM
25 Yes 5/2/2014 9:40 AM
26 no 5/1/2014 10:12 AM
27 The i ntroducti on sounds l i ke a col l ege syl l abus. It i s not user fri endl y. It i s a di sj oi nted puzzl e l i ke
the rest of the document.
5/1/2014 4:23 AM
28 Yes, i t hel ped. 4/29/2014 12:33 PM
29 Fi rst, i t needs to be cl ear what the standards are for. As we heard duri ng the NDSTA spri ng meeti ng
(February 21-22, 2014, VCSU) these standards, as they stand, are for a gui de for assessment for
students l earni ng outcomes. Di stri cts are responsi bl e for devel opi ng thei r curri cul um detai l s. Some
gui dance on how stri ctl y to fol l ow NGSS shoul d be gi ven i n the fi nal standards, where currentl y i t i s
l eft to di screti on of the i ndi vi dual teachers or the di stri cts. It shoul d be cl earl y stated where there
are speci fi cs that teachers are requi red to fol l ow, and whi ch wi l l be checked i n the assessments.
4/28/2014 9:03 PM
30 To some degree. 4/28/2014 8:38 AM
31 yes, excel l ent i dea to gi ve a summary of the standards and expectati ons 4/27/2014 6:50 PM
32 If anythi ng, I thi nk i t hel ps me to get my head to the ri ght l evel of perspecti ve. The danger i s that
the standards can be too nebul ous or they got mi si nterpreted as a gui dl i ne for curri cul um. The i ntro
puts thi ngs i n proper perspecti ve.
4/27/2014 3:14 PM
33 Yes 4/27/2014 2:20 AM
34 Wel l , yes, i t summari zes ni cel y, but the statement: "i nfl uence of engi neeri ng, technol ogy, and
sci ence on soci ety and the natural worl d are cal l ed out as organi zi ng concepts for these
di sci pl i nary core i deas." - Thi s does not say to me thi s i s about sci ence. Sci ence i s about the
sci enti fi c method, questi oni ng and di scoveri ng. Thi s says, "How does everythi ng affect me..."
4/25/2014 5:54 PM
35 Yes 4/25/2014 9:54 AM
36 no 4/25/2014 7:39 AM
37 Yes 4/24/2014 9:07 PM
38 Yes, I al so appreci ate the spi ral of content knowl edge. 4/24/2014 9:03 PM
39 Yes. 4/24/2014 6:11 PM
40 Thi s hel ps cl ari fy the document. 4/24/2014 4:26 PM
41 yes. 4/24/2014 1:24 PM
42 ok 4/24/2014 9:56 AM
43 Yes. 4/16/2014 2:46 PM
Page 23
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
1 / 4
Q11 Other comments:
Answered: 44 Skipped: 46
# Responses Date
1 The standards seem to i ncl ude an unbal anced vi ew of topi cs l i ke evol uti on and gl obal warmi ng.
They do not represent the val ues of North Dakota. Al so they l ack some of the math that i s i n the
sci ences. The former sci ence standards i n ND i n the l ower grades made much more sense i n aski ng
the students to do thi ngs at thei r devel opmental abi l i ty.
6/2/2014 3:55 PM
2 The negati ve one-si ded treatment of agri cul ture and fossi l fuel s i s a sel f-defeati ng approach to
educati ng North Dakota's chi l dren. North Dakota's economy and future i s very dependent on these
i ndustri es and i t i s very concerni ng to see that they wi l l be treated so negati vel y i n the publ i c
school s.
6/2/2014 2:28 PM
3 Who can we approach or contact about havi ng our voi ce heard on thi s topi c? 6/2/2014 12:00 PM
4 I wi sh I woul d have known about thi s earl i er, i t was not publ i cl y known as most other parents I tal ked
to had no i dea thi s was on the tabl e and wi l l probabl y fi nd out when i mpl emented. There was no
publ i c noti fi cati on i n the news or other sources, and now we wi l l have our chi l dren subj ect to
somethi ng that makes no sense. The reason for thi s standard i s to generate more i nterest, but a
standard wi l l not do that, teachers wi l l . There are many efforts al l ready for that, I thi nk the state
shoul d gi ve more support to those efforts and not i mpl ement a one si ze fi ts al l nati onal l y generated
standard. One exampl e woul d be the Energy Curri cul um currentl y bei ng created by the Great
Pl ai ns Energy Coori dor at BSC, others are the teachers conferences provi ded by i ndustri es
throughout the state and accredi ted. We al ways tal k about "ri gor", but that i s not the i ssue. If we j ust
needed to be more ri gorous then requi re more homework, whi ch i s a bad i dea. The standards wi l l
not generate i nterest or i mproved performance, but sti ffl e creati vi ty and the sci enti fi c process.
6/2/2014 10:57 AM
5 1. Fordham Insti tute graded the NGSS “C”. 2. The federal government through federal agenci es
such as the EPA was heavi l y i nvol ved i n devel opi ng the NGSS. 3. Anti -fossi l fuel themes are
parti cul arl y concerni ng for North Dakota si nce such a l arge porti on of the state’s economy i s
dependent on the energy i ndustry whi ch i s pri mari l y fossi l -fuel based. 4. Focus on federal and
i nternati onal regul ati on i nstead of freedom and enterpri se. 5. The comment submi ttal tool i s
cumbersome to use and there i s no confi rmati on copy of the comments when you cl i ck submi t. It
j ust says thank you so I'm not sure whether al l my comments went through or not. 6. The comment
submi ttal deadl i ne i s too soon. The commi ttee has been revi ewi ng these for nearl y a year but the
publ i c comment peri od i s onl y 5 weeks?
6/1/2014 10:33 PM
6 1. Fordham Insti tute graded the NGSS “C”. 2. The federal government through federal agenci es
such as the EPA was heavi l y i nvol ved i n devel opi ng the NGSS. 3. Anti -fossi l fuel themes are
parti cul arl y concerni ng for North Dakota si nce such a l arge porti on of the state’s economy i s
dependent on the energy i ndustry whi ch i s pri mari l y fossi l -fuel based. 4. Focus on federal and
i nternati onal regul ati on i nstead of freedom and enterpri se.
6/1/2014 10:12 PM
7 1. Fordham Insti tute graded the NGSS “C”. 2. The federal government through federal agenci es
such as the EPA was heavi l y i nvol ved i n devel opi ng the NGSS. 3. Anti -fossi l fuel themes are
parti cul arl y concerni ng for North Dakota si nce such a l arge porti on of the state’s economy i s
dependent on the energy i ndustry whi ch i s pri mari l y fossi l -fuel based. 4. Focus on federal and
i nternati onal regul ati on i nstead of freedom and enterpri se.
6/1/2014 10:09 PM
8 I understand that the desi gn of Common Core and NGSS i s that teachers wi l l be teachi ng the same
thi ng on any parti cul ar day so that those who move can expect the very same curri cul a wherever
they move. So much for school choi ce, wherever you go you onl y have one choi ce: Common Core
and NGSS Consi deri ng that the NGSS are copyri ght. That l eaves me wi th two choi ces: accept i t as
wri tten or rej ect. If Ki ndergarten students have a bad year, I predi ct they are off to a poor
educati on. If NGSS are not Ki ndergarten fri endl y, I thi nk we shoul d rej ect NGSS aka North Dakota
Sci ence Content Standards.
5/31/2014 9:38 PM
9 I woul d l i ke ND say No to more of these common standards. We are a Prosperous Nati on based on
Capi tal i sm l ets do our on thi ng.
5/31/2014 2:43 PM
Page 24
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
2 / 4
10 I do not bel i eve that we shoul d adopt these sci ence standards. Our State has pl enty of teachers
and professors that can come up wi th standards that are not dri ven down by the federal
government. We need to l ook at the BIG pi ctures and see that the standards wi l l produce a nati onal
curri cul um. How can i t not? The books, tests, and assessments wi l l al l be dri ven by someone,
somethi ng, other than our state and l ocal school di stri cts. I thi nk i t i s ti me that we use the 4 C's
creati vi ty, col l aborati on, cri ti cal thi nki ng and common sense to thi nk thi s through as a whol e and
not j ust fi x our eyes on the standards. Al l of the standards wi l l become so i ntertwi ned that there wi l l
be no way to get out i f we want to. We wi l l become a sl ave to these standards and al l that i t
becomes....now and i nto the future. I bel i eve we have enough great mi nds i n our state to come up
wi th standards that are not prepared and handed to us i n a package as the "answer" to our
chi l dren's sci ence educati on.
5/31/2014 10:53 AM
11 l et's devel op our own standards - not the copyri ghted standards 5/31/2014 5:01 AM
12 Pl ease do not i mpl ement these sci ence standards. Get parents i nvol ved and l et's keep our school
curri cul um at a l ocal l evel . No more di recti on from the nati onal government - these are not thei r
chi l dren - and we don't want thei r i nfl uence i n our ND school s.
5/30/2014 11:23 AM
13 These new sci ence standards and Common Core are bei ng somewhat "forced" on us wi th very l i ttl e
transparency. If we questi on them, then we are deemed as not wanti ng hi gh standards for our
chi l dren. We were abl e to voi ce our concerns at an open forum at the Chamber of Commerce i n
March 2014 but our concerns were not taken seri ousl y wi th any concerted effort to trul y understand
or l i sten to us. Our concerns are real and we take our chi l dren's educati on very seri ousl y whi ch i s
why we have deci ded to Homeschool our chi l dren i n the fal l of 2014. We are di sappoi nted i n the
di recti on of our educati on system i n North Dakota. Pl ease l i sten - l et's have an open di scussi on and
address the real concerns we have as parents si nce these are OUR chi l dren. Thank you.
5/30/2014 10:43 AM
14 PLEASE do not i mpl ement these! 5/29/2014 5:33 PM
15 AS A CITIZEN OF "THIS COUNTRY"......AND A RETIRED RESIDENT OF BISMARCK.....PARENT
OF FOUR GROWEN CHILDREN....AND NOW GRANDCHILDREN....THE COMMON CORE
PROGRAM IS THE IMPLANTATION OF "SOCIALISM" INTO OUR SCHOOLS AND THE
GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING "OUR CHILDREN'S MINDS AND LIVES". THIS "WILL LEAD" TO
THE DESTRUCTION OF "OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN".
5/29/2014 3:13 PM
16 Pl ease do not l ower our standards by excepti ng these. ND i s a weal thy state and we do not need to
be bought out and run by the feds. Common Core i s an effort to regi onal i ze, repl ace l ocal
government wi th boards of federal l y appoi ntment bureaucrats. Thi s wi l l end the freedom parents
have to choose nei ghborhoods wi th good school s because tax funds wi l l be di stri buted equal .
There wi l l be no escape i n home school i ng or pri vate educati on due to nati onal testi ng. Students
wi l l be subj ect to educati on mandates i mpl emented by the Federal Government. Let us wake up
l i ke the states that al ready have - Vi rgi ni a, Georgi a, Indi ana, Utah, SC and others have started
efforts to "ni x" i t. Thi nk of your chi l dren and your grandchi l dren. They are our future.
5/29/2014 1:03 AM
17 Sounds l i ke propaganda! Do NOT l i ke i t. 5/28/2014 10:49 PM
18 As a concerned parent. I strong rej ect Common Core standards. Thi s has not been a transparent
di scussi on. At a bare mi ni mum, thi s process needs to sl ow down to al l ow ti me for open and
thorough di scussi on. The current process gi ves me the feel i ng the proponents want to hurry thi s i nto
the system through the back door because they know i t cannot stand on i ts own and gai n support
from a wel l i nformed voter base. North Dakotans are better than thi s.
5/28/2014 7:03 PM
19 parents and teachers can run educati on better than a top down approach from the federal
government
5/28/2014 4:50 PM
20 It i s suggested that teachi ng k-2 and grades 5-6 that "engi neeri ng and desi gn" shoul d be taught.
Why not focus on these pri mary thi ngs: readi ng, wri ti ng, math. From that foundati on, add l ogi c.
When readi ng thi s proposal , i t appears that starti ng i n ki ndergarten, publ i c school s are mol di ng
students to a basi c form of technol ogy careers, that the assumpti on i s publ i c school s must turn out
technol ogy peopl e to fi l l the future work force. The many references to "cl i mate change" and "bi g
bang theory" and no reference (that I coul d fi nd) to any other theori es i n the hi gher grades
sci ences tel l s me there i s no room for debate. The purpose of publ i c educati on i s to educate
chi l dren to read, wri te, and be profi ci ent i n math. Hi story, geography, l anguage and sci ence can
be l earned best when ki ds can fi rst be profi ci ent i n the basi cs. The push to turn out chi l dren to be
capabl e workers i s not the "j ob" of DPI; i t i s thei r j ob to educate. Yes, technol ogy i s every where
and students shoul d know somethi ng about i t, but i t shoul d be uti l i zed to hel p i n thei r educati on,
not produce workers.
5/28/2014 1:05 PM
Page 25
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
3 / 4
21 I haven't read the standards, but I want to encourage you to make them as ri gorous as possi bl e.
Pl ease don't cave to pol i ti cal pressure on subj ects l i ke evol uti on, the ori gi ns of the uni verse and
cl i mate change. Teach ki ds real , true sci ence- the ki nd sci enti sts support, not rel i gi ous pseudo-
sci ence.
5/27/2014 10:53 PM
22 DROP COMMON CORE FROM NORTH DAKOTA SCHOOLS. NORTH DAKOTA PARENTS ARE
AGAINST IT AND SEVERAL OTHER STATES ARE WORKING TO WITHDRAW FROM COMMON
CORE AS WELL. GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS STANDARDS WE HAD BEFORE COMMON
CORE.
5/27/2014 8:39 PM
23 ND does not need and shoul d not take part i n any type of "nati onal " standards. ND, al so, shoul d not
use any porti on of the standards to creat our own standards....whi ch techni cal l y can't be done
anyways, si nce the nati onal standards are copyri ghted and may onl y be used as a whol e. Do our
chi l dren a servi ce and do NOT al l ow these standards i nto our great state.
5/27/2014 3:28 PM
24 very poor, gl obal warmi ng etc.. How does thi s benefi t STEM educati on? IT DOESN'T 5/27/2014 1:57 PM
25 The change to the educati on system i s a compl ete j oke. Educati on needs to be l eft up to the
teachers and the parents. The government has no ri ght to i ntervene i n the educati on system.
Numerous studi es have shown a steady decl i ne i n educati on and test scores the l onger the
government i s i nvol ved. The i mpl ementati on of the Common Core i s outrageous! The teachi ng i s
di ffi cul t, my students hate i t, I am seei ng them more stressed and confused than ever before! We
need to make educati on fun and i nteresti ng to our students. The nonstop memori ze, regurgi tate,
and test i s ri di cul ous!! I am seei ng more and more fami l i es pul l i ng from publ i c school to
homeschool because of how bad the school s and educati on i s getti ng. The government needs to
back off and l et the parents and teachers take over the chi l dren's educati on i nstead!!!!!!!!!
5/27/2014 1:42 PM
26 There i s a huge di fference between i ntended curri cul um and enacted curri cul um. The standards
l ook good and our state has created an attracti ve document. But, as a teacher and parent I am
more concerned about how North Dakota wi l l ensure that educators across the state are coveri ng
the standards. From my observati on and after putti ng my own ki ds through hi gh school and col l ege
some teachers have too much autonomy. Admi ni strators l ook at l esson pl ans onl y to see i f they are
fi l l ed i n. They don't oversee what i s actual l y enacted i n the cl assroom. I bel i eve there shoul d be
statewi de teacher coaches.
5/15/2014 1:48 PM
27 I absol utel y di sagree wi th the content that has been i ncl uded that i s opi ni on and not fact. It gi ves a
poor exampl e of how sci ence shoul d be used.
5/14/2014 8:33 AM
28 There i s a huge amount of room i n these sci ence l essons to push a doom and gl oom outl ook onto
our chi l dren. Teachi ng them to feel bad for consumi ng natural resources, and that i f i t wasn't for
humans the earth woul d be much better off. Chi l dren are scared i nto thi nki ng that any mi nute the
i ce caps wi l l mel t and al l the cute furry ani mal s i n the worl d wi l l peri sh because they were sel fi sh
enough to be born as a evi l over consumi ng human. I don't want my chi l dren unabl e to sl eep a
ni ght because they are too worri ed about the affects of thei r carbon footpri nt on the pl anet.
5/12/2014 12:05 PM
29 No more of thi s nonsense, ND has done fi ne before, no more taki ng the easy way out. No to these
standards.
5/11/2014 3:03 PM
30 It woul d be a sad day i n North Dakota i f the state accepts these standards 5/10/2014 9:27 PM
31 I di sagree wi th the data mi ni ng that goes al ong wi th common core. There i s no pri vacy anymore of
our ki ds. I strongl y oppose the standards of common core that do not al l ow i ndi vi dual s to excel .
The standards onl y hurt ki ds wi th di sabi l i ti es, as they are expected to "achi eve" the same resul ts as
al l the other ki ds. I strongl y oppose the subtl e propaganda that these standards i mpose on my ki ds.
If these standards are so great why are so many states bai l i ng off of thi s si nki ng shi p. Pl ease
consi der the future of our great state's chi l dren and stop tryi ng to push and i mpl ement common
core. The money the state recei ved by the federal government i sn't worth our ki d's future. Pl ease
come to your senses and see that thi s wi l l onl y set our ki ds backwards, not move them forward as al l
the l i es descri be. I count my ki ds l ucky, they are al ready i n hi gh school , and can thi nk for
themsel ves, can see when they are bei ng l i ed to, and have enough sel f esteem to voi ce thei r
opposi ti on to be used as part of a fai l ed federal experi ment.
5/7/2014 7:15 AM
32 In my 27 years of teachi ng, wi th a present focus on teachi ng al l sci ence secti ons at the 4th grade
l evel , I have never seen a document so di sj oi nted. Are educators actual l y wri ti ng these standards?
They appear to be wri tten by i ndi vi dual s who do not understand devel opmental l evel s of 3-5
el ementary l earners. The standards are too di ffi cul t and have no connecti on to each l evel . It
saddens me greatl y to thi nk that these standards coul d actual l y be adopted. My recommendati on?
Start over.
5/1/2014 4:23 AM
Page 26
North Dakota Science Content Standards, Preliminary Draft: Public Comment Survey
4 / 4
33 Concerni ng your changi ng the treatment of evol uti on as "fact" rather than "theory", I oppose. I am
not opposed to teachi ng evol uti on as theory, but woul d l i ke consi derati on of the bel i ef of "creati on"
as wel l . thi nk i t i s good sci ence to l ook at al l of the i deas and teach chi l dren how to thi nk.
Promoti ng evol uti on as a fact when the evi dence cannot be proven sci enti fi cal l y i s not good
sci ence. I woul d ask you to consi der other vi ews of the begi nni ng of l i fe.
4/30/2014 3:40 PM
34 evol uti on i s a theory not fact and shoul d be taught as such 4/30/2014 12:42 PM
35 As a Chri sti an parent, I bel i eve that we were created by a l ovi ng God, i n Hi s i mage. My concerns
are regardi ng the teachi ng of evol uti on. I understand that there are those who bel i eve i n the theory
of evol uti on. I'm j ust aski ng the publ i c school s to pl ease not teach evol uti on as a fact, but rather as
the theory that i t i s. I'd al so ask that school s woul d gi ve equal consi derati on to those of us who
bel i eve i n creati oni sm and return to teachi ng creati on as an al ternate theory.
4/30/2014 8:58 AM
36 If the document i s mostl y l i ne-by-l i ne copy of nati onal NGSS standards then i t i s i mportant to
hi ghl i ght the ND addi ti ons/del eti ons from the ori gi nal document: Whi ch parts are uni que to the ND
standards, i .e., whi ch parts are not i n ori gi nal nati onal NGSS.
4/28/2014 9:03 PM
37 I thi nk that havi ng young students especi al l y i n grades k-2 gi ve expl anati ons wi l l be qui te di ffi cul t.
Cri ti cal thi nki ng questi ons for the young chi l dren wi l l be di ffi cul t.
4/27/2014 6:50 PM
38 A much-i mproved draft and product. Very i ntui ti ve and very hel pful . I don't see too many peopl e
l eft wonderi ng what i s meant by the wordi ng or i ntent. Wel l done, peopl e!
4/27/2014 3:14 PM
39 It i s a vi ol ati on of the 10th Amendment to the Consti tuti on of the Uni ted States of Ameri ca to have
a Washi ngton mandate for educati on.
4/25/2014 7:39 AM
40 We don't mi nd our ki ds l earni ng evol uti on i n thei r publ i c school , but i t shoul d b taught as a theory
as i t i s not a fact. Thank u!
4/24/2014 9:07 PM
41 yes 4/24/2014 9:56 AM
42 I am an engi neeri ng graduate from NDSU and have a great respect for sci ence and the sci ence
communi ty. The fact i s there i s no theory that meets the sci enti fi c method for the ori gi n of creati on
and humans. Evol uti on and Bi g Bang are theori es. Intel l i gent Desi gn i s a theory. Bi bl i cal creati on
i s a theory. I fi rml y bel i eve that several si des to thi s di scussi on must be presented to our chi l dren. It
i s a wrong approach for the future of our chi l dren to present evol uti on as fact or bi g bang as the
onl y theory to expl ai n the ori gi ns of the uni verse. Al l of these theori es start wi th some assumpti ons.
4/23/2014 2:42 PM
43 I'm not aski ng for much. I'm NOT aski ng for Creati oni sm or Intel l i gent Desi gn to be i nserted i nto the
standards. I'm not aski ng for the Bi g Bang Theory to be removed. I'm si mpl y aski ng the commi ttee
to acknowl edge that there are other theori es about the ori gi ns of the uni verse. I bel i eve that a
commentary l i ne can be added that wi l l encourage an open di scussi on i n our cl assrooms. The
commentary coul d read, ""Because the ori gi ns of the uni verse i s one of the great mysteri es of l i fe,
there are many theori es that peopl e bel i eve i n." Our poor students who don't bel i eve i n the Bi g
Bang theory have endured enough persecuti on and bul l yi ng. Al l I'm aski ng for i s an open
di scussi on. Recentl y, when Bi l l Nye debated Ken Ham i n a publ i c forum,Bi l l Nye (a famous
evol uti oni st) stated that the ori gi n of l i fe and our uni verse was "a great mystery." I have a new found
respect for hi m to admi t i t. Now I'm aski ng for the commi ttee to recogni ze that when i t comes to our
ori gi ns we don't have al l the answers, so we shoul d teach our chi l dren that we do. Thank you for
your consi derati on.
4/23/2014 12:18 PM
44 Thank you for readi ng my comments, I hope that you wi l l see them for what they are and not
di smi ss them i f they are di fferent from what you thi nk.
4/16/2014 2:46 PM
Page 27
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
Page 28
Lignite Coal: America’s Abundant Energy Resource
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 4
th
and 8
th
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
Page 29
Lignite Coal: America’s Abundant Energy Resource
www.lignite.com
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 percent
4
. 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
Page 30

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful