Science standards and the environment

The Press article of Feb 16, "Temporary science standards proposal passes," references Rep. Syme as urging rejection of certain passages of the proposed science standards for Idaho students because “they don’t teach both sides of the debate” dealing with climate and human impact on the environment. I would like to introduce just one of the standards rejected by the Legislature.

• ESS3.C: Human Impacts on Earth Systems — Human activities have altered the biosphere, sometimes damaging or destroying natural habitats and causing the extinction of other species. But changes to Earth’s environments can have different impacts (negative and positive) for different living things. (ESS3-MS-3)

This is one of the most innocuous statements imaginable. The natural world bears scars inflicted long ago by well-intentioned peoples. The history of our country provides numerous lessons pointing to the heavy hand we have wielded on nature. A drive on Interstate 90 through the Silver Valley is a vivid reminder to those of us who have lived here for any length of time that we have not trod lightly on this land. How the standard cited above could be found objectionable by any sentient being is beyond comprehension.

To those who would say that this is a debatable issue I would say NO, it is not. It is something that is observable and empirical. It is science, and it is undeniable. I challenge any logger, farmer, rancher, or natural resource professional to deny that what they do does not have some negative impact on the land.

I am not ignoring activities that benefit the environment, activities that make modern life possible. Logging, which provides lumber and fiber for construction, can help to mitigate fire hazard while simultaneously improving forest health through disease and insect control. Modern agricultural practices minimize soil erosion while growing the food that we put on our tables. However, if we are objective and honest, we have to acknowledge that logging, farming, mining, manufacturing, urban sprawl, and a myriad of other human activities, no matter how responsibly they are conducted, have had, and continue to have, a deleterious effect on our world.

Which leads me to my final point. When our elected representatives characterize ESS3.C and other similar standards as not teaching both sides of the issue, they are really saying two things. First, they are saying that they are unwilling to accept facts and scientific evidence. Secondly, they are saying that they don’t trust teachers to be fair and objective in the way that they choose to deal with this issue in their classrooms. Fortunately, local districts still are the final arbiters of curriculum with the state providing just very broad guidelines for instruction.

It would be irresponsible — indeed, it would be an abject failure to carry out the mission statement found in nearly every classroom in every school in the state — to not address this important issue. That mission is to provide every student that passes through the door with a complete and thorough education so that they will have the critical thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions regarding issues that will impact their lives. In short, to make them good citizens. I say this as not just a concerned citizen but as a public school educator as well.

• • •

Scott Little is a resident of Rathdrum.