Public Action Needed: Please contact the State Board of Education if you agree. Contact info below.

October 2015 Science Draft

Letter to the Utah State Board of Education

Dear State School Board Member,

Please reject the "SEEd" standards proposed in October 2015. These standards are obsessively focused on environmental and social issues 1 and neglect many aspects of important science. These standards also do not explore evolution in light of the latest data available but continue promoting some evolution theories that have been discredited years ago.2 Furthermore, USOE has finally admitted that these standards are based3 on the Next Generation Science Standards, the science complement to the Common Core State Standards 4. In fact, there is only one NGSS standard not represented in this October draft 5. Our April “SEEd” draft of standards was a word-for-word 6 copy of the NGSS contrary to the USOE's repeated but false assertions 7. USOE officials have also made multiple public statements8 that Utah would not adopt national standards beyond Common Core, yet that is essentially what they are doing.

A report that was presented at the conclusion of the 90 day public review of the April 2015 draft. Though a number of aspects were reported on by the USOE, one part of the public input was conspicuously missing. Emails from the public were not reported on by USOE.9 The fact that emails were received was mentioned but no measure was given as to the overall public sentiment. Now at the conclusion of the October draft we see no report at all made available to the public that indicates what the results were on the 30 day public review of the October draft. Where is the USOE accountability to the public in this process?

It is argued by some, even some professors of our Utah campuses, that there is a consensus in science; that Global Warming 10 is primarily man caused and Darwinian Evolution (the concept that you, a fish, and a turnip are all distant cousins, separated only by time and chance chemical reactions) are essentially scientific fact11. As such they claim that man caused Global Warming and Darwinian evolution should be taught in our public schools without considering scientific evidence that speaks against such notions.12 It is alleged that true scientists don't doubt Darwin but such assertions are not supported by the data.13 Science, they say, is reserved for that which is demonstrated 14 and not for teaching beliefs, yet we find that Utah university and public school science classrooms and are filled with the teachings of belief.15 These proposed standards invite much more, the turning of the science classroom into a mechanism to manipulate future societal thoughts and behaviors.16

None-the-less, here in Utah we like to think that our Utah science teachers and professors only teach actual science. Unfounded myths or beliefs about, for example, our origins, are reserved for places of faith. But even now, such is not the case.17 Also, studies have shown overwhelming support that “teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.” According to polls, 80% of likely voters are in support of such education.18

Furthermore, even with the recent “clarifications” added to the October “SEEd” draft19, the clarity is no where near the clarity of the existing standards20. This is abundantly clear to those who have taken the time to read the proposed draft and then compare it to the current standards. Yes, modeling, etc. are useful learning tools and good teachers already to do that, and other teachers can be taught about such skills.

Another point: the slight21 positive adjustments that have been made to these standards from the Utah April 2015 word-for-word copy of the NGSS performance standards, will be essentially lost as school districts and teachers select textbooks, sample lesson plans, etc, from the array of “NGSS compatible materials” bringing our classroom education right in line with the materialistic perspective of the NGSS.

You sit on the Board of Education to represent us, the Parents of Utah, and not the elitist educational thinking that is politically popular today.

Again, please reject these standards.


Concerned Citizens of Utah

- - - - - -

Visit for access to resources and research that will help one understand the details and issues related to these proposed standards.

The survey conducted by the USOE on the April and October 2015 draft, did not give one an opportunity to express an overall thumbs down to reject the whole of the proposal. What they are saying is that you are going to get this NGSS based set of standards regardless of if you like it or not, although they will allow you to provide input for possible minor modifications.

Action Item: To show our discontent we should now make comments to Board members and the State Superintendent as input to these people should be available as the vote on the standards will not be held until the 5th of December (see below for contact info)


The entire Utah State Board of Education Members may be reached via

Individual Board Member and Contact info is here

You can find your specific school board representative

Brad C. Smith
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Utah State Office of Education
250 East 500 South
P.O. Box 144200
Salt Lake City, UT  84114-4200

Curriculum & Instruction
Phone: (801) 538-7698

Ricky Scott
State Science Specialist
Phone: (801) 538-7808

David Smith
Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM), Elementary Math (K-6)
Phone: (801) 538-7766

- - - - - - - - - - -

1The largest portion of the 6th grade standards are devoted to environmental issues. See and also

2See standard discussion of 7.5.4 at see also Professor Spicer TEDx talk on the theory of recapitulation

3This admission from USOE was found on page 7 of the front material given to board members to introduce the October draft of the science standards. This is also documented in the footnote on the introductory page of each of the grade levels on the October draft of the standards. See

4See paper “What? NGSS is Common Core Science???”

5NGSS standard not represented in the October draft is MS-LS1-8. See for details.

7See Utah Science Standards Review Meeting - May 19, 2015

8See Utah's Deceptive Science Standards Adoption

10Anthropomorphic or man caused global warming is questioned. Data and techniques use by researchers are challenged see John Coleman challenges the science in new global warming study see also GLOBAL WARMING TEST

11Example: Professor Tolman in the Science Standards Parent Review Committee stated that “Evolution theory is just as solidly supported by data as gravitational theory or relativity theory.” email in Vincent Newmeyer's possession.

13Educated Intelligent People Don't Doubt Darwin Right?

14The Faith that is Taught in Our Public Schools and Universities

15The Faith that is Taught in Our Public Schools and Universities

16Not only is the unquestioned faith of materialism taught in our public schools, but with these proposed standards, based on the NGSS, there is a wide adoption of politicized content in environmentalism in addition to the evolutionary doctrine. The best examples is NGSS itself. One instance is: . Though some will claim that a radical environmentalist temperament has been removed, really it still exist. More to the point, though there has been some minor relief in this area, the FULL NGSS will again be enthroned in our science classrooms as district curriculum specialist and teachers adopt or incorporate sample lesson plans and support material that are NGSS compliant.

18Zogby Poll: 80% of likely voters agree that “teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory”

19October “SEEd” draft can be found here for grades 6-8