I sometimes thought that Iowa Department of Education staff members Stefanie Wager and Chris Like wanted to be anywhere else but Room B100 of Des Moines’  Grimes State Office Building on Thursday afternoon, January 23.

The Iowa science standards review forum’s rules, Like told a (eventually) standing-room-only audience, forbade him and Wager from answering questions. They were there to listen and take notes. (It appears that the forum, broadcast via Zoom, wasn’t recorded for review or transcription. That’s strange.)

So the pair sat in silence from 4 to 6 p.m. as speaker after speaker blasted the DOE and their bosses, director McKenzie Snow and Gov. Kim Reynolds. Each criticized changes someone at the department made to a draft of the revised standards submitted by a panel of 37 experts and stakeholders, including educators from Iowa universities and schools, plus parents.

No one, in person or on Zoom, defended the edits, which eliminated the word “evolution” (although “evolve” was intact in some cases) and changed “climate change” references to “climate trends.” There were other substantial changes that downplayed climate change and evolution, too.

It was the last of five forums held around the state, but you can still comment via a survey through February 3. (See this post for a suggestion on how to register your thoughts.)

Maybe the anonymous education department officials who were directed to or decided to cut politically charged terms from the document thought the changes would slip through unnoticed. But review panel members complained about the changes at an Iowa City forum last week. Reporters jumped on the conflict. And dozens of people responded by attending the Des Moines forum. They were philosophical, practical and sometimes angry.

Like told the audience, spread across long tables facing two huge TV screens, that the department seeks actionable comments that cite specific standards in the 277-page document. Teachers and other experts complied, questioning which standards should be applied to which grade levels and whether it’s better to match them to a band of grades rather than individual ones. The latter, some teachers said, would give schools more flexibility and better align the standards with available materials.

But most commenters, both teachers and laypeople, largely focused on the removal of “evolution” and “climate change.” Those present, many of whom merely observed, applauded each speaker.

Review team member Jerrid Kruse, a Drake University science education professor, said he was told the committee’s draft would undergo just copyediting before facing public comment. What happened went beyond correcting grammar or spelling. “I was not expecting the word evolution to disappear. I was not expecting climate change to disappear,” he told the forum.

While the wording was changed, Kruse and other teachers said evolution and global climate change concepts are still intact. Educators will continue to cover them.

But others noted that with the revisions, Iowa’s standards would no longer align with the Next Generation Science Standards they’re based on. Many speakers also said failing to teach concepts as written will put students at a disadvantage, whether they go on to higher education or into the workforce.

“By changing the language around the things that we do, we actually hurt our students significantly,” said Drew Guinness, a biology, environmental science and scientific computing instructor at Des Moines Area Community College.

The change from “climate change” to “climate trends” significantly alters meaning, said Alex Young, who teaches science at Des Moines’ Goodrell Middle School. “Climate trends” refers to modifications over millions of years – a concept that isn’t taught at her grade levels.

“What we’re actually teaching them is human-caused climate changes,” Young said. She believes the education department switched to “trends” “to reflect a small part of our population’s religious views. And I teach in a public school” where discussing religion is generally forbidden.

Young, who has a science education master’s degree from the University of Iowa, said at least one science teacher has left Goodrell each year that she’s taught there, sometimes at the start or middle of a term. Teachers without science education training are left to fill in. Students are going on to high school without scientific knowledge, she said.

The altered evolution and climate change standards “makes me want to leave,” Young said. “If I can’t teach my kids real science, you’re going to have an even harder time getting anyone to teach science.”

Panorama Middle School teacher Mark Dorhout agreed. He said that in the 21 years he was a middle school principal, applications for science teaching positions dwindled so much he started calling universities, seeking recent graduates who may have the aptitude for and interest in teaching.

“There is something wrong,” he said. The controversy over standards “does not fix that wrong. In fact, it exacerbates that wrong.” He worries that new teachers will be scared to teach evolution and climate change for fear of reprisal.

Many speakers suggested alterations to the draft reflected political concerns. “We know there’s (a) political hot button around words like climate change and evolution,” Kruse said.

He added, “I don’t want to live in a state where the legislators are afraid of science words, because that’s really what this comes down to. We’re not changing the concepts; we’re just changing the words.” If words frighten us, he said, “then we do run into a slippery slope of freedom of speech.”

Several speakers felt the word alterations were a step toward a fascist society, but none were as passionate as Madeline, a Des Moines art teacher. (Last names weren’t available for every speaker.) “It’s, like, right out of the Third Reich,” she said. As the audience applauded, she added, “It’s changing facts to meet a lie based on Christofascist” hogwash – which is not the actual word she used.

“I’m so mad, I cannot believe we are here,” Madeline shouted. “It’s such trash. You’re building up a misinformed populace on purpose because you want them to be easily controlled.”

Zach, an Iowa State University aerospace engineering student, agreed. “By removing the language of these critical topics, we send a message to students that evidence-based learning is less important than political convenience,” he said via Zoom. “When we erode language, we control discourse. When we control discourse, we control the future of our society.”

Emily Young, an instructional coach and literacy instructor at North Polk Middle School, largely agreed. “Words have power,” she said via Zoom. “And as we talk about the words that we use to help our student understand the world, it’s important to use the correct words that our peers in other countries and other states … are also using.” By failing to do so, “you are making (students) susceptible to fake news and to being confused.”

Hearing unanimous opposition to the evolution and climate change standards heartened me. I don’t know what comments came in at most of the other four forums. (The one in Iowa City on January 15 brought the controversy into the open.) In Des Moines, however, voices were united.

Unfortunately, many of those who spoke also doubted their remarks would have an effect. “I’m deeply concerned that all of these opinions that we have expressed today to keep words like climate change and evolution are going to be ignored,” Hannah from Council Bluffs said via Zoom. If so, “those in office will have to live with the fact that they are robbing Iowa children of the good education that the state of Iowa has promised them.”

Kruse also seemed skeptical. “I hope that the legislators and whoever has made these changes have heard” the opposition. Kruse said he’s not encountered anyone who supports the changes, so if education officials and legislators “are going to truly represent us, the people,” they will reverse them.

Will they? Education department spokeswoman Heather Doe offered no reassurance, telling the Des Moines Register that the review committee doesn’t have the final word. It’s purely advisory. (The State Board of Education will have the final say and could insist on using the review panel’s version.)

In a future post, I’ll have thoughts on how this happened and why there’s so little public support for the department’s revisions.