Introduction:
It should go without saying that national academic standards should deal with academic knowledge and not political agendas, particularly agendas that are contrary to American principles. As the State of Minnesota begins to develop new science standards in the post-Profile era, it is important to see what kind of influence that the political agendas within the national standards will have on this process. If Minnesota adopts standards in line with those national political agendas, then the huge outpouring of opposition to and the tremendous effort to repeal the Profile of Learning will have been in vain.

While there is much that is academic, scientific, and knowledge-based in the National Science Standards, there are several recurring themes that support a political, anti-knowledge, and anti-American worldview in science. These include:

1. Factual information is minimized. The Science Standards say that there is to be less emphasis on "knowing scientific facts and information" and more emphasis on "understanding scientific concepts and developing abilities of inquiry (p.113)." At the same time, there is never any discussion of truth in the guiding principles. Acceptable standards need to recognize that concepts and abilities of inquiry cannot be developed without knowledge of facts, and that science is the study of what is true in nature.

2. Culture and multiculturalism are more important than truth and knowledge. Multiculturalism is reflected in one of the four guiding principles in the development of the science standards. The Standards say: "School science reflects the intellectual and cultural traditions that characterize the practice of contemporary science." The implication of this kind of statement is that science is not a matter of truth or reality, but rather an issue of cultural perspectives, also called "constructs." Multiculturalism even received its own standard called Science in Personal and Social Perspectives, and is also reflected in the History and Nature of Science standard. In contrast, none of the four guiding principles or any of the standards mention academic knowledge, truth, or excellence directly. Multiculturalism holds the politically correct view that all cultures and ideas are of equal validity, and that there is, therefore, no real or universal truth. Multiculturalism also emphasizes the accomplishment of people because they belong to various minority groups, not because of the scientific achievement itself.

3. Equity is directly mentioned, but academic excellence is only implied. The Standards say: "The intent of the standards can be expressed in a single phrase: Science standards for all students. The phrase embodies both excellence and equity" (p. 20). Equity and excellence are mutually exclusive concepts, however. Some children are going to do better at science than others. If equity is given the same level of importance as excellence, then the academic rigor of the standards cannot be very high. This emphasis on equity closely relates to multiculturalism.

4. Environmental science is taught from the radical, political, crisis point of view that precludes a balanced discussion including fundamental American principles, such as private property and free market enterprise. (This theme will be discussed in greater detail in another paper.) Concepts, such as global warming, man's harm to the environment, finite resources, land use, population growth, and urban growth are mentioned prominently and frequently. In contrast, private property, good stewardship of natural resources, progress made on environmental issues and free market enterprise are never mentioned as concepts in the content standards. Once in the K-4 Standards it mentions that "some" (emphasis added) human induced changes to the environment are "good, some are bad and some are neither good or bad." There is a similar mention in the grade 9-12 standard. Human activity is never mentioned alone as a positive for the environment nor is the relative percentage of "good" versus "bad" clarified. Finally, it is never explained that in societies with freedom of innovation, the human activity is much more likely to be positive.

5. Biological evolution is listed in the Unifying Processes and Concepts Standard (p. 104) despite numerous and significant problems with its validity raised by secular and religious scientists alike. While the Standards acknowledge that the "data and understanding are incomplete," there is no listing or discussion of incomplete data or understanding when it comes to the theory of evolution. At the same time, No Child Left Behind specifically stipulates that states should teach all sides of controversial subjects such as evolution. That language, which should be included in the standards, says: "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy [such as biological evolution], the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist and why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

6. The sex drive, sexually transmitted diseases (STD), and methods of birth control are discussed as early as the grade 5-8 standards, and are presented in an unworkable form. There is still debate as to whether it is psychologically healthy to begin discussing these issues with children as early as age 10. In addition there is only discussion of the various methods of birth control and STD prevention, not that abstinence until marriage is 100% effective and has no harmful consequences or side effects. A wealth of research now exists which demonstrates that the abstinence-only sex education is the only type of sex education that works. The other forms of sex education have been demonstrated to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Sex education should be included on the criteria of workability, not political correctness.

7. Political agendas are placed above the learning of knowledge. The Standards say: "Emphasizing active science learning means shifting emphasis away from teachers presenting information and covering science topics. The perceived need to include all the topics, vocabulary, and information in textbooks is in direct conflict with the central goal of having students learn scientific knowledge with understanding" (p. 20-21). As one reads the Standards, it becomes evident that "learning with understanding" means learning the attitudes, values, and beliefs put together by the proponents of the radical political ideas being pushed in these standards. For example, one of the concepts listed at the beginning of the chapter called "Principles and Definitions" says, "Lifelong scientific literacy begins with values and attitudes established in the earliest years." In addition, subjective, performance-based assessments are emphasized instead of objective tests of knowledge.

8. The political agendas and themes of the National Science Standards are part of the federal curriculum, which requires that its worldview must be integrated into all subjects. The Science Standards require that there be less emphasis on "treating science as a subject isolated from other school subjects" and more emphasis on "connecting science to other school subjects, such as mathematics and social studies" (p.224). While integration of academic content between subjects is a good idea, the promotion of political agendas across subject areas is a bad idea and falls under the heading of indoctrination, not education. For example, given what the writers themselves describe as the radical nature of the national Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, integrating those radical anti-American themes into science standards would be very dangerous indeed.