Since April, 2002, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has received thousands of responses from the public on the second draft of the standards. Some of these responses were made using ODE’s on-line comments page. A much larger number of responses have come by regular mail, e-mail, telefax, or telephone. We are aware of four reports that were issued by the Department to summarize these responses. These are discussed separately below.

Respondents were asked to indicate the "importance" of the individual benchmarks and indicators. (Indicators are statements of what students should know and be able to do. Benchmarks are higher level organizers; each benchmark normally includes several indicators.) Overall, nearly all of the benchmarks and indicators were deemed "important" by the large majority of respondents. Only two benchmarks and six indicators in the entire K-12 science standards received less than a 50% importance rating. These are listed below:

wLife Sciences, Grade 10, Benchmark 7. Students will explain that unity and diversity of life reflect their evolutionary relationships. IMPORTANT – 25, NOT IMPORTANT – 106, UNSURE 2.

wLife Sciences, Grade 10, Benchmark 11. Students will know how natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms account for unity and diversity of life forms past and present. IMPORTANT – 25, NOT IMPORTANT – 101, UNSURE – 2.

wLife Sciences, Grade 10, Indicator 14. Know that biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities which reflect their evolutionary relationships. Species is the most fundamental unit of classification. IMPORTANT – 27, NOT IMPORTANT – 100.

wLife Sciences, Grade 10, Indicator 24. Know that biological evolution is a change in gene frequency (genetic composition) in a population over time. IMPORTANT – 31, NOT IMPORTANT – 98.

wLife Sciences, Grade 10, Indicator 27. Understand that natural selection provides the following mechanism for evolution: some variation in heritable characteristics exists within every species, some of these characteristics give individuals an advantage over others in surviving and reproducing, and the advantaged offspring, in turn, are more likely than others to survive and reproduce. The proportion of individuals that have advantageous characteristics will increase. IMPORTANT – 34, NOT IMPORTANT – 94.

wLife Sciences, Grade 10, Indicator 28. Analyze how natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms (e.g., genetic drift, immigration, emigration, mutation) and their consequences provide a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life forms. IMPORTANT – 31, NOT IMPORTANT – 100.

wLife Sciences, Grade 10, Indicator 29. Know life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one celled organisms about 4 billion years ago. During most of the history of the earth only single celled microorganisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved. IMPORTANT – 28, NOT IMPORTANT – 101.

wScientific Ways of Knowing, Grade 10, Indicator 4. Scientific knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena (material world perceived by our senses or technological extensions). IMPORTANT – 21, NOT IMPORTANT – 79.

NOTE that seven of these benchmarks/indicators are in the Grade 10, Life Sciences section, and all of these deal with biological evolution. The other indicator is in Grade 10, Scientific Ways of Knowing, and deals with the definition of science. An average of 78% of respondents thought that these eight benchmarks/indicators were problematic. (Only 22% endorsed these standards.) Just for comparison, the other Grade 10, Life Sciences benchmarks/indicators received (on the average) a 92% endorsement from the respondents.

In short, the only area in the entire standards that was not endorsed by on-line respondents was the biological evolution area. A large percentage of respondents called for modification of the draft standards that present an "evolution only" approach to biological origins.

The second report is a summary prepared by John Rochester, ODE’s Executive Director of Board Relations. This is a tabulation of public input (by mail, e-mail, and telephone) received during the April-May period. To view this one-page report in "pdf" format, click here. Of 5642 responses, only 82 people (1.5%) favored "evolution only" standards. In other words, over 98% of respondents favored a change to the current "evolution only" draft standards!

The third report is a summary prepared by ODE for the Science Writing Team. To view this one-page report in "pdf" format, click here. This report was presented to the Writing Team at its last meeting (June 24-26). Some (perhaps most) of the data in the Board Relations report was also included in the Writing Team report; the exact amount of overlap in the two databases is unclear.

Unfortunately, the compilation in Section III of the Writing Team report is quite misleading. It is claimed that 4120 respondents want an "evolution only" standard. However, this figure comes mostly from the results of an on-line "electronic petition" from Ohio Citizens for Science (OCS, www.ohioscience.org), a pro-evolution advocacy group. The OCS website listed 3722 petition signatures as of June 30, 2002. The petition consists of a single statement: "We, the undersigned, urge the Ohio Board of Education NOT to include ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ in the new science standards."

We believe it is unfair to include the results of this petition in the "evolution only" category, for these reasons:

1. It is illogical to conclude that all people signing the statement want "evolution only" standards. The statement merely says that the signers don’t want "intelligent design." There is a big difference between these two positions.
2. Many Ohioans (including SEAO) advocate a "teach the controversy" approach to teaching biological origins. This calls for (a) presenting evidence for and against evolution, (b) adopting a definition of science that allows for consideration of all logical explanations for natural phenomena, and (c) permitting, but not requiring, teachers to discuss alternative theories (such as intelligent design). Since this approach does not mandate the inclusion of intelligent design, proponents of "teach the controversy" are not in principle opposed to the wording used in the OCS petition. Yet we certainly do not advocate an "evolution only" position on the science standards.
3. An on-line petition sponsored by a pro-evolution advocacy group should not carry the same weight as thousands of individual responses to the Department. It takes very little effort to "sign" an on-line petition, and there is no way to validate the signatures. On the other hand, it takes considerably more effort to compose a letter or statement and send it to the Department of Education.
4. The OCS petition is inherently biased, since it doesn’t give the respondent the opportunity to make another choice – or even to record a dissenting comment. Also, the Writing Team report does not contain results from any survey conducted by advocates of "teach the controversy." For example, the Intelligent Design network conducted an on-line survey on the Ohio science standards, yet the results were not tabulated by ODE. (For the IDnet survey results, go to www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org.)
5. OCS entitled its petition the "Against Intelligent Design Creationism Petition." This in itself is prejudicial, since "intelligent design" is clearly not a theory to be equated with "creationism." Supporters of teach-the-controversy do not advocate the inclusion of creationism in public school science curricula.
6. Some of the OCS petition signers will have submitted individual responses as well. Since no cross-check was made of petition signers vs. individual respondents, some people will have been counted twice.

Based on the above, if the 3722 signatures from the OCS petition are removed from the tally, this leaves only 398 "evolution only" responses (that is, 4120 minus 3722). The total number of people favoring alternatives is 5024 (that is, 182 plus 4842). Overall, then, only 7% of the individual respondents favor the "evolution only" stance taken by the current draft science standards. This is quite consistent with the Cleveland Plain Dealer poll (June 9, 2002), in which only 8% of Ohioans favored an "evolution only" standard. Over 90% of Ohioans want a change in the biological origins standards!

This report is essentially an update (through August) of the Writing Team report, and it includes all input received by ODE with regard to the science standards. To view this one-page report in "pdf" format, click here. The reporting categories are exactly the same as in the Writing Team Report, and again the category labeled "evolution only" includes data from the OCS petition. There were 3742 signatures on the OCS petition as of August 31, 2002. If we subtract these from the "evolution only" total, this leaves only 704 individual responses (that is, 4446 minus 3742). The total number of people favoring alternatives is 12689 (that is, 316 plus 12373). Overall, then, only 5% of the individual respondents favor the "evolution only" approach, and 95% favor alternatives. (Appreciation is expressed to Gary Martin – Gahanna, Ohio – for securing this latest information from ODE.)

Thousands of Ohioans responded to ODE’s request for input on the second draft of the science standards. A large majority of respondents called for modification of the "evolution only" biological origins standards (78% in the tabulation of on-line comments, 98% in the Board relations report, 93% in the Writing Team report, and 95% in the Public Information report). Despite this overwhelming mandate for change, the Writing Team nevertheless decided to ignore the public comments! The "evolution only" draft standards remain intact in the document that was prepared by the Writing Team.