You are here
"The debate over choosing standards for science education in South Dakota's public schools has become a divisive battleground with a clear split between science professionals who strongly support the new standards and opposing parents who disbelieve climate change and evolution," reports the Rapid City Journal (March 17, 2015).
A South Dakota state senator dislikes a proposed new set of state science standards, according to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader (November 18, 2014). At a November 17, 2014, public hearing — the second of four — on the standards, Phil Jensen (R-District 33) expressed concern about the treatment of evolution and climate change.
South Dakota's Senate Bill 112, which would, if enacted, provide that "[n]o school board or school administrator may prohibit a teacher in public or nonpublic school from providing instruction on intelligent design or other related topics," was killed in the Senate Education Committee on February 6, 2014, according to the Rapid City Journal (February 6, 2014).
"A South Dakota lawmaker wants public school teachers to be free to teach intelligent design in their classrooms even though courts have ruled intelligent design is inherently religious — and therefore unconstitutional in school," according to a report from KMEG 14, headquartered in Sioux City, Iowa, just across the Missouri river from South Dakota.
Senate Bill 112, introduced in the South Dakota Senate and referred to the Senate Education Committee on January 29, 2014, would, if enacted, provide that "[n]o school board or school administrator may prohibit a teacher in public or nonpublic school from providing instruction on intelligent design or other related topics."
House Concurrent Resolution 1009, now under consideration in South Dakota's legislature, borrows language from antievolution legislation in encouraging teachers to present "a balanced and objective" presentation of global warming, and two NCSE staffers react — Steven Newton at the Huffington Post (February 25, 2010) and Joshua Rosenau at the Center for American Progress's Science Progress blog (February 26, 2010).