Update: Global warming topic barely mentioned in Minnesota’s proposed science standards

Read the news — from the popular press to the specialized journals — and you’ll find global warming a leading science topic.

But read the proposed new science standards for Minnesota students, and the topic barely comes up. The words greenhouse effect, for example, appear only twice in the latest 42-page draft — not as benchmarks for student learning but as optional examples for science studies.

Lawrence Rudnick, a prominent University of Minnesota astronomer, says the proposed standards are fundamentally flawed in that they fail to address one of the most pressing science issues of our time. So serious is the omission, he says, that the state education department should halt the nearly completed process of revising the standards.

I believe that these standards will serve Minnesota very poorly, and leave our students woefully unprepared for the challenges they will face as future citizens,” Rudnick said Monday in a letter to Education Commissioner Alice Seagren. “I urge you to immediately suspend the current process leading to administrative rulemaking.”     

As drafted, the standards “will ill-equip our children for taking on the responsibilities required of them as the next generation of local and global decision-makers,” Rudnick said.

But Karen Klinzing disagrees. She is assistant education commissioner in the office of Academic Excellence and Innovations.

“No doubt about it,” Klinzing said when I asked her if the standards adequately address the global factors involved in warming.

National experts recommended that the topic be integrated within various elements of the standards rather than addressed as a stand-alone feature, she said.

Standards and benchmarks
The standards at issue set expectations for achievement in science for Minnesota’s K-12 students. Along with related benchmarks, they also define the requirements for credit and graduation in high school. State law requires that science tests given in grades 5, 8 and high school be aligned with the standards.

More than a year ago, the state Department of Education assembled a committee of scientists, teachers, parents and others to revise standards that had been developed in 2003. Many on the committee have volunteered the equivalent of a month’s time for the project, spread out over the past year.

Their work was informed by national expertise, including standards outlined by the National Academy of Science. Earlier drafts were reviewed by national experts in science and engineering as well as local groups. And they were made available for public comment.

A new draft of the standards should be posted on the Education Department’s website during the third week of April, Klinzing said, and public comment will continue to be considered for about two weeks beyond that. Once the revised standards are adopted, school districts must implement them no later than the 2011-2012 school year. The next revision will not be due until the 2017-18 school year.

Strong on evolution
Some I talked with at the beginning of the process were bracing for a battle on the issue of evolution. If the fight came, it’s barely reflected in the standards. Evolution, as the subject is supported by most scientists, is a sturdy thread running through the standards for studies of living systems.

“The standards make a strong statement that the state of Minnesota understands the importance of evolutionary theory in biology,” said Dana Davis, a microbiology professor at the University of Minnesota who served on the standards committee.

A noteworthy change this year is enhanced emphasis on engineering design processes and technology literacy. Another change is that specific high-school chemistry and physics standards are written to define a requirement that students graduating in 2015 complete at least one credit in one of those subjects.

The new document also reflects environmental literacy standards developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Klinzing said.

The standards do refer to global warming. For example, one benchmark for upper grade students is: “Explain how human activity and natural processes are altering the hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere and atmosphere, including pollution, topography and climate.” An offered example is “Active volcanoes and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to the greenhouse effect.”

Full concept missing
Rudnick’s point is that global warming in general and the greenhouse effect in particular deserve to be more than optional examples.

“They don’t have the concepts in there,” Rudnick said in a telephone interview. “There are pieces of the concepts, but no coherent framework.”

The standards are organized in four major strands: the nature of science and engineering, physical science, earth and space science, and life science. Each strand covers related material in several sub-strands.  

No strand speaks directly to the relatively new studies of global science — looking at how the Earth’s land surfaces, atmosphere, water systems and living organisms interact with one another.

Beyond warming, there are other important reasons to study the major global systems, including species extinction and water shortages, Rudnick said.

“There are some hints in the standards that these systems are interacting,” Rudnick said. “But it doesn’t come as a prime focus.”

Think of Rudnick’s point in terms of the polar ice caps, for example. Scientists today are putting enormous effort into studying melting patterns and how they relate to ocean currents and other aspects of systems on a global scale.

“I don’t think the word polar is in the standards,” Rudnick said. “How could you miss that? … Pieces of the concepts are there, but students won’t get the big picture, and that was the whole purpose of the standards to organize things into coherent threads.”

Of course, global warming has been a political flashpoint. But Rudnick doesn’t blame ideology for the short shrift he thinks the subject gets in the standards. Instead, he looks to the process in which traditional science disciplines — physics, chemistry, biology, etc. — all have seats at the table and take responsibility for the separate areas.

“They talk about the relationships (of the various disciplines on a global scale) but it’s not a prime focus because it’s not where people came from,” Rudnick said. “But today, anybody trying to understand the Earth would start by saying you have several major systems interacting with each other. … This is something that has emerged in the last 10 to 20 years.”

Dana, the microbiologist, agreed that the scientific focus on global systems “is a fairly new concept.” While it isn’t addressed as a stand-alone element of the standards, many of the subjects it involves are covered at some level, he said. For example, there is a section devoted to the water cycle.

The committee was under a mandate to focus on “what every student who graduates in the state of Minnesota has to know,” he said.

Clearly, the difference between Rudnick and those who drafted the standards is whether the new studies of global systems fall within that have-to-know sphere.

Update: Education department provides climate-change examples

In response to my request for specific examples of how the new science standards speak to global systems and climate change, the Minnesota Department of Education provided the following excerpts from its proposed standards. (I removed some coding which could be confusing out of the context of the full document):

Earth Science, Interdependence Within the Earth System:

The sun is the principal external energy source for the Earth.

     –Explain how the combination of the Earth’s tilted axis and revolution around the sun causes the progression of seasons.

     — Recognize that oceans have a major effect on global climate because water in the oceans holds a large amount of heat.  
     –Explain how heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere by the sun drives convection within the atmosphere and hydrosphere producing winds, ocean currents and the water cycle, as well as influencing global climate.

Patterns of atmospheric movement influence global climate and local weather.

    –Describe how the composition and structure of the Earth’s atmosphere affects energy absorption, climate and distribution of particulates and gases. For example: Certain gases contribute to the greenhouse effect.

The Earth system has internal and external sources of energy, which produce heat and drive the motion of material in the oceans, atmosphere and solid earth.

     –Compare and contrast the energy sources of the Earth, including the sun, the decay of radioactive isotopes and gravitational energy.   
                                               
Global climate is determined by distribution of energy from the sun at the Earth’s surface.

     –Explain how Earth’s rotation, ocean currents, configuration of mountain ranges, and composition of the atmosphere influence the distribution of energy, which contributes to global climatic patterns.

      –Explain how evidence from the geologic record, including ice core samples, and current data indicates that climate changes have occurred at varying rates over geologic time and continue to occur today.

Material in the Earth system cycles through different reservoirs, and is powered by the Earth’s sources of energy.

      –Trace the cyclical movement of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen through the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere. For example: The contribution of the burning of fossil fuels to the greenhouse effect

The Nature of Science and Engineering, Interactions Among Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Society:

Natural and designed systems are made up of components that act within a system and interact with other systems.

     –Describe a system, including specifications of boundaries and subsystems, relationships to other systems, and identification of inputs and expected outputs. For example: A power plant or ecosystem.

     –Identify properties of a system that are different from those of its parts but appear because of the interaction of those parts.

     –Describe how positive and/or negative feedback occur in systems. For example: The greenhouse effect. 

Sharon Schmickle writes about national and foreign affairs and science. She can be reached at sschmickle [at] minnpost [dot] com.

Comments (23)

  1. Submitted by Lee Surma on 03/31/2009 - 01:48 pm.

    Strange, I was always under the impression that Global Warming is politics not science. The primary science I see is anthropolgical studies in political shifts toward socialism. Any science after that is the profound lack of real scientific evidence in the Global Warming movement.

  2. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 03/31/2009 - 04:09 pm.

    More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

    Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

    “The 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.”

    “This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
    ===============================
    Maybe it’s not being taught in schools because no one really knows what is happening, or even if anything out of the ordinary is happening…ya think?

    Personally, I find the spectacle of the very same lefties that think love to beat people of religious faith over the head with “science” are now clamboring to fill their kids heads full of unproven crap.

    Why do lefties hate science and fact?

    HA!

  3. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 03/31/2009 - 04:28 pm.

    Commentator; proofread thy self.

    “Personally, I find the spectacle of the very same lefties that love to beat people of religious faith over the head with “science”, now clamboring to fill their kids heads full of unproven crap to be hilarious.”

  4. Submitted by Glenn Mesaros on 03/31/2009 - 04:30 pm.

    Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, giving a keynote address to a conference of scientists and others who reject the lies of the British Empire’s green fascists, accused the European Union governments of being global warming “alarmists,” while hiding their actual intentions. “They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions–to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back,” said Klaus.

    The three-day conference in New York City is the second annual event sponsored by The Heartland Institute. The speakers include Lord Christopher Monckton, who prepared the “Global Warming Swindle” video tape, MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist. Dr. Lindzen said that “the process of coopting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science–especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding. Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue. And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change.

    “It has been noted that the climate in models is an example of unintelligent design–something modelers are far more capable of than is nature.”

  5. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 03/31/2009 - 04:48 pm.

    Johann Beringer is rolling in his grave right now….with laughter!

  6. Submitted by Dana Davis on 03/31/2009 - 05:07 pm.

    Lovely seeing nothing but denialism regarding global warming. I would recommend checking out the http://www.ipcc.ch/ website. I realize the IPCC isnt the president of a country, but they did win the Nobel Prize, which might be worth something.

    Maybe there are other reasons (besides fighting against the evils of liberals) global warming is only eluded to in the standards. First, this is not simple science and we are talking about K-12 students. Second, global warming is not omitted simply not a central concept. Evolution is strong, but there is nothing about punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift, or horizontal gene transfer despite the fact that these are all heavily studied, important, and critical issues in evolutionary biology. Third, the standards represent testable parts of the curriculum, they are not the curriculum. Teachers and school districts have broad control over what is taught, the standards provide a minimal set, not the complete set, of instruction.

  7. Submitted by Antonio Sosa on 03/31/2009 - 05:29 pm.

    Congratulations to the teachers in Minnesota for not brainwashing students with the man-made global warming hoax! More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/

    Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

    “Progressive” (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

    If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

  8. Submitted by William Pappas on 03/31/2009 - 06:22 pm.

    Here we go again. Back when Sherry Yoecke was Education Commissioner there was a massive effort to politicize the standards. Apparently it is still happening. Global warming as a constant effect on global systems is of supreme importance. Even the Defense Department acknowledged the upheaval of social systems and therefore world security relationships that may result because of it.
    It is not surprising that Alice Seagren, who recently changed the goals of the Q-Comp program when no data could be collected to show it’s efficacy, is once again allowing Pawlenty’s politics to be reflected in the science standards. That fact alone should disqualify her from serving as education commissioner. Politicizing the department is what got her predecessor dismissed.

  9. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 03/31/2009 - 08:02 pm.

    Wow Sharon, no slams against religion or religious people? Didn’t you get the memo?

  10. Submitted by david granneman on 03/31/2009 - 10:17 pm.

    hello all
    KUDOS mr Thomas Swift
    you took the words right out of my mouth.
    it time more and more people realize the danger the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX presents to this country.
    the president’s cap and trade policy will drive up the cost of almost everything we depend on, from our food, cloths, transportation, and heating and cooling of our homes. this will force american companies to move factories and jobs to countries with cheap and abundant energy. AH, fear not citizens, the president is going to tax the evil energy producers and return some of the money to help you pay the sky high costs he created. if you like this plan, i have a deal for you, please send me a $1000 a month, i will be glad to refund to you a #100 a month to help you pay your next month’s $1000 payment to me.

  11. Submitted by Scott Dier on 04/01/2009 - 12:14 am.

    Why would the University of Minnesota allow a Biogeography class fulfill laboratory requirements for biology if there wasn’t a reasonable consensus between faculty that the topic is important enough and reasonably well developed to teach to college students? Even though I had a strong background in science during high school and college there are systems that we have strong scientific knowledge in that were not well described to me before taking that course.

    A particular point is regardless of the positive or negative effects of climate change on ecosystems, the current rate of change is faster than any time we know of in the past. This change will lead to changes, and we’d better hope these changes don’t lead to a great loss for our ability to comfortably survive.

    More thoughts from a biologist on the issue of our knowledge of our complex Earth:
    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/e_o_wilson_on_saving_life_on_earth.html

  12. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/01/2009 - 09:42 am.

    //Strange, I was always under the impression that Global Warming is politics not science.

    That’s exactly the problem, the complete and total inability to distinguish between political phenomena and ANY OTHER kind of phenomena. The earths climate is NOT a political phenomena, it’s not snowing right now because liberals believe in big government.

    The idea that every aspect of existence in the universe submits to political ideology is simply irrational. I just hope these irrationals that come out of the woodwork whenever politically inconvenient science is discussed represent a very small minority of the population.

    The thing that always puzzled me, and maybe Mr. Swift et al can explain this: what’s so great about pollution and energy crisis? I mean the worst case scenario for you is that we end up with sustainable energy policies and cleaner air and water but realize we were wrong about climate change. Before you complain about the costs, remember a little elementary economics, you have to ask “who” it will cost. Capital doesn’t go poof into thin air, it simply moves into different markets. If we spend a gazillion dollars that means someones MAKING a gazillion dollars, and that someone could be you. Sustainable economies are not bad for the economy.

    The other question I have for climate change deniers is this: Don’t you realize we only have one planet, and this is it? Again, the downside to taking climate change seriously is a cleaner environment and sustainable energy policy? If we screw up our atmosphere, it’s not like we can exchange it for another, we’re not gonna move to Mars. Aren’t the possible consequences of ignoring climate change worth avoiding? The Pentagon, that bastion of lefty liberals, thinks the consequences of climate change to serious to ignore. If the climate scientist are wrong, we end up with a cleaner environment and sustainable energy sources, but no global warming. If you deniers are wrong, we end up with a global catastrophe. Why do you prefer a global catastrophe?

  13. Submitted by Lawrence Rudnick on 04/01/2009 - 11:16 am.

    Cool down, folks!

    Here are some facts:

    Without the greenhouse effect, we wouldn’t be alive. The earth’s average temperature would be about 0deg Fahrenheit, and everything would be frozen. There is absolutely zero scientific controversy about this. This concept, the natural greenhouse effect, important for everyone to understand, is not in the current MN standards.

    The surface of the Earth has warmed somewhere between 1.0 and 1.7 degrees from 1906 to 2005. This is global warming, and there is no scientific controversy about it. There is nothing in the MN standards that requires children to learn it. It has very important consequences for life on Earth, especially if the trend continues. Projections vary for how high it will go.

    Now we come to the human part. A wonderful synopsis of what we know, and what we don’t know, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html . We know that human activity is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that these stay in the atmosphere for a long time. The long-term effects of this “amplified greenhouse effect” are less certain, because there are variables that contribute to the projections that are not well understood. These include the roles of aerosols (pollutants) and cloud cover in the atmosphere. Our students in Minnesota should understand both what we know and what we don’t, because we have to make political and economic decisions based on this incomplete scientific picture.

    Luckily, teachers and students across the state (and country) are not waiting for the standards. They know that educated citizens must understand the science, even while it is incomplete. They have already started courses such as “Environmental Sciences” so that the next generation will know that the “greenhouse effect” is a very good thing, but that amplifying it is very problematic. They know that we have a host of challenging global issues including water usage, species loss, etc., and will make sure that the next generation understands the science behind them, in order to better make difficult political and economic decisions. The fact that learning about these is not required by the standards in the same careful, grade-appropriate ways that learning about the atom or the biological cell are, simply will make it much harder for them to do their jobs.

    If anyone wants to see the full text of my letter to Commissioner Seagren, you can download it from http://www.astro.umn.edu/~larry/SciStd_LR.pdf

  14. Submitted by Greg Lang on 04/01/2009 - 11:40 am.

    First they gave us “Al Gore” science and we did nothing.

    Next we will get a “Gore tax” (carbon cap and trade) and we will have $4.50 per gallon gasoline.

  15. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 04/01/2009 - 12:37 pm.

    “They know that educated citizens must understand the science, even while it is incomplete.”

    Or wrong?

    I have absolutely no problem with teaching students about climate change *theories*, or, especially about what has been proven as fact of our ecosystem.

    The problem is (following a bit of a theme that has ‘evolved’ in Schmickle’s writing) that given the example that the *theory* of evolution has provided, man made global warming will be taught as scientifically proven fact.

    It’s not even close!

    I’ve lamented the lack of an academically rigorous curriculum in the public schools for years. Given the dearth of rigor, you’ll have to forgive me if this sudden concern smacks of “hidden agenda”, especially when the focus of that concern just happens to line up very nicely with the leftist socio-political causes du jour.

    Why, for instance, would an astronomer be championing Earth science, while to all appearances, be quite unconcerned with the dearth of material concerning physical cosmology?

    It’s pathetic, the way our public school students are being used as pawns by so many leftist special interest groups. Actually, “pathetic” doesn’t quite cover it, does it?

    Despicable serves much better.

  16. Submitted by Joe Musich on 04/01/2009 - 09:47 pm.

    Geez

    Larry Rudnick recently through the use of his training and highly evolved technical equipment has made astrophysical discoveries I would only begin to imagine a minute portion about. Then he allows one of his graduate students to take co credit for the discovery. A true gentleman. He and others in the scientific community spend their waking hours following the dictuims of science. Their work requires independent verification by by at least two other sources in order to have any validity. When they speak I listen ! They are the elders of our culture. These folks are not blow hards who sit down at their computers spouting out half informed thoughts and a high degree of emotionalism. No offense to some many posters here. But exactly what are your credentials ? Enrollment in a school for informational cherry pickers ? Spend some time reseraching the “No nothing” movements of the late 1800’s.

  17. Submitted by david granneman on 04/02/2009 - 09:52 pm.

    hello mr Paul Udstrand
    in your post you state ” you have to ask “who” it will cost. Capital doesn’t go poof into thin air”

    and even if we are wrong about global warming what can it hurt.
    the sad fact is if you invest in so called renewable energy such a wind and solar, your capital will go “poof” and we will have nothing to show for it. we will have a pile of debt and no reliable, cheap energy to allow our country to prosper. even t. bone pickens has stopped building windmills as the government subsidy has stopped. england has greatly cut back wind energy as their electricity costs have doubled and they are facing energy shortages due to the lack of production from wind farms. i would be able to go along with your idea if you suggest we should begin to invest “gazillion dollars” in nuclear power. nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most reliable, and most economical energy on the planet. i don’t believe “what if you are wrong ” should be the reason we destroy our prosperity and way of life.

  18. Submitted by Craig Westover on 04/04/2009 - 01:04 pm.

    Put me down as a global warming skeptic, but that’s not the point.

    The threshold principle is that government shouldn’t be determining the content of education one way or the other. Education is a public good, it should be funded with tax dollars, but individuals should decide the content by having the freedom to choose where their children will go to school.

    More charters, more vouchers, more diversity in education. Or isn’t diversity a good thing anymore?

  19. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/06/2009 - 10:54 am.

    //nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most reliable, and most economical energy on the planet. i don’t believe “what if you are wrong ” should be the reason we destroy our prosperity and way of life.

    The nuclear industry has been making this claim for many years now, but they only do so by underestimating the costs, and overestimating the safety. The costs are estimated by ignoring the existing tab for cost overruns associated with the first round of plants, and they don’t factor in the tens of billions of tax money already spent on waste disposal and attempts at waste disposal. In other words, nuclear is only competitive if you ignore the subsidies they’re already getting.

    At any rate, when did nuclear power become our way of life? Prosperity? Dude, we’re in the middle of worst recession since the Great Depression, what prosperity? And this recession come at the heals of eight years of rampant policies just like the ones you advocate. The recession is the product of twenty five years of bad public policy. For 25 years we’ve had no rational public energy, economic, foreign, health care, or education policy. All we’ve gotten for it is a really deep hole that we now have to climb out of some how.

    Speaking of education policy or lack thereof:

    //The threshold principle is that government shouldn’t be determining the content of education one way or the other.

    Threshold principle? Threshold of what?

    At any rate, it’s called “public” education because it’s publicly funded, which makes it a government enterprise, which makes it subject to constitutional prescriptions. This is why you can’t give parents public money for private religious schools, to do so would be to publicly fund religion which is violation of the separation clause.

    And yes, the government via state education boards etc. designs curriculum as well it should, that’s what democracy is. Public education is one of the most successful government programs in the history of the United States. The problem we have now is that we never developed national standards like Thomas Jefferson wanted to. Consequently we have local yokel pinheads like Michelle Bachmann screwing around with curriculum all the time.

  20. Submitted by David Joseph De Grio on 04/07/2009 - 03:02 pm.

    I was a member of the Science Standards Committee and helped develop thme over the last 18 months. I want to set the record straight about a few things I’ve read.

    1. Alice Seagren had nothing to do with the content or scope of the standards. In fact she was present during our discussion of evolution and the need to solidify it as a cornerstone to science education. She did not oppose our changes and I found her to be a much more thoughtful person than she is given credit for.

    2. Global Warming isn’t a foundation of science, that’s what the standards are for. We are preparing our high school students for college level science education. We want them to learn the underlying process of science and the foundational theories and laws that have arisen from that process. Global Warming, right now, is a scientific hypothesis warranting much more study and debate at the high level conferences, not the high school level.

    3. I am tired of liberals accusing conservatives of trying to politicize science, just as much as I am sick and tired of conservatives claiming the same of liberals. This committee was devoid of political considerations when we approached our job. Our duty was to put forward the best set of foundational concepts.

    4. The standards are the bare minimum that districts must include. The standards limit the scope and content of the standardized tests. It would be improper, imprudent and impractical to include everything in the standards.

  21. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/09/2009 - 09:26 am.

    Mr. De Grio,

    Just by way of background, who are you and why were you on the standards committee?

  22. Submitted by David Joseph De Grio on 04/09/2009 - 07:41 pm.

    I am a resident of Minneapolis, by way of Duluth.

    2004, BA-Biochemistry, Saint John’s University
    2006, MS-Chemistry, University of Minnesota
    2006-2008 New Technology Research Chemist, 3M
    2006-present Professor of Chemistry, North Hennepin Community College

    I was selected for the committee because of my insight into industry and college. As a college chemistry professor, on a daily basis, I see the results of a historically deficient system of teaching the process of science. Additionally, I was selected for the committee because this is the first time Minnesota has ever had standards specifically relating to Chemistry in grades 9-12, so I wanted to help develop a set of guidelines that would best prepare students for college level work and critical thinking.

  23. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/10/2009 - 08:39 am.

    Professor De Grio,

    Thanks for you work in the committee.

Leave a Reply