:Cite is now provided. There's no shortage of sources available to support this point, and every other one you've objected to here. So please become more knowledgeable on the topic before tossing around specious objections and wasting your time and ours. That is, unless your goal here is to tendentiously wear down your opposition, then please, by all means keep at it.   

 ::I'm glad there are sources to which to attribute that point of view. I don't objection to including sourced info, or providing links to them. Perhaps you misinterpreted a hastily written edit summary I wrote? 

 ::The point of articles is to enable the reader to become more knowledgeable on the topic; it's not for contributors to promote or discredit any particular POV. The bit about 'wear down your opposition' sounds like a tit-for-tat accusation; please review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. I'm only concerned with improving the article, so that it explains both opposition to, and support for, the new Kansas science standards. You want both sides described accurately and fairly, don't you?   

 ==What's up with this edit summary, ed?== 
 " Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (→Overview - Jim dropped his objections; 2 subheads emphasize the opposing POV) "  I did?  Where, when?  Did I miss it?  Did you make it up?