I think I've figured it out. The civics teacher hasn't learned his lines properly.
I think what he's trying to repeat is the creationist bibble about the skull KNM-ER 1470. This is not a Neanderthal, it is
Homo rudolphensis (or
Homo habilis, or
Australopithicus rudolphensis --- intemediate forms are kinda hard to classify).
When it was found, it was dated at 2.9 mya. At the time, this was a puzzle, because that made it older than any known australopithecine. This is, of course, why creationists started babbling about it, because, as we know, every unsolved puzzle in biology is a proof that EVIL-UTION IS A LIE!!!
Since then, older australopithecines have been found (older than 3 mya, see the graph below) and the original date of KNM-ER 1470 has also been
corrected:
The specimen was originally thought to be around 2.9 myr old, due to an inaccurate dating of 2.6 myr for the KBS volcanic tuff located above it. This inaccuracy was caused by contamination of older material, and the tuff is now know to be much younger. The specimen is now thought to date to approximately 1.8 myr ... Though this date is now generally accepted for the specimen, the geologists who orignally dated the KBS tuff continue to argue for a later date for the specimen. While the admit the dating of the volcanic tuff was inaccurate, F. Fitch and colleagues claim that the depth of the specimen beneath the tuff shows a much earlier age, dating to around 2.4 myr.