News Don't want your kid learning about the evils of evolution? Move to Missouri

[chemisttree]

I believe it's a simple matter of logic. If students are taught creationism and not science, they aren't going to be good or knowledgeable of science. Creationism != science.

We are discussing the inclusion of creationism into a curriculum that already teaches evolution or the refusal to participate in discussions involving evolution as is the subject of the Missouri law. You continue to declare that this will lead to creationism being taught and not science. I want you back up that statement! Where is creationism being taught and NOT SCIENCE? Since you have such strong opinions about this, I'm sure you have a list you refer to... or is this just a WAG on your part?

Are you expressing opinion as fact?

There are indeed quite a lot of factors that affect the ability to compare public and private education. Public schools nor private schools are homogenous. In addition, the social economic backgrounds of the students isn't homogenous and differs with public vs private. In addition, the parent-student relationship and involvement isn't homogenous. At the end of the day, it's inconclusive. One can find studies showing either way.

Exactly my point (and now yours too?)... show us the damage private schools do to science education by including creationism rather than the parity between the two systems. I'm trying to encourage you to make your point scientifically rather than basing your opinion solely on what your read in the news or on the net. I think you are up to the task.

For example, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226093423.htm[/quote] I read this article focusing on math scores but since it wasn't relevant to evolution or science scores I didn't think it supported a position either way in our discussion. BTW, math scores are separate from science scores on standardized tests like the ones comparing student knowledge within the US (NAEP) or between countries (TIMSS). You note that the referenced article you use to support your point conflicts with your contention that parent-student involvement is different between public and private schools and that somehow influences test score outcomes.

The Missouri opt-out means that those who opt out with not be gaining knowledge of science; instead, they will remain ignorant about it.

I think this is a wild exaggeration. Other school districts, not in Missouri, allow students to opt of of assignments (I gave you one example in VA). Do you have any data to support your position in those cases? How many students opt out and what are their science scores? The science tests we are discussing knowledge of physics, chemistry, geology and biology. The portion of the test that requires some knowledge of evolution is quite small.

BTW, I think creationism is total bunk but it makes for a wonderful teaching moment in the classroom. Compared and contrasted with creationism, evolution should win every time in the classroom. My biggest beef with the teaching of evolution is that it is often confuses origin of life with origin of species, especially when creationism is involved. Even Supreme court cases interchange the two terms in their rulings. (""

It is equally clear that requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom. The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possesses to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life.

 

[Evo]

We are discussing the inclusion of creationism into a curriculum that already teaches evolution or the refusal to participate in discussions involving evolution as is the subject of the Missouri law.

Neither. The discussion is about completely excluding subjects that the parents/students don't wish to be taught.

that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic
assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs

Any more posts not specifically about the thread topic from the first post will be deleted.

 

[chemisttree]

Ok, PLEASE, no more off topic posts! We need to get back on the thread topic.

Chemistree, please furnish the rankings for the religious schools that do not teach mainstream evolution, geology, biology, history, etc.. Nothing else matters. Private schools are NOT the issue here.

It should be obvious that if a subject isn't taught that the student will not be able to get a passing grade on a standardized test unless they have studied the mainstream subject somewhere else.

If you do not have the test rankings I mentioned above, then please stop the nonsense. You have completely derailed this thread with your irrelevant posts. You made a claim, now back it up.

I assume since you ask for my input here I am permitted to respond. I'm not quite sure how to, though. You ask from me the rankings for religious schools that do not teach mainstream evolution, geology, biology, history, etc... but you also state that private schools are NOT the issue here. You sound confused. I don't have those rankings. You also indicate that I have made a claim that you require I back up. Which claim are you referring to?

As far as your claim that private schools as a whole are better, here is the study from the Center on Education Policy



http://www.edline.com/uploads/pdf/PrivateSchoolsReport.pdf

And no, this is not going to be discussed in this thread because it's not specifically addressing the thread topic.

I'm sorry, but I can't respond to this since you say this is not going to be discussed in this thread.

 

[chemisttree]

Neither. The discussion is about completely excluding subjects that the parents/students don't wish to be taught.

I see now. My mistake. Please ignore my posts or delete what you feel is off topic.

 

[Evo]

I see now. My mistake. Please ignore my posts or delete what you feel is off topic.

I know that you do this just to get my blood pressure up, which will lead to my early death. DEVIOUS!

 

[Dembadon]

OK then. Here is what the new law states, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;" How does that allow anyone to opt out of class? Are you saying that a student not being required to "participate in academic assignments" or "educational presentations" means opting out of class?

Yes. If they are not required to complete assignments in class and are given discretion about what they participate in, then I'm not sure what else that implies.

Only because Missouri isn't unique in this aspect. School districts across the country accommodate religious exemptions based on content as well. http://www.fcps.edu/hr/oec/relcal/guidelines.shtml in VA.

Since learning about 'biological evolution' is a state requirement in VA and school districts allow students to be absent for 'specific instructional activities', I was sure that you would have a litany of examples either in VA or throughout the country of exemptions being either granted or denied and how that led to the downfall or 'salvation' of science education in those cases. Any information here? Or are we tilting at windmills... AGAIN?

This is not an analogous situation; Fairfax's public schools require alternatives to the activities/courses being appealed, so students still complete scientific assignments. I see no language in Missouri's document indicating they will require alternatives.

Do you really need to see a study that shows students who don't take science courses do poorly in science?

Of course in Missouri it isn't clear to me that knowledge of evolution or creationism is a required skill (or faith) for graduation. What I found regarding the Missouri 'Show Me Standards' in Science follows:

Perhaps evolution or creationism is taught relative to requirement #4 of this list. Who knows? What is known is that private schools in Missouri do no worse than public schools in science education.

Perhaps if we knock over a few windmills things will improve.

There are many things within that list to which one can object based on religious principles, not just evolution. Missouri's document isn't very specific regarding how much discretion the public schools will have regarding appeals. Perhaps it's outlined in another source? Either way, I'm not comfortable making the assumption that people will not abuse their opt-out rights if given the opportunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Just saw recent responses: I had alt-tabbed earlier this morning to do some work, and when I returned to the site, I just hit "submit" before refreshing the page. Sorry, Mentors.

 

[SixNein]

I see now. My mistake. Please ignore my posts or delete what you feel is off topic.

I'm somewhat responsible for that since I included the bit about Louisiana. The conversation is under the same subject; however, they are different enough to cause divergence in the discussions.

The bit about Louisiana has to do with direct funding of religious private schools by the state. And some of these schools are teaching that the monster myth is real in an effort to show dinosaurs and humans coexisted and of course evolution is wrong. And there is other crack pottery being taught as well. So in my view it was a dangerous precedent to set.

And the OP as EVA pointed out was about the MO law. Here my concern was that allowing students to opt out of anything that challenges theirs religious beliefs is also a dangerous precedent to set. In my view, education suppose to challenge beliefs religious or otherwise. And I think such moves like this law affect the long term economic and political stability of the nation.

In a basic nutshell, I tired to generalize the topic too much. I should have made a separate topic about Louisiana. From my perspective, I just look at it as power grabs by the fundamentalist movement. And on a side note, I'm probably a LOT more hostile to them then others on this forum because I was raised in a fundamentalists household, every relative is a fundamentalist, the community is fundamentalist, the state is fundamentalist, and I went to public schools that taught fundamentalist ideas (nevermind the constitution).

So not your mistake, my mistake.

 

[chemisttree]

Yes. If they are not required to complete assignments in class and are given discretion about what they participate in, then I'm not sure what else that implies.

I don't believe that someone in Missouri could just opt out of classes because evolution or the age of the Earth would be taught to be in conflict with religious beliefs. I believe the student's efforts would be very temporarily redirected and they would remain in class as they are in VA. There is a moral and financial incentive on the part of the public school system to do so. You can say that I have a little more 'faith' in public schools than that. As I'm sure you can tell, I'm not a big fan of 'reductio ad absurdum' to make a point which I believe is exemplified by the arguments that students will simply make up religious excuses to get out of classes in Geology, History, Art, Biology. Reductio ad absurdum is best exemplified in our thread by the comment that this law will somehow lead to the teaching of the Loch Ness Monster proving evolution to be false or that this law will lead to Creationism being taught in Missouri public schools. I think it's likely that Creationism already can be taught in Missouri public schools but it isn't for what should be obvious reasons.

This is not an analogous situation; Fairfax's public schools require alternatives to the activities/courses being appealed, so students still complete scientific assignments. I see no language in Missouri's document indicating they will require alternatives.

What you saw regarding the Fairfax school district wasn't a law but a school district policy. I believe local school districts in Missouri will adopt similar policies.

Do you really need to see a study that shows students who don't take science courses do poorly in science?

Strawman. OT.

There are many things within that list to which one can object based on religious principles, not just evolution. Missouri's document isn't very specific regarding how much discretion the public schools will have regarding appeals. Perhaps it's outlined in another source? Either way, I'm not comfortable making the assumption that people will not abuse their opt-out rights if given the opportunity.

We disagree.

 

[SixNein]

I don't believe that someone in Missouri could just opt out of classes because evolution or the age of the Earth would be taught to be in conflict with religious beliefs. I believe the student's efforts would be very temporarily redirected and they would remain in class as they are in VA.

The law specifically states that:

that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs

So they aren't just going to sit in class while the teacher makes a presentation on evolution. I just hope the law doesn't have a chilling effect on the way science is presented because of the requirements of this law. The teachers will have to find a place for those students to go, and they will have to make separate tests and homework for those students whenever any topic conflicts with a particular students beliefs (And probably more important the parents beliefs). Any subject could be impacted by this law.

In a basic nutshell, this law allows students to be completely isolated from knowledge of various topics and subjects. Obviously, I suspect science will be the most impacted.

I'm not a big fan of 'reductio ad absurdum' to make a point which I believe is exemplified by the arguments that students will simply make up religious excuses to get out of classes in Geology, History, Art, Biology.

The only thing stopping them would be their parents. I would imagine that this will be done in a teacher-parent conference and the student may or may not be present.

Reductio ad absurdum is best exemplified in our thread by the comment that this law will somehow lead to the teaching of the Loch Ness Monster proving evolution to be false or that this law will lead to Creationism being taught in Missouri public schools. I think it's likely that Creationism already can be taught in Missouri public schools but it isn't for what should be obvious reasons.

I'm sorry about the confusion here. These comments are directed towards the changes in law of Louisiana. I regret not making a separate thread because its caused some confusion in this one.

 

[chemisttree]

So they aren't just going to sit in class while the teacher makes a presentation on evolution. I just hope the law doesn't have a chilling effect on the way science is presented because of the requirements of this law. The teachers will have to find a place for those students to go, and they will have to make separate tests and homework for those students whenever any topic conflicts with a particular students beliefs (And probably more important the parents beliefs). Any subject could be impacted by this law.

The Supreme Court has already ruled (Epperson vs. Arkansas) that the State may not require, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma," so your fears are exaggerated. This is why the Missouri law specifically allows non-participation. Nothing special needs to be done. You also interpret the meaning of, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs," to mean that a student could opt out of class... meaning not being physically present but that isn't clear by the statute. The meaning of "participate in" may eventually be determined by lawsuit but it could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the student do no more than be passively present during any educational presentation; that meaning being determined by the school districts of course. The rationale for the language was explained by the Representative that introduced the legislation to be in response to a assignment that a student write a pro gay adoption letter, sign it and mail it to the Missouri legislature. That context will ultimately figure prominently in the interpretation of the meaning of this particular clause.

 

[Dembadon]

...

Do you really need to see a study that shows students who don't take science courses do poorly in science?

Strawman. OT.

...

Either I wasn't clear enough with my reasoning in previous posts, or I misunderstood what you were asking for. Since it's off-topic, I guess we'll have to leave it. Thank you for discussing this with me, though.

 

[lisab]

I don't believe that someone in Missouri could just opt out of classes because evolution or the age of the Earth would be taught to be in conflict with religious beliefs.

...no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs...

(From the link in the OP.)

Sounds like "opting out due to conflict" to me.

 

[SixNein]

The Supreme Court has already ruled (Epperson vs. Arkansas) that the State may not require, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma,"

But that says nothing about student involvement. The state law says that students may opt out. My fear is the chilling effect if a lot of students begin to opt out. Teachers may start trying to adjust their presentations to avoid the hassle. But they aren't required to change anything according to state law.

This is why the Missouri law specifically allows non-participation. Nothing special needs to be done. You also interpret the meaning of, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs," to mean that a student could opt out of class... meaning not being physically present but that isn't clear by the statute.
The meaning of "participate in" may eventually be determined by lawsuit but it could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the student do no more than be passively present during any educational presentation; that meaning being determined by the school districts of course.

I concede that it could be interpreted that way; however, the ACLU has this take on it:

Providing all students a right to refrain from school assignments and presentations that violate their religious beliefs is a truly profound change in educational law. The Supreme Court has long held that “[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its ‘basic educational mission,’ even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Providing this exemption will cause untold mischief in both public and parochial schools and will adversely affect the quality of education in Missouri.

http://www.aclukswmo.org/cases/page-cases-aclu-concerned-with-mo-amendment-2.php

 

[Evo]

The thread keeps running off topic, so it is closed.