New Florida law lets any resident challenge what's taught in science classes

[Eugene]

Last edited Sat Jul 22, 2017, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

New Florida law lets any resident challenge what’s taught in science classes

By Sarah Kaplan July 1

Any resident in Florida can now challenge what kids learn in public schools, thanks to a new law that science education advocates worry will make it harder to teach evolution and climate change.

The legislation, which was signed by Gov. Rick Scott (R) this week and goes into effect Saturday, requires school boards to hire an “unbiased hearing officer” who will handle complaints about instructional materials, such as movies, textbooks and novels, that are used in local schools. Any parent or county resident can file a complaint, regardless of whether they have a student in the school system. If the hearing officer deems the challenge justified, he or she can require schools to remove the material in question.

The statute includes general guidelines about what counts as grounds for removal: belief that the material is “pornographic” or “is not suited to student needs and their ability to comprehend the material presented, or is inappropriate for the grade level and age group.”

Proponents of the new law say it makes the challenge process easier for parents and gives residents a greater say in their children's education. And state Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Naples), who sponsored the bill, told Nature in May that his intent wasn't to target any particular subject.

But Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Council for Science Education, said that affidavits filed by supporters of the bill suggest that science instruction will be a focus of challenges. One affidavit from a Collier County resident complained that evolution and global warming were taught as “reality.” Another criticized her child's sixth-grade science curriculum, writing that “the two main theories on the origin of man are the theory of evolution and creationism,” and that her daughter had only been taught about evolution.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/01/new-florida-law-lets-any-resident-challenge-whats-taught-in-science-classes/

[longship]

1. Those comments could be used in a court challenge.

As to secular purpose in the bill.

That is one prong of the Lemon Test, one of the bedrock principles in first amendment religious establishment tests.

There are three prongs to the Lemon test:
=====
1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

Factors.
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
=====

Note: the failure of even one of the prongs of the Lemon test is constitutionally fatal to the law.

[Igel]

4. Depends on what the legislators say.

And the frequency of the religion-based complaints.

Take the ACA. Secular, right?

But lots of people were citing NT--as you do unto the least of these, etc., etc.

How about immigration reform?

Lots of people cite the Tanakh/OT, in how Israel was to treat the stranger well.

Leave out all the rest of the comments, leave out what the legislators themselves say, leave out the idea that for many morality and religion are largely coincident (so ideas of social justice, proper punishment, etc., are often reflected in and express through religious-flavored language), and lots of laws and legislative thrusts fail this test.

Suddenly the ACA and attempts at immigration reform would be primarily religious.

This is a pile of crap. If many of the population are religious, you're going to have religion intruding in their language and complaints. Harshly imposing a purely secular regime on those who are religious is no less offensive than imposing a harshly religious regime on those who aren't. It is *not* the case that one view must preview, be labeled "peas," and everybody who disagrees must be forced to eat them by their nurturing, caring (and yet authoritarianly strict) mother.

In some ways, I'd like this law in Texas. The way they taught in much of elementary school was ridiculous. It neither helped many kids nor was it suited for most of the kids' cognitive level.

As for creationism, I've taught a high school course in which evolution is explicitly taught at one point, implicitly assumed at other times. However, young-Earth creationists would take offense at a lot more, examining things like the Big Bang, or planet formation, etc., etc. The only objections I've gotten from anybody were kids, and the only kids who objected weren't those who believed any of this, but who just wanted to disrupt because any disruption gives them free time, makes for less content to learn, and even more important for many let's them think they're important. (Because there are two ways of being equal: Keep up with others or trip up others.)

Most kids know you don't have to believe what you learn for a test. My high-school girlfriend was a strict young-Earth creationist. When we studied biology in high school, she was the top scorer, and when most of the class failed the teacher asked her to review the class for a retest he decided to give. She knew the content. She thought it was completely wrong. Most people who *don't* learn about this are just uninterested. If people were as interested in fighting the "why kids don't care" issue as they do this, you'd find schools would have less of a struggle to get more kids to graduate with decent grades. I mean, when's the last time you needed biological evolution or planetary formation for fixing a car, making a meal, balancing the books, designing a new ad campaign, installing plumbing, or most other jobs? Granted, it's a bit more useful than jer rise in Slavic languages, but for most people not much.

[Freethinker65]

2. Taking tax payer money away from education? Not surprised

[Docreed2003]

3. No teacher in a public school should be put in a position to teach "creationism"

If families want that, take your kids to Sunday School.

[BadgerKid]

5. Seems like backdoor public-funded religious instruction

Could be being sought here.