Wow, I can't believe Kern is still in office. And she actually writes legislation? Let's hope there are enough non-extremist legislators in OK to keep her nonsense out of there. I find it hard to believe that among the few supporters she likely has in the legislature they are truly so inane that they don't understand the weaseliness of all this.
Hey, that Dustin Hughes guy messed up the name "Bueller", which is entirely unacceptable (psst, if we're using a german pronunciation, what he spelled sounds like "boiler").
aidan wrote:Well, I think the author's take on what will happen in most classrooms is a little overwrought and simplistic.
I don't think the author said it was about most classrooms, but a trend I see in these types of bills is legislation that allows teachers or school boards to interpret it the way he just described, like accepting a religious answer to a scientific question.
If we want to get very pedantic and scrutinize that sentence, you'll notice that at the end it says, "identified by the school district." You could interpret that as applying to both clauses or just the later one. Let's say we take the more clear implication that it applies just to the part about "legitimate pedagogical concerns"; in that case, the school boards have huge control over such things, effectively making it standardless (and misleading). Then we are left with the only substantive qualifier to the rule being this:
Quote:Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance[...].
That reads like it seems fair, too, doesn't it? But look closely: it's saying that homework and assignments are to be judged by ordinary academic standards of
substance and ordinary academic standards of
relevance. It's easy to see how the relevance bit doesn't apply to the situations described where one gives a religious answer to a scientific question - it's easy to make a connection of relevance even to the most inane creationist claims. Concerning substance, it now gets a bit subjective and vague again. If the student does a decent job giving references and explanation for their views, are they "substantive"? It's another point where discretion is left up to school boards, I'd imagine.
I can see how some of his examples were too simplistic, though, particularly the last one. There are legitimate reasons for concern though, in my opinion.
Now, much of your defense of avoiding this relies on teachers individually structuring their tests to make it tougher for a student to pass off a religious answer to these questions, but what of the cases where the school board dictates otherwise or where the actual teachers accept religious answers as gradable and comparable to direct answers that illustrate learning the material? Both can look to this legislation for support, if it passes.
aidan wrote: But what I don't understand is what the big problem is. First I thought I heard - 'this thread is whatever it is'. But then I hear 'but we don't want you to talk about this or that...and not only that - but whatever you talk about - you should talk about it in the method we recognize (debate) which by the way I think I do...I just watched the Great Debators (with Denzel Washington) and those people didn't dissect everyone's statements line by line and tell why each sentence was wrong and what was wrong about it and comment on how it was stated with names for the fallacies and everything.
They just made their own statements and let them stand on their own merit.
While I don't mind digressions, at least in my short experience here it seems that if one were to attempt discussion with spendius on this thread it quickly derails the topic. I've made one slight effort to stick to a single topic for a bit, which was the Roman Catholic Church's response to pedophile priests, and we can see how well that went over.
And uh... that was a movie. Movies aren't real
. (psst, I'm joking, not being a jerk)
Even actual formal debates are not conducive to good communication and understanding and attempting to come to more objective conclusions concerning others' ideas. A lot of that comes from the time limits imposed on "real world" debates and the tradition of strict civility which can allow even the most farcical but well-groomed person to seem to have even footing with an honest and more accurate person. Here I would be thinking of someone like Duane Gish.
Perhaps I used the wrong phrasing when I referenced a "debate format", so sorry for that. What I am trying to refer to is a somewhat combative and thorough discussion, but not combative in a bad way, obviously
. Merely people with established opinions who are willing to both substantiate them and argue against others' ideas and hopefully come to some kind of synthesis if both sides do a good job. This doesn't mean knee-jerk reactions or deliberate misinterpretation, either. Just a commitment to ... well, debate.
