Let the parents in each school districts decide.
Period.
If EITHER side gets the federal government to go their way.. well then.. that means the FED has the power to decide curriculum at the elementary school level. At that point liberals and conservatives honestly say the folowing...
1. I want bill clinton to create the Sex Ed curriculum.
Both sides i HOPE say a resounding NO.
2. I want george bush to create curriculum.
most of one side will say NO WAY.
so folks... get the federal government out of this job.
Let the struggle happen at the local level.
Let parents choose where their kids go to school
Let them also FIGHT locally over the books to use.
If we do it this way then we dont screw up the ENTIRE school system at once.. just little parts here and there that go wacko.. but.. ONE wacko in the whitehouse. .and VOOM...
a WHOLE generation thinks man is causing global warming..
(oops.. my bias shows)
Answers:
Education is a states issue, and indeed they have created the curriculum at this level.
Every state has decided that its best to teach science. Private schools exist for those who wish to use them.
Evolution is the only scientific theory, therefor taught in science class. Creationism is not scientific, thus part of a religion. They have private schools which teach religion over science. I think that system works pretty well. Actually it works terrible considering around 50% of Americans don't accept evolution, but it worked for me.
I would want Clinton teaching sex ed. Bush's plan is to only teach absinence. This is proven not to work and can be very dangerous. Clinton would teach them what they need to know to learn about sex. I would rather my kid says "the president cheated on his wife and got a BJ in office, how disrespectful" rather then say "What is a BJ? I don't understand that the news is talking about".
The danger I see in your plan is that a bunch of schools in Arkansas and Alabama would teach that they earth is flat, 6000 years old, and Global Warming is actually called "Jesus Summer".
Absolutely not. Science is not a democracy - will we decide gravity doesn't work next because we'd rather pretend we can fly? How about germ theory - so we don't have to wash our hands any more?
Not an easy question to answer because we have evolved into thinking beings.
As for your argument that all curriculum decisions should be local, why stop there? Why not let each teacher decide what he or she will teach? How about if the teacher changes curriculum each year or ever period of the school day? Better yet, have each student at age 4 (or younger) decide what he or she wants to learn and order it from an educate-me menu.
That, my friend, is a recipe for educational chaos and cultural suicide. Public education is not homeschooling, nor is it a fastfood drivethough where everyone makes decisions on a whim. I'll wait for the tidalwave of 'homesurgery' to come next.
Of course, we could all deny global warming, just like the experts denied that tobacco causes cancer, but that's another discussion. (oops..MY bias is showing)
First of all, why would you teach either? Neither is important in themselves for most jobs. Their importance is in learning scientific reasoning. Now I have no problem with intelligent design, and I feel fine with the theory, but it's not scientific, it's faith based, and so it's pointless to teach it to a science class who never even had to learn this in the first place. Evolution, maybe it's a controversial theory, but it is a well constructed theory using scientific principles, so in teaching it, at least you are teaching these principles.
Personally, I think if a population is just against talking about evolution because it connected too much to their faith (which is legitimate because that can also interfere with learning), than those schools should just teach a different scientific theory, like gravity, to teach the principles of science. Science and how science works must be taught, and it can't be substituted for bad science when religious views are too strong, but we don't always have to choose the most polarizing things to talk about if all we're going to talk about is how they're so polarizing.
First of all, education is almost completely controlled by the states. When you take a standardized test, it's a state exam. (Ex.: New York students take the Regents Exams.) Public colleges are funded by the states. (Hence CUNY and SUNY schools) The federal government has a little control (No Child Left Behind, which has been a disaster), but it doesn't control the individual curriculums of different schools.
Next, you suggest that the answer is to teach based on what locals want their children to be taught. The only problem is that this can be abused. For example, by your logic, if a school district wants to teach that pi is equal to exactly 3, it can do that. Also, it is easier to correct a statewide problem than a singel schools problem. For instance, in a district with lots of evangelicals, public schools could teach creationism and have a class on Christian scriptures, which is a clear violation of seperation of church and state. In a very liberal community, there could be a class with a unit explaining why President Bush is an idiot.
I believe that by now you get my point: if curriculums were sculpted by local residents, especially poorly educated ones, schools could end up teaching things that are untrue or biased. Trust me, there are a lot of people who want schools to teach their personal views, so the problems wouldn't be limited to a few schools. Rather, you could end up with a third of all districts having the problems I just discussed.
In conclusion, if local factions control the curriculum, schools will teached biased and/or false information to appease parents with their own agendas.
You can teach both, just not in the same classroom. Evolution needs to be taught in science since that's what scientists have determined to be they're leading theory. Intelligent design however, is not a testable hypothesis, and thus isn't science. If you want to teach it, teach it in theology. You can not teach it in science, unless you revamp the entire basis of science or somehow make intelligent design testable.
This article contents is post by this website user, EduQnA.com doesn't promise its accuracy.
More Questions & Answers...