Most teachers are sensitive to the need of the students. The students need education in science as well as many other subjects to be educated to live in a diverse secular scientific society.
That would be illegal. The teacher must teach to the State approved curriculum and the State approved curriculum has no mention of YEC or ID in any of the science class curriculum or textbooks. It doesn’t have OEC nor TE/EC in it either.
Great. Unfortunately, it provides no support at all for your claims.
Quite. And part of good education in science sometimes includes placing science into the social context of the student.
That is your claim, a claim that you have so far been unable to support. Could you please stop making it until you have evidence to back it up?
Indeed. Moreover:
A state-approved curriculum does NOT specify what a teacher can and cannot say—nor does it provide a list of topics which, if mentioned, violate the law as “illegal speech”. That’s absurd, Patrick. I find it difficult to believe that you actually think that.
State-approved curriculum statements are basically guidelines for what teachers are expected to cover in their classes. They describe what students are expected to learn (hopefully.) There is no “Teachers, don’t you dare mention anything in class that is not in this state-approved curriculum!”
Patrick, sometimes I wonder if you are just pranking us. This is one of those times. We all agree that a public school teacher should not prepare a tangential lesson unit on “Here’s the detailed arguments supporting what Young Earth Creationists believe about X.” Yet nowhere in case law—and I defy you to cite a single case of effective prosecution—where a teacher is prohibited by actual legislation or Constitutional provisions (and not just a frightened school board or principal) from answering a students question by telling them that (1) Americans of this or that viewpoint exist, and (2) suggesting in general terms where that student might learn more about those diverse opinions. You keep mentioning the growing diversity of our society and yet you appear to simultaneously oppose any efforts by teachers to help students understand that diversity. (Or do you only oppose the understanding of diverse opinions when they involve religion?)
No, I don’t want public school teachers proselytizing in the classroom for their religion or neglecting curriculum standards while emphasizing secondary or tertiary topics. Meanwhile, there is absolutely nothing illegal about a teacher answering student questions and helping students of varied backgrounds to understand that not all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, et al consider evolutionary biology to conflict with their holy scriptures—while also acknowledging that some of them do… If we genuinely support diversity in American society, we must support mutual understanding of that diversity—and that understanding comes in part through education.
Patrick, I read the entire article and I was surprised to see that it actually defies your position. (I’m not surprised at the content of the article—it basically agrees with my own position—but my astonishment was that you consider it in support of your “Mentioning these topics is illegal” claims.)
I was especially surprised that you would cite that article when it even explains that a teacher could quite lawfully invite the mother of a Jewish student to come to the classroom and explain/demonstrate how Jews typically celebrate their holidays. (It states that this could be an appropriate answer to a student question about Hanukkah.) The article even carefully cites lots of case law for this and other examples, something you’ve not provided for your position thus far.
I would have to take my chances with that. As an educator, my primary professional responsibility is to my students. And keeping them ignorant of the world around them would be a violation of that responsibility.
I am not a lawyer. However I am a member of FFRF and when I see something close to the line of separation of church and state, I send it to the lawyers over there to have a look.
The Lemon test is probably the place to look. The Entanglement prong would seem to fit this situation:
" First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion."
I wouldn’t be surprised if some school districts put overly cautious policies in place to avoid violating constitutional law. I think it is entirely appropriate for teachers to talk about religion in a neutral and limited manner, but I can also understand why teachers and school administrators would be fearful of unintentionally going too far.
It might also be worth mentioning all of the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and other religious and devout scientists who accept the theory of evolution.
Absolutely. It is easy to take that fact for granted but many children may come from homes where that is a shocking revelation.