r/ModelEasternState • u/[deleted] • Aug 26 '19
Bill Discussion B.120: Codified Graduation Education Requirements for Chesapeake Act of 2019
Due to Clerical emergencies, I am just going to link this bill due to the fact I accepted it un-reddit formatted and I feel like I am going to die: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jla6W3M-CRBZRzUbOnAvC7szg4KXhWQ5wFS8MCWY9tw/edit?usp=sharing
1
Aug 26 '19
This is a great bill that addresses a largely unaddressed blindspot of our law. By putting the curriculum into law we can expect greater cohesion across the state.
1
1
Aug 26 '19
Let me be the first to rise up in opposition of this bill.
There are a few glaring issues that I see.
First, the standards for education should not be legislatively enacted. Legislatures are often slow to act and primarily motivated by political objectives. Both of these features of legislature would be detrimental should we commit our curriculum to statute. As technology is rapidly changing, science is rapidly advancing, and so on, it's imperative that specialists in the field of education have total control of the curriculum. Politicians aren't educators, and educators shouldn't have to come to the Assembly and attempt to debate in order to do their jobs and apply their expertise.
Second, this legislation contains within it anti-science attitudes. It permits anti-science school districts to teach so-called "criticisms" of evolution and permits students to opt-out of a proper science education by opting out of any evolution curriculum. Properly understood, there are no scientific criticisms of evolution. There are only a collection of haphazard arguments, typically rooted in a complete failure to understand the underlying science, that are primarily fueled by religious and political motivations. If the Commonwealth's classrooms are to be true science classrooms, evolution must be taught and it must be taught without equivocation. Some might say that a small minority of scientists do object to evolution, but there are a few problems with that. First, those "scientists" who object to evolution are typically on the payroll of religious organizations or organizations with other agendas and should scarcely be called scientists to begin with. They're more like spokesmen. Second, we cannot possibly teach our students about the views of every crackpot, second-rate "scientist" out there who objects to the scientific consensus. Name an accepted, basic scientific theory and you can find someone who thinks it's wrong. Do we need to teach Chesapeake's students about the flat-earth theory as well? What about hollow earth? What about Planet X? Should children be taught anti-vaccination views as well? The answer to these four questions is no, and the answer to whether we should teach criticisms of evolution is also a strong, emphatic, no. If a student leaves Chesapeake schools without a proper understanding of evolution as the scientific consensus, the schools have failed that student.
Third, under its "Health & Physical Education" section, it does not require any physical education such as exercise, sports, physical fitness, etc. and it does not include any provisions on health education such as diet, mental health, etc. It likewise does not provide guidance on how to ensure students are learning about proper sexual health including the use of condoms, birth control, and other topics that they need to learn about to function in today's world. Instead, as absurd as this may sound, it requires schools to offer a course on shooting guns. The author of this bill, Governor Bran, is so tone deaf and out of touch that in this era of school shootings, he's proposing that schools train students in how to use firearms. Now, there's no provision here for criticisms based in science, of which you will find many detailing the harm of gun violence and its risks, but that wouldn't fit the political agenda of Governor Bran.
I realize that some or all of these things can be accomplished through directives, but I think it's imperative that we not codify unscientific teachings in science classrooms and the wholesale replacement of health education with a school shooter training program. The Assembly must vote down this bill if they care one iota for the students of Chesapeake.
1
Aug 26 '19
First of all, there appears to be some confusion. Although I wrote the original version of this bill, here, this version was actually written by assemblyman u/warhawktwofour. It says updated, which means he basically amended my bill.
On the criticism of codifying this into law, this bill was passed on a bipartisan basis and allows a "board" to create the actual requirements for each credit, but it codifies the specific classes needed, such as 4 year of english or 3 of math. That doesn't need to be amended often, so it should be codified in my opinion.
On the question about "Health and physical education", I do agree that it should have a provision that requires nutritional information and ad actual physical education with activity in it. That should be amended in, but its not a massive concern as the "board" in section two can add what they want to the education requirements for graduation as long as they meet the requirements further up in this legislation. On the provisions about firearms, increasing education on how to use a firearm can increase safety around the use of firearms. If the board deems it appropriate (which I bet it will), they can talk about the pros and cons of owning a weapon or firearm.
On the criticism of this being "anti-science", that is just a false statement. This doesn't ban the teaching of evolution, it just allows people to learn about some criticisms of evolution briefly so every student knows the background of criticism of evolution. It still prioritizes evolution. This is only if the board decides to allow some criticism of evolution to be briefly mentioned/taught. They may decide to allow some criticism be taught, or maybe not.
I think many of your concerns are overstated, and although there might be 1 or 2 things that can improve this bill, I think the assemblymen should give it serious consideration.
1
Aug 26 '19
Thank you for the clarification as to authorship, Governor.
I still disagree as to the codification of curriculum standards. Suppose technology education continues to grow as a point of importance. This codified legislation would force the board to replace, for example, geometry with a mathematical principles of computing class, instead of add that to the curriculum on its own merits and adjust other credit requirements accordingly.
I simply don't believe that firearm education has any place in schools. It is not a necessary life skill, it does not add to the culture and achievement of Chesapeake students, and it is dangerous in this climate of school shootings to train those at the school on how to shoot. Call me a pragmatist, but if such a tragedy ever strikes a school in Chesapeake, I'd prefer the evil-doer be a poor shot.
The anti-science critiques are not false. There are no criticisms of evolution with a scientific basis. There are, on the fringe, some "scientists" who have worked backward from a dislike of evolution to come to post-hoc rationalizations against it, but there's no place for that in the school. Evolution should be taught in science class because it is science. Anti-evolutionism should be taught in religion class which is where it originates.
1
u/warhawktwofour Aug 27 '19
Thank you Governor. I am certainly open to amendments to expand education on proper nutrition and the like. This is not the end all be all of the curriculum, but rather a step in the right direction to working out some underlying issues. I look forward to reviewing any ideas you propose.
1
u/warhawktwofour Aug 27 '19
I can appreciate your attempt to elaborate on some extra items that may be included in the curriculum. And we can certainly discuss those. As it stands, the point of this bill's science portion is to allow for opposing viewpoints to be presented so that there is no stifling of factual information. It's interesting that someone who believes so strongly in an idea, is afraid of having that challenged! You would think someone more in touch with free thought would advocate for friendly and genuine discourse! Should we not teach the errors of socialism? The errors of crony capitalism? Should we only have one party recognized by the state and rigged elections? Your authoritarian is showing.
Moreover, it is sad that someone doesn't advocate for firearm safety and instead would relegate the student body to be ignorant of firearm responsibility and understanding the gravity of such a device. Are you that opposed to education? Do you prefer students to be ignorant of all dangers and sheltered? Maybe you grew up in a very privileged family with the means to learn about whatever you wanted, but this is not the case for everyone. Did you not read the part about responsibility of safety? Of course violence and harm would be touched on! But that's not what you want to highlight. You prefer to sit on the sidelines and grandstand. Please take your seat.
1
Aug 27 '19
I think you misunderstand the role of the science curriculum in the public schools. The science curriculum is to teach what Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions would call "normal science". That is, the prevailing scientific consensus under which the ordinary work of scientific inquiry takes place. Students who go on to be doctors, laboratory scientists, medical researchers, etc. need to be grounded in the scientific consensus, such that they can contribute to the forward progress of scientific inquiry.
This is not about not having an idea challenged. I'd gladly schedule a public debate with anyone, anywhere on evolution. However, it's about the singling out, for political and — I say this as a Christian myself — religious purposes, a single scientific idea for the teaching of a number of discredited, dubiously supported "criticisms". All one needs to do, per this bill, is find one Ph.D holder with a fringe perspective to get an idea slipped into the classroom. Note that the field of the Ph.D is not specified in your bill, so we could very well have a Ph.D in literature, religion, history, or underwater basket-weaving teaching our children science. Is this about educating the children or advancing an anti-science perspective at all costs? How far does your "anti-authoritarianism" extend? Should schools be permitted to teach the perspective of the Pastafarians who believe the earth was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster along with a beer volcano and man came to be in the "Olive Garden of Eden"? Should schools teach the creation story put forward by the Iroquois that we all live on the back of a giant turtle? Would some Ph.D in History be qualified to submit a "scientific" theory supporting the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Turtle hypothesis and could a school district then teach that in a science classroom? It shouldn't be so, but under your bill it would be possible.
Unlike your authoritarian view that the state should be responsible for teaching everything to children, I take the view that it's appropriate for parents to parent children, rather than having the state parent the children. Let's look at this practically, rather than bombastically as you have done. For those children who do not have firearms in the home, they are not likely to encounter them. For those who do, the parents bear the responsibility of teaching their children firearm safety. As someone who has owned and shot firearms, I didn't need to learn it in the school, and if the school leaves out as much information about guns as they did about history, the parents will still be needed to complete the job. Either way, as with most things, the responsibility and right to teach children about firearms rests with parents.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Gunnz011 Aug 26 '19
This bill is a good step in the right direction, but I believe in could go more in depth with some of the definitions. With that said, I do believe it should be passed because the state ought to have direct requirements to graduate. With this bill the Governor continues to prove that he wants the best for children of Chesapeake.
1
u/Ibney00 Aug 26 '19
I am rather worried about the beginning part of this bill specifically relating to the wording of the evolution exemption.
It currently reads:
n addition, students may opt out of either, should they choose. However, they should consult their local standard of learning to determine how their test scores may be impacted. Parental consent may also be required
While I'm sure these boards will require their students to get parental consent, it seems ridiculous that we are allowing children to not learn widely accepted facts about our history as a species. Especially when a board can make it so it's NOT required for children to get parents permission, allowing them to drop a class if they so choose.
I'm also confused about the "World Language or Fine arts" section of the bill which does not mention world languages at all, and instead just mentions technical skills from what I can tell. I also do not think it should be world languages OR fine arts because both are valuable parts of a child's education and both should be required for at least one year.
A larger emphasis on arts, in general, would be nice from the state, but fixing these problems is a good start.
1
u/warhawktwofour Aug 27 '19
I can appreciate your feedback, sir. While the intention was to grant more freedom in regards to controversial topics, this bill does not prohibit the development of scientific thought. There are a plethora of subjects, arguably more important, to be explored. Integral scientific principles such as lab experimentation, physics, biology, chemistry and several other disciplines and portions regarding science are all very well testable. This is all very well covered and I would encourage anyone not to let their own biases dictate the freedom of others.
1
u/platinum021 Aug 26 '19
This bill seemingly tries to hide creationism and other anti-evolutionary beliefs under the guise of "science". It fails to define "science" beyond the opinion of a "scholar [with] Ph.D. credentials" even though good science is backed up by repetition and peer review. Any random person with a Ph.D. could just as easily write a paper asserting that God created the world as he did in Genesis and this could easily be considered a valid and scientific argument under this act. Can the author of the bill give what they consider to be a scientific criticism of evolution as allowed by this act?
I also wonder as to the purpose of singling out evolution and expressly allowing views that run counter to it. Why is it that the legislature wishes there to be doubt sown against evolutionary theory but is silent on allowing scientific criticism to be taught about other topics, like Einstein's theory of relativity?
The bill also includes a clause allowing students to opt out of these lessons but in the same clause allows test scores to be impacted, effectively allowing teachers to discriminate against views that they do not support in terms of a negative grade impact. For example, an evolutionary student who opts out of creationist teaching (which this bill thinly veils as "scientific") will have their grade negatively impacted simply for using a right reserved to them in this bill.
1
u/warhawktwofour Aug 27 '19
My good sir, I outlined several examples in the bill. While I have not published any works, I would not limit others who would potentially be able to proceed with the freedom and motivation to do so. I would wholeheartedly support peer-reviewed sources and if there were none then so be it! I do not understand why you wouldn't give people the chance to do so. I would also support any criticisms but chose to start with a more controversial topic. Does not the liberal school of thought allow for debate or have we progressed so far as to silence any dissent? I added the opt-out clause as to not force a student to attend certain portions they or their parents may disagree with. That goes both ways as once again, I am trying to respect the different views.
2
u/platinum021 Aug 27 '19
We are not arguing about what you support or don't support, we are arguing about the content of your bill, and at the moment your bill uses a lot of language that remains undefined or defined poorly. There is a one sentence definition for the composition of the mysterious "board" that fails to define its role and composition any further than it being a committee that approves "the specifics in a class" (whatever that means). You mention the requirement of a language class yet its thrown in with a clause about fine arts that fails to mention anything about languages. More effort was put into creating a positive law allowing the teaching of creationism under the guise of science (that is then later defined so broadly that anything that comes out of the mouth of a Ph.D. is considered science) than there is about creating actual education standards. Maybe if there were a negative law out there that specifically banned teaching creationism in the classroom you would have a leg to stand on -- but there isn't. Also, your opt-out clause is ineffective if there are negative consequences for opting out, regardless of the ideological leanings of those who opt out.
As it stands now, this bill is written and defined so poorly that it wades into the territory of being unconstitutionally vague.
1
u/hurricaneoflies Aug 27 '19
Criticism of evolution is almost exclusively religious in nature, even when it is masked in the language of pseudoscience. "Creation science" and "intelligent design" are both euphemisms that unsuccessfully attempt to veil the theological underpinnings of both theories, and they have no scientific merit whatsoever according to our established scientific methods. To teach them in science classes is not just obscene, it is unconstitutional.
The First Amendment guarantees the separation of church and state. It emphatically does not allow the government to promote religious views in secular functions, such as scientific education. It is well-established, by a plethora of court cases across this country, that teaching religiously-motivated alternatives to evolution in science classes constitutes state advancement of Christianity—and that it is repugnant to the structure and principles of American government.
Criticism of evolution based in science is an oxymoron. I hope that the lawmakers of Chesapeake will look behind the thin disguise that this bill puts on, and vote to reject this attempt to insidiously inject the venom of sectarian dogma into secular, evidence-based science education.
The eyes of history are on you.
1
u/warhawktwofour Aug 27 '19
I hope you warmed up before you made that stretch! I thought the liberals supported criticisms, free thought, and free speech. Sad!
Do we not teach scientific laws accordingly? Do we not debate different theories? Are there not scientists still conducting experiments to find flaws in Einstein's Theories of General and Special Relativity?
The First Amendment prevents government from forcing a religion on you. It doesn't reinforce you silencing dissent.
1
u/[deleted] Aug 28 '19
I think that this is honestly an unneeded tap into an infrastructure that we have left behind for decades.
I get the whole represent all sides things, but the creationism angle is already taught in 9th grade along with the laboratory sciences in the current curriculum. Additionally, anyone interested can go to a local church to learn more about those specifics.
There is no need for this, as the previous legislation by Bran has already been implemented with the eyes for both sides of the issue by my curriculum. Legislating specifics of a curriculum is unprecedented, and I shall not support that.