Where's the problem?

As the Senate education committee gears up to debate Sen. Ronda Storms "academic freedom" bill today, a recently released committee staff analysis raises this point: "According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work."

Sound familiar? The Gradebook raised this issue three weeks ago.

The staff analysis also references the nature-of-science component of the new science standards to conclude: "Taken as a whole, the science standards encourage teachers and students to discuss the full range of scientific evidence related to all science, including evolution." Does that mean Storms' bill – which would give teachers the "right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views" on evolution – is redundant?

The committee packet also includes a proposed amendment from Sen. Stephen Wise, who is co-sponsoring Storms's bill. We'll hear more about all this in a bit …

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Drew Smith]

But, Ron, will we *hear* more about all this? (Normally, I wouldn't comment on that kind of mistake, but hey, it's an education blog.)

He was obviously educated locally.

[Offensive Christian]

Ron,

Does society have to wait until someone is prosecuted before protecting them?

The wording of the bill doesn't inject religion into the classroom - I wish more people would read it.

I'm against anyone teaching religion in public schools, christianity, islam, judaism, secular humanism...

OC
www.offensivechristians.com

[Drew Smith]

Offensive Christian wrote: "Does society have to wait until someone is prosecuted before protecting them?"

Nope, but so far, not even evidence for the *threat* of discrimination has been produced. (I don't know where you got the idea that "prosecution" enters into this.)

***

Offensive Christian wrote: "The wording of the bill doesn't inject religion into the classroom"

The bill explicitly refers to the "full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution." That it refers to no other aspect of science, nor to any other aspect of content covered in K-12 education, allows us to reasonably conclude that the bill isn't about "academic freedom", but instead, is about providing a mechanism for schoolteachers to inject specifically non-science, masquerading as science, into the K-12 science classroom. If the bill were truly about "academic freedom", why would it limit itself in regards to what subject matter was being "protected"?

***

Offensive Christian wrote: "I'm against anyone teaching religion in public schools, christianity, islam, judaism, secular humanism..."

Since the teaching of evolution isn't about teaching "secular humanism", what, exactly, is the point of your remark?