Seperation of Church and State in School as it applies to evolution

[Hegel]

Should private schools in the United States (sorry to those from other countries, don't know what the situation is like over there) be required to teach evolution as the current accepted scientific theory, in order to be legaly recognized by the government as educational institutions?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Hegel
Should private schools in the United States (sorry to those from other countries, don't know what the situation is like over there) be required to teach evolution as the current accepted scientific theory, in order to be legaly recognized by the government as educational institutions?

No, private schools should not be required to teach evolution.

Is the part of your quote that I have put in bold an actual classification? If so, are there schools that are not so recognized now and why not?

MattJ

[dsm]

Originally posted by Hegel
Should private schools in the United States (sorry to those from other countries, don't know what the situation is like over there) be required to teach evolution as the current accepted scientific theory, in order to be legaly recognized by the government as educational institutions?

Private schools are private and so can teach in whatever manner they choose unless they are looking for public funds from the government. At that point they should be required to conform to the standards of a public education. If those standards include passing exams in science that include questions on evolution, then so be it.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Hegel
Should private schools in the United States be required to teach evolution as the current accepted scientific theory, in order to be legaly recognized by the government as educational institutions?
I think so.

Certain standards must be met in order to be considered 'educated'. You must know that 1+1=2, that the Earth revolves around the sun and that the english alphabet starts with A and ends with Z. An understanding of biology (including evolution) should be a part of that standard, given its importance in understanding how the world came to be.

[corplinx]

Of course, government colleges and universities _could_ include in their admissions standards certain criterion aside from act/sat scores to try to force private schools to teach things like evolution.

With the rise of home schooling, it may be important for government universities to make specific requirements aside from standardized test scores to gain admission. There is certain literature that probably should have been read by college. A student should at least have enough biology to understand natural selection, mutation, and adaption and understand their role.

[voidx]

As DSM said, they are private, and currently they can teach in whatever manner they like, but is that a good thing? Who sets the standard for Private school curriculum? If Evolution should not be required, then what alternative do you suggest? Creationism? I'm just curious. Is public education perfect, no. Is private education perfect, no also. In what ways perhaps is Private education also lacking? As a preponent of Private schooling do you know what those might be? If no, shouldn't you find out, especially since it concerns the future education of your children, or yourself.

[Agammamon]

Private schools may teach as they please, however in order to graduate from any high school you must meet several state mandated minimums for courses. In biology one of those minimums should be a firm grasp of evolution, the private school may also teach creationism, ID, or the Zeus buggered some cow theory of creation.

[daenku32]

I would ask:

Should publicly funded colleges be forced to accept students from private schools?

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx
As DSM said, they are private, and currently they can teach in whatever manner they like, but is that a good thing? Who sets the standard for Private school curriculum? If Evolution should not be required, then what alternative do you suggest? Creationism? I'm just curious. Is public education perfect, no. Is private education perfect, no also. In what ways perhaps is Private education also lacking? As a preponent of Private schooling do you know what those might be? If no, shouldn't you find out, especially since it concerns the future education of your children, or yourself.

You didn't finish reading what I said. The government can only set standards when public money is involved. In all other cases, it is buyer (ie. parents) beware. Parents should be free to raise their kids in the manner they choose (except when it represents a danger to the child). That may include taking them to a private school that teaches religion rather than science, but hopefully parents will realize that, for their kid to be functioning members of today's society, some scientific grounding will be necessary.

[dsm]

Originally posted by daenku32
I would ask:

Should publicly funded colleges be forced to accept students from private schools?

Only if they pass the entrance exam like everyone else.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hegel
Should private schools in the United States (sorry to those from other countries, don't know what the situation is like over there) be required to teach evolution as the current accepted scientific theory, in order to be legaly recognized by the government as educational institutions?

If they were going for a certain academic accreditation or certification, and that was a requirement, then certainly they could be denied it if they didn't meet the requirements. But I don't see any reason why the government should step in and force them to teach or not teach anything.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Parents should be free to raise their kids in the manner they choose (except when it represents a danger to the child). That may include taking them to a private school that teaches religion rather than science, but hopefully parents will realize that, for their kid to be functioning members of today's society, some scientific grounding will be necessary.
However, having your kid sent to a school that doesn't teach proper science (or proper math, or proper English) is a danger to the child. Perhaps not immediately, but it will greatly limit future prospects. If you send your student to a school that doesn't teach science properly, they may never become doctors, or biologists, or astronomers, or any of a wide range of jobs. They may also make really dumb decisions, like trusting homeopaths.

And although most parents are well-meaning, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are all that competent. They may want their children to learn "real" science, and as they may know it, "real" science may come from the bible.

[voidx]

You didn't finish reading what I said.

No, I did finish reading it, but I don't think it changes anything. I realize that legally they cannot set standards. I was asking, was that necessarily a good thing if they can't. I agree in being able to have freedom in how you choose to raise your children. But the idea of buyer beware seems foolish for education, its fine for used cars, but not your childs education, if you ask me. I don't think most parents are necessarily able to make an informed enough decision overall if a curriculum is better or worse for their child in the long run. I especially don't like the idea of "some" science. If a private school wanted to teach its religious ideals along side a full science course, including evolution, for which there is some proof, that would be fine, even if I disagree with religion. But I don't believe that's the case. Most often its a teaching of Religion at the expense of a full tiered Science curriculum because on several issues, evolution vs creationism for one, they differ almost entirely. Being this is a skeptic forum I would assume most people would agree there is quite large amount of data supporting evolution over say any alternatives, especially creationism. Can someone give me an example also what might be the differences in curriculum from a private to public school? Especially if the private school is religion based. I imagine that most of the differences in the curriculum would surface in a replacing of religion over certain aspects of science, such as evolution, that contradict certain religious beliefs. That is just my personal theory however.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
No, private schools should not be required to teach evolution.
Do you feel the state has any role in setting curriculum objectives for private schools?

In my opinion, I think some general standards are a good idea. The state has an interest in maintaining a minimum level of educational quality for all children.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

However, having your kid sent to a school that doesn't teach proper science (or proper math, or proper English) is a danger to the child. Perhaps not immediately, but it will greatly limit future prospects. If you send your student to a school that doesn't teach science properly, they may never become doctors, or biologists, or astronomers, or any of a wide range of jobs. They may also make really dumb decisions, like trusting homeopaths.


If you choose to send your kid to a private school and these things are of concern to you, then you should be checking the credentials of the school that you choose. Credentials might include validated backgrounds of the teachers of the school, information on past students of distinction, etc. If a school doesn't provide you with credentials that suite your needs, then you go elsewhere and they lose out.

That's supposedly how free enterprise would work in the education system.


And although most parents are well-meaning, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are all that competent. They may want their children to learn "real" science, and as they may know it, "real" science may come from the bible.


Ummm, I think the definition of "freedom" includes the freedom to make mistakes. Since children do not (yet) have the freedom to raise themselves, they may have to live with the consequences of that mistake, but (hopefully) they don't have to continue the mistake with their own kids.

[dsm]

Originally posted by DrBenway
The state has an interest in maintaining a minimum level of educational quality for all children.

Why?

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx

I don't think most parents are necessarily able to make an informed enough decision overall if a curriculum is better or worse for their child in the long run.


If not, then don't consider a private school -- send your kid to public school with it's publicly decided standards and know that, while it may not be "the best of the best", it won't be "the worst of the worst".

:cool:

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Do you feel the state has any role in setting curriculum objectives for private schools?

In my opinion, I think some general standards are a good idea. The state has an interest in maintaining a minimum level of educational quality for all children.

I would be perfectly happy if the state wanted to set a voluntary curriculum for private schools. I also agree that general standards are a good idea, but I don't agree so strongly that I want to force my standards on anyone else.

MattJ

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I would be perfectly happy if the state wanted to set a voluntary curriculum for private schools. I also agree that general standards are a good idea, but I don't agree so strongly that I want to force my standards on anyone else.

I'm for minimal standards for each grade level, such that a child in a private program would be at no serious disadvantage if transferred to a public school. I'm also in favor of flexibility beyond those minimal standards.

Children deprived of adequate early educational opportunities suffer life-long injury.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by dsm
Why?
A certain level of literacy, general knowledge, and reasoning ability among the citizenry is prerequisite to the health and stability of a democratic state.

[voidx]

The freedom to make mistakes doesn't prevent us from trying to eliminate making those mistakes if we know better, that's just ridiculous. What's wrong with a standard, minimum set of educational standards or curriculum across the board. If I understand you correctly your basically saying, if you're smart enough to make a wise decision you can send your child to one of the good/best private schools, but if you screw up, you might end up sending them to one of the bad/worst private schools. We can prevent mistakes like that simply by insisting on certain key topics being taught, and meeting a certain level. If a private school wants to specialize in certain area's or using money or whatever to provide in their opinion a higher caliber of teacher, that's fine, but certain things should make up the basis of a curriculum.

[dsm]

You basically have three choices:


The public school system where the government can set uniform standards based upon accepted educational requirements and local as well as national needs.
A private school that can demonstrate to you the value of their curriculum above and beyond that which is available in public schools.
A private school that fits your desire for the type of education that you want to impart to your kids in areas other than strict education (ie. religion, military discipline, etc.) that public schools do not address.


Remember that choice #1 is always available if you become disenchanted with choices #2 and #3. With these choices available to you, your freedom to parent your kids the way you want is preserved while basic standards in education are also provided for.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by dsm
Remember that choice #1 is always available if you become disenchanted with choices #2 and #3. With these choices available to you, your freedom to parent your kids the way you want is preserved while basic standards in education are also provided for.
Some religious nuts feel that women, for example, don't need to learn much math and science. Others feel that certain holy books have all the knowledge a person needs.

Do you think it's fine for these folks to have complete control over the education their children receive?

[dsm]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Some religious nuts feel that women, for example, don't need to learn much math and science. Others feel that certain holy books have all the knowledge a person needs.

Do you think it's fine for these folks to have complete control over the education their children receive?

Sure -- it's their right. If they want to go off into some commune somewhere and live happily ever after without ever interacting with others who do not feel the same as they do, then more power to them. However, if they want to be a part of society, then they are going to be "infected" by the society's standards whether they like it or not. As the infection spreads, their kids will begin to ask questions as they grow up which will lead to the elimination of the practices.

Do you think it's fine that educational standards be established such that public education is only taught in a politically correct manner so that no one even thinks of these "bad" practices? Well, according to the Language Police (http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl-et-book28apr28,0,5497790.story?coll=la-headlines-books-manual), our school textbooks have been so doctored by "sensitivity committees" that that's what we already have in public education.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Do you think it's fine for these folks to have complete control over the education their children receive?

Unfortunately, knowledge is not a right. However, ignorance seems to be.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by dsm
Sure -- it's their right. If they want to go off into some commune somewhere and live happily ever after without ever interacting with others who do not feel the same as they do, then more power to them.
But the children aren't able to provide their consent for such educational handicaps.

Do you view children as property owned by parents, subject to any manipulation a parent might decide upon, no matter how potentially risky to the child's future as a productive citizen?

[Badger]

Originally posted by DrBenway

But the children aren't able to provide their consent for such educational handicaps.

Do you view children as property owned by parents, subject to any manipulation a parent might decide upon, no matter how potentially risky to the child's future as a productive citizen?

Rather than looking at the issue this way, I would be wondering how much government interference in my family is too much.

Are none of us competent enough to make any decisions and so must have the government think for us? Or do we allow people to exercise their freedoms and suffer the consequences of it? Where do we draw the line, and how?

Do we tell Hutterites, Mennonites, and the Amish that they need to teach their kids this or that? Do we tell parents they can't send their kids to Catholic School, or some other religious institution? What's next? Forcing poor people to send their bright kids on to college even though they can't afford it?

Yes, I agree that it may be a real shame that children are educationally handicapped by the decisions of their parents, but I think that is part of the price of freedom. We are all "handicapped" in some way by the choices our parents made for us, aren't we? But the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them is important.

I agree with what DSM said about communes and kids becoming "infected" by outside culture. If the child ends up resenting the parent for bad choices, that's between them.

In my opinion, anyway.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Hegel
(sorry to those from other countries, don't know what the situation is like over there)

Over here in the UK we have something called the National Curriculum (http://www.nc.uk.net/home.html) which sets out core subjects and programmes of tuition that all schools--whether public (private in USian) or state (public) schools must adhere to; if schools wish to offer extra tuition or complementary subjects they're fully entitled to.

Last year there was a big row about Emmanuel College (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm), a City Technology College (partly state and partly privately funded). This college was teaching creationism alongside, and as a counterpoint to, evolution, which is nowhere in the National Curriculum. IMO, teaching creationism and intelligent design is fine but has no place in the teaching of science, regardless of how the school in question is funded.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DrBenway

A certain level of literacy, general knowledge, and reasoning ability among the citizenry is prerequisite to the health and stability of a democratic state.

In total agreement to that one (I think that's the basis of the provision of state schooling in the UK). There's also the added benefit of providing an educated and disciplined workforce, but overall the benefits outweight the costs ;)

Cool avatar by the way, and a blimmin' excellent album!

[voidx]

A private school that fits your desire for the type of education that you want to impart to your kids in areas other than strict education (ie. religion, military discipline, etc.) that public schools do not address.

Ahh, now that's what we're talking about isn't it. What fits into strict education? In my opinion a full tiered Science curriculum teaching evolution is part of that strict education category. Do you? That's what I was trying to get across. Its ok for Private schools to to teach different area's not addressed in public schools, but that basic, hard-line educational curriculum should be standard, and should included Sciences and Evolution. Heh and if done objectively, go ahead and teach Creationism as a counter-point, I don't think it would fare very well.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I'm for minimal standards for each grade level, such that a child in a private program would be at no serious disadvantage if transferred to a public school. I'm also in favor of flexibility beyond those minimal standards.

I didn't realize this was a danger for private schools. I attended a private (protestant Christian) school in kindergarten and 1st grade. The public school I later moved to caught up with the private material (math, reading, spelling) probably somewhere around the middle of the third grade.

Originally posted by DrBenway
Children deprived of adequate early educational opportunities suffer life-long injury.

I agree. I believe that you are far more likely to discover this problem in public schools, however. Do you believe people will pay thousands of dollars to send their children to schools that don't adequately teach reading, math, and science? Do you believe the thread topic (evolution) is something that, if not learned by age 6, will result in life-long injury?

Which private schools are the ones that worry you?

MattJ

[dsm]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Do you view children as property owned by parents, subject to any manipulation a parent might decide upon, no matter how potentially risky to the child's future as a productive citizen?


Assessing the risk of a child's present is done all the time by the courts and parents, when necessary, can have their children removed from their care due to risky behaviors that affect the child's immediate health (beatings, drug use, failure to seek medical help, etc.).

However, assessing the risk to a child's future is another thing entirely. Are you asking us to play psychic and read a child's tea leaves to determine what's best for the child? I thought this was a skeptic's forum? Rarely (if ever?) do the courts get involved with the question of how a parent chooses to raise their child as it can lead down a slippery slope. Today you clamor for education that includes (your definition of) the basics of science and math, but do you begin adding things like morality and ethics tomorrow? Where does it end?

You failed to answer my question on the political correctness and the Language Police. Here's another example (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Interview/2139/language.html) of how a government can get out of control by attempting to determine what's right for it's populace. Parents make mistakes like any other human. The children grow up, freely choose to learn a new way, and improve things for the next generation.

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx

Ahh, now that's what we're talking about isn't it. What fits into strict education? In my opinion a full tiered Science curriculum teaching evolution is part of that strict education category. Do you? That's what I was trying to get across. Its ok for Private schools to to teach different area's not addressed in public schools, but that basic, hard-line educational curriculum should be standard, and should included Sciences and Evolution. Heh and if done objectively, go ahead and teach Creationism as a counter-point, I don't think it would fare very well.


My argument has been that we don't have to mandate an educational curriculum to private schools -- it will mandate itself over time. If graduates of a private school do not make it in society because the school's curriculum was backward, then parents are not going to bring their kids to the school and the school will go out of business (it is, after all, privately funded). If some parents still use the private school after it's failure to demonstrate success, then that's the price of freedom. The kids may suffer, but they will still be free to choose a different path for themselves and their kids when they reach adulthood.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Ummm, I think the definition of "freedom" includes the freedom to make mistakes. Since children do not (yet) have the freedom to raise themselves, they may have to live with the consequences of that mistake, but (hopefully) they don't have to continue the mistake with their own kids.

Unfortunately, any 'mistakes' a parent makes will not be felt by the parent themselves, but by their kids. That is why we need to ensure that even private schools teach common core subjects.

If I were a parent, I should have the right (and freedom) to raise my kid the way I see fit. But this 'freedom' should have its limits. But, that does not mean that I would have the right to, for example, let the kid go without food for days, or make them get a job when they're 10 years old. (Just look at the cases where parents have taken their kids to 'natural' healers, rather than real doctors. The parents were well-meaning, but misguided.)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Unfortunately, any 'mistakes' a parent makes will not be felt by the parent themselves, but by their kids. That is why we need to ensure that even private schools teach common core subjects.


And therein lies the beginning of the slippery slope (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm).

:rolleyes:

[Tmy]

No wonder I got A's in Catholic School. It was simple, JESUS is the answer to everything. After all he's everwhere and everything.

Who freed the slaves? Jesus

What is the center of our solar system? Jesus

What is the squre root of 81? Jesus


At my school they did teach evolution. We also had religion class that taught creationism. HOW YOU ASK! Well as always those shifty nuns had answers to our balsphemous questions.

Whenever they got the "How was the Earth n stuff created in 7 days" they dodged the question by saving "7 days isnt literal" . Made sense to me. I mean how can you have days before the Earth was even created when a day = 1 Earth rotation. God's clock works different than mans.

[jj]

Anyone graduating from High School should be able to answer the following:

What is the Scientific Method?

What is Darwin's theory of evolution?

What are the modern counterparts to Darwin's theory?

Are there any other credible, testable theories regarding the origins of the human race?

Is evolution a good example of the Scientific Method?

Is the treatment of Wegner's theory a good example of the Scientific Method?

What is the most important difference between science and mathematics?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm


And therein lies the beginning of the slippery slope (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm).

:rolleyes:
You do realize that the link you posted points to a web site which discusses "logical fallacies" (i.e. arguments that people make which have incorrect reasoning behind them). Were you implying that forcing certain core cirriculum would lead to a loss of all freedom in teaching children?

Even if it was an issue, there are plenty of 'slippery slope' situations that parents must face even today. (You can discipline a child, but not beat them. You can make them go to bed without dinner, but not starve them.) I certainly don't see parents claiming that they have lost all freedom to raise their kids because they can't starve them to death if they wanted.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Even if it was an issue, there are plenty of 'slippery slope' situations that parents must face even today. (You can discipline a child, but not beat them. You can make them go to bed without dinner, but not starve them.) I certainly don't see parents claiming that they have lost all freedom to raise their kids because they can't starve them to death if they wanted.


Go back a few posts to my comments on the Language Police.

Some things have immediate impact on the welfare of the child and, thus, society has a duty to protect the child in those circumstances. Other things only have a potential impact on the future welfare of the child and having society intervene in those cases in the parent's right to raise a child is where the slippery slope begins. Basically, the proposition has been that:


If some children are not taught science (including evolution) in a standard manner, then those children will not be productive members of society. Thus, all children must be taught science in the standard manner in both public and private schools.


We do not at this time know that a child who does not receive science training today will not be a productive member of society tomorrow. Therefore, this not a justification for forcing a certain manner of education on everyone.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I didn't realize this was a danger for private schools.
I realize that many private schools do a better job at educating kids than many public schools. But I'm less concerned about where we draw the line between an average school and a good school. I'm more concerned about where we draw the line between a poor school and a really horrible school.

Are there some minimal standards that we ought to support to prevent some children from missing out on basic skills?

I'd say yes.

One of the complaints the US has had against the Middle East, is that many children there, particularly female children, are given an inadequate education. This is partly why democratic reforms have been so difficult in the region.

This is not to say that some schools in the Middle East are not top notch. Again, I'm speaking about the bottom end of the spectrum.

If Islamic primary and secondary schools in the US were to teach the Qu'ran and "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" as history, would we say, "Hey, to each his own"?

[Frostbite]

Sure they should. The theory of evolution at least obeys the laws of physics. Creation should also be teached, the children should make the choice themselves.

[Tmy]

Well it is just a theory.


I believe it was the great Homer Simpson who said "In theory? In theory communism works.......in THEORY!"

[dsm]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I realize that many private schools do a better job at educating kids than many public schools. But I'm less concerned about where we draw the line between an average school and a good school. I'm more concerned about where we draw the line between a poor school and a really horrible school.


In the case of private schools, isn't the line that a poor school is one that attracts a few parents for some unknown reason while a really horrible school is one that attracts no one?

The point is private schools are privately funded. They live or die on the parents bringing kids to them for education. If they are known to be really horrible, they don't get kids and, thus, go out of business. If they successfully hide the fact that they are really horrible, then mandating a curriculum will not help.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Basically, the proposition has been that:


If some children are not taught science (including evolution) in a standard manner, then those children will not be productive members of society. Thus, all children must be taught science in the standard manner in both public and private schools.


We do not at this time know that a child who does not receive science training today will not be a productive member of society tomorrow. Therefore, this not a justification for forcing a certain manner of education on everyone.

Yes, there are no guarantees that a child who is not taught science will not become 'productive'. As well, there is no guarantee that a child taught proper science will not be a failure. It is oportunity I am talking about here.

It depends on what you mean by productive. Yes, a child who is not taught proper science, math or english may become successful, but personal opportunities will be severely limited. They may also make bad decisions later in life. (I could be the best, most productive ditch-digger in the world, but if I had the skills to be a doctor, but was never taught biology, I'll never realize my potential.)

I'm sorry, but you'll never be able to convince me that any child who is taught that "sickness is caused by evil demons" will have as good a chance at becoming a doctor as someone who is taught proper science.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

The point is private schools are privately funded. They live or die on the parents bringing kids to them for education. If they are known to be really horrible, they don't get kids and, thus, go out of business. If they successfully hide the fact that they are really horrible, then mandating a curriculum will not help.

Define 'Horrible'. I could create a school that taught that disease was caused by "evil spirits". I could run my school very well (have low tuition fees, because I wouldn't need lab space, enforce strict discipline, and have forced bible readings), and there will be many fundamentalists who will send their kids to the school, because they believe in what I am teaching.

I have no problem at all with private schools (I think we should have more freedom in the way education is run). Private schools should be able to teach whatever they want. But there should always be a base level of education which is always provided.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I'm sorry, but you'll never be able to convince me that any child who is taught that "sickness is caused by evil demons" will have as good a chance at becoming a doctor as someone who is taught proper science.


And I am not trying to convince you of that as that is not the question. The question is do we have the right to mandate how and what parents teach their kids or do we (as a society) simply offer choices that the parents can choose from?

Remember what I said about the Language Police (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375414827/ref=ase_bridgebooks/103-7777442-0778267) and how what starts out as well-meaning "sensitivity committees" can ultimately wind-up being sensorship? The same can apply to "educational standards committees" if we are not careful. I'm simply saying that, while there is a place for them in public education, simple market processes obviate the need for them in private education.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by dsm
In the case of private schools, isn't the line that a poor school is one that attracts a few parents for some unknown reason while a really horrible school is one that attracts no one?
Substitute the word "church" for the word "school." Some churches with large memberships are actually quite horrible institutions. How is this possible?

Education is not entirely subject to free market pressures. Many parents home school their children. Some form home-school cooperatives with other parents. Some schools have part-time volunteer teachers. Some schools are part of a religious organization or order, supported by donations from the general membership.

If there are no standards at all, how can we make primary and secondary schooling mandatory?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I have no problem at all with private schools (I think we should have more freedom in the way education is run). Private schools should be able to teach whatever they want. But there should always be a base level of education which is always provided.


The market for the private school will determine that "base". Eventually, graduates of the school will either have to come into society (at which point many other tests will determine if their education had been adequate) or they will continue on as part of their commune (in which case, why worry about them?).

The one exception to this that I can see is if the school happens to be funded by Al Quaida (or the like) and it's graduates begin a campaign of suicide bombings (or something similar). In this case, the needs of the many (society's right to safety) outweigh the needs of the few (the parent's right to choose their kid's education).

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by dsm
The one exception to this that I can see is if the school happens to be funded by Al Quaida (or the like) and it's graduates begin a campaign of suicide bombings (or something similar). In this case, the needs of the many (society's right to safety) outweigh the needs of the few (the parent's right to choose their kid's education).
If you look around the world, you'll see that many schools are funded by groups very sympathetic to al-Qaeda. The issue of educational standards for children is not moot.

[dsm]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Substitute the word "church" for the word "school." Some churches with large memberships are actually quite horrible institutions. How is this possible?


"Horrible" is in the eye of the beholder...


Education is not entirely subject to free market pressures. Many parents home school their children. Some form home-school cooperatives with other parents. Some schools have part-time volunteer teachers. Some schools are part of a religious organization or order, supported by donations from the general membership.


But, if they are (semi-)supported by public funds, then they are subject to public standards.


If there are no standards at all, how can we make primary and secondary schooling mandatory?


Hmmm. This may be a good point. What establishes that a certain level of schooling is necessary? Is it local or national law?

[dsm]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If you look around the world, you'll see that many schools are funded by groups very sympathetic to al-Qaeda. The issue of educational standards for children is not moot.


No. In this case, the issue is public safety, not educational standards.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by dsm
No. In this case, the issue is public safety, not educational standards.
I think the two issues overlap.

A hypothetical: A private school run by a religious order teaches that all evil in the world is caused by Texans. One day, when all the Texans are dead, the Lord will reward His people with a paradise upon Earth.

Now, if we set a standard stating that this sort of information is not to be taught as factually true in the classroom, we may be doing so for public safety concerns. Still, we are setting an educational standard.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm


And I am not trying to convince you of that as that is not the question. The question is do we have the right to mandate how and what parents teach their kids or do we (as a society) simply offer choices that the parents can choose from?

That is most definitely the question.

We have a need and a right to mandate what kids are taught in school, just as we have a right to mandate that parents feed their children, and mandate that parents do not beat their children. And a failure to educate can have very far reaching effects. (Or are you suggesting parents should be able to starve and/or beat their children, as it is their right?)

Yes, offer choices, but also enforce a core cirriculum. When a parent has to decide which school to send their kid to, make the choices:
1) Core, plus some religion
2) Core, plus some extra science
3) Core, plus military
4) Core, plus work in Rap music appreciation
5) Core, plus whatever.....

That way, when the kid is done school, they will know enough to make proper decisions.

Originally posted by dsm

Remember what I said about the Language Police (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375414827/ref=ase_bridgebooks/103-7777442-0778267) and how what starts out as well-meaning "sensitivity committees" can ultimately wind-up being sensorship? The same can apply to "educational standards committees" if we are not careful.
Here is where you are using the 'slippery slope' argument. (Enforcing core subjects is bad because it can lead to all sorts of foolishness in subjects being forced on everyone.) Admittedly, there are a lot of really bad decisions made in school boards.

However, it does not have to be that way. Core subjects do not have to include 'crap' like that. Create a simple set of subjects that must be followed: Basic arithmetic, algebra, English, biology, physics, and chemistry. Creating a check list of topics that must be covered should be very easy. (There are no philosophical or societal problems that have to be decided on. All of these topics have been well known for a long, long time.

Originally posted by dsm
I'm simply saying that, while there is a place for them in public education, simple market processes obviate the need for them in private education.

The 'marked process' will not work, because the people who are making the 'market' decisions (the parents) are not the ones who eventually 'pay' the greatest cost if a bad decision is made (the kids). It also won't work if the parents do not have the necessary information to make an informed decision.

(Let me clarify that... the 'market process' will not work in forcing all students to learn the necessary material. It may allow the school system to improve overall though, as long as core subject material is taught.)

[dsm]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I think the two issues overlap.

A hypothetical: A private school run by a religious order teaches that all evil in the world is caused by Texans. One day, when all the Texans are dead, the Lord will reward His people with a paradise upon Earth.

Now, if we set a standard stating that this sort of information is not to be taught as factually true in the classroom, we may be doing so for public safety concerns. Still, we are setting an educational standard.

The only problem with this is that standards like this can only be set after the fact (when a school student goes out and kills Texans). That type of mandate is one that, in an open and free society, will not be necessary as news of what the school did will cause it to be closed down on public safety issues.

Now, can you come up with a "hypothetical" that has no public safety concerns to illustrate the need for educational standards?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

We have a need and a right to mandate what kids are taught in school, just as we have a right to mandate that parents feed their children, and mandate that parents do not beat their children. And a failure to educate can have very far reaching effects. (Or are you suggesting parents should be able to starve and/or beat their children, as it is their right?)


I think this is a "false dilemma" (he says trying not to "slip" on the slippery slope again). What are those "far reaching effects" and can they not be eliminated by "entry tests" (school entry test, job entry test, etc.)?


Yes, offer choices, but also enforce a core cirriculum.


I would much rather require all schools (both public and private) provide mandated information about their curriculum, teachers, testing methods, philosophy, etc., to parents who are choosing where their kids should be enrolled. Consider it a "truth in advertising" requirement.


However, it does not have to be that way. Core subjects do not have to include 'crap' like that. Create a simple set of subjects that must be followed: Basic arithmetic, algebra, English, biology, physics, and chemistry. Creating a check list of topics that must be covered should be very easy. (There are no philosophical or societal problems that have to be decided on). All of these topics have been well known for a long, long time.


And, so, will be pretty obvious as missing IF the right information is provided to the parents at enrollment.


(Let me clarify that... the 'market process' will not work in forcing all students to learn the necessary material. It may allow the school system to improve overall though, as long as core subject material is taught.)


The problem here is the slippery (whoops, there's that word again) definition of "necessary".

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If Islamic primary and secondary schools in the US were to teach the Qu'ran and "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" as history, would we say, "Hey, to each his own"?

Yeah, we would.

[voidx]

We're getting WAY off topic here. The original question was, should private schools be required to teach evolution as an accepted scientific theory. I say yes. The question then came down to, well should we be able to mandate any type of curriculum at all to private schools, again I think yes. DSM, do you think sciences, and evolution in particular is a base subject that should be known to a high school graduate, either private or public?

The slippery slope arguement is a little weak I think. We're not trying to define theological terms here, Evolution is an accepted scientific theory, how exactly it works it debated, but that it exists is not. Should it be taught as standard curriculum with math and other subjects or not? Saying yes to teaching the theory of evolution is not an open doorway to all sorts of other politically motivated hogwash. Let's not get side tracked by hypothetical examples, "Johnny lee learns the Qu'ran in a washington school on a full moon, yah or nay?" The question merely is, Evolution, the scientific theory, do you consider it a basic subject, if so, should private schools be required to teach it, REGARDLESS of what else they want to teach. I say yes, and yes.

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx

We're getting WAY off topic here. The original question was, should private schools be required to teach evolution as an accepted scientific theory. I say yes. The question then came down to, well should we be able to mandate any type of curriculum at all to private schools, again I think yes. DSM, do you think sciences, and evolution in particular is a base subject that should be known to a high school graduate, either private or public?


Your question to me doesn't quite agree with your first two questions in this paragraph. However, let me answer it this way:


Science (and evolution) are important subjects in today's world (but not the only important ones).
Strictly speaking, people can be productive members of society without completely understanding some of these important subjects (like evolution). Reading, writing, and arithmetic are probably the only absolute requirements (although many immigrants function without reading/writing the local language).
Public schools operate outside of "market" influences as they are tax funded and, therefore, everyone supports the public schools whether they want to or not.
Therefore, central mandates about what the public schools teach and how they teach it are necessary as that is how parents (by voting for school board members, etc.) influence the curriculums of the public schools.
Privately funded schools are subject to "market" influences and, therefore, parents can use "critical thinking" (remember -- this is the JREF website) as well as their money to directly influence which private schools stay in business.
Therefore, central mandates about what must be taught are not necessary as an open market will balance things out by removing schools that do not meet the needs of the people.
However, to allow the open market to function properly, a "truth in advertising" should be required of the private schools so that parents know what they are getting into up front.


Does that make sense?

[voidx]

I agree, this:
The original question was, should private schools be required to teach evolution as an accepted scientific theory.
differs slightly from this:
DSM, do you think sciences, and evolution in particular is a base subject that should be known to a high school graduate, either private or public?

With that out of the way, would you clearly state your position on either or both questions. I do understand all the points you made in bullet form. They are the points you've been making in the above posts. Do you have a solid position on this issue, or are you somewhat undecided, I'm just trying to figure that out.

Science (and evolution) are important subjects in today's world (but not the only important ones).

I'm not asking about the other ones, I'm asking about Science in regards to Evolution which this thread is asking about. Science in particular evolution, on its own, do you believe it to be important enough to be required learning for both public and private schools? Yes or no? I believe it is yes. I fully realize how both systems work currently, the question is kind of asking whether or not changes should be made to require private schools to teach Evolution as a required subject.

Privately funded schools are subject to "market" influences and, therefore, parents can use "critical thinking" (remember -- this is the JREF website) as well as their money to directly influence which private schools stay in business.

There is no certainty however that parents will employ "Critical thinking" when choosing a school, or that their decision will not be religious or otherwise influenced. Simply there is no guarantee that a school will stay profitable because it teaches proper, objective curriculum. I'm not saying its not possible, in fact its quite possible, but wouldn't you rather make sure if you could. You're trusting, I believe, the "free market" system and to some degree the assumption that everyone will employ critical thought of which school to choose, in order to determine whether it will be successful or not. I don't share that level of trust in either the free market, or peoples critical thought process or lack thereof, to ensure that successful private schools have an objective and critical curriculum, and are simply not successful because they cater somewhat to their clients preferences. I'm not saying I 100% trust the government to do so either, but surely the 2 could meet in the middle and try to decide on a standard base curriculum.

Therefore, central mandates about what must be taught are not necessary as an open market will balance things out by removing schools that do not meet the needs of the people.

I agree that this should work, in theory, like many other theories. However, will it demonstrate this in actual practice? Not guaranteed. So, why not have both, a double safety net, incorporate a minimum standard of base curriculum (again in my opinion that would include Science and Evolution) and ALSO have the effects of the "free market" system to further weed out schools that do not perform, or meet all needs of its clients. Wouldn't that seem reasonable?

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx

I'm not asking about the other ones, I'm asking about Science in regards to Evolution which this thread is asking about. Science in particular evolution, on its own, do you believe it to be important enough to be required learning for both public and private schools? Yes or no? I believe it is yes. I fully realize how both systems work currently, the question is kind of asking whether or not changes should be made to require private schools to teach Evolution as a required subject.


You're asking two separate questions here:


Is evolutionary theory important? I've said yes in understanding the biological sciences, but that it's not that important in comparison to other things (like reading, writing, and arithmetic).
Should we establish a mandated curriculum (including evolutionary theory) in private schools? I've said no because it does not appear to be necessary to me as the market will do it on its own.



There is no certainty however that parents will employ "Critical thinking" when choosing a school, or that their decision will not be religious or otherwise influenced.


Oh ye of little faith... ;)


...try to decide on a standard base curriculum.


The problem with mandated curriculums has always been that they aren't flexible to meet the ever changing world conditions. A properly structured "free" and "open" market should be much more flexible than some committee mandate.


So, why not have both, a double safety net, incorporate a minimum standard of base curriculum (again in my opinion that would include Science and Evolution) and ALSO have the effects of the "free market" system to further weed out schools that do not perform, or meet all needs of its clients. Wouldn't that seem reasonable?


Remember that this is a free society. What makes you think that the creationists won't "influence" (threaten, bribe, join, etc.) the committee that tries to decide on The Standard(tm) to effectively water it down if not kill it all together?

:eek:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

I think this is a "false dilemma" (he says trying not to "slip" on the slippery slope again). What are those "far reaching effects" and can they not be eliminated by "entry tests" (school entry test, job entry test, etc.)?

Where are you getting this 'entry test' requirement from? At NO point did I suggest that schools and jobs not screen their applicatants. I am NOT suggesting that people with no education in biology should be allowed to be doctors. (Sounds like you're building a straw man to me, or you totally miss the point of my arguments.)

The 'far reaching effect' is mostly on the student themselves, when a bad decision by the parent (putting them in a school which ignores biology, etc.) limits the future possibilities for the kid in 20 years, when they have reached adulthood and must make their own decisions (possibly lacking proper background).

Originally posted by dsm

And, so, will be pretty obvious as missing IF the right information is provided to the parents at enrollment.


Guess what? There are millions of parents who believe in creationism. There are also thousands who believe in many other types of mysticism. For such a parent, simply giving them the information about what each school teaches would not be of any help, since they are predisposed to want their children to learn the wrong stuff.

Now, here's a few questions for you: I'm a fundamentalist parent, I think evolution is wrong and the bible is right. Given a choice, which school am I most likely to select (assuming location, teacher quality, etc. are all the same):
- A school that teaches English, math, and biology (including evolution)
- A school that teaches English, math, and bible reading.
Option 2 is much much much much more likely for a fundamentalist parent.

Now, given the two school choices, which choice is most likely to lead to the development of an adult who could be a doctor, or a scientist (or any of hundreds of science-based careers)? Which of the 2 above options will lead to the development of an adult who is more likely to understand things like nutrition, vacinations, and a whole host of other areas that even a non-scientist is likely to encounter in their lives?

This is not a case of trying to enforce group-think on a population, or force taxpayers to pay for certain schools. It is a way to prevent the abuse of kids (in this case, eliminating possibilities for their future.) We have rules to prevent parents from beating their kids, we have rules to prevent parents from starving their kids, or neglecting their health. We need a law to prevent parents from neglecting their brain and their future.

[voidx]

It appears we differ on opinion here, but at least clearly so :D.

A properly structured "free" and "open" market should be much more flexible than some committee mandate.

Should be, but not necessarily guaranteed to be. I know I know, all things in life are not guaranteed, but it should be demonstrably and noticably more effective, I'm not sure in practice that it would be. What if you are a minority of opinion in your city or area. Say you live in a section of the Bible belt or what have you. Will the free market provide for your preference? Perhaps not, because there may not be demand for it.

Remember that this is a free society. What makes you think that the creationists won't "influence" (threaten, bribe, join, etc.) the committee that tries to decide on The Standard(tm) to effectively water it down if not kill it all together?

And what's to say in this free society those same people won't try and do the same thing to the private committee of the private schools which make up the majority of the demand in your area? Committee, or free market, the symptom can happen in either. Free market works upon demand. What if your demand for the teaching of Evolution in your area is the minority, and not strong enough in demand to warrant its own school? I realize this is a worse case scenario, but if there was some form of standardized basic curriculum, you'd have to worry about these issues less. My opinion might be fueled in part by being a skeptic. I see it as important to include Evolution as a counter part requirement to any school that might also teach religion, or creationism. One makes proper use of scientific theory and practice and proof, the latter doesn't.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Oh ye of little faith... ;)

You haven't dealt with many fundamentalist morons, have you.

Originally posted by dsm

The problem with mandated curriculums has always been that they aren't flexible to meet the ever changing world conditions. A properly structured "free" and "open" market should be much more flexible than some committee mandate.

I don't think anyone is suggesting students have to learn the latest and greatest theories. Guess what? 99% of what we would need to teach students to give them a 'basic' understanding of biology and evolution has been known for decades. Darwin and Mendel were from more than a hundred years ago, the structure of the DNA molecule has been known for about 50 years, and Lucy (and other australopithecines) have been known for decades. Although new discoveries are being made, the basic facts have been known for long enough to know they won't be changing.

Originally posted by dsm

Remember that this is a free society.
Its only a free society as long as your actions will not negatively impact others. Denying important elements in your kids education does negatively affect them.

Originally posted by dsm

What makes you think that the creationists won't "influence" (threaten, bribe, join, etc.) the committee that tries to decide on The Standard(tm) to effectively water it down if not kill it all together?

So, in stead of trying to have a standard that will guarantee that no student is allowed to have parts of their brain rot, you will scrap the idea just because someone may be able to stop it? That makes as much sense as saying "why have elections, since companies can buy votes", or "why have criminal courts, since judges and juries can be bribed".

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Where are you getting this 'entry test' requirement from? At NO point did I suggest that schools and jobs not screen their applicatants. I am NOT suggesting that people with no education in biology should be allowed to be doctors. (Sounds like you're building a straw man to me, or you totally miss the point of my arguments.)


I assumed by "far reaching effects" you might have meant some sort of domino impact as these people come out of their "bad" schools to which I said wouldn't an "entry test" stop the dominos?


The 'far reaching effect' is mostly on the student themselves, when a bad decision by the parent (putting them in a school which ignores biology, etc.) limits the future possibilities for the kid in 20 years, when they have reached adulthood and must make their own decisions (possibly lacking proper background).


Well, boo hoo. Parents make all sorts of decisions about how to raise their kids as is their right. Some of them are good decisions and some are bad decisions -- that's the way it works.


This is not a case of trying to enforce group-think on a population, or force taxpayers to pay for certain schools.


Of course it is...


It is a way to prevent the abuse of kids (in this case, eliminating possibilities for their future.) We have rules to prevent parents from beating their kids, we have rules to prevent parents from starving their kids, or neglecting their health.


Protecting children from physical abuse (as is society's right) is something far different than ensuring the child can be a doctor in 20 years! When the child reaches adulthood (18 in most places), he still has 60+ years of time to go back and study evolution if need be. Most every college today has remedial courses for students who did not get the most out of their primary school education.


We need a law to prevent parents from neglecting their brain and their future.


First, if you can, go out and have the lack of teaching evolutionary theory be declared by the courts as detrimental to the health and well-being of children. The law will be easy to create after that.

:rolleyes:

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx

Say you live in a section of the Bible belt or what have you. Will the free market provide for your preference? Perhaps not, because there may not be demand for it.


But you still have the freedom to move. That, too, is part of a free and open market.


And what's to say in this free society those same people won't try and do the same thing to the private committee of the private schools which make up the majority of the demand in your area?


Private schools do not have to have any committee. They establish their curriculum and see if the market will accept it. Note, I have advocated "truth in advertising" which also means that, if they change their curriculum, the parents should be fully informed. If there is a change for the worse, then the parents can move their kids to another school (or locale).


if there was some form of standardized basic curriculum, you'd have to worry about these issues less.


Not really. You're reversing roles. Rather than letting the educators tell you what they are going to teach (on a regular basis), you are telling them what to teach and now you have to be responsible for ensuring the "standardized curriculum" remains relevant.

[voidx]

But you still have the freedom to move.

I knew this one was going to come out. So now you have to move to another centre entirely because you want your kid to learn Evolution in his private school. If there was a set base curriculum, you wouldn't have too.

Private schools do not have to have any committee. They establish their curriculum and see if the market will accept it.

Who establishes the curriculum then? You keep arguing that a committee is not as open to change as whatever it is that establishes curriculum in a private school. What you ignore is the fact that regardless if its a committee or not, all the same external religious influences can still affect the curriculum. If the school is being setup in the bible belt, wouldn't it make sense that you're curriculum would cater somewhat to religious studies, and Evolution might be heavily considered to be left off. I mean, its free market right, and if there is no demand...well, tough luck.
But hey, feel free to pack up your whole family, and your life and haul it off to some other centre which hopefully might represent the full range of education possibilities better.



you are telling them what to teach and now you have to be responsible for ensuring the "standardized curriculum" remains relevant.

Ok...first off, you keep changing this to make it sound like we're dealing with quantum physics or something advanced of that sort. As Segnosaur mentions, Evolution, which is what this thread is about, which is the only topic in particular we are discussing, no others, is a well established scientific theory. Do you agree? Therefore there should be no problem presenting the basic theories of Evolution. Now yes, you are correct, they must be kept relevant. But if we followed your plan, many private schools might not offer Evolution at all, which is very possible in the free market system. So now how current and relevant are you? You don't even know the basics! But, that's ok, you can take remedial classes to catch up when you move into college. Then why pay extra to go to private school?

[shanek]

Originally posted by voidx
Should be, but not necessarily guaranteed to be. I know I know, all things in life are not guaranteed, but it should be demonstrably and noticably more effective, I'm not sure in practice that it would be. What if you are a minority of opinion in your city or area. Say you live in a section of the Bible belt or what have you. Will the free market provide for your preference? Perhaps not, because there may not be demand for it.

As someone who lives in the Bible Belt, the county below mine is very much a Bible-thumping evolution-hating culture, and even there there are two great private schools that do an excellent job teaching evolution.

If even a small minority want something, the free market will provide it.

[voidx]

Well I guess I'll consider my parade rained on then :D

Shanek has done more to put a dent in my doubts about the free market regarding this issue than anyone else by :eek: giving an actual example. But just for the record, what county, and which two schools? :D

It is however, still my belief that Evolution should be standard across the board. Even if you believe public school to be less effective, you still get the benefit of a good level base of all subjects, I think even the low end of private schools should meet that level as well, and those subjects. And I think its a littler safer if someone is ensuring they do so, rather than just trusting it all to the free market. Anything above and beyond that is fine. Where creationism is taught, Evolution should be taught as an objective counter-point. If you have a strong belief in creationism, this shouldn't bother you.

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx

Shanek has done more to put a dent in my doubts about the free market regarding this issue than anyone else by :eek: giving an actual example. But just for the record, what county, and which two schools? :D


I don't live in the Bible belt, so I couldn't give an example, but I felt quite certain there were examples out there.


It is however, still my belief that Evolution should be standard across the board.


And I have not said differently (operative word: "should").


Even if you believe public school to be less effective, you still get the benefit of a good level base of all subjects, I think even the low end of private schools should meet that level as well, and those subjects. And I think its a littler safer if someone is ensuring they do so, rather than just trusting it all to the free market. Anything above and beyond that is fine. Where creationism is taught, Evolution should be taught as an objective counter-point. If you have a strong belief in creationism, this shouldn't bother you.


You make this sound like a battle of science versus religion. I know that's in the thread title, but I have been trying to show that it's really a question of educational approaches. The public school system is sort of management by (government) committee in which the members must take into account the wishes of all of the taxpayers (some of which don't even go to the school). The private school system is really management by educators who are focused on their students. The private system is more flexible than the public system because it has less bureaucracy to answer to. The private system can have the whole range of very bad schools to very good schools while the public system will generally be in the middle. The graduates of both systems must live in the real world (or stay on their commune), so they are both going to have needs that their school system must supply. If the school system doesn't supply it, then it's going to be under pressure to change. The (truly) private system can react to that need for change faster than the public system can (even if they just go out of business). Therefore, mandating standards for the private system should not be necessary.

NOTE: I went to public schools.

[voidx]

It is however, still my belief that Evolution should be standard across the board.

And I have not said differently (operative word: "should").

This statement confuses me. Are you saying you you agree with me that Evolution should be standard across the board? That you think the free market system will affect this change, where I think it should be mandated? As for the word "should":


Therefore, mandating standards for the private system should not be necessary.

I see what you saying about educational approaches, and I don't necessarily disagree. You should have just stated that more clearly, because otherwise it just looked like you were trying to deflect away from the specific question of Evolution. I think for the most part we agree on the result, just not the application :). You believe the free market system will sort out this and other curriculum based issues over time. I have less faith in that, or at the very least think the issue could be remedied now by requiring them to teach Evolution, in combination or in place of, Creationism. But I'll admit that the chances of that happening, or being passed even if someone wanted to take up the mantle for it, aren't very likely.

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx

This statement confuses me. Are you saying you you agree with me that Evolution should be standard across the board? That you think the free market system will affect this change, where I think it should be mandated?


Exactly. Except that I also think public schools are also necessary where mandated curriculums are a way of life.


As for the word "should":


Yeah, I looked at that twice and said "he won't notice". ;)

Oh, one other thought -- if you don't think private schools can properly teach without mandated curriculums, why not seek to have the private schools eliminated so that everyone goes to the public schools? Although public schools have mandated curriculums, most of the time they have flexibility in what they teach beyond the mandated curriculum. I say "most of the time" because of the fluctuating whims of the political representatives that control government education funds. :rolleyes:

[voidx]

if you don't think private schools can properly teach without mandated curriculums

I never asserted that, so lets slow down a tad. I don't question the ability of teachers or of private institutions, I've never been to one, I can't comment on that. I was more concerned whether they would cover it period. And in the case of this example of Evolution, would they do so objectively. And obviously this problem doesn't apply to all private schools.

[dsm]

Originally posted by voidx
I never asserted that, so lets slow down a tad.


Whoops. "If you don't think" came out a little stronger than intended. It was meant to be an intellectual challenge rather than a statement of what you believe.


I don't question the ability of teachers or of private institutions, I've never been to one, I can't comment on that. I was more concerned whether they would cover it period. And in the case of this example of Evolution, would they do so objectively. And obviously this problem doesn't apply to all private schools.


Or public ones for that matter. Both have their plusses and minuses. I just didn't see a need to mix the public approach (mandates and laws) into the private approach.

[voidx]

It was meant to be an intellectual challenge

Hey, that's not allowed....is it :confused:

Heheh, well I'm willing to say "Fair enough" on this issue. We both have our opinions on the approach here, although I'll admit the leave it to the free market idea is more likely to be accepted than someone trying to take on private institutes and force a mandate on them. Lets just hope it has the desired effect no?

[shanek]

Originally posted by voidx
Well I guess I'll consider my parade rained on then :D

Shanek has done more to put a dent in my doubts about the free market regarding this issue than anyone else by :eek: giving an actual example. But just for the record, what county, and which two schools? :D

Gaston County, NC. One of the schools is Gaston Day School; I'm sorry, I don't remember the name of the other right now. And those are just two that I know of; there may be more.

It is however, still my belief that Evolution should be standard across the board.

It's a nice thought, but how are you going to enforce it? The minute you give someone the power to enforce evolution across the board, you open up the possibility for someone to take their place and enforce creationism across the board.

As imperfect as it may be, I'll take the free market solution.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Well, boo hoo. Parents make all sorts of decisions about how to raise their kids as is their right. Some of them are good decisions and some are bad decisions -- that's the way it works.

Do I have the right to deny medical attention to a kid? Do I have the right to deny food to a kid? If not, why not? They are my decisions, are they not?

Originally posted by dsm

Of course it is...

Uhh, no its not.

Its the presentation of widely-accepted (and long-understood) scientific facts and theories. In that way, it is no different than teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, that 1+1=2, or that the alphabet starts with A and ends with Z.

Originally posted by dsm

Protecting children from physical abuse (as is society's right) is something far different than ensuring the child can be a doctor in 20 years! When the child reaches adulthood (18 in most places), he still has 60+ years of time to go back and study evolution if need be. Most every college today has remedial courses for students who did not get the most out of their primary school education.


First of all, I used the 'doctor' as just one example. Notice that I also mention 'other careers', of which there are hundreds of examples. And, as I mentioned before, even if the kid does not plan to go into a scientific field for a career, there are still many ways that knowlege of biology and evolution can affect them. (How about decisions to get vacinated. Or if they ever have to make decisons that have an environmental impact.)

People are most receptive to learning when they are younger. They don't have the responsibilities of work, and its easier to assimilate information if it is all presented in an integrated fashion. (I also seem to remember reading that about a biological basis for kids being able to learn faster than adults, but I'm a but fuzzy on that.)

Here's a question... Should a parent be able to neglect all education? Or perhaps have the child not learn to read or write at all? After all, the child will have 60 years after they reach adult-hood to learn that stuff if they want. (And it is the parent's decision, is it not?)

Originally posted by dsm

First, if you can, go out and have the lack of teaching evolutionary theory be declared by the courts as detrimental to the health and well-being of children. The law will be easy to create after that.

Why do you assume it will be difficult?

The provincial govenment here in Ontario recently set up a common cirriculum for all students in the province. There are basic things that a student has to be taught (including science), and there are standardized tests. No need to get the courts involved, no troubles setting up the law. Why are you keep insisting the task is harder than it is?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

It's a nice thought, but how are you going to enforce it? The minute you give someone the power to enforce evolution across the board, you open up the possibility for someone to take their place and enforce creationism across the board.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Or, at least it doen't have to. No more than the teaching of English opens up the possibility of enforcing French and Greek on students, or the possibility of forcing kids to learn our current number system will let someone force Roman numerals into schools.

There are independent and government bodies in the U.S. Give them the mandate to come up with several specific topics that must be covered. Create a law that says "All kids must go to either a public or private school, but they must be taught biology consistent with the understandings of the U.S. academy of Science." No need for cutting-edge stuff. And no possibility to force other garbage into the system (unless of course that group decides to become creationist themselves.)

All kids in the U.S. would have to be taught the cirriculum. But, private schools could present the information any way they choose.

Then, give regular standardized testing across the state (similar to the generalized tests they do here in Ontario). If the school fails on a consistent basis, revoke their charter. Even if the kids just memorize the stuff needed for the test, at least they will have been exposed to it.

And those 'standard test scores' will be extremely helpful in the case of the free market. (Parents will be able to compare one school's scores against competing schools, and make their decisions based on that.)

(Edited to change a poor word choice)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Uh, no it doesn't.

Or, at least it doen't have to. No more than the teaching of English opens up the possibility of enforcing French and Greek on students, or the possibility of forcing kids to learn our current number system will let someone force Roman numerals into schools.

It has nothing to do with the subject matter. It has to do with power. The minute you give a good politician the power to do good, you automatically give a bad politician the power to do bad.

There are independent and government bodies in the U.S. Give them the mandate to come up with several specific topics that must be covered. Create a law that says "All kids must go to either a public or private school,

No home schools?

but they must be taught biology consistent with the understandings of the U.S. academy of Science." No need for cutting-edge stuff. And no possibility to force other garbage into the system (unless of course that group decides to become creationist themselves.)

What's to stop somebody from coming along behind them and rewriting it?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

It has nothing to do with the subject matter. It has to do with power. The minute you give a good politician the power to do good, you automatically give a bad politician the power to do bad.

I agree that governments should not be given more power than is necessary. I believe that the main purpose of the government should be to prevent one person from harming another. The problem with not mandating certain material (such as Biology and evolution) is that it does harm someone... it harms the kids. ("Won't somebody think of the chidren?")

We have laws to prevent parents from beating their kids. Or from starving them. Is that giving politicians too much power? Heck, they're my kids, "spare the rod, spoil the child", and give a beating for Jesus! (Hey, my kids, keep away from them...)

Put it this way... should we allow parents to send their kids to a school that doesn't teach them how to read? Or do simple arithmetic?

The majority of parents, when faced with a decision about which school to send their kids to, will probably choose the one that does teach biology. But, they are not my concern. My concern is for the minority that will get sent to schools which overlook biology and evolution because either their parents think evolution is evil, or biology is unimportant, etc....

Originally posted by shanek

No home schools?

I have no problem with home schooling. As long as the kid was really learning (and wasn't just used as a source of cheap labour at home.) The 'standardized' test that I mentioned earlier could be used to measure how well they understood the material.

Or, do you think a parent should be able to pull their kid out of school to 'home school' them, and just let them watch TV all day? (Hey, my kids, my choice, isn't it?)

Originally posted by shanek

What's to stop somebody from coming along behind them and rewriting it?

When you say 'rewriting it', what do you mean by 'it'? Rewriting the law or rewriting the cirriculum?

The cirriculum would be decided by the scientific community. To be part of the body that makes these decisions, you'd have to have degrees in the relevant fields, and decisions would require majority support and peer review. Not exactly a setup which would lend itself to being 'hijacked' by special interest groups. (The fact that the basic theories that we use to understand biology and genetics have not changed very much despite the occasional noice from creationists and other looneys makes me have some faith in the peer review process and scientific creditation in general.)

As for the 'law', rewriting a law that says "teach evolution" into one that says (for example) "teach creationism" is not any easier than creating the "teach creationism" one from scratch.

I know you hate having more laws and rules than is necessary. But isn't it just possible that this could actually be a GOOD law?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I agree that governments should not be given more power than is necessary. I believe that the main purpose of the government should be to prevent one person from harming another. The problem with not mandating certain material (such as Biology and evolution) is that it does harm someone... it harms the kids. ("Won't somebody think of the chidren?")

How many bad and tyrannical pieces of legislation have been passed under that mantra? :rolleyes:

We have laws to prevent parents from beating their kids. Or from starving them.

Hardly equivalent to forcing a certain curriculum on schools.

But, they are not my concern. My concern is for the minority that will get sent to schools which overlook biology and evolution because either their parents think evolution is evil, or biology is unimportant, etc....

My point is, if you give people like you the power to tell people like them how to raise their kids, you also give people like them the power to tell people like you how to raise yours. After all, if you don't take your kids to church and teach them to praise the Law-urd, you're putting their immortal souls in jeopardy! And that's harm! Force the religion on the kids—it's for their own good! Won't someone think of the children????

I have no problem with home schooling. As long as the kid was really learning (and wasn't just used as a source of cheap labour at home.)

Agreed, so long as you realize the difference between "forced labor" and "on-the-job training" or "learning the family business."

The 'standardized' test that I mentioned earlier could be used to measure how well they understood the material.

The experience in American government schools has revealed a whole host of problems with standardized testing. They aren't the solution people make them out to be.

When you say 'rewriting it', what do you mean by 'it'? Rewriting the law or rewriting the cirriculum?

Well, rewriting the law, which would result in a rewriting of the curriculum. They could change things so that THEIR scientists—the ICR, for example—were made the authority.

As for the 'law', rewriting a law that says "teach evolution" into one that says (for example) "teach creationism" is not any easier than creating the "teach creationism" one from scratch.

Actually, history has shown us that it is. Once power is given to the government, it is very easily expanded and manipulated.

[DrBenway]

Presently, there are standard educational objectives for each grade level in primary and secondary schools. Kids who are home schooled can take tests to prove they've met those goals. And finally, there's the GED, which sets a minimum standard defining what it means to have completed high school.

Anyone know if questions regarding evolution are on the GED?