ZeroIntelligence.net

State education chief: Darby school policy not science
Darby schools OK ‘objective origins’

Last updated 06 Feb

The Darby School Board is wading into the waters recently made turbulent by Georgia’s Kathy Cox. Specifically, they are changing their curriculum to degrade the Theory of Evolution. Darby’s changes don’t seem to be on the scale that Cox wants for Georgia but they are still disturbing, the moreso because they are worded enticingly well.

The “objective origins science” policy, still subject to a final vote by the Darby trustees, says teachers “are encouraged to help students assess evidence for and against theories, to analyze scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, by giving examples of scientific innovation or discovery challenging commonly held perceptions.”

What could be better than that? Isn’t this precisely what we’re supposed to be teaching our kids? Question things, determine what’s factual, search and explore. Sounds great to me. But folks who have had a look at the method behind the nice intro words see a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“That isn’t science,” said Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch. “That’s exactly what it’s all about is teaching creationism. It doesn’t matter what you call it. Creationism is not a recognized science.”

She said Tuesday that the Darby School District runs the risk of violating the Montana Constitution and jeopardizing funding if it adopts a policy and curriculum that introduce creationism into science classes.
…
Critics say that [it] is a lengthy mandate to teach the theory of creation. They say “objective origins” is synonymous with the theory of “intelligent design,” which states that evolution cannot explain the diverse life on Earth, so it must be the product of some intelligent designer.

That’s the conviction of Mary Lovejoy, a board member who voted against the policy. “I believe in the constitution and there’s a reason why there’s separation of church and state,” she said. “Faith needs to be taught in the church or the home.”

What do the students think?

Zach Honey, a student, had done an unscientific poll of his fellow students, and he told the board the “vast majority” doesn’t want the new policy.

“We are choosing,” Honey said. “And we don’t want it.”

Not only is this curriculum change widely despised, it may not even be implementable.

Rennaker is principal of the junior and senior high schools, and he urged the board to work with the state to develop a curriculum that will fit state standards for public instruction. Critics have said the school may be jeopardizing its funding by enacting the new science proposal.

“Why Darby? Why Darby?” Rennaker asked. “Let the state decide this.”

Mann, principal of the elementary school and curriculum coordinator for the district, said the board would be putting the “cart before the horse” by approving the policy with no plans for implementing it. Mann had a series of questions for the board, none of which was answered.

What teaching materials would be used and are they credible?

What are the costs, in both time and money?

What “origins” will be acceptable?

Unfortunately, as in Georgia, these changes are being pushed through on an agenda and without the interests of the schools or students in mind.

Darby school policy triggers candidate debate

The kerfuffle over the Darby school system’s decision has been brought to the political stage (and “stage” is particularly appropriate in this case).

John Fuller, a Kalispell teacher and Republican candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, said Democratic incumbent Linda McCulloch went too far in threatening Darby with loss of state accreditation for adopting the policy Monday night.

He also attacked McCulloch for asserting the “objective origins” policy for the school district’s science classes is a directive for religious teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution.
…
McCulloch fired back, saying she never threatened anyone with loss of accreditation. “That’s just something in Mr. Fuller’s head,” she said. “Montanans expect their superintendent to speak out on education issues.”
…
“Mr. Fuller is fooling himself if he thinks ‘objective origins’ and ‘intelligent design,’ or whatever you want to call them, is anything more than an attempt to put religion in our classrooms,” she said Thursday.

Critics have said the Darby policy is based on the theory that natural evolution cannot explain the diverse life on Earth, so it must be the product of some “intelligent designer.”
…
McCulloch said Fuller apparently doesn’t understand that, as state superintendent, she must uphold the Montana Constitution that demands religion be kept out of the classrooms.

The Darby policy threatens to violate that mandate and to affect the quality of education students receive, she said. “This action in Darby does nothing to further a quality education in Darby.”

In response to Fuller questioning whether McCulloch’s disdain for religion in public school means she believes the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, McCulloch replied, “That’s just silly.”

That’s the danger of stepping up on the bully pulpit, Mr.Fuller. There’s always going to be a McCulloch around who can knock you back down.