« Unfunded mandates: real dollars or "catchy term?" |
Main
| Education Week hosts an online chat TODAY about recruiting and retaining 'highly qualified' teachers »
April 21, 2004
"Objective origins" debate heats up in Montana
The Darby, Mont. school board is the latest to become embroiled in a controversy over the teaching of evolution. Similar debates have emerged in Ohio, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, and New Mexico. These kinds of issues are especially difficult for school boards, both politically and legally.
In Darby, local minister Curtis Brickley proposed to the school board an "objective origins" policy that would encourage science teachers to discuss criticisms of prevailing scientific theories. The board has approved the policy in a first reading by a 3-2 vote.
Objective origins theory, also known as "intelligent design," is a critique of evolutionary biology, which objective origins supporters argue is unproven but taught in dogmatic fashion. Critics of objective origins theory allege that the critique is simply the latest repackaging of creation science, the idea of reinforcing the Biblical account of creation in science class.
The Darby debate has had some interesting features. One is that students staged a walkout to protest the policy. Another is that Montana's Speaker of the House has come out in support of the proposed policy. And federal officials have weighed in, too. As usual in the culture wars, lawsuits are threatened.
Some students objected to the policy at school board meetings, and about a third of the student body recently walked out of school, with their parents' permission, carrying protest signs. One student, senior Aaron Lebowitz, said, "[The school board] has been on their own track and haven't really listened to us," arguing that in Darby's schools "evolution is not forced down our throats."
But state House Speaker Doug Mood says the "Darby School Board's proposed objective origins policy is encouraging exactly the kind of critical discipline that should be part of any teaching of science." He also strongly endorses the principle of local school board control, invoking the Montana constitution.
On the other hand, Montana school districts must comply with state curricular standards to keep their accreditation. The school board's attorney, Elizabeth Kaleva of the Montana School Boards Association, and the dissenting board members urged the board to seek state approval of the proposal rather than risk a lawsuit or revocation of accreditation or funding. Linda McCulloch, the Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction, has expressed skepticism that objective origins theory is science.
McCulloch wrote to the U.S. Department of Education to clear up a contention that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires the teaching of intelligent design. Acting deputy secretary Eugene Hickok wrote back that "the NCLB Act does not contain any language that requires or prohibits the teaching of any particular scientific views or theories as part of a state's science curriculum or otherwise." States are free to adopt any curriculum standards they wish, he noted.
But Hickok went on to quote language in the Congressional conference committee report on NCLB, which expressed the committee's support for teaching "the full range of scientific views" on topics that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution. This language was based on the so-called "Santorum amendment" to the NCLB bill. Hickok noted that the amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 91-8.
McCulloch calls this "editorializing" in response to a straightforward legal inquiry. In fact, the proposed Santorum amendment was never adopted as part of NCLB, and this kind of committee report language is not legally binding. In fairness, though, Hickok's letter also quotes the committee report as saying that "a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science."
This last point is the whole crux of the matter, says NSBA Staff Attorney Tom Hutton, especially from a legal standpoint. "If objective origins is science, it could withstand constitutional challenge," he says. "After all, teaching the controversy can be a powerful and engaging pedagogical approach, and courts generally defer to school boards and educators on such things. But, in cases like this, courts will look carefully for pretextual justifications. Are the motives here secular? Is the controversy scientific, or does it belong in social studies or religion courses? Do we encourage teaching the controversies in other subjects, like history?"
Two weeks ago, a federal judge in Atlanta, GA, refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Cobb County Schools (GA) for posting stickers in science textbooks that say, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." If the Darby policy is challenged, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal defense organization whose mission is "to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel," has offered its services to the school board. For more legal news and resources on curriculum controversies, click here.
Posted April 21, 2004 12:00 AM
BoardBuzz Feed
