Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may “under perform.” I’m always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case. So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern. It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but federal lawmakers cannot address it.
Frank
On 8/2/05 9:04 AM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In each case in which the federal courts have addressed the issue a governmental body was attempting to impose a religiously-motivated curriculum. This is a violation of the establishment clause. Other than that, the federal courts have remained neutral in curriculum. Protecting the religious rights of citizens against state, local and local school government encroachment is quite a bit different from the executive branch of the federal government mandating curriculum.
As a political matter, every other nation whose students perform better than U.S. students in academic achievement tests, has a national curriculum with high standards to which all schools in the nation aspire or to which all schools are mandated to achieve. In each of those cases evolution is a part of the curriculum. I believe that a significant part of the drop off of educational achievement in U.S. kids is because of the wrangling over putting religion into the curriculum at the local level (4th grade U.S. kids lead the world in science achievement; by 8th grade they are apace with other industrialized nations; by 12th grade they are significantly behind other nations). Repeated studies indicate that U.S. kids are not taught evolution because teachers and administrators fear the hassle of parents and interest groups who complain. But as Mr. Brayton noted, even in the law hoped to improve our kids' educational achievement, amendments! were offered to encourage the watering down the science curriculum. (Mr. Levinson is right -- the language is facially not so damaging; but the amendment, which was written by a leading intelligent design advocate, a lawyer, includes those buzzwords and buzzphrases that indicate the intent to frustrate the teaching of evolution rather than require higher standards of achievement. Gotta know the jargon, sometimes.)
The federal courts' have addressed only whether the insertion of certain materials violates the establishment clause, and not other aspects of the science curriculum.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been “federalized”? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized.
Frank
On 8/2/05 8:07 AM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented. Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all players were insistent that federal curriculum not be a possibity when I was partly responsible for redesigning the ERIC system in 1987. It's a quietly sensitive issue.
There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school! district "fired" their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).
But generally, curriculum is off-limits for federal action. There are no curriculum writers at the Department of Education, by design, by tradition, and by several different laws. Curriculum is a local issue.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged approach.
To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have yielded another issue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is a fairly coordinated social movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing ! their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)
Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as much?
It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst of the Roberts nomination. Having chosen the business interests' favorite candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now be placating those same groups.
Marci
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list! cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can rea! d the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
