[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Who decides that 2+2=4 is a fact? **
In my math, 2 + 2 = 11.*
I think that’s a great idea. I just think if an equal level of understanding of all equally important topics is going to be required, we have to reserve several week for taking the test. I also think that there are important areas of knowledge where the answers are more debatable than in math and evolution. (Example: Woodrow Wilson was a great president: True or False? Depends a lot on your perspective.)
Doubtful. And if they fail the hypothetical weeklong section on evolution, they could still easily pass the class and get a diploma… private or public.
The biggest problem with the scheme is how to punish people who fail the “Test of Basic Fundamental Learning”. I favor suffrage only for those who pass. You?
I can’t agree with this, in the sense that children should be taught how to properly view mythologies (ie not literal truth, but useful tools for understanding ourselves better), rather than to ignore them entirely.
I do agree, though, that mythologies (or theories based upon mythologies) should not be passed along as objective fact. This is exactly the reason why creationists are incorrect.
I thought perhaps you operated to base 3, nogginhead.
Here’s where I’d stand on requirements for home schooling – and for private fundy. religious schools, of which we have some around here:
Students should be instructed in what the evidence regarding the geologic time scale and the nature of fossils is reported to be in competent academic journals, at age-appropriate levels, of course. They should be taught the scientific method and how it works.
If they choose to believe, or if their parents (or private school administration) choose to teach 'em that a literal reading of Genesis trumps theories based on geological and biological data, that’s their privilege – same right as allows the Raelians to believe that we’re all descended from clones of aliens. But they need to be given the raw material with which to decide whether their indoctrination into fundamentalist dogma accurately reflects the truth about the world or not. And I would prohibit as part of the curriculum the sorts of lies that some creationist groups perpetrate – the things valerie reiterated here about “evolution equals atheism” and “evolution is taught as a dogma.” (Side note: To be frank, some defenders of evolution do sound strangely like devout fundamentalists offended at heretics condemning dogma – something I hope they will observe in themselves and watch out for!)
RE: evaluating the WW presidency. Kids should not be required to believe anybody’s particular political views to pass a class – even their parents’ if homeschooled. But they should be equipped with enough knowledge to be able to produce a meaningful age-appropriate essay on the topic “Was Woodrow Wilson a great president or not? Defend your answer.” Either yes, no, or “only sorta” would be acceptable answers; the grading would be on the basis of how well the kid made the case for the answer he/she chose.
I agree that testing should be more rigorous (I don’t know about several weeks, though-- I can see one week, which focuses on a different area every day) I also don’t have a problem with a series of questions (like your hypotheitical about Wilson) which would require students to give some reasoned, well argued opinions about things rather than just regurgitating facts.
I agree. No student should be given a diploma he/she doesn’t deserve. If they fail only one section of a test, maybe they should be permitted to retake that section (after a minimum passage of time) and thus be granted their diploma. If a student fails every, or most sections, then make them repeat the entire year.
Well said, poly, you’re expessing my own views better than I did.
JustPlainBryan,
I agree with you. What I should have said was that Religious mythology should not be taught as scientific fact. I actually wouldn’t have a problem with schools, even public schools, teaching a basic overview of world religions-- not in a devotional sense, but simply going through some major world religions and explaining that “this is what Muslims believe…this is what Buddhists believe…” etc.
Agreed. This also gives students the ability to see the folly of religious extremism, while at the same time teaching a respect for the beliefs of others.
I’d go further and say this ought to be required learning… put it on the “Test of Basic Fundamental Learning” ™ and maybe Pat Roberston won’t go around defaming the prophet.
I concur on both counts. Presenting factual information about other religions and cultures is not the same as endorsing or promoting them. I think too many people are completely uninformed about other religions, even about other forms of their own religions. Schools are about eliminating ignorance, after all.
I still say that having the government mandate certain topics that parents must teach their children at home is the slipperiest of Orwellian slippery slopes. And not letting people vote if they don’t pass some goverment mandated test? Why don’t we require them to pay a tax at the poll too? Or prove that their grandfather was a free man?
I guess the way I see it is that it is ultimately the parent’s responsibility to see that their kids are educated, not the state’s.
Should there be no standards at all then as to what home schoolers can teach?
All children have a right to a sound education. It is the duty of the state to ensure that children receive one. If a parent is failing to provide a child with an sound education, then that child’s rights are being violated. If a child is being educated at home, then the state must verify that that education is sound. The state is obligated to protect the rights of children. Parents do not have a right to give their children an unsound education. Religious indoctrination is not education.
I don’t think it is the duty of the state to ensure children receive what the state defines as a sound education. It is the duty of the state to ensure that children are able to receive what the state defines as a sound education, should the parents decide to go that route. I guess I don’t equate not teaching your kids the exports of Brazil, or whatever, with child abuse. Requiring all American children to be educated a certain way tramples the Constitutional rights to free speech, and free religion, IMHO.
I don’t post much to GD, usually because I don’t have the time to give these types of discussions the thoughtful replies they deserve, and I am afraid tonight is another one of those times. Real life is calling, and maybe we should continue this interesting subject on another thread? We have strayed far from the OP.
Fair enough. I’ll think about how to word it and then, perhaps, write a new OP about the obligations of the state vis a vis the education of children. You’re right that we are waayyyy off topic here.
I posted it somewhere on the CreationTalk website, to which you (and anyone else)are welcome (I asked a mod here, and the admins at both darwintalk and creationtalk if it would be alright to invite other people from other messageboards) to come and defend evolution (or sigh creation). Granted I’m almost to the point where I’m tearing my hair out. To be quite honest I’ve seen you debate on other boards and I don’t know how you on other boards and I don’t know how you do it. I still try to present my cases straight forwardly, but their are a few posters that are driving me crazy (I think if you look, it will be obvious who those posters are).
When I get around to it, I’ll put up a lot more.