New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Brickjectivity]

This is a failure of perspective on your part. While I could agree that, from a 1,000-mile-up perspective, "what we think" about just about anything is always sort of "tentative" - that is, absolute certainty about pretty much anything is unachievable, which does sort of put things in this weird "subjectivity limbo."

However, once you have entered an environment like a classroom and the objective is laid out for you (to learn and be able to reproduce the topics and applicable knowledge being passed on to you) then you have entered an OBJECTIVE space, within which you have an objective goal - no longer subjective. When the rules are known, you can't just flub and try to beg off when you bend the rules. In order to get a high grade, the rules are "get it right", where "right" is the applicable curriculum that the teacher taught you. This is basically how it has to work. Otherwise every class becomes more like kindergarten "art class" - and everyone just gets a "participation" grade. Who do you feel that sort of education actually helps?

I don't think we are discussing the same thing. I think this law is not impeding that. That what the argument is about. I don't think we're going to derail Science and destroy a generation of students, which is kind of what you're describing there.

Off topic I think our public school system works too much like a factory, churning through students who pass instead of requiring them to master things. It is failing many students. Part of this is because its not cost effective to insist upon lectures all day. Some students don't need lots of lecture time, and we could save a lot of money by letting them do self study. The school assumes, however, that lecture time is needed. Whats needed is that they study, perform a certain a mount of coursework and then pass examinations. Lectures were effective when school about reciting, and the students would recite together in order to remember things. They'd memorize piles of information that way, droning on with their group voices. That was a good factory method which worked, but then when school subjects become more individual and the process become internal we kept on keeping the students sitting in rows. We turned schools into baby sitting services, and they stopped efficiently teaching.

 

[Ponder This]

This sounds self-contradictory. How is it possible to adhere to ordinary academic standards, which do not allow for the injection of faith-based beliefs, and at the same time that a student cannot be penalized for giving a religious answer in a public, secular school?

As others have noted, this infusion of religious thought into an academic setting is simply degrading the education process and introducing confusion and the loss of clarity. The West has come so far secularizing government and public education. Removing religion from these arenas made them better. This is a step back.

Also, why are we burdening our teachers with their students religious beliefs anyway? Your academic teacher doesn't care what you believe, just how much of the curriculum one has understood and can reproduce in a test or discussion. This is very different from your Sunday school teacher, who only cares what you believe.

He can't be penalized or rewarded. So if a student gives a religious answer to a science question, it's like he did zero work. He can't get +1 just because his answer contains religious content. That would violate this law. How is this not clear from the reading?

Think of it.....
I'd get 100% on every science test because my religion says that whatever I believe, it is right.
But not only that, I'm 100% correct about all religions too.

Breaking News: A student claims that Anubis ate his homework! Oh no! He really believes Anubis ate his homework! What should we do?

A. Reward him for his religious content: give him an A.
B. Penalize him for his religious content: require him to write an essay explaining why Anubis does not exist.
C. Neither penalize him nor reward him for his religious content: give him an F because he did not complete the assignment.

Reading comprehension: which of those options does the Ohio law permit.

 

[dybmh]

Can you elaborate on the problem here? If Religion is not STEM, then what is the dispute between teachers and parents that you anticipate occurring?

Here's what the Gary Daniels, of the Ohio ACLU, said about it as described in the Snopes article researching this bill: { emphasis mine }

ACLU of Ohio Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels called HB 164 a mixed bag. On the one hand it removes some restrictions on students’ religious rights.

On the other hand, Daniels said that if a student submitted biology homework saying the earth is 10,000 years old, as some creationists believe, the teacher cannot dock points.

“Under HB 164, the answer is ‘no,’ as this legislation clearly states the instructor ‘shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student’s work,” he said.

( source )

The dispute between teachers and parents would occur mid-term, or towards the end of the term, when a parent or student tries to negotiate for a better grade than the student was originally given. It's a practice called 'Grade Grubbing'. Maybe you've heard of it? It's not just students that try to negotiate for better marks. The parents do it too. Mostly they want their kids to get into a good college, but, it can also become a power struggle between teacher and parent. Adding a restriction like: "A Student can't be penalized for a religious answer given to a scientific question" gives too much power to the parent to determine the grades. The teacher should be grading the student's understanding of the subject matter. And this makes that very difficult if a parent insists that their child's answer "Shall not be penalized."

 

[Jose Fly]

My guess is it's Republican politicians pandering to a religious constituency without regard for the damage that this kind of meddling can do.

More than anything else, I see this as an indication of how Ohio is becoming increasingly conservative (with many of the cities losing people due to loss of manufacturing jobs).

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you elaborate on why this is poorly written?

A student cannot be penalized or rewarded for religious content and the answer "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" does not conform to ordinary academic standards for substance and relevance when teaching science. So it's clear that the student will, in fact, be wrong and that the science teacher may mark it thus (in fact, is probably compelled by this law to mark it wrong, because not marking it wrong would be rewarding a student based on religious content). If a student is doing some sort of essay in another class where science isn't the standard but some other academic standard is being met, then it might be acceptable.

That's basically the point. If a teacher gives a student an F for answering the question that way, the student could argue that they're being penalized for expressing their religious belief.

I think those are excellent questions and I would like to know the answers to those questions myself. I can only speculate, but there have been challenges to religious freedoms in schools recently. Cases where students have been unable to practice their religion freely and cases where students were required to do specific religious activities against their will. So maybe there is a problem even though what is said should pretty much go without saying.

Except this bill isn't about allowing students to engage in religious practices or activities, it's about allowing them to give religious answers in their assignments and tests, without penalty. And that's what makes me wonder....is that a problem that needs fixing? Is the Ohio legislature really thinking "we need to do something to help all those students who are being penalized for giving religious answers to test questions"?

The other part that I find interesting is how once again, when conservatives draft bills like this there's an unstated assumption that....wink...wink....we all know which religion we're really talking about. Does anyone think the Republicans did this to protect students of non-Christian faiths?

 

[Shad]

So, the question becomes 'whose academic standards'?

The normal state curriculum

 

[Shad]

Here's what the Gary Daniels, of the Ohio ACLU, said about it as described in the Snopes article researching this bill: { emphasis mine }



( source )

The dispute between teachers and parents would occur mid-term, or towards the end of the term, when a parent or student tries to negotiate for a better grade than the student was originally given. It's a practice called 'Grade Grubbing'. Maybe you've heard of it? It's not just students that try to negotiate for better marks. The parents do it too. Mostly they want their kids to get into a good college, but, it can also become a power struggle between teacher and parent. Adding a restriction like: "A Student can't be penalized for a religious answer given to a scientific question" gives too much power to the parent to determine the grades. The teacher should be grading the student's understanding of the subject matter. And this makes that very difficult if a parent insists that their child's answer "Shall not be penalized."

This is nothing but an assertion that this will happen.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We need more reasonable people like them, who can see through the fog that's so thick up to some people's noses.
Imagine people want children to go to school and learn foolishness; answer the questions according to the script, even if they don't believe the answers are correct, just to say, they did a science.
So, one cannot become a scientist, unless they accept science dogma (aka philosophy).
It's beyond me how someone can consider that sensible.

Irony: It's beyond me how some people keep believing in things for which there is absolutely zero reason to believe--- yet, not only do they insist on believing, they also insist *I* must believe it also, under penalty of law...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Gee. I didn't know my motor car ran because of a theory. LOL.

The motor runs because of physics. Science doesn't "make things run". It explains *why* they run.

One thing about motors? The NEVER run because of Magic (prayers).

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Its not like that. In high school or before high school students should learn some cell biology, Chemistry, some Geology, Math, Geometry and Physics. They are hard sciences. This does not require learning in detail all of the periods of Earth's development and its geological strata or several cosmological models.

They should also learn History, a foreign language, how write research and properly document it, how to make logical arguments, how to learn about contracts, how to research laws, how to manipulate data in spreadsheets, how to cook, how to use basic tools and power tools, first aid, some nursing skills, how to restore a computer operating system from a backup, work safety such as ladder safety, some electrical skills such as using a voltmeter, how to count in binary, how to drive a vehicle, how to care for a pet, how to protect their identity from identity thieves, how to stretch and strengthen their muscles safely, how to read about medicines and consider the effects of medicines. There are a lot of things to learn for the amount of money and time being spent on schooling.

I am in favor of charter schools. I don't think the current public school system can be reformed well without them. I think we're going to have to give up on the way we're trying to improve the public schools merely through standardized testing. I do not think the charter schools should be permitted to teach religion. If they receive charter funds then they should only teach non-religious instruction.

Creation Science is religious instruction. Parents can easily teach it to their kids. It takes a few sentences. There's almost no effort involved. Its not a life skill and public schooling is not needed for it, nor should taxes sponsor it.

This affects soft sciences but not hard sciences. Some studies are pretty good, and we do need statistical studies. Just because not everything can be repeated doesn't mean that its not needed. It just means its not hard science. Its still research when properly conducted by dedicated people.

I agree 100% percent-- teach all those things. Robert Heinlien would also agree, I think:


“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If I was a science teacher I'd either consider legal action or quit.

Worth noting there is nuance in the bill. But it is needless, pandering and introduces confusion imho.

Does Ohio Bill Let Students Give Wrong Answers Based on Religion?

If I were a science teacher? I'd ignore the law-- letting the challenge go forward. If a student wrote "god did it" in response to a science question, as the only answer? Gets a Fail.

I'd ignore double-answers, so long as one was scientifically literate. I'd ignore all the BS embellishment a kid felt needed, due to religious brainwashing.

But, answers that were wrong, from a science perspective? Get a "Wrong" on the test/assignment.

Take me to court.

 

[exchemist]

The replication crisis often makes the scientific claims no more valid than the religious. Faith in the science produced by a broken and fractured academy is misplaced.

I would prefer that biology teachs that Male and female are the TWO sexes rather than that gender it is an oppressive construction of the paitriarchy and that sex is not a real thing. I think an appeal to the common historical understanding of sex and gender as outlined by the bible, showing 5000 years of human consensus on the sublect to be a valid argument.

You wish a science that says that they have NO IDEA what 95% of the universe is made of to be held as sacrosanct?

You wish to teach physics that can not agree if there is one universe or an infinite number of universes yet a supernatural perspective is not allowed?

To teach a cosmology that has NO basis in fact but is ALL conjucture often opposed by a small but credibible number of disentures is also a problem.
.........................

Hogwash - and you know it. The replication crisis mainly concerns soft sciences like psychology and is also - sad to say - apparent in medical studies. There is to my knowledge no evidence that this crisis pervades physics, or indeed biology or palaeontology, and certainly not to the extent that major theories are suspect. If you believe you have such evidence, kindly produce it.

I would be prepared to agree, however, that some scientific cosmological speculations outrun the the observational evidence so far that they are really a form of metaphysics.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Is it your assertion that evolution is not part of "ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance including legitimate pedagogical concerns"? Because I was under the impression that it was..

The law, as written, would forbid the teacher from grading a well-deserved F, if a student wrote "god did it" in response to any Evolution question.

That "cannot be penalized" bit of the law, which---as written-- is contrary to the "ordinary academic standards" which is subject to interpretation.

The law, as written, permits religious lunacy in place of actual science, in science class.

Keep religious lunacy in religion class, where it belongs.

 

[nPeace]

Irony: It's beyond me how some people keep believing in things for which there is absolutely zero reason to believe--- yet, not only do they insist on believing, they also insist *I* must believe it also, under penalty of law...

Rewind that, and play it again. Only, this time, rather than in your mind, inserting religionists in place of people, think about it for two seconds. Instead of in your mind, inserting God and the Bible, in place of things, think of it for two seconds.
Seem the ironic circles between two points... and never stops.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Rewind that, and play it again. Only, this time, rather than in your mind, inserting religionists in place of people, think about it for two seconds. Instead of in your mind, inserting God and the Bible, in place of things, think of it for two seconds.
Seem the ironic circles between two points... and never stops.

The irony is even stronger with the above post-- again, you insist that *I* believe in your religion, which you insist is real (in spite of zero evidence), and you would force me under penalty of law, were you able.

Notebook: The god of the bible? Cannot exist, as described.

If you took all the attributes the bible claims about it's god? They add up to an Impossible Thing.

A Square Circle. A married bachelor. A living dead person. These are examples of an Oxymoron.

Oxymoron things cannot exist-- the bible describes a god who is "all good" yet "is the creator of all evil".

One of those two attributes has to be wrong. Likely-- both are...

 

[nPeace]

The irony is even stronger with the above post-- again, you insist that *I* believe in your religion, which you insist is real (in spite of zero evidence), and you would force me under penalty of law, were you able.

Notebook: The god of the bible? Cannot exist, as described.

If you took all the attributes the bible claims about it's god? They add up to an Impossible Thing.

A Square Circle. A married bachelor. A living dead person. These are examples of an Oxymoron.

Oxymoron things cannot exist-- the bible describes a god who is "all good" yet "is the creator of all evil".

One of those two attributes has to be wrong. Likely-- both are...

Who is insisting that you believe in religion? Be careful with paranoia Bob.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The law, as written, would forbid the teacher from grading a well-deserved F, if a student wrote "god did it" in response to any Evolution question.

Are you sure? Not being a lawyer it doesn't look that way to me.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Oh, I *wish* it was a joke. The anti-science nuts are in force in the US right now.

It is more IGNORANCE FIRST

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Who is insisting that you believe in religion? Be careful with paranoia Bob.

Social pressure is not a Who.
But is very powerful.

 

[dybmh]

This is nothing but an assertion that this will happen.

True. Good point.