Janaya

I simply cannot understand why school boards/districts can decide arbitrarily what in science is true.

So, why don't we have a national panel of scientists to actually approve what goes into our science textbooks?

Your thoughts anyone?

Peace,
Janaya

[edited for tequila spelling]

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Janaya ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Because in the US, K-12 education is descided by politicians listening to voters. In most instances, unless the voters listen to scientists and college academics, the Boards of Education won't.

The politics involved can get pretty complicated. Take Ohio for example. They established a curriculum review board with a considerable number of Ohio scientists on it. Not suprisingly, the review board didn't entertain the notion of teaching ID when one of its members, an engineer, propsed it. However, this engineer wasn't happy losing and so descided to go to the politicians on the board of education and pull the wool over their eyes about the nature and stature of ID. Thus instead of the curriculum review board determining curriculum, as Ohio originally intended, you have the BOE politicians doing it.

Albion

Your other problem is that textbook publishers on the whole are there to make profits so they want their books to be as applicable to as many regions as possible. So if a publisher thinks that too heavy an emphasis on evolution in a biology textbook means that it won't be chosen in most of Texas and all the rest of the South, he'll de-emphasise that subject. As will all the others, and so on and so on until it gets to be a race to see who can get away with the absolute minimum. I mean, even if a panel of scientists gets to review books and make recommendations, I don't see this society being happy with not being given a choice. And while there's choice, you have that drive toward popularity in textbook content.

Coragyps

And oddly enough, the two markets that textbook publishers apparently really compete for are Texas and California - both populous states with rather centralized decision making on which texts get accepted. If the Texas biology decisions got made in Austin by a panel of U. of Texas profs, that might be OK, but they aren't, and there are a mess of fundies out here in the rest of this state.

Rusting Car Bumper

They don't necessarily.

In some or most states the State forwards an approved set of books. Its up to the locality to choose from those books. Its not universal but it works that way in some States.

A national board would simply change the politics to a different arena. Frankly, I trust it being handled on the national level even less. The amount of political correctness at the Federal level gives me a shudder as to what would happen if they controlled science textbooks.

DC

Valentine Pontifex

What you are suggesting is unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment reads:

It is that states that decide such things. The state via their constitutions or laws might gives the power to the local government bodies. (Actually the states give the local governments their authority.)

The federal government can set up such a committee but its rulings would be non-binding on the states. Of course the federal government can use its all-purpose loophole for the Tenth Amendment. That loophole is bribery. If you do as we wish we will give you money. That is actually how a great deal of federal mandates are actually done.

PandaJoe

Why not a panel of scientists deciding on preffered texts? They wouldn't be setting any rules, just determining what they think would be the best subjects to focus on.

Camaban

That is the exact reasoning I believe the US system is useless on so many things.

Over here (as far as I know) The idea of parents voting on what their children should be taught is nothing more than an amusing concept.

Why when we've got people who actually know what they're talking about? What does the average parent know about most of this stuff?

Albion

They know how they feel. And they understand that democracy is good and authoritarianism is bad. And that they're voters and they deserve to vote. And they don't, on the whole, trust scientists and they do, on the whole, trust their religion. The fact of being woefully ill informed isn't even on most people's horizon.

Camaban

Who was it that said that the best argument against Democracy was a 10 minute conversation with the average voter?