Git u summa dat Ohio Edguhcashun (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

Eeyore

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
294
Reaction score
486
Age
49
Location
Indiana
Offline
Preacher says that through Christ, all things are possible. Therefore, 2+2=18

 

DJ1BigTymer

Yo! We got some hats now...
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
426
Reaction score
594
Age
48
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Preacher says that through Christ, all things are possible. Therefore, 2+2=18

That's some really important work being done by the Ohio legislators. I don't know how many students have failed their courses because of provable facts. Now their suffering has come to an end and they are free to be as ill informed as they want to be.
 

V Chip

Truth Addict
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
768
Reaction score
1,298
Age
53
Location
Outside Atlanta
Offline
This is participation trophies for religion.

"Your answer is 100% incorrect, but here's a nice blue ribbon and a B- for showing up in class."
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,813
Reaction score
1,428
Location
Nashville
Offline
I think it is a silly law, but I don't think it means a kid can get credit for a wrong answer.

The key language seems to be this:

"Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work."

Unless I am really not understanding what is written, I don't see how this can mean what the WKRC article says it means.
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,959
Reaction score
4,390
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I think it is a silly law, but I don't think it means a kid can get credit for a wrong answer.

The key language seems to be this:

"Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work."

Unless I am really not understanding what is written, I don't see how this can mean what the WKRC article says it means.
I have been wanting to get into the statutory language as well - my sense is that this is being somewhat misrepresented. It certainly doesn't mean 2+2=18.
 

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
603
Reaction score
478
Age
53
Location
Houston
Offline
It seems to me that the law is allowing religious expression for assignments not exams. I am pretty sure you still have to answer the exam questions in the normal fashion.

1574088626087.png
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,959
Reaction score
4,390
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
Yeah, on it's face it doesn't seem that problematic - if the baseline is "ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance", that seems to mean that the academically "correct answers" are still the correct answers. For example, let's say a student chooses to place a religious context for explaining the themes in Lord of the Flies. The law would seemingly require the English teacher to look for the merit in the analysis without detracting for the basis in religion.

But the devil (some would say literally) is in the details. If a world history class has an anthropology section in it (I recall learning about prehistoric hominem species) and a student refuses to answer test questions consistent with the class presentation for fear that it may sound like consenting to evolution as academically correct . . . how would that be resolved? I think the result should ideally be that a student can be expected to demonstrate knowledge about those subjects without having to draw the connection modern humans (seems reasonable) - but we all know that these things get complicated at the ground level, where people, personalities, and agendas get in the way.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,813
Reaction score
1,428
Location
Nashville
Offline
Yeah, on it's face it doesn't seem that problematic - if the baseline is "ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance", that seems to mean that the academically "correct answers" are still the correct answers. For example, let's say a student chooses to place a religious context for explaining the themes in Lord of the Flies. The law would seemingly require the English teacher to look for the merit in the analysis without detracting for the basis in religion.

But the devil (some would say literally) is in the details. If a world history class has an anthropology section in it (I recall learning about prehistoric hominem species) and a student refuses to answer test questions consistent with the class presentation for fear that it may sound like consenting to evolution as academically correct . . . how would that be resolved? I think the result should ideally be that a student can be expected to demonstrate knowledge about those subjects without having to draw the connection modern humans (seems reasonable) - but we all know that these things get complicated at the ground level, where people, personalities, and agendas get in the way.
I don't see the problem with the history class situation in the way I read the statute. The student who refuses to give an answer consistent with the taught material will get the question wrong. He could answer the question via the way it is taught and then add a religious caveat - "I think the idea of man being 200,000 years old as absurd, the Bible says . . . ." Then, in that case, I do not think the student could be penalized.


Nonetheless, it seems like an odd statute. Have a lot of students in Ohio been penalized for giving their religious beliefs after showing mastery of the taught material?
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,138
Reaction score
1,369
Offline
Nonetheless, it seems like an odd statute. Have a lot of students in Ohio been penalized for giving their religious beliefs after showing mastery of the taught material?
It’s pandering, that’s all. The bill also includes language promoting the formation of religious after school clubs, which is already legal.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,813
Reaction score
1,428
Location
Nashville
Offline
I could see a potential problem: Suppose in a class teaching evolution a student displays mastery of evolutionary theory but also adds a sort of teleological element to the whole idea. So the student is not just saying something like :"Here is what evolutionary theory says, but I don't buy it, I believe in creationism." Instead, he is sort of combining the evolutionary theory with a creationist theory. I could see something like that being problematic - particularly with teachers who have little patience, or intelligent kids trying to get cute.
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,959
Reaction score
4,390
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I don't see the problem with the history class situation in the way I read the statute. The student who refuses to give an answer consistent with the taught material will get the question wrong. He could answer the question via the way it is taught and then add a religious caveat - "I think the idea of man being 200,000 years old as absurd, the Bible says . . . ." Then, in that case, I do not think the student could be penalized.


Nonetheless, it seems like an odd statute. Have a lot of students in Ohio been penalized for giving their religious beliefs after showing mastery of the taught material?
I agree that the history student should still get the question wrong - my point was that people don't always act in accordance with expectations when you get into these areas. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore instructed courts in Alabama to resist adherence to Obergefell.
 

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
603
Reaction score
478
Age
53
Location
Houston
Offline
This law seems to be a response to schools behaving badly and a limiting previous law.

Current state law prohibits a school district from promoting an establishment of religion or prohibiting any student from expressing religious beliefs. Ginter’s bill would lift a provision of that law allowing schools to limit such activity to non-instructional time.

The bill would not change current law allowing schools to “provide for a moment of silence each school day for prayer, reflection or meditation upon a moral, philosophical or patriotic theme” with student participation optional.

During committee hearings on the bill, students spoke of their high school clubs being treated differently from secular groups, such as not being included in the school yearbook and not being given the same access to facilities for meetings.

Aaron Baer, president of Citizens for Community Value, said the measure “comes at a critical time in the culture and protects the right of Christian and non-Christian students alike to freely exercise their faith.”
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
811
Reaction score
673
Location
Xibalba
Offline
I have been wanting to get into the statutory language as well - my sense is that this is being somewhat misrepresented. It certainly doesn't mean 2+2=18.
No, it doesn't mean 2+2=18.

The way I read it, it means that, if a question on an assignment asks "how old is the Earth?", a student can answer "6000 years" and their answer not be marked as being wrong, and that item would be removed from the grading equation... which is stupid, and pandering to evangelicals.
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,959
Reaction score
4,390
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
No, it doesn't mean 2+2=18.

The way I read it, it means that, if a question on an assignment asks "how old is the Earth?", a student can answer "6000 years" and their answer not be marked as being wrong, and that item would be removed from the grading equation... which is stupid, and pandering to evangelicals.
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion from the statutory language.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
811
Reaction score
673
Location
Xibalba
Offline
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion from the statutory language.
This is what JimEverett highlighted:

"Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work."
Expanding on my example, say a teacher assigns a take home quiz with 10 questions. One of the questions is "how old is the Earth?". The student writes down "The Lord created the Earth 6000 years ago".

As a teacher, based on the language of the statute, how do you grade that assignment?

Obviously, the answer is religious in nature, and you can't penalize the student because of the religious content of the student's work, therefore can't mark that answer wrong. You can't reward him either, so you can't mark the answer right. So what do you do? Instead of grading on 10 out of 10, you grade on 9 out of 9.

To me, that's the practical application of the statute.
 

insidejob

white house klansman goes into hiding
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,594
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
No, it doesn't mean 2+2=18.

The way I read it, it means that, if a question on an assignment asks "how old is the Earth?", a student can answer "6000 years" and their answer not be marked as being wrong, and that item would be removed from the grading equation... which is stupid, and pandering to evangelicals.
I don't see that.

I just think it's dumb to put religion into any public schools. You want your kid to get a religious education, send them to a Catholic (or whatever religion you may be) school.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top Bottom