Git u summa dat Ohio Edguhcashun (2 Viewers)

[Eeyore]

Preacher says that through Christ, all things are possible. Therefore, 2+2=18

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) - Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution. The Ohio House of Representatives has already passed the bill. Its sponsor, Timothy Ginter, says he just wants to clarify a student's rights to religious expression, but some lawmakers...

abc6onyourside.com

 

[insidejob]

This is what JimEverett highlighted:



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.

But there is actual scientific evidence that the earth isn't 6,000 years old, so the answer would have to be marked incorrect.

This thing will probably be a mess. Why they'd want to confuse high school students even more than they already are makes no sense to me.

 

[JimEverett]

This is what JimEverett highlighted:



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.

The language clearly states that grades "shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards. . ." Meaning grades will be calculated as before - does the student understand the substance of the material taught.

In your example, the student's answer would be wrong - because using ordinary academic standards, he is wrong to assert the earth is 6000 years old.


Now, if he had written, "The Lord created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago." I am thinking that would be a case where the student showed he understood what was taught and that the teacher could not penalize for religious content.

 

[superchuck500]

The language clearly states that grades "shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards. . ." Meaning grades will be calculated as before - does the student understand the substance of the material taught.

In your example, the student's answer would be wrong - because using ordinary academic standards, he is wrong to assert the earth is 6000 years old.


Now, if he had written, "The Lord created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago." I am thinking that would be a case where the student showed he understood what was taught and that the teacher could not penalize for religious content.

Excellent illustration.

 

[SystemShock]

The language clearly states that grades "shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards. . ." Meaning grades will be calculated as before - does the student understand the substance of the material taught.

In your example, the student's answer would be wrong - because using ordinary academic standards, he is wrong to assert the earth is 6000 years old.

Now, if he had written, "The Lord created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago." I am thinking that would be a case where the student showed he understood what was taught and that the teacher could not penalize for religious content.

Sure, calculated as before. However, when you include "pedagogical concerns" and told not to reward or penalize religious content, how do you define "religious content"? Simply mentioning the Lord? Or going by what the Bible and its scholars say?

If I am asked "what's 2+2?" and I reply "by the Lord's grace, 2+2=4", I got the right answer, 2+2=4. The religious content is irrelevant to the answer, really.

But again, if I am asked "how old is the Earth?" and I reply "God created the Earth 6000 years ago", my answer is clearly religious content, is it not?

 

[V Chip]

Now, if he had written, "The Lord created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago." I am thinking that would be a case where the student showed he understood what was taught and that the teacher could not penalize for religious content.

The answer is correct, but the creation part is irrelevant. Would a student lose points for answering "Chuck Norris created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago?"

 

[insidejob]

But again, if I am asked "how old is the Earth?" and I reply "God created the Earth 6000 years ago", my answer is clearly religious content, is it not?

It's religious content but the answer is still wrong. They wouldn't be having the question marked as wrong because "God created the earth 6000 years ago," they'd be getting it marked wrong because the answer is wrong. The religious part is irrelevant.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It's religious content but the answer is still wrong. They wouldn't be having the question marked as wrong because "God created the earth 6000 years ago," they'd be getting it marked wrong because the answer is wrong. The religious part is irrelevant.

Which is one of the things that makes this a mess, as you said earlier. We are all relatively intelligent adults with the ability to think logically, yet we are already in disagreement over the potential ramifications of this bill as it applies to grading assignments. That tells me that the Ohio legislature is far more concerned with scoring points with evangelicals than it is with educating children.

 

[SystemShock]

It's religious content but the answer is still wrong.
They wouldn't be having the question marked as wrong because "God created the earth 6000 years ago," they'd be getting it marked wrong because the answer is wrong. The religious part is irrelevant.

For a young Earth creationist, that is the right answer.
If, as a teacher, you are mandated to account for pedagogical religious content, and not penalize a student for it, how do you mark that answer wrong?

 

[JimEverett]

For a young Earth creationist, that is the right answer.
If, as a teacher, you are mandated to account for pedagogical religious content, and not penalize a student for it, how do you mark that answer wrong?

The statute does not state that a teacher is "mandated to account for pedagogical religious content"

 

[Nebaghead]

My wife, who is an English teacher, gets angry when legislation is passed in regards to how educators that involve teaching policy. They have no idea how the classroom dynamic works and create extra work for teachers who are already busy. She literally had to call in sick today to work so she could catch up on her work. Last week, she worked at least 60 hours if not more and is still not caught up.
This law will likely cause additional headaches for teachers and administrators. Someone mentioned earlier if you want religion in your kids education, then go to a religous private school.

 

[SystemShock]

The statute does not state that a teacher is "mandated to account for pedagogical religious content"

It is a statute that you have to follow, right?

 

[LA - L.A.]

The statute does not state that a teacher is "mandated to account for pedagogical religious content"

It's a poorly worded and constructed statute that would open the door for parents to sue schools for marking their children's religious based answers wrong. I suspect that's by design and not an unintended consequence.

As SystemShock has demonstrated this part of the statute:

"Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns,..."​

​

Is clearly going to come into conflict with this part of the statute:

"...and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work."​

As Systemshock has pointed out, if a student gives the biblical age of the Earth as the actual age of the Earth, then the door is open for the student to claim that they are being penalized for their religious content if the teacher marks the question wrong.

Regardless of what the alleged intent of the statute, the letter of the statute is what would be enforced.

Explain how a teacher can mark an answer, providing only the biblical age of the Earth, wrong without there being a plausible legal argument, based solely on the letter of the statute, that the teacher penalized the student based on the religious content of the student's work.

The current argument is that the student is being penalized for the wrong answer and not for the religious content of their answer, but the problem is that in this case, the wrong answer and the religious content are one and the same. You can't mark it wrong for being pedagogically wrong without also marking it wrong for being religious content.

It's an internal dilemma that the structure and wording of the statute creates. None of us can assume our interpretations will be how the Ohio courts will interpret it.