The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools
|Subject: Re: smaller government, DrB?||Date: 5/16/2013 5:32 PM|
|Author: Windchasers||Number: 423092 of 454190|
How do you read that? Schools in many places are teaching creationism right now. I'm looking to change that.
O.o. If that's true, I'll be genuinely surprised. I know that many states or teachers are trying to teach creationism, but they keep getting the smackdown from the courts.
Of course, if they are teaching creationism despite it being illegal, then we have an enforcement problem. If that be the case, it'd make sense to address that before adding any new federal rules, as there's no point in coming up with new regulations if the states aren't following them.
So, let's say a state decided to test out the idea of just letting kids read the bible all day long. You're cool with that? Sounds great for the country.
Already illegal, and for good reason.
Look, I don't want to let the states try just anything. Rather, like in engineering or science, it's an iterative process. Try some new things, adopt what works. Then try variations on that, see which works better, and adopt that. Repeat.
Since we already know that teaching creationism as science is bad, ineffective education, there's no need to go back to it.
Once we have enough data to strongly show that one method is decisively better than another, we enforce that on the states.
So it's just a temporary measure? I'm very confused.
The grants and rewards are just temporary - the DoE would award grants to try something new (and your proposal would require approval from the DoE), as well as rewards for discovering a new, better way of educating kids. It's kinda like the science funding model (grants), or like the X Prizes for new technologies (rewards).
At the same time, we'd also employ some federal education standards that we enforce on the states, and we ratchet those up as new data comes to light. For instance: we're seeing a growing body of evidence showing that abstinence-only education is solidly sub-par to other types of sex education. If that evidence continues to firm up, I'd like the federal government to restrict the states' use of abstinence-only sex ed.
To sum up:
1) Try new things.
2) What works, adopt for everyone.
3) Repeat previous steps.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|