Tuesday, January 28, 2014
The URL for this Slate essay - which purports to be about science education but is really just a re-hashed attack on the idea of school choice -- refers to "creationism in public schools." The headline, though, is about "publicly funded schools." And, when one reads the article itself, it turns out that the complaint has to do with schools that are attended by students whose families are benefitting from tax-credit programs and scholarship/voucher programs. But, of course, the premise of the Court's Zelman decision, and the many precedents on which that decision rests, is that the funds in question belong to the parents -- they and their children are the beneficiaries of a public-welfare program -- and that the funds reach religious schools (where "creationism" may or may not be taught) as a result of the parents', and not the government's choice.
If the premise of this article were sound, then it could just as well be a piece about how "public schools are preparing children to receive the Eucharist." But, of course, they are not.
Now, to be clear: I imagine that the author of the piece and I agree about what should, and should not, be taught in science classes when it comes to the age of the Earth and human origins. But, again, the title is misleading and the premise is unsound.