Don't want your kid learning about the evils of evolution? Move to Missouri

[Dembadon]

...

Do you really need to see a study that shows students who don't take science courses do poorly in science?

Strawman. OT.

...

Either I wasn't clear enough with my reasoning in previous posts, or I misunderstood what you were asking for. Since it's off-topic, I guess we'll have to leave it. Thank you for discussing this with me, though.

 

[lisab]

I don't believe that someone in Missouri could just opt out of classes because evolution or the age of the Earth would be taught to be in conflict with religious beliefs.

...no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs...

(From the link in the OP.)

Sounds like "opting out due to conflict" to me.

 

[SixNein]

The Supreme Court has already ruled (Epperson vs. Arkansas) that the State may not require, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma,"

But that says nothing about student involvement. The state law says that students may opt out. My fear is the chilling effect if a lot of students begin to opt out. Teachers may start trying to adjust their presentations to avoid the hassle. But they aren't required to change anything according to state law.

This is why the Missouri law specifically allows non-participation. Nothing special needs to be done. You also interpret the meaning of, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs," to mean that a student could opt out of class... meaning not being physically present but that isn't clear by the statute.
The meaning of "participate in" may eventually be determined by lawsuit but it could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the student do no more than be passively present during any educational presentation; that meaning being determined by the school districts of course.

I concede that it could be interpreted that way; however, the ACLU has this take on it:

Providing all students a right to refrain from school assignments and presentations that violate their religious beliefs is a truly profound change in educational law. The Supreme Court has long held that “[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its ‘basic educational mission,’ even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Providing this exemption will cause untold mischief in both public and parochial schools and will adversely affect the quality of education in Missouri.

http://www.aclukswmo.org/cases/page-cases-aclu-concerned-with-mo-amendment-2.php

 

[Evo]

The thread keeps running off topic, so it is closed.