The Ohio Student Religious Liberties Act of 2019 (1 Viewer)

[Tolstoy]

struggling with purpose of this bill

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/11/15/does-bill-just-passed-by-ohio-house-allow-students-be-wrong-science-class-without-penalty-if-they-cite-religious-reasons/

Did lawmakers in Ohio’s House pass legislation that says it’s okay for students to be wrong in science class as long as their reasoning is based on religious beliefs?

That’s what critics in the state are saying is allowed in the “Ohio Student Religious Liberties Act of 2019” (see text below), which passed this week 61 to 31 in the Republican-dominated legislative chamber and will move on to the GOP-controlled Senate.

But the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Timothy Ginter (R), says that’s not so. So does Charles C. Haynes, founding director of the Religious Freedom Center at the Freedom Forum Institute, which is the education and outreach partner of the Freedom Forum and the Newseum in Washington D.C.

The legislation, HB 164, would do the following if it became law, according to an analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, a bipartisan agency that provides the Ohio General Assembly with budget and fiscal analysis:

Allow students to engage in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork or other assignments

Prohibit public schools from rewarding or penalizing a student based on the religious content of a student’s homework, artwork or other assignments

This is the specific language in HB 164:

Sec. 3320.03. No school district board of education, governing authority of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, governing body of a Sec. STEM school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code, or board of trustees of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328. of the Revised Code shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. 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.

Ginter was quoted by WKRC as saying: “Under House Bill 164, a Christian or Jewish student would not be able to say my religious texts teach me that the world is 6,000 years old, so I don’t have to answer this question. They’re still going to be tested in the class and they cannot ignore the class material."

But Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said the measure does in fact allow students to answer homework questions and other assignments incorrectly, based on religious doctrine rather than science — and not be marked wrong. Cleveland.com quoted him as saying: “Under HB 164, the answer is ‘no,’ as this legislation clearly states the instructor ‘shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student’s work.' ”

It also quoted Amber Epling, spokeswoman for Ohio House Democrats, as saying that based on the analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, she believes students can be scientifically incorrect based on religion and not be penalized.

Numerous states in recent years have considered scores of anti-science bills — usually aimed at affecting classroom discussion on evolution and climate change. Those measures typically take one of two approaches, according to the nonprofit National Center for Science Education, which seeks to inform the public on scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change. The first approach includes measures that aim to repeal state science standards or challenge science textbooks. The other includes legislative attempts to legitimize the practice of teachers presenting unscientific criticism of scientific principles.

Ginter’s comment about a 6,000-year-old Earth refers to a belief of young Earth creationists that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that the scientific theory of evolution, the animating principle of modern biology, is invalid.

 

[beef]

1. Allow students to engage in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork or other assignments
   
2. Prohibit public schools from rewarding or penalizing a student based on the religious content of a student’s homework, artwork or other assignments
   

If it sticks to just these two simple items, applying religion to an assignment and effectively complete the work, I'd be totally fine with it.  It's an individual students work, not a religious assignment the entire class would have to follow.  I view that a little different than a student choosing not to even attempt completing an assignment for religious reasons.

Did lawmakers in Ohio’s House pass legislation that says it’s okay for students to be wrong in science class as long as their reasoning is based on religious beliefs?

This, I'm not sure what to make of.  

 

[BassNBrew]

So basically I put a cross in my artwork the teacher is prohibited from grading it.

We've got to figure out a way to get the smart people in this county to do a term or two in gov't.

 

[cobalt_27]

If the bill prohibits teachers from evaluating students on the evidence-based lessons they’ve taught then this is obviously a very terrible bill.  
 

But if the bill is intended to give kids some latitude in exploring their religious experience(s), I’m fully supportive of that. 
 

If there’s something else going on I’d like to know.  

 

[timschochet]

Sharia law? 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My state's higher ed system has a similar policy in place.  (Our regents adopted this policy primarily for the purpose of preempting legislation of the sort that Ohio now has).  

Obviously you evaluate students based on their understanding of course material.  But they can't be evaluated (i.e. punished) for taking "reasoned exception" to that material.  So if I'm teaching a biology course and ask students to explain the theory of evolution, I can mark them down if their answer includes something about Satan creating the fossil record to undermine our faith.  But I can't mark them down if their answer is something like "I don't believe in evolution because I'm a Christian who believes that the first two chapters of Genesis provide a complete explanation of the origin of humankind, but the theory of evolution states . . . [correct explanation of evolution follows]."

That sees perfectly reasonable to me, and it's how I always graded.  I never really cared if my students liked free trade or not, but I did insist that they be able to accurately discuss comparative advantage.

 

[kface]

Sharia law? 

this just it...the people so afraid of muslims are creating their own little religious kingdom.  

 

[huthut]

I can picture every grade being an A because if you don't know the answer to a question, you can just say god did it. At least that is what I would do.

 

[Kal El]

Even as a Christian, this annoys me. I believe God created the universe, but I doubt that it was 6000 years ago. For all I know, He set everything in motion billions of years ago, but the timing isn't the point. Follow the curriculum!