|
|
9486 in the collection
Bible coming to Texas high schools - What will be taught?
Every course in the Texas state curriculum has a detailed set of knowledge and skills that a student is supposed to learn. . . except this hot potato.
By Aaron Howard
The State Board of Education, on July 18, approved, by a 10-5 vote, a measure allowing school districts to offer an elective Bible course in public high schools, beginning in 2009. However, the board will leave it up to local school districts to design curriculum content for the classes.
On the day before the vote, State Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, strongly urged the board to establish a specific curriculum for the class. However, a majority of board members, including seven members said to be social conservatives, rejected Hochberg’s suggestion for specific guidelines.
“They adopted a course without content,” Hochberg said. “For every other course in the state’s curriculum, for every subject, there are very specific details about what a student is supposed to learn. In fact, for every other course, the state board goes through a public process to determine what curriculum elements should be included. Not this course.”
H.B. 1287 is the 2007 law that allows Texas public school districts to offer students in the ninth grade or above the option of taking elective courses on the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament and their impact on the history and literature of Western civilization. Hochberg said the original text of the bill included the language “every district SHALL offer a course and that the state SHALL NOT specify curriculum or provide textbooks.”
“The original bill was a sort of unholy alliance between the interests of the religious right, at least one curriculum vendor and some attorneys who are looking for opportunities to push the Supreme Court through the wall of separation between church and state,” Hochberg said.
Why is a Bible course in a Texas high school different from all other courses?
In the process of taking testimony on the bill, Hochberg learned that a number of districts already were offering these courses. But, there was no standardization throughout the state. And, there were legal problems with the material that was being offered. Perhaps most alarming, the courses often did not respect students’ and families’ basic religious beliefs.
“So, the Texas House Committee on Education rewrote the bill shortly after Pesach in the last legislative session,” said Hochberg. “We unanimously passed a rewritten bill. If districts are going to offer this course, we felt they should do it right. We said there would be curriculum, textbooks and academic qualifications for the teachers. Then, we took it to the floor of the House.”
The bill’s original authors tried to reinstate the original language. They failed. Hochberg’s rewritten bill passed the Texas House and Senate.
“Then it came time for the State Board of Education to do its job,” Hochberg said. “My argument was that we develop curriculum centrally, instead of depending on each school district to do it. It’s more efficient and allows us to bring in experts in the field to develop the best curriculum possible. In an area like this, where you must be careful to stay in constitutional lines and where there are many people who would like to go beyond those lines, it’s important to have a curriculum that’s been thoroughly vetted.”
So, why did the state board reject curriculum guidelines? Hochberg said he understands that board members thought “it was too hot for us to handle.” Hochberg added, “The board, instead of doing what they are required to do, passed the hot potato down to the school districts. The board argued that the law simply says they have to adopt a curriculum.”
One might ask: Why is this course different from all others? In Texas, with the exception of independent study – which, by definition, doesn’t have a curriculum – every course in the state curriculum has a detailed set of knowledge and skills that a student is supposed to learn.
For Texas high school students who take the class “Aerobic Instruction,” the curriculum is extremely specific. Details get down to “the student should learn the importance of choosing the correct type of shoe while performing aerobics.” A course on “Fruit, Nut and Vegetable Production,” offered in a rural high school, specifies details down to needing to know how to create the correct kind of compost.
Texas Board of Education Chairman Don McElroy countered that detailed standards are only important “where we have a state test” – and not otherwise. In other words, students who take a Bible elective course don’t need a standardized curriculum, because they aren’t required to pass a state standardized test.
But again, there’s no state standardized test for “Fruit, Nut and Vegetable Production.” Not coincidentally, McElroy has come out publicly against evolution, calling intelligent design “good science.”
“This is important,” Hochberg said. “Schools have the right to teach courses on religious subjects. The Supreme Court says that you can teach about religion and religious literature, but you have to draw a line between teaching and preaching. The State Board of Education has failed to provide any guidance and any direction on how to do that.”
The Texas State Board of Education made a mistake, said Robert Murray Thomas, author of “G-d in the Classroom: Religion and Public Schools” (Rowman & Littlefield). In his book, Thomas stressed that educators “are obliged to recognize the constitutional confines that curriculum content must respect.” Those confines include teaching about religion, but not providing religious instruction; being neutral with respect to religion; and although students may express beliefs with respect to religion, all student assignments must be free of discrimination and based on ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance.
“School districts can do whatever they want, as long as nobody takes them to court,” Thomas said. “The only way to get people to abide by the judgments of the court [related to constitutional confines] is through a lawsuit. Some school districts are going to do whatever they want, unless they are afraid they will be sued. There are groups like the ACLU and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, who will go to court to protect the separation of church and state.”
To make sure curriculum stays within constitutional confines, a school district could create its own curriculum. But mostly, Thomas said, districts take on a textbook and a plan that has worked in other places. The two leading Bible curricula, both of which came out in 2005, are “The Bible in History and Literature” and “The Bible and Its Influence.” In his book, Thomas did an extensive analysis of both curricula.
“The one most likely to be teaching Christian religion and the fundamentalist position, rather than history and literature, is ‘The Bible in History and Literature,’ ” Thomas said. “The people who publish this curriculum are critical of ‘The Bible and Its Influence’ as being too liberal. Bible History rarely, if ever, suggests that the Bible can be interpreted in different ways.”
In contrast, Bible Influence confronts the matter of interpretation. One lesson, for example, identifies four alternative ways Jews can read the Bible. It identifies a plain sense reading (peshat), which looks to the surface, although not necessarily literal meaning of the text; an inquiring reading (derash), which is a kind of interpretive reading; an allegorical reading (remez), which looks for parallels between scriptural text and more abstract comments; and a mystical reading (sod), which sees biblical text as symbolic or a code.
The point, Thomas said: Those who accept the Bible as literal truth are unlikely to approve of the Bible Influence curriculum.
A number of Bible classes have started in public schools in recent years. Most of these classes have not been challenged in court. Mark Chancey, associate professor in religious studies at Southern Methodist University, analyzed the Bible classes offered in 25 school districts. Chancey found most of the courses were explicitly devotional with almost exclusively Christian, usually Protestant, perspectives. He also found that teachers with no academic training in biblical, religious or theological studies, and who were not familiar with the issues of separation of church and state, taught most of the classes.
Such findings are bound to run afoul of the First Amendment, said Richard Foltin, American Jewish Committee legislative director and counsel. Foltin also serves as co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Committee on First Amendment Rights. In fact, said Foltin, this year the ABA adopted a statement on religion and the public schools. It basically says that, in the schools, officials must avoid religious indoctrination or the appearance of indoctrination, avoid endorsement of religion and avoid taking action that appears to endorse.
“The framers of our Constitution understood that, with respect to the consciences of its citizens, the government has to avoid putting its finger on the scale in terms of religious belief,” Foltin said. “Having said that, the Supreme Court opined in 1963 that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. In other words, it’s not the case that there’s any intention to create a religion-free zone in the schools or to say teachers may not mention religion or the Bible.”
So, the critical issue becomes: Is a course in which the Bible is being taught one that promotes the Bible as religious truth? Is the Bible being taught objectively or from a sectarian perspective?
“It comes down to the curriculum,” Foltin said. “And one other consideration: teacher training. It’s very easy for a teacher, who, in all good faith, is trying to stay on the right side of the line, to run afoul of the pitfalls. If you’re going to have these kinds of courses, it’s important to have teachers who are fully and properly qualified to teach about these matters in accordance with the constitution.”
In March of this year, the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way Foundation brought a successful lawsuit on behalf of eight Odessa, Texas, parents against Ector County ISD. The parents charged that an elective Odessa high school Bible class was devotional, not academic. The suit was successful on the basis that the curriculum did not conform to constitutional and academic standards for teaching about the Bible in public schools.
That decision should send a clear message to school boards across the nation, said Charles Haynes, senior scholar with the Washington-based First Amendment Center: Think carefully before adopting constitutionally suspect curricular materials for use in a Bible elective class.
Some people, however, won’t get the message because they don’t want to hear it, Haynes said. They’ll keep pushing a narrow, exclusive religious agenda in public schools.
“What puzzles me about the Texas state board’s action is that the language of the bill requires training,” Haynes added. “In my view, if all the things were done in terms of training as required by H.B. 1287, the bill would be constitutional. Training is the key safeguard to the legislation. But, I didn’t see where the State Board mentioned how that training is going to be done. So, where is this safeguard?
“A Bible elective in a public school is difficult to get right. We developed consensus guidelines that were endorsed by groups on the right and left. There is a constitutional way to do this. But, it takes a lot of work, teachers who are trained, and academically sound materials. And, it takes making sure that all the stakeholders are at the table. In public schools, the process must be transparent. It should call on the best scholarship and provide the best training for the teachers who teach the course.
“The track record in Texas in this area isn’t good. There are groups who are pushing a religious agenda by promoting Bible electives. And, that is very popular in some parts of Texas – that is, a course that reflects the majority faith. That’s what these folks have in mind – not examining the Bible from an academic perspective. It’s difficult to get this right when the starting point is doing it wrong. However, there are always courageous people willing to stand up, challenge these narrow agendas and make a difference.”
— Aaron Howard
Jewish Herald-Voice
2008-07-31
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
|
