Idiot Ohio bill allows students to be wrong and still get points

[lfromnj]

https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion?fbclid=IwAR0I9RZ4uKbVapMytmJko37byvUG3I5QvN-pQKc2-5b60NuC582eGdaoW6E

Comes from the religious right
Fink the idiots in SF and Seattle trying to ruin education and fink the idiots here.

[T'Chenka]

Believing that either Jesus Christ or Donald Trump (or both) are your savior(s) does not entitle you to a reality-free safe space.

[Hammy]

Believing that either Jesus Christ or Donald Trump (or both) are your savior(s) does not entitle you to a reality-free safe space.

Unfortunately this bill pretty much stands for everything the right wing/religious wing of this country stands for--reality simply doesn't matter if it contradicts your established worldview.

[pbrower2a]

This debases the meaning of a high-school diploma in Ohio.  Just what Ohio kids need... not!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Unless I'm missing something (always possible), I don't think the thread title accurately describes what this bill does.  It's just that if, say, a student is asked how old the earth is and they give the right answer, but also add "however, for religious reasons, I personally believe it to be 6,000 years old for religious reasons" then they won't get docked points for including the second part along with the scientifically correct answer.  If was asked the approximate age of the earth and only said "it's 6,000 years and I'm saying this for religious reasons," then they'd still lose points.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I still think this is a silly and unnecessary bill.  I also don't particularly care for the folks championing it.  That said, I also think this really looks like a case of some news outlets deliberately sensationalizing a fairly run-of-the-mill dumb virtue signaling bill because they [said outlets] saw a chance to turn this into some easy click-bait.

The part of the bill causing the controversy (with the most important part bolded for emphasis): "No school district...shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments.  Assignments, grades, and scores will be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based upon the religious content of a student's work."  

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Unless I'm missing something (always possible), I don't think the thread title accurately describes what this bill does.  It's just that if, say, a student is asked how old the earth is and they give the right answer, but also add "however, for religious reasons, I personally believe it to be 6,000 years old for religious reasons" then they won't get docked points for including the second part along with the scientifically correct answer.  If was asked the approximate age of the earth and only said "it's 6,000 years and I'm saying this for religious reasons," then they'd still lose points.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I still think this is a silly and unnecessary bill.  I also don't particularly care for the folks championing it.  That said, I also think this really looks like a case of some news outlets deliberately sensationalizing a fairly run-of-the-mill dumb virtue signaling bill because they [said outlets] saw a chance to turn this into some easy click-bait.

The part of the bill causing the controversy (with the most important part bolded for emphasis): "No school district...shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments.  Assignments, grades, and scores will be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based upon the religious content of a student's work."  

Yep.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1195084051578642432?s=20

[Progressive Pessimist]

This should do nicely for the effort to accelerate Ohio's transformation into a safe Republican state.

[SInNYC]

So, what prevents a teacher from prefacing every question with "According to modern science, ..."? I'm not sure whether or not the bill allows that.

Of course this still gives up on students with idiot teachers...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Unless I'm missing something (always possible), I don't think the thread title accurately describes what this bill does.  It's just that if, say, a student is asked how old the earth is and they give the right answer, but also add "however, for religious reasons, I personally believe it to be 6,000 years old for religious reasons" then they won't get docked points for including the second part along with the scientifically correct answer.  If was asked the approximate age of the earth and only said "it's 6,000 years and I'm saying this for religious reasons," then they'd still lose points.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I still think this is a silly and unnecessary bill.  I also don't particularly care for the folks championing it.  That said, I also think this really looks like a case of some news outlets deliberately sensationalizing a fairly run-of-the-mill dumb virtue signaling bill because they [said outlets] saw a chance to turn this into some easy click-bait.

The part of the bill causing the controversy (with the most important part bolded for emphasis): "No school district...shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments.  Assignments, grades, and scores will be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based upon the religious content of a student's work."  

Yep.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1195084051578642432?s=20

[Sorenroy]

The part of the article that stood out the most to me was that "Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate." There will always be those on the fringes pushing for nonsense bills like these, but it's sad to see the entire block of Republicans voting for the bill, not that that is anything special nowadays.


Also, at best, the point being made by my esteemed forum colleges on the other side of the isle is that this bill does nothing but virtue-signal to the small number of American's that can't accept settled science. However, this is something that runs deeper than an addendum at the bottom of a paper saying that your religious beliefs tell you that what you are learning is false.

At the core of my issue here is that by allowing the use of religion as a "I'm hearing you, but I'm not listening." effectively ends the discourse on basically any topic. If you went into class and said you didn't believe in man-made climate change, there could be a discussion about your views and the views of others. However, if you went into class and said you don't believe in man-made climate change and that comes from your religious beliefs, that ends the discussion on the matter.

And beyond the fact that it ends critical examination of what is right and wrong, it shows the deeper issue here in the states that many see religion and ideology as one and the same and intertwine their religious beliefs to match their worldview. I don't see mass groups in other countries denying climate change because of their religion and it's sad that our country seems to have become a base for that unfortunate trend.

Hopefully as we continue to become more partisan the church will not act as a proxy for wanton ignorance of fact.

[Hammy]

I bet most of the people who support this bill are the same ones that whine about affirmative action giving minorities special treatment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I bet most of the people who support this bill are the same ones that whine about affirmative action giving minorities special treatment.

Speaking as someone who opposes this bill and supports affirmative action, I fail to see how would give anyone special treatment.