EOL 469: Legal Basis of Educational Practice
David M. Stone, University Laboratory High School, Urbana, IL USA
Evolution Teaching Memorandum
Dear John,
I am writing this letter in response to recent political efforts of some fundamentalist Christian individuals and organizations to eliminate the teaching of evolution in science classes. Since University Laboratory High School lacks any policy in this area, I believe it essential that we anticipate the possible need for this type of policy so that we can immediately respond to any inquiries in this area. Additionally, I believe that as a laboratory high school we should consider publicizing our position and policy, making it available to other schools across the country.
Debate pitting science against theology is commonplace in virtually every modern society. In U.S. public education, no theologically-centered debate is more intense, fierce or widespread than that involving Christian fundamentalists and the modern scientific community (Alexander and Alexander, 1998). To understand both sides of this debate, it is essential that one understands differences in scientifically and theologically- based world views. One of the best written essays regarding these differences is Ernst Mayer's "The Concerns of Science," from his book entitled "This is Biology: The Science of the Living World." Table 1 outlines my personal interpretation of the differences presented in Mayer's essay.
|
Table 1. Differences Between Scientifically- and Theologically-based Ways of Understanding the World |
||
|
Scientific Approach |
Theological Approach |
|
| Basis of Developing Understanding of the Natural World | Observation, Experimentation. | Invoke Supernatural, Biblical Interpretation. |
| Response to Challenges | Use of new instrumentation, further observation and experimentation. | Reexamination of scripture, prayer. |
| Domain of Interest | Universe, limited to the material world. | Universe, plus a metaphysical or supernatural realm inhabited by souls, angels and/or gods, plus heaven or nirvana which is the resting place of believers after death. |
In the United States, legal controversy regarding public school teaching of evolution and the role of creationism in public education has been ongoing since 1925. The best known of the historic legal cases, often called "monkey trials" in the early twentieth century, is The State of Tennessee v. John Scopes, in which a high school science teacher was convicted of violating a largely, ignored and unenforced state statute which prevented the teaching of evolution. Since that time, periods of extreme public interest, publicity and scrutiny have been interspersed with periods of relative calm and general acceptance of the status quo. The last five months of 1999 have been characterized by a renewed political effort to bring the issue to the surface of public awareness and concern. This has led to a number of new state-specific decisions regarding the teaching of evolution, which in turn have brought strong reaction from the majority of scientific and science education-related professional organizations throughout the world.
This document outlines: 1) a brief history of U.S. litigation involving evolution-creationism controversy, 2) recent state efforts pertaining to evolution-creationism controversy and litigation, 3) responses of various professional science and teaching organizations to recent state actions, 4) general and school-specific aspects to consider in developing evolution teaching policy, 5) a draft evolution teaching policy statement, 6) a brief overview of the steps required for this draft to become official University Laboratory High School policy and 7) final thoughts regarding the best way to share policy which has the potential to bring about controversy and is potentially divisive.
History of US Creationism- Evolution Litigation (1925-1998)
As a country whose roots are embedded in concepts of ideological and religious freedom, it shouldn't be surprising that controversy of this type occurs on a fairly regular basis throughout the United States. In 1789, the first major governmental statement dealing with religious freedom and ideological rights was developed, and is known today as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Alexander and Alexander, 1998). The pertinent section of the First Amendment that refers to religion simply states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part of the statement is commonly known as the "establishment" clause, while the the second part is known as the "free exercise" clause. Though intended to be clear, concise and decisive in its presentation of the two clauses, the potential for individual interpretation based on individual biases and ephemeral passions continues to allow for impassioned argument to this day. It is the balancing of these two clauses that makes the analysis of religious freedom questions difficult for teachers, administrators and legal professionals. Often a situation which seems clearly consistent with the establishment clause is not nearly so consistent with the free exercise clause, and vice versa (Braun, 1996). The United States Supreme Court stated that these clauses require each of the individual states to pursue a course of complete neutrality in all state funded agencies, including public school systems (School Law, Section 23:1, 1994). Differences in interpretation led to the five well known evolution-creationism cases briefly described below. With the exception of the first case, these cases continue to play a significant role in current and pending education litigation.
The State of Tennessee v. John Scopes
The best known and most widely publicized legal case dealing with evolution-creationism controversy was the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial in which John Scopes, a high school teacher, was charged with teaching the theory of evolution in violation of Tennessee's anti-evolution statute. This contrived case was the result of a conspiracy based on an American Civil Liberties Union offer of its services to anyone challenging the new Tennessee anti-evolution statute. John Scopes, a twenty-four- year old general science teacher and part-time football coach, volunteered to be the defendant in a test case challenging the law. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. A year later the decision of the Dayton court was reversed by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality (source = site at the start of the paragraph). Not a single editorial at the time of the Scopes trial determined it a decisive event in the controversy, though it did bring the issue to the collective American conscience and continues to be popularized through the 1960 film entitled "Inherit the Wind" (Zoll, 1999).
Epperson v. Arkansas
In 1968, the United States Supreme court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine [Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228].
Edwards v. Aguillard
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act." This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science." The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught [Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578].
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education
In 1997. the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". The Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to... other religious views." [Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997), Keller and Coles, 1999]. On August 13, 1999, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling, noting that the actual effect of the disclaimer was to establish religion by encouraging them to read about religious "alternatives" to evolution (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education)
Mozert v. Hawkins
In 1987, the U.S .Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit ruled that a group of fundamentalist Christian students in Tennessee must participate in classroom use of a basic reading series which exposed students to competing ideas and philosophies, some of which were contrary to the students' religious beliefs (Deskbook Encyclopedia of American School Law, p. 59, 1996). This ruling reversed a lower court's decision to allow those students to opt out of a reading curriculum because of their objection to the textbooks used. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit held that "the students were merely being exposed to the materials and were not compelled to either do an act that violated their religious convictions or communicate an acceptance of a particular idea or affirm a belief" (School Law, Section 23:10, 1994). These decisions set precedent which today makes it difficult to successfully challenge texts and their associated content on the basis of violating the free exercise clause. Exposure to materials and ideologies which conflict with individual religious beliefs does not violate students constitutional rights nor does it place an unconstitutional burden on their free exercise of religion. Therefore, according to the U.S .Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, this exposure does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
In summary, the above-mentioned cases state that 1) you can't
restrict the teaching of evolution concepts (Epperson v. Arkansas),
2) you can't require that the teaching of evolution be accompanied
by creationism (Edwards v. Aguillard), 3) you can't disclaim evolution
by introducing creationism in an effort to promote critical thinking
(Freiler
v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education), and 4) students
can't opt out of school topic coverage which runs contrary to
religious beliefs as long as those students are not compelled
either to "do an act that violated their religious convictions
or communicate an acceptance of a particular idea or affirm a
belief" (Mozert v. Hawkins).
US Creationism- Evolution Controversy, 1999
By virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal control over education is secondary to the power exercised by the states. Public school curriculum decision powers are delegated to state boards of education, school districts and individual schools to varying degrees (Alexander and Alexander, 1998). An August, 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete any mention of evolution from the state's science curriculum became one of the most far-reaching efforts by creationists in recent years to challenge the teaching of evolution in schools. While this move doesn't prevent the teaching of evolution, renewed interest in statewide testing and greater accountability regarding specifically stated topics will likely result in omission of the topic from many classrooms throughout that state. In fact, some Kansas local school boards are considering adoption of creationist texts. Steve Case, a biologist on the original Kansas standards committee, said that because "evolution is such a unifying principle of biology," the new standards could mean students would be unprepared for college admission tests and college science courses. Some teachers have stated publicly that they will continue to teach evolution and will resign if forced not to teach evolutionary concepts (Hanna, 1999).
Kansas is one of a number of states, including Kentucky ("Evolution' deleted from Kentucky school guidelines," 1999), Illinois (State dropped word "evolution" in '97, Champaign-Urbana News Gazette, October 25, 1999), Arizona, Alabama, New Mexico, Texas and Nebraska, whose school boards have recently attempted to take evolution out of state science standards or de-emphasize evolutionary concepts (Hoff, 1999, Smolkin, 1999).
Responses of Professional Science and Teaching Organizations to Recent State Actions
Not surprisingly, the action of the Kansas State Board of Education produced immediate responses from a number of science and science teaching organizations including the National Association of Biology Teachers (Biology Teachers Decry Kansas Decision on Evolution), the Kansas Association of Science Teachers (Press Release: From the Kansas Association of Teachers of Science (KATS), the National Center for Science Education, and the National Science Teachers Association (Statement of the National Science Teachers Association in Response to the Kansas State Board of Education's Actions to Remove Evolution from State Standards). In an unprecedented move, the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association assembled and presented a joint statement regarding their displeasure with the decision and the impact of decisions of this type on U.S. students (Joint Statement from the National Research Council, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association Regarding the Kansas Science Education Standards - September 23, 1999, National Science Teachers Association Issues Joint Statement with National Research Council and American Association for the Advancement of Science to Deny Kansas State Board of Education Copyright Permission: Absence of Evolution in State Science Standards Key Reason for Rejection . The main concerns of the organizations are summarized below:
In September, 1999 the three above-mentioned organizations released a statement saying they had denied copyright permission for the Kansas Board of education to use any sections of their standards in the development of Kansas science standards, thus reversing a tentative decision made earlier. This move will significantly delay the new Kansas science standards because the most current draft of the Kansas science standards relies heavily on materials from the AAAS's Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the NSTA's Pathways to the Science Standards. (Zehr, 1999).
The rapid and eloquent response to the Kansas decision has already made some difference in several of the states considering acquiescing to the creationist movement. New Mexico, for example, has already has been dissuaded from dropping the term "evolution" from its standards (Thomas, 1999).
General and School-specific Aspects to Consider in Developing Evolution-Creationism Teaching Policy
Key features to consider in the development of school policy include: 1) examination of audience, 2) clear statement of intended outcomes, 3) anticipation of dissenting factions, and 4) determination of the impact of the policy on those factions.
As you know, the students attending University Laboratory High School, a public selective admissions high school on the campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. As a public school, University Laboratory High School is required to maintain religious neutrality. Further, as a school with an international audience whose religious backgrounds include but are not limited to Muslim, Buddhist and Zionist as well as frequently encountered Judeo-Christian sects and divisions, emphasis of creation teachings from one religion over another is all the more inappropriate. As a laboratory high school for academically talented students, it is expected that our graduates will come away with an in-depth understanding of the sciences and scientific methodology. To teach anything to the contrary in science classes is inappropriate. Teaching about different religion's creation ideologies may be appropriate in world culture, world literature or world history classes, though the teaching of any religious-based creation ideology as fact violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The intended outcome of evolution teaching policy is that students be able to understand and communicate their understanding of evolution in a manner consistent with current scientific understanding of the phenomenon. It is essential that the policy rationale be clear to parents, teachers and administrators, as well as Illinois taxpayers. There must be a sound rationale for the teaching approach, though the entire rationale need not be included in the policy. As in all science teaching endeavors, factual information should be presented along with discussion of how we've obtained our current knowledge and current direction of research in that particular area. Someone on staff at the school should be cognizant of the rationale in developing the evolution teaching policy and should be able to point interested parties toward additional statements and organization policies which played a role in University Laboratory High School evolution teaching policy development. I believe that this is an area where Uni can take leadership in the establishment of evolution teaching policy throughout the schools across the country. Dissemination of such policy, accompanied by a sound rationale for its development, is both timely and consistent with the laboratory mission of the high school.
Unlike many school policies for which there is general parental agreement (e.g. restriction of potential weapons in schools, control of head lice), evolution teaching policy has the potential to be quite controversial, though the First Amendment makes clear the expectation that public school actions and approaches to teaching must be secular. Sensitivity to various personal viewpoints and a willingness to listen to the concerns of all involved are essential in this situation, keeping in mind the fact that this policy centers around religion, a major component of identity for many individuals. In my experience, clear presentation for the development of a policy, coupled with a willingness to listen to viewpoints of others ultimately leads to understanding of the policy rationale and acceptance of its direction and intent when that direction and intent are legally mandated.
Draft Policy Statement
Borrowing from the Joint Statement from the National Research Council, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association Regarding the Kansas Science Education Standards - September 23, 1999, and documents such as the National Academy of Sciences' Teaching About Evolution and The Nature of Science," a reasonably succinct policy regarding the teaching of evolution in science classes would be the following:
|
University Laboratory High School Policy on the Teaching of Evolution Concepts As a public laboratory high school, and in concurrence with standards set forth by the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and the National Research Council, University Laboratory High School will include the teaching of evolution as a central organizing principle in its science classes. The teaching of evolution is essential for students in better understanding many aspects of their world including drug resistance of pathogens, artificial selection of plants and animals, and the agriculturally and biotechnologically products they use on a daily basis. A basic understanding of this concept is essential for students to knowledgeably deal with the scientific and technological world around them. As a theory, like other established scientific theories, such as the theory of the atom and of gravity, evolution provides a powerful framework for formulating, asking and answering questions about our natural, physical world. Teaching about evolution encourages powerful skills of analysis and evaluation. These critical skills play an essential role in better understanding and solving future problems students will encounter regardless of their eventual career path and professional orientation. |
Overview of the Steps and Timeline Required for this Draft to Become Official University Laboratory High School Policy
Though University Laboratory High School does not have a formal structure for policy presentation and adoption, a reasonable path to expedite the procedure is listed below:
The approval process, including rewriting of drafts and submission to each of the parties above should be able to be performed within a four to six week period.
Final Considerations Regarding University Laboratory High School's Evolution Policy
Because of the sensitive nature of the evolution-creationism controversy and the potential volatility of the topic, initial policy publicity should be done in a manner which makes clear policy existence and rationale to those most likely to be drawn into debate or questioning regarding evolution teaching. We may want to consider the addition of a statement regarding the importance of a teaching evolution to a religiously diverse student body in a way that does not offend. It would be useful to get Executive Committee feedback regarding the need for, and suggestions for possible wording of, that type of statement. Once approved, we need to determine where the policy should be published. Should it be published in both the student and faculty handbooks or should the policy be published only in the faculty handbook? Will its publicity in school documents and student handouts make it a lightning rod for those individuals, either inside or outside the high school, who have a specific agenda? Should the policy be strictly an informal science department policy, with the knowledge of school administrators? Regardless of the final decision regarding how widespread its existence and publicity, it is essential that thoughts regarding public distribution incorporate recommendations and guidance of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Legal Counsel.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding this issue. Though I generally wouldn't include internal citations, a bibliography, or a list of additional online resources in a letter, I have chosen to do so in this situation so that you have additional resources available should you believe those resources may be useful. I would like to speak with you in person regarding development of evolution teaching policy for the high school, as well as discuss the role I believe Uni could play as a laboratory high school in dissemination of this type of policy.
Sincerely,
David M. Stone
Bibliography
Alexander, Kern and Alexander, M. David, American Public School Law, West/Wadsworth, 4th ed., 1998. ISBN 0-314-20334-6.
Braun, Brian A., Illinois School Law Survey, Illinois Association of School Boards, Springfield , IL, USA, 4th ed., 1996. ISBN 1-880331-07-1.
Deskbook Encyclopedia of American School Law, Data Research, Inc., Rosemount, MN, USA, 1996. ISBN 0-939675-52-8, ISSN 1058-4919.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578.
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228.
"`Evolution' deleted from Kentucky school guidelines," San Francisco Gate News, October 6, 1999.
Hanna, John, "Despite vote, some Kansas schools won't change evolution teaching," San Francisco Gate News, August 12, 1999.
Hoff, David J., "Little Consistency Seen in States' Approach to How, and Whether, Evolution is Taught," Education Week, September 8, 1999, p.24.
Keller, Bess and Adrienne D. Coles, "Court Strikes Down Evolution Disclaimer," Education Week, September, 8, 1999, page 25.
Mayer, Ernst, This is Biology: The Science of the Living World, Belknap, 1998, ISBN 0-674-88469-8.
Press Release: From the Kansas Association of Teachers of Science (KATS), September 25, 1999.
School Law, New York State School Boards Association and New York State Bar Association, 25th ed., 1994. ISBN 1-56452-046-3.
Smolkin, Rachel, Scripps Howard New Service, "Evolutionists fear gains by creationists in schools," Champaign-Urbana News Gazette, August 29, 1999, pp. B-1, B-4.
"State dropped word "evolution" in '97," Champaign-Urbana News Gazette, October 25, 1999.
Thomas, Dave, New Mexico SBE: Evolution - 13!; Creationism - 1, Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education, 1999.
Zehr, Mary Ann, "Science Groups Deny Access to Their Standards, September 29, 1999, p.5.
Zoll, Rachel, "Scopes Revisited: Legacy of the 'Scopes Trial' Often Misunderstood," Champaign-Urbana News Gazette, August 29, 1999, pp. B-1, B-4
Additional Pertinent
Online Resources
Resources Dealing with Landmark Legal Cases and First Amendment Test Procedures
Professional
Science and Teaching Organization Statements
National
An NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution
Biology Teachers Decry Kansas Decision on Evolution (National Association of Biology Teachers)
Coalition for Excellence in Math and Science Education
National Center for Science Education
The Talk.Origins Archive , hosted by the National Center for Science Education.
State
Press Release From the Kansas Association of Teachers of Science (KATS)
Articles Dealing Specifically with 1999 Actions
Despite vote, some Kansas schools won't change evolution teaching (San Francisco Gate News)
Education Week: Evolution and Creationism (Education Week)
Evolution deleted from Kentucky school guidelines (San Francisco Gate News)
Evolution gets boot, 6-4, from State BOE (Wichita Eagle)
In Kansas, a key decision on the teaching of evolution (San Francisco Gate News)
Kansas Votes to Delete Evolution From State's Science Curriculum (New York Times)
Kansas School Officials Monkey With Evolution: Concept deleted from state science curriculum (San Francisco Gate News)
Panel affirms importance of teaching evolution (San Francisco Gate News)
Science education: From order to chaos (San Francisco Gate News)
Institute for Creation Research
Developed 11-16-99. Last modified 12-5-99.