In theory, I think it's a great idea. As a student in high school, I tend to greatly appreciate the diversity of course offerings (and am likewise quite disappointed when many are cut due to budget constraints). I think it would be good to be more specific in your views, though. For instance, while this may be good for mature students who already have background on both sides, this is probably a poor idea to use on younger students, as they probably are probably not able to make an educated, or rather, the best choice.

I wish to respect your desire to not have this thread become a flamewar, but I would just like to mention that the purpose of school is to educate students on skills that will help them later in life. Seeing as how science is generally accepted in modern society (apart from the diehards, that is), such a blanket technique will not be beneficial. Simply, I think that religious teachings are better off taught in church, because there is a total concensus. If you go to church, you know fully well what you want. However, if my school was to do a vote like this, and (unfortunately) in the case that creationism won out, I would refuse to attend classes. That's it.

Otherwise, I think your idea has potential, especially in some of the Southern states where this issue is more of a problem.

why limit it solely to this specific issue? or even to the curriculum? why not let students choose the method by which their progress is monitored? hell, why not let em set the calendar and schedule classes?

A few issues:
- the alternatives must be valid within the educational framework that's being taught, i.e., only science should be taught in science class. If this isn't enforced then what you're actually offering is the chance to achieve a high school diploma outside of the set standards. In systems where there's a regional diploma exam, would this have to change as well? How would universities view the credentials of such students?
- aren't educators supposed to be leading the students because they know better? What does the voting/choice system express?
- how would you present the alternatives and negate the effects of: speaker popularity/familiarity, oratorial style/skill, gender/cultural/age/racial bias?

1.) Vote as a student body for what is going to be taught. The overall side with most percentage points...wins. This can be done every year. 2.) Have a couple of different class options for the students to take for them to fulfill the science part of their program. One option could be just being taught the current regular way...evolution. Another class would include the MAJOR theories of how the world came to be. The classes should fulfull the same standards...workload...etc should be the same, only the material presented is different.

I think you've come up with some interesting, creative ideas. I don't think they're solutions, though.

I'm all for allowing children to pursue their interests and have a level of control over the direction of their education (particularly high school students).

However, these are the problems I see with what you've suggested:

a) You still have government employees endorsing/promoting religion.
Kids who do not learn evolution are handicapped in science when they get to college.

Although I agree with the sentiment I'm not sure it would work. Really it in a way it defeats the priciple of fighting Creations Vs. Evolution in court in that they should even have to choose. Creationsism (or its psuedo-scientific facade Intelligent Design) isn't a scienctific theory and so scienctists should not be forced to teach it under any circumstances. It would be sort of like asking the kids the vote on being taught that 2 + 2 = 5 in math class just because their religion said it was true. In short I think they should do what they are doing now and fight it out in court and hopefully put a stop to it once and for all.

"aren't educators supposed to be leading the students because they know better? "

Ummm, no. We don't know better necessarily. And the current focus in education is on admitting that. I like to sum it up as "A godo teacher doesn't know all the answers, but they know how to find them".

Ziggy, There has indeed been a growing movement towards what is often called "democratic schools" particularly in the USA and these schools have met with a lot of success because students are engaged with their learning because they are investigating the topics they are interested in. However, democratic schools have not been about closing off any one side of an issue, rather to have kids research both sides quite heavily and then make their own informed decisions based on that. (This is known as critical literacy. Strangely enough the strongest opponents of crit lit are in favour of teaching both ID and evolution in schools. Go figure). I don't think it's good for any child to end up with only one biased viewpoint. They will encounter difference when they leave school, and they are best equipped for that if they are exposed to difference within school...as W Bush recently said when talking about this issue.

I agree wholeheartedly with students being involved in decisions about the curriculum (as long as you still are teaching the prescribed curriculum). I don't believe you have to wait til they're older, in fact primary kids are better at it.

It would be sort of like asking the kids the vote on being taught that 2 + 2 = 5 in math class

They aren't!?!?!? Get the pitchforks and the torches guys, we got a school board to lynch!! <- for the humor impaired

Considering what I HAVE seen in different curriculum (and the way that text books have radically changed in the last 20 years), I wouldn't be very surprised if they did start teaching that. As a homeschool family, we evaluate a number of different texts to use in the classroom. Comparing them to what I remember from when I was at the same point (22 years ago), it's a big change.

Now, having said that. There's a really easy way to allow the parents AND the students dictate what they learn in school - home school. However, I will be one of the loudest ones saying that homeschooling is NOT for everyone. For a number of reasons. It is a viable alternative for some, however.

Why not let the kids, those who are being taught, choose what they want to learn?

Because they don't have the necessary skills to decide what they should learn.

why limit it solely to this specific issue? or even to the curriculum? why not let students choose the method by which their progress is monitored? hell, why not let em set the calendar and schedule classes?

Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?

i should say that I am not totally against the idea of kids having some say in what they learn. But the selection of choices should be within that subject area, mixing science and religion does not count. I DO however think that creationism should be mentioned when teaching evolution, but only in the sense of why it being apart of the history of how evolution theories were develop. Even in my very secular school it was mentioned but it was never advocated as a viable alternative and really that is what these creationist what. I know this sounds like a very scientifically arrogant point of view but look at this way: do we ask teachers of religion to read the origin of species along side genesis.

Essentially I think people should be allowed to make a choice BUT we shouldn't force science teachers to teach religion. The can learn about creationism in religion class and make their own choice that way. Otherwise where does it end? Why should they just teach the Christian creationist story? You could spend an eternity on other theories. In the thing at most creationism should serve for comparison purposes.

...this is probably a poor idea to use on younger students, as they probably are probably not able to make an educated, or rather, the best choice.

Thats why I said high school aged kids. Those who are 15-18 years old. They want to be able to make choices and I think if you give them the information to make a education and informed decision, they are more likely to make one. I believe that if the kids were given a choice into chosing what they want to learn...they will be prone to learn more from it.

why limit it solely to this specific issue? or even to the curriculum? why not let students choose the method by which their progress is monitored? hell, why not let em set the calendar and schedule classes?

I see your point here, although sarcastic. Right now..its a big debate..the parents are trying to tell their kids what they should learn. When do we draw the line and let them chose and let them decide what they want to learn? As far as the curriculum...they need to know what is set for them to learn. Science however, only gives one viewpoint. While it supports theories...it does not support any other theory outside of evolution when it comes to how the world evolved.

Now....Evolution is just one theory. It has not been proven fact or fiction yet. The same is true for Creationism. Hasnt been proven. Both are on the same side...both have their own set of beliefs WHY their theory holds true.

Religion itself is defined as many things...one defintion says: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
Wouldnt that hold true for both sides? I think of religion as a belief. Its a personal belief to believe in God...or to believe in evolution. Its something that is most important to you. All the students hear in schools is the belief of evolution.

the alternatives must be valid within the educational framework that's being taught,

I know what you are saying, but if I had a set of science standards here, I guarantee I could apply it to both sides. The main purpose of science is to explore, identify, experiment, theorize...trying to figure out why things work. But when it comes to the worlds existance, forget it...dont explore, dont try and experiment, theorize only one factor, and dont identify...dont consider anything else.

Im also not talking about teaching religion. History classes alone mention other religions / beliefs such as Buddhism, Aryans, native american beliefs...etc. There is a way to say "The world is thought to have come into being a number of ways: A) through evolution...the process of something changing into a more complex form over millions of years. The world has always existed as it exists now. C) The world was created through powers unknown to us, either by a person, diety, or other forms.

You still have government employees endorsing/promoting religion.

Does this mean that I am promoting, and endorsing religion when I teach a history class and cover the worlds religions and how they set the social setting and standards in the past? Kids are learning about Native American beliefs, dances, worships. They are learning about the other religions as well...such as Hinduism. Just yesterday, I was working with a student on that very topic as we were talking about the caste system.

How does teaching religion and other views in History class, differ from teaching all views (religious and not) of how the world came into being, in science class?

Kids who do not learn evolution are handicapped in science when they get to college.

Im not saying they shouldnt learn evolution. But they are only learning one side of a big issue. Of all the views out there of how the world came into being....only one is evolution. There are many other scientific views of how the world got to where it is. There are also many religious views. Just bcause you are teaching a view point with all other major view points..that doesnt mean you are teaching religion. Also...if they only enter college with one perspective...it sort of hinders their ability to see others perspectives as well. They are Handicapped if they are not taught evolution, but they are also handicapped when they are only taught one side of the story.

However, democratic schools have not been about closing off any one side of an issue, rather to have kids research both sides quite heavily and then make their own informed decisions based on that. I don't think it's good for any child to end up with only one biased viewpoint.

I agree.

Because they don't have the necessary skills to decide what they should learn.

But yet its ok to leave our own children in their hands as they act as a babysitter? We give them a car to drive around? We try and make them more responsible...why not let them chose what they want to learn...one side....or all sides?

Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?

Because..the government itself cant decide how to evaluate the kiddos, and with the wonderful amount of absolutely zip in funding we recieve from George to make the evaluations and assessments, they are constantly changing.

hell, cut out the middle man (or woman) altogether and let the students elect one of themselves to be instructor.

We can go real far with this idea.

Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?

hell, cut out the middle man (or woman) altogether and let the students elect one of themselves to be instructor.

'...this is probably a poor idea to use on younger students, as they probably are probably not able to make an educated, or rather, the best choice.'
'Thats why I said high school aged kids.'

i.e. Younger kids might pick the wrong education for themselves. Therefore let's wait until they have been sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves. Hmm.

Therefore let's wait until they have been sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves. Hmm.

I think that is called College.