You are here
In April the Brodhead School District board voted not to adopt two sets of elementary and middle school science books which had been recommended by district staff after a year of review. According to press reports, some board members "expressed concern on how evolution was presented in the books, more as fact than theory".
At its May meeting, the board decided to accept the textbooks, after having had a chance to review them in the meantime. No further comments about evolution were reported.
The board of the Roseville City School District considered the adoption of local science standards at their June 14 meeting. One board member had been quoted in news reports as supporting changes to allow teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in science classes. She had also suggested using some sort of evolution "disclaimer" or allowing students to "opt out" of evolution segments of courses. The board voted 4-1 to adopt the science standards without changes, and without any "opt-out" provision.
On June 13, 2001, the US Senate adopted a "Sense of the Senate" amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Authorization bill, S.1, currently under consideration. The resolution (Amendment #799) read:
"It is the sense of the Senate that (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
Colin Dovichin, a first-year teacher at Lancaster High School, claims he is losing his job because he would not give in to pressure from parents to teach creationism alongside evolution in his science classroom. He also claims that he was attacked as "an atheist".
The effort of Rodney LeVake to argue he had free exercise, free speech, and due process rights to teach "evidence against evolution" has failed. The Minnesota Appeals Court on May 8, 2001 supported the summary judgement dismissal decision of the Minnesota District Court of last year.
Regarding the free exercise of religion claim, the Appeals Court wrote: