Florida Citizens for Science

We’ve been tracking the Senate version of the Religious Expression in Public Schools bill, which has successfully navigated one committee hearing and is headed for its next one next week. We are concerned with two troubling parts of the bill that could have negative implications for science education. Please see our previous posts about this in the Religious Liberties Act 2017 blog category. So far, the Senate bill hasn’t been modified in any way.

The House version of the bill had been stagnant for a while but is now moving forward. It is scheduled for its first hearing in the PreK-12 Quality Subcommittee Tuesday, March 14 at 2 p.m. Coincidentally, that’s the exact same date and time as the next Senate committee hearing.

However, it’s interesting to see that the House bill has already been amended. A simpler version of the bill will now be considered. Here’s the original for comparison. Keeping in mind that we’ve had two main concerns about this bill, the possibility of teachers using this “Religious Liberties” bill as permission to teach unscientific religious views in the science classroom and the possibility of students using the bill as permission to use unscientific religious views in their classwork, one of those issues is no longer a problem in the House version. The language about teacher (and other school personnel) religious liberties has been removed.

But that still leaves the student classwork concern on our plate. Even though the bill states students’ work must meet “expected academic standards relating to the course curriculum and requirements,” we’re still worried that this can open the door for unscientific religious views being expressed as a way to challenge the teacher’s authority. We can see an example of this from a Kentucky lawmaker in support of a similar bill there. We certainly don’t mind spirited discussion and respectful debate in the science classroom, but we’re worried that a student (or the student’s parents) could claim that a teacher who tries to further explain the scientific facts in response to the student’s answer is now discriminating against the student.

Many teachers already shortchange evolution instruction due to the “chilling effect” of possible conflict with students and families. This part of the bill could turn the thermostat down a few more degrees.

So far, the Senate bill still has both troubling sections in it. We’ll see if it gets amended to match the House bill before Tuesday’s committee meetings. I will be surprised if it does. The bill’s sponsor, Dennis Baxley, recently wrote a piece for the Ocala Star Banner: Protecting free speech in schools. This line says a lot about his strong views:

Without this free religious expression, we are in fact establishing a state-sponsored religion — secular humanism.

But don’t let up the pressure! Call and email and visit with lawmakers in both chambers. Especially focus your efforts on the members of the House PreK-12 Quality Subcommittee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. And if you are able to make it to either Tuesday meeting, I’d be happy to see you there! Let me know and perhaps we can meet up beforehand.

The Religious Expression in Public Schools bill filed in the Florida Senate is now scheduled to be heard by the judiciary committee March 14 (Tuesday) at 2 p.m. We need you to contact the senators on the committee and urge them to amend or stop this bill due to concerns over its impact on science education.

The meeting is during my spring break, which gives me an opportunity to possibly attend and speak there. If anyone else can attend, please let me know.

For your convenience, below are the two main points we need to make to the senators. You can also see all of our posts about this bill in the Religious Liberties Act 2017 blog category.

First, we are concerned about this line in the proposed bills: “A school district may not discriminate against a student, parent, or school personnel on the basis of a religious viewpoint or religious expression.” Does this allow teachers or other school personnel to state unscientific religious views on science topics such as age of the earth and evolution? If anyone tries to correct the teacher’s statement, would that be seen as discriminating against the teacher?

Second, we are concerned about this section of the proposed bills: “A student may express his or her religious beliefs in coursework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination. A student’s homework and classroom assignments shall be evaluated, regardless of their religious content, based on expected academic standards relating to the course curriculum and requirements. A student may not be penalized or rewarded based on the religious content of his or her work if the coursework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments require a student’s viewpoint to be expressed.” Does this allow students to give unscientific religious views as answers on questions about science topics such as age of the earth and evolution? If a teacher tries to explain to the student how the religious answer is unscientific and incorrect, would the teacher be seen as discriminating against the student?

The above questions in bold are valid, keeping in mind that the bill sponsor, Sen. Dennis Baxley, has been documented saying that he would like to see the teaching of evolution balanced with other views. Furthermore, a similar bill in Kentucky was supported by a lawmaker who admitted that students should be allowed to say the earth is only 6,000 years old and any attempt to correct the student would be seen as “retaliation.”

Now is the time to start calling and emailing the senators on the judiciary committee. Don’t wait. Do it now.

Palm Beach Post columnist Frank Cerabino has a few things to say about Religious Liberties bills sponsored in the Senate by Dennis Baxley: Getting liberated from science in Florida’s ‘religious liberties’ bill. Cerabino brings up a bit about Baxley’s past consternation over science education:

Back when the Ocala Republican took a break from writing deadly bills like Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, he became the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, where he argued that it was unfair for Florida’s impressionable school children to be force-fed a science curriculum that discouraged them from thinking that the Earth is just 6,000 years old, despite the conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary.

And then he notes one of Florida Citizens for Science’s concerns about the bill:

“Does this allow students to give unscientific religious views as answers on questions about science topics such as age of the earth and evolution?” Haught wrote. “If a teacher tries to explain to the student how the religious answer is unscientific and incorrect, would the teacher be seen as discriminating against the student?”

It’s good to see our views getting a wider audience. Cerabino explains very well how allowing students to express religious views on a poetry assignment is quite a bit different from doing the same on science homework.

On the other hand, we’ve got a fight on our hands. It looks like the Senate president has taken a shine to the bill: Religion in schools, ‘Stand Your Ground’ changes added to Senate priorities.

Florida Senate President Joe Negron, R-Stuart, added a couple new priorities to his agenda for the 2017 session as the Legislature convened on Tuesday: the revived “Stand Your Ground” changes that will be voted on in the Senate on Thursday and a new bill fortifying “religious liberties” in Florida public schools.

Make your voice heard! Contact the members of the Senate judiciary committee. That’s the next stop for the Religious Liberties bill. Make them aware that the bill has repercussions for science education that they might not have considered. For background and analysis of this bill, see the Religious Liberties Act 2017 blog category.

A bill that is potentially harmful to science education in Florida schools was reported favorably (in other words, it passed) by the Senate education committee today. The Religious Liberties bill was passed on a party-line vote of 5-2.

The Senate bill still has to get through a judiciary committee meeting, which has not been scheduled yet. If the bill successfully passes that committee, it will then be sent to the full Senate for consideration.

Meanwhile, the House version of the bill has not been scheduled yet in any of the three committees it’s assigned to.

I invite you to watch the video of the meeting. Discussion about the bill starts early at 00:53 and runs through 59:51. However, our concerns about the bill’s impact on science education were not brought up. Getting our message out there and considered needs to become a priority for Florida Citizens for Science members. See the Religious Liberties Act 2017 blog category for background on this bill.

Our two main concerns are as follows:

First, we are concerned about this line in the proposed bills: “A school district may not discriminate against a student, parent, or school personnel on the basis of a religious viewpoint or religious expression.” Does this allow teachers or other school personnel to state unscientific religious views on science topics such as age of the earth and evolution? If anyone tries to correct the teacher’s statement, would that be seen as discriminating against the teacher?

Second, we are concerned about this section of the proposed bills: “A student may express his or her religious beliefs in coursework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination. A student’s homework and classroom assignments shall be evaluated, regardless of their religious content, based on expected academic standards relating to the course curriculum and requirements. A student may not be penalized or rewarded based on the religious content of his or her work if the coursework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments require a student’s viewpoint to be expressed.” Does this allow students to give unscientific religious views as answers on questions about science topics such as age of the earth and evolution? If a teacher tries to explain to the student how the religious answer is unscientific and incorrect, would the teacher be seen as discriminating against the student?

The above questions in bold are valid, keeping in mind that the bill sponsor, Sen. Dennis Baxley, has been documented saying that he would like to see the teaching of evolution balanced with other views. Furthermore, a similar bill in Kentucky was supported by a lawmaker who admitted that students should be allowed to say the earth is only 6,000 years old and any attempt to correct the student would be seen as “retaliation.”

Now is the time to start calling and emailing the senators on the judiciary committee. Don’t wait. Do it now.

I know. It’s the weekend. You’re recharging for the week ahead. But I have to ask you to do something on behalf of science education. I have to ask you to send some emails and make some calls. Yes, your voice matters and right now we really need it.

We here at Florida Citizens for Science have been keeping you updated on some bills in our Florida legislature that we think might cause trouble in science classrooms across the Sunshine State. The Religious Liberties bills, filed in both the House and the Senate, are facing the first hurdle on Monday in a Senate Education Committee hearing. (See the Religious Liberties Act 2017 category of this blog for all the background.) Please take some time this weekend to send an email or leave a phone message with the committee members voicing your opposition to this unnecessary and potentially harmful bill.

I encourage you to read the analysis of the bill written by the Senate Education Committee staff. I think you’ll come away convinced that the bill overall, with or without our science education concerns, is completely unnecessary.

Also of note is that the House bill sponsor is working overtime in support of the bills. Rep. Kim Daniels has asked supporters to fast in support of the Senate bill in its upcoming committee hearing.

Daniels tells us that constituents of hers wanted such a bill, and unlike any other bill she’s carrying this session, she has worked to sell this one.

Last month, Daniels held a rally in Tallahassee in support of the measure.

And this weekend, she’s leading a fast in support.

“Senate Bill 436 – filed by Senator Baxley as the Companion Bill to HB 303 will be heard on Monday in Tallahassee. We are fasting Sunday from 8 am through Tuesday @ 6pm (The 1st day of Session)…let the Lord lead you on the kind of fast if you desire to participate. Our fast is liquid only,” Daniels posted to Facebook Friday.

Let’s show them that YOU are ready to stand up for sound science education. Flood the senators with correspondence that shows we care, we are active and we are going to speak up on behalf of our children’s education!

A bad bill filed in the Florida Senate by Sen. Dennis Baxley that could potentially affect science education has taken its first step forward. SB 436, entitled the Religious Liberties bill, is scheduled to be considered by the education committee on March 6 at 1:30 p.m.

Many bills are filed in the legislature that then die on the vine without even getting a hearing before a committee. The Religious Liberties bill’s move onto a committee calendar is a bad sign.

Two main areas of concern we at Florida Citizens for Science have with this bill and its House counterpart, HB 303, are the following:

A school district may not discriminate against a student, parent, or school personnel on the basis of a religious viewpoint or religious expression.

…

A student may express his or her religious beliefs in coursework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination. A student’s homework and classroom assignments shall be evaluated, regardless of their religious content, based on expected academic standards relating to the course curriculum and requirements. A student may not be penalized or rewarded based on the religious content of his or her work if the coursework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments require a student’s viewpoint to be expressed.

I’ll repeat here what we noted earlier: The first quoted sentence can kick open the door for creationists and even climate change deniers in instructional positions to freely express their anti-science views in the classroom.

On the one hand, concerning the paragraph addressing student work, anti-science views expressed by students can be tempered with the “expected academic standards” requirement. And keeping assignments fact based can eliminate anti-science “student’s viewpoint” issues. On the other hand, there is too much wiggle room in there that could allow students or their parents to make trouble for teachers teaching reality-based science. Even though teachers can use academic standards to defend themselves, this paragraph in the bill can still have a chilling effect on teachers who want to avoid conflicts.

This bill is not strictly an anti-science or creationist one, but it certainly can be used for those purposes if signed into law as is. There is also the very real and dangerous possibility of the bill being amended and otherwise modified during the legislative session to include creationist and deceptively called “academic freedom” language.

Please take a moment to read our related posts in the Religious Liberties Act 2017 category. Then please take the time to contact the members of the Senate education committee to express your concerns.