stage two

The headline of this editorial is “Social conservatives object to curriculum draft that supports sound science”, and the first paragraph ends with the phrase “inject religion into public schools”. This indicates that the author is writing for a moderate-to-liberal audience of politically active people. No specific author is named on the article’s page, and no credentials were given. The unknown columnist accuses (very generally) “conservatives” on the education board of wanting to “open up the public classroom to religious teachings about the origins of the universe”.

The author is referring to the first draft of Texas’ schools’ science curriculum (for the next ten years). The draft would “mandate[s] that classrooms include covering ‘weaknesses’ of major scientific theories”. The guidelines are very vague, and lack detail. The author thinks that the wording opens up opportunity for discussion of other scientific theories, mainly religion. The columnist believes that religious discussion has no place in science class, and sees potential “harm” to children’s education. Don McLeroy, board chairman, has doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution. The author claims that there is an “agenda that sees the world narrowly and wants that view taught in the public schools. The editorial claims that the English and History departments are targets as well. The majority overlooked highly qualified English teachers because their “own curriculum proposal was ditched”. I agree with the author, although I think he could have been more specific on the draft’s contents. There should have been more detailed evidence provided, rather than a few single-word quotations scattered around.