|
 |
William Paley Institute
for
Intelligent Design™ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letter from US Department of Education Regarding
Academic Freedom in Teaching Challenges to Evolution
US Dept. of Education
Office of the Deputy Secretary
March 8, 2004
Ms. Linda McCulloch
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Montana Office of Public Instruction
Post Office Box 202501
Helena, Montana 59620-2501
Dear Superintendent McCulloch:
Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Paige regarding your
question
about high school science curriculum and differing scientific
viewpoints under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). In particular, you have asked whether the NCLB requires the
inclusion of “Intelligent Design” in the science curriculum.
Under the ESEA, each State is required to have challenging science
content and
achievement standards in place no later than the 2005-2006 school
year, and
science assessments no later than the 2007-2008 school year. As you
may know and by way of background, the ESEA places clear limitations
upon the Federal
government with respect to standards. Congress clearly stated that
standards—in
this case science standards—are not required to be submitted to the
Secretary of
Education for approval, and that no State shall be required to have
its
standards approved or certified by the Federal government in order
to receive
assistance under the ESEA. 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(1)(A); 20 U.S.C. §
7907 (c)(1).
Further, with respect to science curriculum, the United States
Department of
Education is prohibited from using funds to endorse, approve, or
sanction any
curriculum that is designed to be used in an elementary or secondary
school. 20
U.S.C. § 7907(b). The law also includes a rule of construction which
clearly
states that nothing in the ESEA is to be construed as authorizing
any officer or
employee of the Federal government to mandate, direct, or control a
State, local
education agency, or school’s curriculum or program of instruction.
20 U.S.C. §
7907(a). Furthermore, both the Department of Education Organization
Act and the
General Education Provisions Act include a similar, but broader,
rule of
construction that applies to all Department of Education programs,
and which
protects, among other things, against Federal control over
curricula, programs
of instruction, textbooks, and instructional materials. 20 U.S.C. §§
1232a,
3403. Thus, Congress has been very careful and specific in placing
legal limits
on the Federal government’s involvement in curriculum and related
matters.
The NCLB Act does not contain any language that requires or
prohibits the
teaching of any particular scientific views or theories either as
part of a
state’s science curriculum or otherwise. However, Congress provided
the
following language in its Conference Report on the NCLB regarding
science
education (which is commonly referred to as the “Santorum
language”):
The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should
prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of
science
from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of
science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such
as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to
understand
the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may
generate
controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect
society.
This language is based on a Senate Resolution that passed by a vote
of 91-8.
There was no comparable House resolution.
The Department, of course, embraces the general principles —
reflected in the
Senate Resolution — of academic freedom and inquiry into scientific
views or
theories. However, as noted above, we have no authority to control
or direct
curriculum decisions or State science standards. The NCLB Act does
not contain
any language that requires or prohibits the teaching of any
particular
scientific view or theory either as part of a State’s science
curriculum or
otherwise.
I hope this information will assist you in developing science
content and
achievement standards in your State.
Sincerely
Gene Hickok
Acting Deputy Secretary
|
|
|
Promoting an
Understanding of the Intelligent Design of the Universe
|
|