How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana creationists

[theworldismine13]

The distinction is made, and can be found right in this passage:

"These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules." Kopplin is hoping for more transparency in these programs so the public can see what is being taught with taxpayers' money.

Saying that voucher schools need to be accountable to the public by following different parameters means exactly what it says, and doesn't even remotely imply getting rid of vouchers.



He didn't say vouchers were unconstitutional. His argument is that the use of taxpayer money in the form of vouchers to fund inaccurate religious curriculums was unconstitutional. Again, we've been through this before in that other thread. This is an entirely separate discussion from whether vouchers themselves are good or bad.

vouchers in 99 percent of cases can be used in religious schools, i dont even think there is a voucher program that can only be used in non religious schools, so for all intents and purposes attacking the fact that vouchers can be used in religious schools is an attack on the voucher programs

 

[↓R↑LYB]

He is attacking a system with over 1500 schools. Only a few are teaching about monsters and religion. The first bill, only made it easy for teachers to mention religion if they wanted to. It's not like the scientific topics were being banned or something.

And if this guy is attacking vouches in any way, for this agenda, he is wrong.

IF he wants to get together with some real scientist and real advocates and push for more science and technology funding for public schools.. then he should do that. Not try to make a frivolous name for himself, just because he was an antisocial loser all his life.

did y'all nikkas even read the article? How is he attaching the voucher system if he's saying they should follow the same rules as public schools if they receive public funds?

As to the bolded, the article specifically says teachers were throwing out science books and bringing in supplemental texts.

Kopplin, who is studying history at Rice University, had good reason to be upset after the passing of the LSEA — an insidious piece of legislation that allows teachers to bring in their own supplemental materials when discussing politically controversial topics like evolution or climate change. Soon after the act was passed, some of his teachers began to not just supplement existing texts, but to rid the classroom of established science books altogether. It was during the process to adopt a new life science textbook in 2010 that creationists barraged Louisiana's State Board of Education with complaints about the evidence-based science texts. Suddenly, it appeared that they were going to be successful in throwing out science textbooks.

19 out of what?

yeah that is correct, that is what i care about, i dont really care about about his anti creationism agenda, the inner city school system are not facing a threat by creationist, they are facing the threat of bureaucracy and school system that doesnt work

like ive said before, i dont let liberals tell me what the agenda is

I'm confused, what article did you read? No where did it say he wants to get rid of all vouchers or that voucher schools is bad. He said that since voucher schools receive public funds, they should be required to follow the same rules as public schools and not promote one religion over another.

He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too.

School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism.

"These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules." Kopplin is hoping for more transparency in these programs so the public can see what is being taught with taxpayers' money.

The point is brought up again in this video:

 

[↓R↑LYB]

It says he's targeting vouchers. But for what? The article makes it pretty clear:

1. Increased transparency so taxpayers know exactly where their money is going.

2. To argue that vouchers being used for schools with anti-scientific, religious curriculums is unconstitutional.

Which of these constitutes an attack on vouchers themselves?



It is a strawman. See above. You are seeing what you want to see and then having a kneejerk reaction to it.

I very rarely come into Higher Learning, but does this dude always do this?

 

[↓R↑LYB]

I don't get it. Evolutionists say "don't teach creationism because I don't believe it" but then they want evolution to be taught with total disregard for people who don't believe in that.

I know HL is like 85% atheist but in reality you're the minority.

"Evolutionists" doesn't believe that. Scientists around the planet teach that creationism isn't a science and shouldn't be taught in Science class. Even in the YouTube video I posted he said you can teach the Bible in English, Philosophy, and religion and he has no problem with it. But stop saying it's science.

 

[theworldismine13]

I'm confused, what article did you read? No where did it say he wants to get rid of all vouchers or that voucher schools is bad. He said that since voucher schools receive public funds, they should be required to follow the same rules as public schools and not promote one religion over another.

because if you make a rule like that that would essentially end the voucher programs because the vast majority of private schools are religious

and you have to get your facts straight, lousiana has a voucher program, he attacked the voucher program, period

as far as i know all voucher programs allow vouchers to be used in religious schools and the premise of the vouchers is that parents control their childs education, in other words a parent has the right to use state money to send their child to any school they want, including one that teaches creationism, just like you can use a pell grant to go to a religious university

if somebody is attacking the premises that voucher programs are based on for all intents and purposes you are attacking vouchers

 

[↓R↑LYB]

because if you make a rule like that that would essentially end the voucher programs because the vast majority of private schools are religious

Where are you getting that stats that the majority of voucher schools are religious schools?

and you have to get your facts straight, lousiana has a voucher program, he attacked the voucher program, period

Breh, you're the only one coming to the conclusion that he is attacking the voucher program. You're arguing a point that literally no one is making.

as far as i know all voucher programs allow vouchers to be used in religious schools and the premise of the vouchers is that parents control their childs education, in other words a parent has the right to use state money to send their child to any school they want, including one that teaches creationism, just like you can use a pell grant to go to a religious university

Breh, he's not even arguing that religious schools shouldn't receive vouchers. He's arguing that creationism should not be taught in science classes using public money. Again, you're arguing against a point no one is making. That's the very definition of a straw man argument.

if somebody is attacking the premises that voucher programs are based on for all intents and purposes you are attacking vouchers

Again, you're arguing a point no one is making. Nothing in the article mentioned or the YouTube video posted is him attacking voucher programs. shyt his entire argument is that public schools should not teach creation over evolution in the science class. And if a school receives public funds, it should have to follow the same guidelines as public schools.

 

[Magnus Warhol]

They should teach creationism in a religion class. There is nothing wrong with that. They should not teach creationism in a science class because the scientific method cannot be applied.

 

[The Real]

vouchers in 99 percent of cases can be used in religious schools, i dont even think there is a voucher program that can only be used in non religious schools, so for all intents and purposes attacking the fact that vouchers can be used in religious schools is an attack on the voucher programs

So now we're dialing back to "for all intents and purposes." Nah. Even if this exaggerated claim were true, it would still not be an attack on vouchers themselves. That's really where your argument ends. If you don't care that vouchers will be funding anti-science curriculums, and think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, that's fine, but inflating his position into an attack on vouchers to try and support that position is pure dishonesty and completely irrelevant. Even if his argument removed vouchers from 99% of schools, it would still be a valid argument, and not one that targeted vouchers themselves.

 

[theworldismine13]

Where are you getting that stats that the majority of voucher schools are religious schools?

i got it if from living life but if you want a specific source here it is

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/choice/schools/onpefacts.html#ftn1

Seventy-six percent of private schools have a religious affiliation, while the remaining 24 percent are nonsectarian.1

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results from the 2005-2006 Private School Universe Survey (Washington, DC: NCES, 2008).

Breh, you're the only one coming to the conclusion that he is attacking the voucher program. You're arguing a point that literally no one is making.

first of all he is attacking the lousisna voucher program, thats just a fact,

i get it, you are saying that an attack on the Louisiana voucher program is not an attack on vouchers in general, the problem with saying that and what i am saying is that he is attacking the underpinnings of the voucher program and it would limit the scope of the voucher program so in the end its the same difference

the idea that schools that accept vouchers cannot teach religion is not an acceptable standard to people that are pro vouchers and i and we consider it to be an attack

Breh, he's not even arguing that religious schools shouldn't receive vouchers. He's arguing that creationism should not be taught in science classes using public money. Again, you're arguing against a point no one is making. That's the very definition of a straw man argument.

now you are making up stuff, so you are saying that he is saying that its ok to teach all sorts of religion doctrine in schools, when he explicitly cites separation of religion in his argument???????

you have awful reading comprehension, by him using separation of religion he in fact is also saying that schools that accept vouchers cannot teach religious doctrine, that would be the only logical conclusion unless he expressly said otherwise

Again, you're arguing a point no one is making. Nothing in the article mentioned or the YouTube video posted is him attacking voucher programs. shyt his entire argument is that public schools should not teach creation over evolution in the science class. And if a school receives public funds, it should have to follow the same guidelines as public schools.

and us (people that advocate for vouchers) reject that standard, the only real standard is overall academic performance not specific lesson plans or separation of religion

 

[theworldismine13]

So now we're dialing back to "for all intents and purposes." Nah. Even if this exaggerated claim were true, it would still not be an attack on vouchers themselves. That's really where your argument ends. If you don't care that vouchers will be funding anti-science curriculums, and think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, that's fine, but inflating his position into an attack on vouchers to try and support that position is pure dishonesty and completely irrelevant. Even if his argument removed vouchers from 99% of schools, it would still be a valid argument, and not one that targeted vouchers themselves.

i never said the argument wasnt valid, valid doesn't make it correct or good, its valid in the sense that i think it should be responded

but im rejecting that standard and so do people the are pro vouchers because that standard would limit the scope of vouchers

 

[Robbie3000]

i never said the argument wasnt valid, valid doesn't make it correct or good, its valid in the sense that i think it should be responded

but im rejecting that standard and so do people the are pro vouchers because that standard would limit the scope of vouchers

Give a rest champ. You're embarrassing yourself yet again.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

@theworldismine13 What about the kids that can't get vouchers? Or what about the kids with vouchers that can't get into good schools? Or what about the parents who can't afford the co-payment for their kids to go to the good schools? What about the kids who get stuck going to one of these schools that doesn't teach science? What about the schools who change their standards, and even cheat in order to qualify for vouchers and attract parents? What about the kids who's parents don't research enough to get them into a good school? What about the kids who get stuck in public school?

I know a lot of questions, but what they allude to is my major gripe about voucher programs. They lead to further divides and inequality. Yes the programs are great for students lucky enough to make it into an ideal situation, but they also take away from students that don't find themselves in those situations. The more money we take out of public schools the more people that get left behind. Dedicated parents will make sure their kids get a good education whether they have vouchers or not. It's the kids with shytty parents that need the most help, and shytty parents are the ones who won't make good use of the voucher programs anyway. I don't think voucher programs are a bad idea, but I also don't think they are the answer to the problems with our educational system.

Also what makes private schools better than public schools is their freedom to teach kids in the most efficient way possible, without having to worry about goverment bureaucracy. Well the more these schools get intertwined with government money in the form of vouchers, the more they loose that freedom and become subject to that bureaucracy, I think this story touches on that dynamic.

 

[The Real]

i never said the argument wasnt valid, valid doesn't make it correct or good, its valid in the sense that i think it should be responded

but im rejecting that standard and so do people the are pro vouchers because that standard would limit the scope of vouchers

Ok, that's fine... but that's a very different claim than the one that he's trying to eliminate vouchers.

 

[Blackking]

did y'all nikkas even read the article? How is he attaching the voucher system if he's saying they should follow the same rules as public schools if they receive public funds?

Missing the point of the voucher program.