Interesting editorial: Should the BOE be appointed, not elected?

[atommom]

This editorial makes a good case for an appointed BOE. Given the political circus we've seen this year, I think it might be a good idea. Here are a few snips:

Abrams and the other five board members who disagree with Darwin were elected on anti-Darwin platforms. The political element in the controversy began at the ballot box. The voters rounded up by the well-organized religious right supported candidates they knew would advocate and support changes in the standards for teaching science, which would encourage teachers to denigrate the theory of evolution and introduce religion into the teaching of biology.

While the BOE has the authority to change the recommendations made by those committees, it rarely does so in any fundamental way. The committees are made up of professionals in the disciplines involved. English teachers establish standards for teaching English. Historians and teachers of history write the history guidelines, etc.

The committees reach a consensus, write proposed guidelines and then recommend them to the BOE for adoption.

So when the lay BOE challenges the way evolution and the origin of the Earth are taught it is challenging the collective wisdom of scholars worldwide and, in the doing, branding itself -- and Kansas -- anti-intellectual.

http://www.iolaregister.com/registerarchive/editelectedboe.html