Quality Education Twice in two years, advanced biology textbooks have come under fire from two board members: Mike Davitt (running for re-election) and Jim Caulfield.
In 2005, objections were raised to the text intended for use in an enriched molecular biology course. Caulfield's objections?
"Caulfield, [...] requested that the book be replaced at the end of the year because it contains units on and illustrations of the human reproduction system and contraception methods." He also "objected to the book's handling of evolution and stem-cell research. Caulfield said the content departs from objective science to support embryonic stem-cell research and ridicules those who don't believe in evolution."
(Naperville Sun, October 19, 2005).
The board voted 5-2 to approve the book, Davitt and Caulfield voted to ban the book.
We were once again alarmed before the 2/20/07 School Board meeting when one of us saw an email that Jim Caulfield had written. In it he identifies himself as a member of Ss Peter and Paul People of Life committee. He describes an Advanced Placement Anatomy and Physiology text that was up for approval as a "death culture" book, taking issue with numerous scientific characterizations including the use of the term "fertilized egg" (scientifically accurate, by the way). At the Board meeting, it was interesting to note that when several people mentioned "religious beliefs" when describing Caulfield's concerns during open comment he objected, saying this was not a religious issue. The vote on the book, once again, 5-2, with Davitt and Caulfield voting against it.
We believe Caufield's latest statements that his opposition to the AP textbook are not religiously based are completely disingenuous. Why isn't he being honest about his motives? What are Mike Davitt's motives?
Does this dispute over accepted standards of scientific terminology and curriculum foreshadow future battles to be waged over our public school curriculum? Is the reason they want to change the curriculum review process and install board level community curriculum input because of their desire to promote their religious ideology?
If the taxpayer’s ticket is elected we believe this is what the future holds for our district. Caulfield, along with Davitt, Denys and Buch will form a majority and run roughshod over more moderate views held by the other board members and the public.
Denys’ recent NAHC Forum statement, “…there is no accountability of the educational curriculum to the school board…all the way back to 2006…there has never been any review at the board level of any curriculum process” hint at his intentions. Similarly Buch states “…there is a definite need in our district for a board level type committee to look at our curriculum, our test books, to advise our board…”
As a majority, who do you think they would place on such a committee? The taxpayer’s ticket is unqualified to make objective decisions on curricula and text books.