log in to manage your profile and account
- Create your account
- Receive up-to-date newsletters
- Set up text alerts
Published: Thursday, May 23, 2013 @ 11:46 AM
Updated: Thursday, May 23, 2013 @ 11:46 AM
Springboro School Board Meeting
7 p.m., Thursday
Springboro High School
1675 S. Main Street, Springboro
For information, 937-748-3960
SPRINGBORO — A proposal to include creationism and other controversial topics in Springboro schools curriculum will be discussed at a school board meeting this evening.
Several school board members want to include creationism in classroom instruction. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio said today they have sent a letter to the school board asking them to abandon the proposal.
In 2011, board President Kelly Kohls proposed the district offer creationism as supplemental instruction during discussions. The issue was shelved then for lack of a voting majority and in the face of opposition that seemed likely to lead to a legal battle.
But now, the district is poised to restart the debate as part of a proposed policy to deal with controversial issues in classrooms.
“These plans are just as unconstitutional today as they were in 2011,” said ACLU of Ohio Staff Attorney Drew Dennis. “And they remain an unnecessary distraction from the more important work of giving children the education they need to succeed in the real world.”
Sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change and sustainable development also would be issues deemed appropriate for discussion in Springboro classrooms, according to the proposed policy.
The proposal, posted for a month at the board web site, is set for a first reading and discussion at tonight’s meeting.
Several Springboro board members could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
Board Member Don Miller said he would vote against the policy if creationism was in it.
Jim Rigano told the Dayton Daily News Wednesday that the revised proposal is, “an attempt to ensure we’re not indoctrinating one point of view or another.”