Based on this headline it could be the situation I’m describing: that literally they have a problem with too much focus being put on a single topic, in a class that’s supposed to cover many topics.
So no, you don’t know that yet. Unless you can present more evidence that it is.
Among the reasons the board rejected books: They had too much information about the climate crisis; they were published by companies with environmentally friendly policies; they portrayed fossil fuel use in an insufficiently positive light, potentially harming the state’s economy; and they included teachings about evolution but not creationism.
With this information, I sincerely doubt the board was finding honest problems with the texts. They rejected textbooks because they didn’t include creationism – there clearly isn’t any legitimate desire for science.
Nope. Then again, I’m not a fundie loon 🤷
So if the textbook was say 10 chapters, and 7 of them were about ionic bonding, that wouldn’t be a problem?
if it was a textbook about chemical bonds, then no.
And what if it’s not, but rather the sort of textbook you’d expect in a high school science class?
well if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle.
We’re talking about actual legislation and ideologically based censorship, so please
Based on this headline it could be the situation I’m describing: that literally they have a problem with too much focus being put on a single topic, in a class that’s supposed to cover many topics.
So no, you don’t know that yet. Unless you can present more evidence that it is.
From the article:
With this information, I sincerely doubt the board was finding honest problems with the texts. They rejected textbooks because they didn’t include creationism – there clearly isn’t any legitimate desire for science.
There’s your problem. Read the article :)
If you truly believe that, I have a mountain chalet in Florida to sell you.