Replies

:I'm not aware of any "serious" attempts to draw up a curriculum"

'Serious' huh. By 'curriculum' do you mean schedule of courses, or subject matter content? Curriculum usually means the whole bag. The courses offered by a university, a college, a department, a school, or perhaps the courses composing a particular discipline. It's been a while, and I know usage varies from region to region, over time. So, you tell me. But, thanks anyway for confirming my impression.

However you are using the term (and you can tell me or not as it pleases you), 'curriculum' or subject matter is just one of several issues, in my opinion.

There is also the question of teacher certification, usually by both the relevent university or college graduating the teacher, and by the Ed Dpt of the state in which the teacher will instruct.

Then there is also the issue of accreditation, which is the responsibility of the regional accreditation associations, with state education department participation.

So. There is subject matter, there is certification, and there is accreditation. Whenever I hear someone argue the DI side of this question and they fail to make these three issues the mainstay of their argument, then I know they are not serious about the subject.

Just so I don't get flamed by everyone, I should mention I recognize that some argue ID, not DI. These people are dealing with a serious philosophical issue, and they deserve respect.

"teach the controversy"

I don't know how you're going to 'teach the controversy' if you don't have a reasonable command of the subject matter, and I don't think there are very many who would be both qualified and willing to teach a high school course in ID. For that matter, I doubt very many high school students could qualify to take such a course. Too much math, physics, and science would be required.

Teach the controversy? It's more like argue the controversy. Anyone can do that, and everyone who does seems to be having a good time. { 8^)