Does the bill provide any formal definitions for the phrase "ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance" or the phrase "legitimate pedagogical concerns"? The question of whether or not the bill satisfies the OPs claim depends heavily on how these two phrases are interpreted.

@plasticinsect Indeed. I would interpret that text in the complete opposite way: It basically says that whatever religion a student follows, grading should remain neutral. This should mean that you can't reward the student points for answering that the earth is 6000 years old just because it happens to be what their religion tells them. Not even if the teacher believes it to be correct.

Yes, from this answer I'm not sure if the claim is true or false.

@gerrit I can quote what the sponsor of the bill says it means, but that interpretation wouldn’t be binding in court.

Isn't this a law more targeted at subjective topics (art, literature, etc)? From my reading of "Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance" I'd take that to mean that a wrong answer in a biology exam is equally wrong regardless of whether it's religious in tone or not. If the academic standard in science is "factually correct" then a factually incorrect answer can still be rejected

It bothers me that the official document is vague and open to interpretation, and the informal (and non-binding) summary by the bill's sponsor is clear and unambiguous. This kind of reminds me of buying a car at a dealership.

@plasticinsect that's how so many laws are, left up to the court system to determine the exact meaning.

Only the courts are going to be able to state what the actual interpretation is. But it should be said that this addresses a legitimate concern. There are almost certainly schools in the US who would fail a student for a painting of "Mohammed ascending to heaven" while giving good marks to a painting of "Jesus ascending to heaven."

@DJClayworth None of the public statements by supporters of the bill suggest to me that they're concerned about that particular issue.

This bill almost reads like an invitation for a legal battle over science-vs.-religion. I mean, it guarantees both religious expression and scientific standards without addressing how to resolve conflicts between the two.

@plasticinsect : Indeed - consider "and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work." against "grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards". These two things lead to a contradiction in that case. If their religion prescribes belief in certain factual claims that are factually incorrect per academic standards, and they give those as answers to homework questions, then upholding academic standards will necessary require penalizing them for such religious context, and conversely, not penalizing them for such will fail

to uphold the academic standards, both of which are guaranteed by the law as it is written. It might be possible to fix this, and hence salvage a possible core of legitimate applications like those suggested by @DJClayworth by perhaps including a clause to the effect that "so long as the religious expression in question does not amount to a statement of an answer to such a homework problem or other assignment that would otherwise be regarded as academically incorrect."

Hence, doodling a cartoon of Mohammed, or of Jesus or whatever, on the paper would be protected and a "grumpy atheist professor" or Christian professor or Muslim professor or whatever could be charged for religious discrimination by grading down that work with prejudice. But someone who writes "6000 years. The Bible and my Pastor say so." could be rightfully awarded a "zero" with no consequences to that instructor.

Please add a conclusion or summary, so as to answer the question.

@plasticinsect I agree -- while the intent of the law itself seems sound, the actual wording seems wide open to "abuse" and if this does become law I can imagine all sorts of frivolous/spurious nonsense to pass as a result.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Your creative writing assignment can't be marked down because it says the Earth is 6000 years old, even though that teacher also teaches science. Your ultra-religious teacher can't mark it down because it says the Earth isn't 6000 years old. Your science homework will still be marked down if it was asking you how old the Earth is.

Not sure I'm seeing a problem. If the church wants the student to have a good grade for saying Earth is 6000yo, then the Church can create a school, teach and issue diplomas. The schoolwon't be able to achieve state accreditation, so the diploma will be worthless to non-Christians, but whatever.

@DavePhD actually, courts do look at congressional intent as stated in such supporting documents. I have a feeling this is a matter of the moderates "pullng one over" on the religulous types, who are not fact-and-detail types, so are not realizing what this bill is really about.

@SebastianRedl I don't read this that way. If you have a question like "How old is the Earth?", and you force the student to answer "about 4.5 billion years," they may have a claim in my reading because you are compelling speech that goes against their religious doctrine. If the question is instead "Given the available evidence, scientists cited by the textbook believe the Earth to be how old?", the student's answeris only rote recitation, not compelled expression of a particular conclusion.