The system we have is working.

Just because you went to school and to back-to-school night doesn't mean you know . . . the appropriate set of curriculum for a science course.

I don't want to put words in his mouth. I'm just saying his comments before certainly factor into this discussion and the constitutionality of this bill. And he hasn't been subtle . . . in his desire to promote, and he has called it, intelligent design. He believes in it. This is just sanitized language.

I think it should satisfy the Legislature . . . and give all students the greatest advantage to get financial aid.

Is it risk free? No. But if we had teachers banging down the doors, crowding our hallways, I think we would have the luxury of saying, 'You will never teach again.' But we aren't in that kind of situation.

The State Board of Education has . . . constitutional authority to direct the public schools. I don't think there's anything more (basic) in that responsibility than curriculum.

One of the main comments that I've heard regarding this issue is parents and educators saying that they are unwilling or discouraged from working together because of the nature of this legislation.

Proponents of the bill want to make sure there's an opportunity for intelligent design or creationism . . . to have some moment in the classroom. I think (this bill) certainly allows for that. One of the questions is, does it require it.