May consider this a silly "defense"
but the ignorance of any debate in >any< situation is as much or more damaging to the "scientific process" so vigorously defended in this piece.

If the idea is to explain the scientific process by comparing and and contrasting two posistions, then ID is a singularly bad example too use. ID is a posistion designed to get around the legal problems with teaching religion in school and really has little to do with science*. A discussion of ID is not going to say much about science and worse, and is liable to get the school in trouble when it begins describing certain religious leaders as frauds for their ID work.

To be useful as in a discussion of science, the issue must be a real one. One where legitimate scientists back both sides. And for it to be covered in school, it really has to be one without extensive political or religious components.

On top of this, we spend alot of money making administrators rich while the teachers and children suffer.

The inefficency of school funding is another huge problem, that I will certainly agree with.

Jay

* actually it's a bit more complex because there are multiple people and groups pushing ID, each of whom has their own goals. But what I say above is true of the people who have turned ID into a movement.