The collective political power of teacher unions, established by legislative and judicial acceptance, has enabled them to prevent curriculum control by elected school boards and superintendents hired to administer the system.  
Even though tenure laws enable teachers in the hard sciences (math, engineering, chemistry, physics, and so forth) to get by with dumbed down approaches to learning, the harm done is less than in the soft sciences.  Whether or not the researcher or teacher is a Bible-believer, the conclusions drawn in the hard sciences tend to be the same because proof is determined by observing consistently repeatable and immutable laws of creation’s nature.  Misrepresentations are typically exposed and rejected as a result of our free enterprise system, which thrives on competition and the consumer’s right to choose from products that come from the hard sciences.
In contrast, conclusions drawn in the soft sciences–such as literature, news editing, education strategies, political science, life-origins biology, history, law, social studies, arts, and ecology–differ starkly between creationist and evolutionist instructors.  The differences include the acceptance or rejection of moral certainties, an honest or dishonest rendition of history, and respect or disregard for parental authority and for the Constitution itself.  When an evolutionist instructs a student year after year, the student’s ability to separate truth from non-truth and to appreciate the value of moral law and the traditional family becomes seriously impaired.
Not surprising, an Ames, Iowa, public school board member complained:  “I know the Legislature likes to talk about local control, but what I am getting [at] is that … we really don’t have local control.”*
*Teresa Kay Albertson, “School District Cuts Not as Bad as Feared,” The Tribune(Ames, IA), January 18, 2009, A3.
~ David Norris