Changes

<p>With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.</p>}}</div>

<p>With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.</p>}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].  The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>