NCSE still lying about Texas's influence on textbooks!

In an article in Seed(y) magazine, Josh Rosenau, a staff member of the National Center for Science Education, wrote,

. . because of the state’s enormous purchasing power for textbooks, Texas’s standards will ultimately affect textbooks nationwide. The board spent more than $200 million on K-12 textbooks last year—buying more high school science books than any other state. “Publishers typically write their textbooks to Texas standards and then sell those books to smaller states,” explains Kathy Miller of the civil liberties watchdog Texas Freedom Network. If the board rejects a textbook, it can destroy a publisher.

As I said before, school systems in other states are not required -- and are not even under any particular pressure -- to adopt Texas-approved textbooks. And even local school districts in Texas can use state-unapproved textbooks if the districts are willing to pay the full costs, which isn't much for individual textbooks. A popular biology textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, comes in regular, Texas, California, Florida, and North Carolina editions.

But all is not lost. Professors in Texas and elsewhere are privately planning to boycott college textbooks from any publishers who let the board taint high school textbooks.

I doubt that it is possible to organize such a boycott that would be effective, and such a boycott would unfairly target textbook publishers that are heavily involved in both the high school and college markets. The Darwinists are really desperate to consider such a move.

READ MORE

McLeroy nomination goes to full Senate!

Background info is here and here. The Nominations Committee has voted 4-2 to approve Don McLeroy's nomination and the nomination now goes to the full state Senate for a final confirmation vote. Details are in this video. The Nominations Committee has apparently been relying on straw polls of the senators and IMO that is a very bad idea because some senators might have been trying to discourage a full Senate vote by making false threats to vote against McLeroy.

READ MORE

Anti-McLeroy campaign targets lieutenant governor

TFN Insider, the blog of the Texas Freedom Network, says,

Texas State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy . . . has been making the rounds of Senate offices this week with a lobbyist . . . The two are trying to turn the tide on McLeroy’s endangered confirmation for another term as board chairman. We hear from one Capitol office that McLeroy is telling folks he believes his confirmation hopes have been resuscitated.

TFN then urges readers to ask Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to oppose confirmation of McLeroy. I urge you to ask Dewhurst to support McLeroy. Contact information for Dewhurst is here. Background info on McLeroy is here. There is no time to waste -- the legislative session ends June 2 and the Texas Senate probably has a lot of other business to deal with.

TFN is seeking petty revenge against McLeroy. If McLeroy is denied confirmation, the governor will probably just replace him with another board member who is no better than McLeroy in TFN's eyes and maybe even worse.

The Darwinists have been intimidating Darwin-doubters for too long and that needs to end.

READ MORE

Another Texas Death Match: McLeroy's confirmation fight

The Texas Death Match is a kind of pro-wrestling match. I thought that it was named for the Alamo, but later found out that it really did originate in Texas. Sports announcer Dick Lane described it as a wrestling match that ends when one of the competitors must be carried out of the ring, but I later found out that it is not that bad.

I previously reported that Don McLeroy was having trouble in getting confirmed by the Texas Senate as chairman of the Texas state board of education. This is an update.

A news article said,
.

The confirmation of State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy is dead in the water, Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, said Thursday.

Jackson, chairman of the Senate Nominations Committee, said McLeroy will be left pending in committee because there is enough opposition on the floor of the Senate to block his confirmation, which requires approval of two-thirds of the senators.

There are too many other important issues to take up on the floor to waste time on a doomed confirmation, Jackson said.

After a contentious confirmation hearing last week, Jackson said he would take the temperature of his colleagues before determining whether to give McLeroy a committee vote.

I suspect that a lot of senators who would vote for McLeroy tried to discourage a full-Senate vote by threatening to vote against him.

Later the Texas Freedom Network said,

Religious-right pressure groups, including the Texas chapter of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and the Texas Pastor Council, have unleashed a flurry of calls urging legislators to support the SBOE. And their calls are having an effect. We have heard from senators that they are swamped with calls demanding McLeroy’s confirmation.

So as the saying goes, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. I urge readers to support the McLeroy confirmation campaign by contacting the members of the Nominations Committee of the Texas Senate.

The purpose of having an elected board of education is to enable the voters to focus exclusively on issues of education when electing the board members. This purpose is defeated when the state legislature becomes involved in issues of education, because the voters cannot focus on issues of education in the election of legislators because the voters must take into account the candidates' positions on other issues. Even in the field of education alone, there are many different issues that the voters must weigh. In fact, from my standpoint it would be nice if there were elected boards of evolution education and elected boards of holocaust education. It is sufficient that the members of the board of education are directly accountable to the voters, and the legislature should not unnecessarily become involved in issues of education.

On the subject of evolution education, the board listened to several days of public and expert oral testimony, received thousands of written comments, and spent several days of internal debate. The state Senate has done none of these things and is not in a good position to second-guess the board's decisions about evolution education.

Also, Don McLeroy's views on evolution have nothing to do with his fitness to serve as chairman of the state board of education. Denial of confirmation for McLeroy would have a chilling effect on public officials' willingness to question evolution.
.

READ MORE

Banned by so-called Texas Freedom Network

My comment submissions to the blog of the so-called Texas Freedom Network are no longer being considered for publication on a case-by-case basis but all of them are being blocked. What instigated this ban was my response to a video of comedian Bill Maher. Bill Mayer made several statements ridiculing the state of Texas, including the statement -- "Texas has a board of education?" My comment included the following statement: "TFN, you applaud when this stupid comedian ridicules your state. I have no respect for you. None at all." TFN's response was, "We love you too, Larry. Now goodbye." The TFN bloggers have pretty thin skins to kick me off their blog for something like that. And TFN has allowed other commenters to constantly abuse me. The Darwinists can dish it out but they sure can't take it. If my comment was so offensive, TFN had the option of not publishing it (TFN has comment moderation turned on) but they chose to publish it and then banned me. I believe TFN was looking for an excuse to get rid of me because my comments on the TFN blog are persuasive and irrefutable. As Gov. Arnold Schwarenegger said, "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
.
I can sometimes evade comment bans by submitting comments under false names and/or using anonymous proxies to get around IP address blocks. However, I like to submit comments under my real name and the free-of-charge anonymous proxies that I use sometimes don't work in getting around IP address blocks. IP address blocking is illegal or frowned upon in Europe and should be illegal in the USA. IP address blocking appears to be illegal in California.
.

READ MORE

Discovery Institute Action Alert

FYI (as Chris Comer would say) --

I just received the following broadcast email from the Discovery Institute:

Academic Freedom Action Alert: Your Help Needed!

Darwinists Are Trying to Expel
Texas Board of Education Chairman

Chairman Targeted in Retaliation for Promoting Critical Thinking on Evolution

When elected officials take a stand for academic freedom, they become targets for the Darwin lobby. Because of his leadership and support for critical thinking on evolution, Texas State Board of Education Chair Don McLeroy has been targeted by Darwin's defenders in the Texas Senate who want to remove him from his position. Less than a month ago, the Texas Board adopted landmark science standards that will protect teachers who want to let students evaluate and critique the evidence for Darwinian evolution. Now Darwinists are trying to convince the state Senate to block McLeroy's reappointment as Board Chair.

"Supporting those, like Don McLeroy, who take a stand for academic freedom to question evolution at personal cost is one of the most important and effective things citizens can do," said CSC Associate Director John West. "It sends a message to elected officials that expelling leaders like Dr. McLeroy because of their stance on Darwin's theory is simply not acceptable."

Here's one thing you can do to help:
E-mail the chairman of the Senate Nominating Committee, Mike Jackson, at MIKE.JACKSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US and tell him you support Dr. McLeroy as Chair of the State Board of Education. Be sure to e-mail the other committee members as well at these addresses: KEVIN.ELTIFE@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, GLENN.HEGAR@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, JANE.NELSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, ROBERT.NICHOLS@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, ELIOT.SHAPLEIGH@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, KIRK.WATSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US

We've included a sample letter below:

Dear [Committee Member],

I support Don McLeroy as Chair of the State Board of Education, and I urge you to confirm the governor's nomination and bring it before the Senate for a vote.

Don McLeroy is a proven leader in education for Texas students. It is reprehensible that he has been targeted for removal because he has dared to question evolution and encouraged young minds to remain open to critical examination of Darwin's theory. It is for this reason that Darwin's defenders are trying to expel Dr. McLeroy from his role as SBOE Chair, and I hope that you will hear those of us who stand by Dr. McLeroy and support him against this political bullying by Darwinist groups.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Please stand with Don McLeroy and support academic freedom in Texas. Forward this email to your friends and family, and let's show the Darwin-lobby that they cannot expel critical thinking from the science classroom.
.

READ MORE

Double standard: Judge Jones and the Texas board of education

There are now efforts in the Texas state legislature to do the following:

(1) -- remove the Texas board of education's powers to approve textbooks and state standards for education, and give those powers to appointed officials, e.g., the Texas Commissioner of Education.

(2) -- deny Don McLeroy the state senate's confirmation of his current position of board chairman.

The best source of information on these efforts is the blog of the Texas Freedom Network. I have posted a lot of comments on that blog.

The Darwinists just wanted the Texas board of education to rubber stamp the standards-drafting committees' proposed new state science standards without making any changes. If Judge John E. Jones III, who has no scientific background (he has a bachelor's degree in political science and a law degree), could rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design after hearing testimony from experts, then why can’t the Texas BOE — which has some members with science degrees and/or science teaching experience — also make decisions about questions requiring scientific knowledge? And the Darwinists don't even consider the Texas board of education qualified to make decisions on issues that do not require any expertise, e.g., the issue of whether to retain the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the state science standards.

READ MORE

Texas Death Match between school board, legislature

Trivia: According to this article, the Texas Death Match really did originate in Texas. I thought that the match got its name from the Alamo.

A Wall Street Journal article says,

Texas state legislators are considering reining in the Board of Education amid frustration with the board's politically charged debate over how to teach evolution.

The board last month approved a science curriculum that opens the door for teachers and textbooks to introduce creationist objections to evolution's explanation of the origin and progression of life forms.

Not all objections to evolution theory are creationist.

Other parts of the curriculum were carefully worded to raise doubts about global warming and the big-bang theory of how the universe began.

While the science standards have drawn the most attention, the 15-member elected board has been embroiled in other controversies as well. Last year, it rejected a reading curriculum that teachers had spent nearly three years drafting. In its place, the board approved a document that a few members hastily assembled just hours before the vote.

Yeah, that last-minute change in the reading curriculum was really bad -- much worse than anything the board did with the science standards.

Some lawmakers -- mostly Democrats -- say they have had enough.

The most far-reaching proposals would strip the Texas board of its authority to set curricula and approve textbooks. Depending on the bill, that power would be transferred to the state education agency, a legislative board or the commissioner of education. Other bills would transform the board to an appointed rather than elected body, require Webcasting of meetings, and take away the board's control of a vast pot of school funding. Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, hasn't taken a position on specific bills, a spokeswoman said.

Transferring the board's powers to non-elected officials is stupid -- it would eliminate direct accountability to the voters.

As for the webcasting of meetings, that is already done by audio -- it is now proposed that video webcasting be added. IMO video is not going to make much difference in most cases.

Board members, who aren't paid, object to most legislative meddling.

"As crazy as the Texas Board of Education is, there are just as many crazies, percentage-wise, in the state Legislature," said board member Pat Hardy.

Good point.

Demagogic Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius got hell from the Kansas board of education chairman for trying a similar power grab. [1] She scapegoated the state board of education for the state's economic problems and compared the board to Fred Phelps' "god hates fags" hate group.

Another member, Cynthia Dunbar, said the board's fierce debates should be seen as a sign that all views are well represented.

While the Legislature debates the board's future, candidates on the left and right are gearing up for 2010, when eight seats will be on the ballot. Results of that election could affect how the new science standards are interpreted -- and which biology texts the board approves in 2011. Texas is one of about 20 states that require local districts to buy only textbooks approved by the state board.

Local Texas school districts can use Texas-unapproved textbooks if the districts pay the full cost. A biology textbook that costs, say, $100 and is used for five years costs an average of only about $20 per year per student.

Over the years, the Texas board has been aggressive about editing submitted textbooks before granting approval. Publishers have been asked to delete -- among other things -- favorable references to Islam, discussions of global warming, and illustrations of breast and testicular self-exams, according to the Texas Freedom Network, a nonprofit that calls itself a counterweight to the religious right. . . . .

. . . .Kenneth R. Miller, co-author of several popular biology textbooks, said he inserted a header about the "strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory" before bringing his latest book before the board several years ago.

But Mr. Miller, a professor at Brown University, said the text below the header was unchanged from previous editions. It explored "unsolved puzzles of evolution," such as why sexual reproduction is ubiquitous or how the first life arose. None of the questions, he said, cast doubt on the basic premise of evolution.

I left comments here and here on the blog of the Texas Freedom Network.
.

READ MORE

Eugenie Scott in radio & webcast talk today about new Texas science standards

UPDATE: The talk was a disappointment -- it lasted only 15-20 minutes. The usual Darwinist dogma, of course.


"OLD CHIPMUNK CHEEKS"


Darwinist Eugenie "Evil Genie" Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, will talk today -- April 10 -- on NPR about the new Texas Science standards. The talk will air from 2-3 PM Eastern time on NPR's Science Friday program.

Here is a list of local radio stations that will broadcast the talk. Here is how to listen to a live webcast.

The number for call-ins is:
800-989-8255

The description of Eugenie Scott's talk says,
.

Critics of the school board say that phrases such as 'all sides' and 'examine the strengths and weaknesses' (a phrase rejected by the board after debate) are code words that would allow the teaching of creationism in the science classroom.

Darwinists also think that "analyze and evaluate" are code words for teaching creationism. To Darwinists, any words that call for requiring students to think are code words for teaching creationism.

The talk's description also says,

The large state of Texas is considered a crucial battleground in the fight over teaching evolution, as its purchasing power gives the state's curriculum standards a good deal of influence over the content of textbooks sold around the country.

As I have pointed out many times, it is a myth that Texas's "purchasing power gives the state's curriculum standards a good deal of influence over the content of textbooks sold around the country."[1] For example, a popular biology textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, already comes in regular, Texas, California, Florida, and North Carolina editions. Even in Texas, if a local school district really finds the state-approved textbooks to be intolerable, the district can use state-unapproved textbooks if the district pays the full cost, which would be only about $20 per year per student for a $100 biology textbook used for five years.

Also, I am wondering why there does not seem to be any concern about the future effect of the new science standards on the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) tests.

===============================================

Eastern Chipmunk photo is courtesy of The Chipmunk Place, eNature.com, and Carl E. Sams, Dembinsky Photo Associates.

Wikipedia says that Eastern Chipmunks use cheek pouches to transport food (like other chipmunks) and also dirt that they have excavated from their burrows. The Chipmunk Place says,

This species is single-minded in its food gathering, making trips from tree to storage burrow almost continuously. It was estimated that over three days one chipmunk stored a bushel of chestnuts, hickory nuts, and corn kernels.

.

READ MORE

"Somebody's got to stand up to experts!" -- Texas BoE chairman Don McLeroy

A video of Texas state board of education chairman Don McLeroy's full speech is here.

David Klinghoffer wrote in an article in Evolution News & Views,

To follow the experts unthinkingly is simply the prestige path for most people. Such docility also explains the resistance of certain constituencies, from whom you’d expert better, to thinking fresh thoughts about Darwinian evolution.

Sometimes, the temptation to surrender to expert opinion arises from nothing more complicated than laziness. I’m positive that’s the case with many in the politically conservative community of journalists and other intellectuals. Science bores or intimidates these folks, and they haven’t yet perceived the relevance of Darwinism to their other political and cultural concerns. Therefore expert opinion provides a welcome excuse, at least on this issue, to turn their brains off.

IMO that's true -- I virtually never see a mainstream-media editorial that supports the anti-Darwinist side or that is even neutral.

The article said,
.

In other communities, there’s a tendency to be overly impressed by credentials, titles, honors, and offices. This is surely a big part of what keeps more Jews from “getting” the Darwin debate. You could call it a case of My Son the Doctor Syndrome. Just as the stereotypical coffee klatch of Jewish mothers will speak in absurdly hushed, reverential tones about the fact that one of them has a son in the medical profession — the technical Yiddish term here is kvelling — so too there’s something in recent Jewish culture that inclines us to revere “experts” to excess, no matter what the context. This is ironic given that Jews spent the previous 2,000 years refusing to defer to the dominant expert views of the culture around them.

Among the main reasons for Jewish Darwinism and opposition to "teaching the controversy" are that many Jews (1) view questioning of Darwinism as a Christian fundamentalist thing, (2) see "teaching the controversy" as a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state," and (3) see the Darwin-to-Hitler idea as an attempt to deny the Christian religion's responsibility for the holocaust. The Anti-Defamation League is representative of these Jews. There are noteworthy exceptions: for example, the ultra-orthodox Jews of Israel are probably staunch young-earth creationists -- many of these Jews have not studied science since elementary school. And Jews Ben Stein and David Berlinski (Berlinski considers himself to be a secular Jew) believe that Darwin influenced the Nazis.

Also, whether expert opinions deserve to receive deference or extra weight strongly depends on the question being asked. For example, such deference or extra weight may be warranted if the question is whether a particular criticism of evolution is a real weakness. However, such deference or extra weight is not warranted if the question is whether to include the "strengths and weaknesses" language in science education standards.
.

READ MORE

Texas influence on textbook content is overrated, article indicates

This blog has a previous article about the Texas board of education's influence on textbook content both inside and outside of Texas -- much of the information for this article comes from that article.

The Wall Street Journal is finally essentially saying what I have been saying for a long time -- that the Texas board of education's influence on textbook content has been greatly overrated. A WSJ article says,

Science standards in Texas resonate across the U.S., since it approves one set of books for the entire state. That makes Texas the nation's single largest market for high-school textbooks.

In the past, publishers often have written texts to its curriculum and marketed them nationally rather than spend time and money reworking them for different states and districts.

The notion that Texas controls textbook content outside of Texas is probably the result of the widespread adoption of non-controversial Texas-approved textbooks outside of Texas.

BTW, California has statewide textbook adoption for grades 1-8 but not at the high school level. [1]

The WSJ article continues,
.

That influence has diminished, said Jay Diskey, executive director of the Association of American Publishers' school division, as districts and statewide boards of education have become more likely to scrutinize texts approved in other states. Desktop publishing also has made it easier for companies to amend textbooks to suit different markets.

"It's not necessarily the case" that the Texas curriculum will pop up in other states, Mr. Diskey said.

As I have pointed out, a popular biology textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, comes in regular, California, and Texas editions. But this is a high school textbook and California does not have statewide textbook adoption at the high school level, so why is there a California edition? And it was reported that in the last round of science textbook approvals in Texas in 2003, the "fundies" on the state board of education did not have enough votes to have weaknesses of evolution included in the textbooks, so why is there a Texas edition? I am wondering what the differences in these editions are.

The WSJ says,

But within Texas, what the board says, goes.

That's not true -- local school districts in Texas can use state-unapproved textbooks. The districts must pay the full cost of state-unapproved textbooks in the "foundation curriculum" (I presume that biology is in the foundation curriculum), but curiously the state will pay up to 70% of the cost of state-unapproved textbooks in the "enrichment curriculum."

The WSJ said,

Several years ago, the board expressed concern that a description of the Ice Age occurring "millions of years ago" conflicted with biblical timelines. The publisher changed it to "in the distant past." Another publisher sought to satisfy the board by inserting a heading about "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" in a biology text, drawing condemnation from science organizations.

What? I thought that in the last round of science textbook approvals in 2003, the "fundies" on the Texas SBOE did not have enough votes to have weaknesses of evolution included in the textbooks.

The WSJ said,

The board will use the new standards to choose new textbooks in 2011.

READ MORE

Victory in Texas!

In an article in Evolution News & Views, Robert Crowther declared victory in Texas:

In a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution, Texas today moved to the head of the class by requiring students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence” and specifically requiring students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations.

"Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute.

And Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, issued the following press release conceding defeat --
.

The Texas Freedom Network has released the following statement on the final adoption of science curriculum standards by the State Board of Education today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 27, 2009

TFN President Kathy Miller: Texas State Board of Education Adopts Flawed Science Standards

The word “weaknesses” no longer appears in the science standards. But the document still has plenty of potential footholds for creationist attacks on evolution to make their way into Texas classrooms.

Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks.

"Stupid Steven" Schafersman tried to downplay the damage:

What is the bottom line? Did we win or lose? Neither. We got rid of the worst language, but a great deal of qualifying language remains. I am not going to claim either victory or defeat. I realize that Casey Luskin of Discovery Institute will declare complete, unqualified victory, but it is not that for them. Neither is it for us. The standards adopted were generally good, but there are several that are flawed, fortunately most in minor ways that textbook authors and publishers can deal with. . . . .

This will become apparent in 2011 when the Biology textbooks come up for adoption. Rule 3A and several other poor amendments in Biology--all the contribution of SBOE members who know nothing about science but a lot about pseudoscience--will be used to attack Biology textbooks . . .

The policy (science standards) that resulted are not the best they could be. They are acceptable but could have been pseudoscience- and Creationism influence-free. However, I can also say the standards could be much worse. The votes were so close, and several members switched their votes back and forth several times, sometimes voting with the antiscience radical right wing members and sometimes with the pro-science members, that anything could have happened. I suppose I should be grateful the results are not worse.

Evolution News & Views and the Texas Freedom Network blog both have several articles about the newly-adopted Texas science standards.

This is considered to be national news -- even USA Today has an article about it. The USA Today article has some links to articles in local newspapers.

Also, as I have pointed out many times, It is a myth that the Texas board of education controls textbook content! [1]. No school system in the world -- including Texas -- is required to use Texas-approved textbooks! Local school districts in Texas can use state-unapproved textbooks if the districts pay the full cost, which isn't much. If a biology textbook costs, say, $100 and is used for five years, that comes to a cost of only about $20 per student per year. A popular biology textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, already comes in regular, California, and Texas editions. So in a sense, the fight over the new Texas science standards was a tempest in a teapot.
.

READ MORE

Update on hearings on Texas science standards

Live blogging of the March 25-27 meetings of the Texas SBOE are in several posts on the Texas Freedom Network blog.

A Dallas Morning News article said,

AUSTIN – In a decision watched by science educators across the nation, the State Board of Education on Thursday narrowly turned aside a last-ditch effort by social conservatives to require that "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution be taught in science classes in Texas.

Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a longtime curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories – notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution – be covered in science classes and textbooks for those subjects.

The tie vote upheld a preliminary decision by the board in January to delete the strengths-and-weaknesses rule in the new curriculum standards for science classes that will be in force for the next decade. That decision, if finalized in a last vote today, changes 20 years of Texas education policy.

Because the standards spell out what must be covered in textbooks, science educators and publishers have been monitoring the Texas debate closely. As one of the largest textbook purchasers in the nation, Texas influences what is sold in other states.

As I have pointed out many times, no school system in the world -- including Texas -- is required to use Texas-approved textbooks.[1]. Local school districts in Texas can use state-unapproved textbooks if the districts pay the full cost, which isn't much. If a biology textbook costs, say, $100 and is used for five years, that costs only about $20 per student per year. A popular biology textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, already comes in regular, California, and Texas editions.

The science standards adopted by the board also will figure into questions used on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

Voting for the requirement were the seven Republican board members aligned with social conservative groups. Against the proposal were three other Republicans and four Democrats. Critics of evolution managed to add a few small caveats to the curriculum, but none as sweeping as the strengths-and-weaknesses rule.

I am surprised that three Republicans snubbed the Texas Republican Party's recent resolution asking the GOP members of the board to support the "strengths and weaknesses" language. Only one more vote was needed to restore the language to the state standards -- it was not as if the GOP members were asked to vote for something that might not pass anyway.

Evolution critics scored some victories before the standards for all elementary and high school science classes were tentatively adopted Thursday.

The most significant was a change brought by board Chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, who proposed that students be required to study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection – two key Darwin tenets – in examining fossil records and cell structure, respectively.

Ironically, this change is really bad, whereas the "strengths and weaknesses" language that was removed -- which had been in the standards for about 20 years -- was harmless.
.

READ MORE

Live broadcasts of meetings on Texas science standards

Live blogging of the March 25-27 meetings of the Texas SBOE are in several posts on the Texas Freedom Network blog.

Links to the following broadcasts are here. Times are Central Standard Time. Note: dial-up 56K modem connections may be too slow for listening to archived audio files, so you may have to listen to the live broadcast.

Upcoming or Active Audio Streams:
If the player is not responding, the meeting has either not started, has ended or the number of listeners has exceeded the system's capacity.

SBOE Committee of the Full Board: noon March 25, 2009

SBOE Committee of the Full Board: 9 a.m. March 26, 2009

SBOE Committee on School Initiatives: 2 p.m. or upon adjournment of the Committee of the Full Board March 26, 2009

State Board of Education: 9 a.m. March 27, 2009

Here are the Audio Archives:

Archived audio files from the State Board of the Education meetings from 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. After each meeting is held the audio files will be posted on the archived page. There are no audio files available for years prior to 2004.

If you need further assistance, please contact the Texas Education Agency's Division of Communications and SBOE Support at (512) 463-9000.

NOTE: Due to the length of some meetings, the audio files are in multiple parts.

READ MORE

Wall Street Journal article on Texas controversy

A WSJ article says,

[Texas Board of Education Chairman] Dr. McLeroy believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago. If the new curriculum passes, he says he will insist that high-school biology textbooks point out specific aspects of the fossil record that, in his view, undermine the theory that all life on Earth is descended from primitive scraps of genetic material that first emerged in the primordial muck about 3.9 billion years ago.

He also wants the texts to make the case that individual cells are far too complex to have evolved by chance mutation and natural selection, an argument popular with those who believe an intelligent designer created the universe . . . .

The Texas school board will vote after taking public testimony in a three-day meeting that starts Wednesday. Dr. McLeroy leads a group of seven social conservatives on the 15-member board. . . . .

Neither side is confident of victory. All members of the board have come under enormous pressure in recent months, especially three Republicans who support teaching evolution without references to "weaknesses." The state Republican Party passed a resolution urging the three to back Dr. McLeroy's preferred curriculum. A conservative activist group put out a news release suggesting all three were in the pocket of "militant Darwinists."

McLeroy's "preferred curriculum" includes some controversial amendments [1] to the science standards in addition to the "strengths and weaknesses" language. That Republican Party resolution specifically only asked those three GOP members to support the "strengths and weaknesses" language:

RESOLVED, The Republican Party of Texas, consistent with the 2008 State Republican Platform, opposes abandonment of the longstanding "strengths and weaknesses" science standard and calls upon the Republican members of the State Board of Education to support the retention of the "strengths and weaknesses" standard in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)."

Also, as I have pointed out many times, no school system inside or outside of Texas is required to use Texas-approved textbooks.
.

READ MORE

Texas GOP asks GOP members of school board to restore "weaknesses" language

On March 7, the Republican party of Texas adopted a resolution supporting the "strengths and weaknesses" language that was in the Texas science standards for about 20 years and is asking GOP members of the state board of education to restore the language to the new Texas science standards prior to final adoption of the standards at the March 25-27 meeting. According to the Texas Freedom Network, three GOP members of the board voted against the "strengths and weaknesses" language at the January meeting, with the result that the language was rejected by a vote of 8-7. [1]

Also, the 2008 Texas GOP platform, passed at the GOP state convention in June 2008, includes the following plank:

We support objective teaching and equal treatment of strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design.(page 17, under "Theories of Origin")

.
I have followed the controversy over the new Texas science standards very closely for a long time (this blog has about sixty articles on the subject, including 15 articles about ousted former Texas Education Agency science director Chris Comer — the articles are in three “Texas controversy” post-label groups and one “Chris Comer” post-label group -- the post-label groups are listed in the sidebar of the homepage) and I am astonished that I am just now learning that the 2008 Texas GOP platform included support for the “strengths and weaknesses” language! Moreover, that GOP platform also included support for teaching Intelligent Design in the public schools! Also, I am surprised that so many GOP members of the Texas board of education — three — broke ranks by voting against retaining the “strengths and weaknesses” language. I thought that the fight over the “strengths and weaknesses” language was over, but apparently not. The date on the resolution, March 7, was several days ago — how come this resolution has not been reported in the general media? Has the Texas GOP issued a press release announcing the resolution? The Texas Freedom Network has an article about the resolution [2]. Of five other websites that I checked — Texas Citizens for Science, Texans for Better Science Education, The Freemarket Foundation, the 21st Century Science Coalition, and the Houston Chronicle Evo.Sphere blog -- only the Texans for Better Science Education website mentioned the resolution (there was just a link to the resolution but no discussion of the resolution’s contents or significance).

I was amused that the resolution uses the term “Darwinist,” a term that many Darwinists consider to be derogatory. LOL

Also, as I said before, IMO the importance of the Texas science standards has been exaggerated, because no local school district in Texas or public school system outside of Texas is required to use Texas-approved textbooks.

I was not going to submit any more comments to the Texas Education Agency about the proposed Texas science standards, but because this Texas GOP resolution may result in reconsideration of the “strengths and weaknesses” language, I will send in a comment repeating my proposal of replacing “strengths and weaknesses” with “strengths and criticisms.” “Criticisms” is a general term that covers real weaknesses, invalid criticisms, criticisms of whole theories, and criticisms of imperfections in theories.
.

READ MORE

Last public hearing for new Texas science standards, March 25

The Texas Education Agency sent the following message about the upcoming last public hearing for the new Texas science standards:

--Public Hearing Scheduled for Revisions to Proposed TEKS for Science

A public hearing has been scheduled to receive testimony on proposed revisions to the Science Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills prior to second reading and final adoption on March 26-27, 2009.

The Public Hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 25th from noon until 6 p.m.. For more information about public hearings, please see
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/op_rules.html#publichearings

More info -- including important info about the latest revisions -- is here.

READ MORE

Another public comment period for proposed Texas science standards?

I thought that the public comment periods for the proposed Texas science standards were over, but I just received the email message below from the science department of the Texas Education Agency.

I have commented extensively on the proposed Texas science standards, but I am not going to submit any more comments, except to repeat what I am saying here. I have given up on the Texas science standards. The Texas board of education adopted some out-of-the-blue amendments that the public had no chance to comment on, and I think that's wrong.

IMO the importance of the Texas science standards has been exaggerated. Local school districts in Texas and school systems outside Texas are not required to use Texas-approved textbooks. Local school districts in Texas may use state-unapproved textbooks if the districts pay the full cost, which isn't much. A popular textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, already comes in regular, Texas, and California editions.

Here are the out-of-the-blue amendments that the Texas board of education adopted on Jan. 22. This information is important because the TEA documents below do not show where these amendments were added.

Here is the email I got from the Texas Education Agency -- the standards of interest are in Subchapter C, High School:
.

OFFICIAL COMMENT PERIOD on Proposed Science TEKS Begins


The proposed revisions to the science TEKS that were approved for first reading by the State Board of Education (SBOE) and filed with the Texas Register are available now.

Please see http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/home/sboeprop.html to view the proposed revisions.

Public comments on proposed revisions may be submitted electronically by clicking the envelope next to each proposed section. Please specify in your message the rule subchapter to which your comments apply (subchapter A is elementary, subchapter B is middle school, subchapter C is high school). You may submit comments on proposed revisions to rules@tea.state.tx.us.

Please contact the Division of Policy Coordination at (512) 475-1497 if you have any questions.

The SBOE meeting will occur on March 26-27. Information will be available at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=1156


Thank you,

Irene Pickhardt
Assistant Director of Science
Texas Education Agency
1701 North Congress
Austin Texas 78701
Irene.Pickhardt@tea.state.tx.us

Check out the revised TEA Science webpage at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/science/index.html

Join our informative and monthly science listserve by going to this webpage and select "science" http://miller.tea.state.tx.us/list/

.

READ MORE

Effect of Texas science standards on textbooks

One of the main concerns about the new Texas science standards' rules concerning evolution is what effect these rules are likely to have on textbook selection both in Texas and elsewhere. IMO many predictions of this effect are exaggerations and I want to set the record straight here.

Here are some excerpts from the Texas textbook statutes:

Sec. 31.023. TEXTBOOK LISTS. (a) For each subject and grade level, the State Board of Education shall adopt two lists of textbooks. The conforming list includes each textbook submitted for the subject and grade level that meets applicable physical specifications adopted by the State Board of Education and contains material covering each element of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level in the student version of the textbook, as well as in the teacher version of the textbook, as determined by the State Board of Education under Section 28.002 and adopted under Section 31.024. The nonconforming list includes each textbook submitted for the subject and grade level that:

(1) meets applicable physical specifications adopted by the State Board of Education;

(2) contains material covering at least half, but not all, of the elements of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level in the student version of the textbook, as well as in the teacher version of the textbook; and

(3) is adopted under Section 31.024.

(b) Each textbook on a conforming or nonconforming list must be free from factual errors.

(citations omitted)

Sec. 31.024. ADOPTION BY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. (a) By majority vote, the State Board of Education shall:
.
(1) place each submitted textbook on a conforming or nonconforming list; or

(2) reject a textbook submitted for placement on a conforming or nonconforming list. . . . .

Sec. 31.025. LIMITATION ON COST. (a) The State Board of Education shall set a limit on the cost that may be paid from the state textbook fund for a textbook placed on the conforming or nonconforming list for a particular subject and grade level. The board may not reject a textbook for placement on the conforming or nonconforming list because the textbook's price exceeds the limit established under this subsection.

(b) Subject to Section 31.151, if a school district or open-enrollment charter school selects a textbook from a conforming or nonconforming list that exceeds the limit established under Subsection (a):

(1) the state shall pay the publisher an amount equal to the limit established under Subsection (a) multiplied by the number of textbooks the district or school requisitions; and

(2) the district or school is responsible for the remainder of the cost.

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sec. 31.101. SELECTION AND PURCHASE OF TEXTBOOKS BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS. (a) Each year, during a period established by the State Board of Education, the board of trustees of each school district and the governing body of each open-enrollment charter school shall:

(1) for a subject in the foundation curriculum, notify the State Board of Education of the textbooks selected by the board of trustees or governing body for the following school year from among the textbooks on the appropriate conforming or nonconforming list; or

(2) for a subject in the enrichment curriculum:

(A) notify the State Board of Education of each textbook selected by the board of trustees or governing body for the following school year from among the textbooks on the appropriate conforming or nonconforming list; or

(B) notify the State Board of Education that the board of trustees or governing body has selected a textbook that is not on the conforming or nonconforming list.

(b) If a school district or open-enrollment charter school selects a textbook for a particular subject in the enrichment curriculum and grade level that is not on the conforming or nonconforming list, the state shall pay to the district or school an amount equal to the lesser of:

(1) 70 percent of the cost to the district of the textbook, multiplied by the number of textbooks the district or school needs for that subject and grade level; or

(2) 70 percent of the limitation established under Section 31.025 for a textbook for that subject and grade level, multiplied by the number of textbooks the district or school needs for that subject and grade level.

(c) A school district or open-enrollment charter school that selects a textbook that is not on the conforming or nonconforming list:

(1) is responsible for the portion of the cost of the textbook that is not paid by the state under Subsection (b); and

(2) may use funds received from the state under Subsection (b) only for purchasing the textbook for which the funds were received.

(d) For a textbook that is not on the conforming or nonconforming list, a school district or open-enrollment charter school must use the textbook for the period of the review and adoption cycle the State Board of Education has established for the subject and grade level for which the textbook is used.

These are the facts as I see them:

(1) There is nothing in the state science standards that would prevent the Texas state board of education from approving a science text that contains criticisms of evolution or that omits particular criticisms of evolution (some last-minute out-of-the-blue additions that the board of education made to the state science standards could be considered to be critical of evolution).

(2) The names "conforming list" and "non-conforming list" are misleading -- local Texas school districts are entitled to reimbursement by the state for books from either list. A textbook has to be pretty bad to not make the "non-conforming" list -- books on this list are allowed to contain as little as one-half of the essential knowledge & skills required by the state standards. A book must not contain factual errors, but it may be difficult to prove that a book contains factual errors. The Texas textbook statutes also allow for whole or partial reimbursement by the state for supplemental textbooks in some cases.

(3) There appears to be nothing to prevent a local Texas school district from choosing a state-unapproved or state-rejected textbook for a "foundation curriculum" course (I presume biology is such a course) if the district pays the full cost of the books (if the course is in the "enrichment curriculum," the state pays 70% of the costs of state-unapproved or state-rejected textbooks). If a textbook costs, say, $100 and is used for five years, that is a cost of only about $20 per student per year.

(4) Public-school systems outside of Texas are not stuck with the textbooks that Texas approves -- too much has been made of the fact that these systems tend to adopt Texas-approved textbooks. It is easy and cheap to ,make separate editions of biology textbooks by adding or removing sections containing criticisms of evolution. There are already regular, Texas, and California editions of the very popular textbook Biology by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, and it would be interesting to know how these editions differ.

IMO there should be no supplementary books about evolution that are required reading -- such books imply that the main textbook's treatment of evolution is inadequate or suspect. IMO the main textbooks should cover criticisms of evolution. IMO it is OK to have a list of reference books concerning evolution that are not required reading, and such a list should contain books presenting all points of view. IMO the Dover school board made a mistake by choosing just one book, "Of Pandas and People," that presents just one point of view.

Here is an interesting article about a Texas hearing on biology textbook approval (this is probably the 2003 hearing):

This website gives detailed information about the textbook laws and regulations of all the states and also US territories (published Jan. 2005 -- recent rule changes are here). I have discovered an error on this website -- the website says of the Texas regulations, "Districts may use books not included on either the conforming or nonconforming list, but the board will pay only 70% of the cost of these textbooks, the remainder being the responsibility of the district," but that is only for textbooks for "enrichment curriculum" courses, not "foundation curriculum" courses.

We should do away with state standards for education anyway -- they have become a joke.
.

READ MORE

Texas board of education votes on new science standards

Today's meeting of the Texas Board of Education was live-blogged here, on the Texas Freedom Network blog. Also, the meeting was live-blogged by Stupid Steven Schafersman [1] and in several articles dated Jan. 22 on Thoughts from Kansas. Evolution News & Views also has several articles -- dated Jan. 21 and Jan. 22 -- about the Jan. 21 and Jan. 22 meetings of the board.

A motion to re-insert the "strengths and weaknesses" language into the standards failed today on a 7-7 tie vote (one member was absent during the voting). However, like the Kitmiller v. Dover decision, this looks like a Pyrrhic victory for the dogmatic Darwinists -- it accomplishes little for them while greatly increasing opposition to the dogmatic teaching of Darwinism.

Here are the ways that things stand now:
.
(1) The word "limitations" remains in the biology knowledge & skills section 3D.

(2) Nothing in the tentatively approved new standards prohibits the state from approving textbooks that contain criticisms of evolution.

(3) The vote on the "strengths and weaknesses" language shows the willingness of a near-majority of the board members to vote to overrule a decision of all eight science standards-drafting committees.

(4) The board inserted some anti-evolution language into the science standards, particularly the statement, "describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." [2] It sounds like a silly question to me.

These are preliminary votes. The final vote is in March, and the board might vote on the standards tomorrow too.
.

READ MORE