Archive for the ‘Religious Right’ Category
So who’s going to stop them?
January 23rd, 2008
Star-Telegram.com: | 01/19/2008 | Evolution’s status may be debated by state board
The state’s public school curriculum, called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, says students must learn “the theory of biological evolution.” Section 3A of the biology curriculum states that students must use critical thinking to make informed decisions, including analyzing a theory’s “strengths and weaknesses.”
“They do not cover the weaknesses of evolution,” said Don McLeroy, chairman of the state board, of the state’s science textbooks. “They present evolution as an absolute fact.”
McLeroy, an outspoken creationist, said he doesn’t want changes in the state’s biology standards. But some say that doesn’t mean that creationism or intelligent design, both held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be religious theories that are barred from the classroom, won’t seep into Texas’ curriculum.
Just think, with the decision of the majority of the Texas SBOE to reject a textbook for reasons other than failing to meet basic state curriculum requirements, McLeroy now doesn’t even have to bother with the analyzing the “strengths and weaknesses” rule to reject textbooks that teach evolution. Before, the Board would have to go through the motions of documenting that the textbook didn’t demonstrate the weaknesses of evolution in order to reject the book. The Board could have demanded the publishers to include so many “weaknesses” in the textbook so as to make the evolution section appear a travesty of unscientific reasoning.
But now, McLeroy and friends won’t even have to bother. They believe they can just decide to reject a book for any reason. Their decision to reject the math textbook sets the precedent for the upcoming selection of biology textbooks. Unless Attorney General Greg Abbott steps in now to stop the board, he will find it very difficult to do so in the future. He avoided having to explicitly define the Board’s authority in 2006. It seems to me, that the Board is calling him out to make him actually block Board action in rejecting a textbook. Will he do it? I guess it all depends who is funding his next run for higher office.
Technorati Tags: Texas State Board of Education, Texas SBOE, Don McLeroy, textbook approval, evolution, Terri Leo , Greg Abbott
If they’re allowed to do whatever they want, then they didn’t break the law
January 19th, 2008
More on the Texas SBOE’s rejection of a third grade math book. Now the majority has voted to strike the minority reports from the official record of the board’s minutes. It seems that while our San Antonio representative couldn’t bring himself to vote on the original matter, he has joined the majority in censoring the minority.
“This is about the credibility of this board, and I will challenge anyone here who tries to challenge my credibility,” said Rick Agosto, a Democrat from San Antonio who had abstained in the November vote over whether to reject the math book.
If he didn’t vote, how could this be about his “credibility?” If he had bothered to vote for approving the textbook to begin with (which meets all state requirements) this wouldn’t be an issue at all, now would it? What’s the deal, he’s afraid the board wouldn’t elect him as an officer again? Does he really believe that the board has the right to reject textbooks based on personal beliefs even if they meet all state requirements? No wonder he’s worried about his credibility.
Because they don’t like it
January 17th, 2008
The state Board of Education’s unusual decision to reject a math textbook used by Dallas and 70 other Texas school districts has evolved into a power struggle over the approval of classroom materials used across the state.
At issue is whether the 15-member state board can reject any book it wants for any reason it wants. That’s what some conservative board members, led by board president Don McLeroy, say they are allowed to do.
So much for local control.
In Dallas, officials rolled out Everyday Mathematics books in kindergarten through sixth grade at 19 schools with low math scores during the 2000-01 school year. By the end of the year, only two of those schools still had low scores; a year later, none of them did, said Camille Malone, DISD’s director of mathematics.
The district now uses the book to teach the nearly 79,000 students in kindergarten through fifth grade at all elementary schools. Ms. Malone said games and hands-on examples help the students develop computation skills.
“The TAKS test is a test of concepts as well as skills,” she said. “Had we not had a conceptually based program, I’m not sure we would have had the achievement we have had on TAKS.”
So because some board members are more interested in establishing the authority of their beliefs, Dallas can not use a textbook that it believes has been instrumental in improving it’s math scores.
Terri Leo’s comments have to be among the most pathetic.
Ms. Leo said. “I object very much being taken to task for rejecting a book that I actually read.”
Apparently it doesn’t matter to her that the textbook was recommended by a review committee, the TEA commissioner, and probably several textbook committees at various districts not to mention the teachers who have been using the textbook in the classroom for a couple years. Shouldn’t they be the ones “objecting” rather than Leo?
I’m pretty sure this is just a continuation of Leo’s attempt for the SBOE to regain absolute control of textbook selection which suffered a major setback in the fall of 2006. Why now? Because biology textbooks are coming up for approval soon. And if the board “establishes” it’s right to reject textbooks for any reason, then the board can easily reject books that fail to “teach the controversy” regarding evolution.
BTW, Terri Leo is up for re-election this year. Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t have a candidate in the race. However, the Libertarian candidate is Brian Kuzma. Why should seven board members get to decide on textbooks for every district in Texas based solely on their personal preferences?
Technorati Tags: Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, Teri Leo, textbook selection
You can teach creationism as long as it’s quality creationism
January 16th, 2008
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said Tuesday that it will wait until April to decide whether the Institute for Creation Research can offer an online master’s degree in science education. The board was supposed to take up the issue next week.
In November, a team of educators and coordinating board officials visited the institute’s graduate school in Dallas and concluded that it offered a standard science education curriculum. In December, an advisory council recommended that the board approve the institute’s application.
So what does this mean? The team that visited the program said that is was “a standard science education curriculum.” So why is the board delaying? What has the board found out since then to suggest that it might not be teaching at a graduate level? If so, why didn’t the original advisory council indicate the problem before?
Maybe the board is hoping that the Institute will not be able to meet its “graduate level” standard. That way they can reject the application without rejecting creationism and avoid offending those who believe that creationism should be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. I can just see it now, “oh no, we didn’t reject the program because of the content but because the content wasn’t at the graduate level!”
As we start to put evolution disclaimer stickers on our biology textbooks, we might want to consider some other stickers suggested by Colin Purrington as well.
Technorati Tags: Evolution, Creationism, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Institute for Creation Research, Master’s Degree in Science Education
Because it will improve our economic base?
January 10th, 2008
Very interesting article on the probable upcoming debate on evolution in Texas science textbooks.
Some educators breathed a sign of relief, thinking that Texas science classes might be spared religious controversy. Yet buried in the TEKS existing standards is the reason that Texas could be the center of evolution’s next big battle: Section 3a reads: “The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.” (Italics added.)
Good thing the Institute for Creation Research may soon get to offer a Masters of Science Education in Texas. That way teachers will be prepared to “teach the controversy.”
Creation institute’s degree plan questioned
One panel stated that, despite its “embedded component” of creationist views, the degree plan “is nevertheless a plausible program.”
Will somebody please explain to me what Texas gains in terms of citizens prepared to work in the 21st century by teaching intelligent design? Will it provide a better trained workforce to develop and attract the high paying jobs we seem to want when we talk about economic development?
Special privileges for Bible classes
January 6th, 2008
Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee the bill’s author, said that if 15 or more students express interest in the Bible as Literature course, districts must offer it.
“A lot of schools don’t know they can have the course, and this bill notifies them that the Supreme Court ruled school districts can offer it,” Chisum said. “School districts should know they can offer the course because it better prepares students for college literature and history classes.”
So why do students have this right for only one class? Why shouldn’t they be able to petition for calculus, Greek, Shakespeare, or microbiology? Surely they help better prepare students for college work as well? Why is the public school system giving special preference to a specific course?
Because the law requires a school district to offer the Bible as literature course if 15 or more students express interest, what if 15 or more students express interest in the Koran or any other religious text?
“The bill applies to the Bible as a text that has historical and literary value,” Chisum said. “It can’t go off into other religious philosophies because then it would be teaching religion, when the course is meant to teach literature. Koran is a religious philosophy, not of historical or literary value, which is what the Bible is being taught for.”
If nothing else, students should be able to petition for the Koran as history or literary value because of Chisum’s inane statement. He doesn’t think the Koran has anything to do with the history of the middle east, you know the area where we are now engaged in two wars? The Koran might have something to do with a recent assassination in Pakistan? I remember there being some sort of deal with the Koran and a book called the “Satanic Versus” or a movie called “The Kite Flier.”
If students can’t petition for any other class that would better prepare them for college then why make an exception for this one? By only allowing students to petition for this class, Chisum has undermined the very legitimate, educational basis for teaching the Bible as literature.
Technorati Tags: Bible as Literature, Warren Chisum
You don’t have to identify yourself as a homeschooler
January 31st, 2007
HSLDA | New Hampshire Legislation 2007—House Bill 51: Legalizing Adoption by Unmarried “Couples”:
Action Requested:
Please call and/or email members of the House Children and Family Law Committee (listed below) and give them this message:“Please vote against House Bill 51 to protect New Hampshire adoptive children by keeping the adoption process based on the traditional interpretation of the family.”
You do not have to identify yourself as a homeschooler. Though this bill affects homeschoolers, it also affects every family in New Hampshire.
Whenever they say that “you do not have to identify yourself as a homeschooler” I suspect that it’s probably an issue that a “national” homeschooling group that claims to represent “all” homeschoolers shouldn’t be involved.
The defenders of the First Amendment
January 25th, 2007
Guess the Home School Legal Defense Association can continue fulfilling it’s homeschool mandate by making sure marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
HSLDA | S. 1—The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007:
Senate Bill 1 is a bipartisan bill and contains much-needed congressional reforms. However, Section 220 of S. 1 was set to redefine lobbying to include “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.” Under this label, all organizations engaged in grassroots lobbying would have been required to comply with all federal lobbying laws, including registration with Congress and a filing of quarterly reports to Congress. Failure to comply would have resulted in fines of up to $200,000 per the Vitter Amendment No. 10 on January 12, and possible criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison created by Section 223 of the substitute bill. The Bennett Amendment passed on a 55-43 vote, removing Section 220 and the grassroots lobbying provisions. Immediately following, Senate Bill 1 was passed on a vote of 96-2. It now goes to the House for consideration.
Apparently gay marriage is a parental right issue for homeschoolers.
I know Section 220 had some problems and all the conservative groups who opposed the bill love to point out that the ACLU had some problems with bill. Go over to the ACLU website and you’ll see the difference. The ACLU points the problems with the specific definitions. In other words, the ACLU mentions that this bill has a financial consideration ($25,000) a quarter and didn’t apply to members although there is a problem in what constitutes a member. The other organizations didn’t seem to get past mentioning the penalties if you didn’t comply or the “500″ number.
So somehow I can’t shake the feeling that the outcry was so one-sided because groups on that side have been getting away with something. Like sending out legislative action alerts on behalf of other organizations for issue that aren’t related to homeschooling.
TEKS need to be in the student textbook as well
December 4th, 2006
80(R) HB 77 – Introduced version – Bill Text:
REQUIRED TEXTBOOK ADOPTION AND TEXTBOOK LISTS. (a) ?For each subject and grade level, the State Board of Education shall adopt textbooks that contain all elements of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level, as determined by the State Board of Education under Section 28.002, in the student versions of the textbooks, as well as in the teacher versions of the textbooks.
Just guessing here but I would think this is an attempt to force textbook publishers to include “controversial” topics such as evolution and birth control in the students’ textbooks as well as the teachers’ versions. My impression has been that textbook publishers have been able to mollify the more conservative members of the State Board of Education (who, of course, have no political agenda) by leaving it up to the teachers to decide whether or not to address certain issues.
In fact, it takes away the SBOE’s authority although if the SBOE doesn’t decide if all the elements are included, I don’t know who would.
80(R) HB 77 – Introduced version – Bill Text:
[ and] contains material covering all elements?[ each element] of the essential knowledge and skills of the subjectand grade level in the student version of the textbook, as well as in the teacher version of the textbook;?[ as determined by the StateBoard of Education under Section 28.002] and
In any case, I bet SBOE members aren’t going to be big supporters of this bill.
School choice isn’t the same as text book choice
October 4th, 2006
Texas School Finance System Unconstitutional – by Connie Sadowski – The Heartland Institute:
“I was pleased that the Supreme Court did not rule our schools were inadequately funded,” said Don McLeroy, a member of the State Board of Education’s Finance Committee. “Adequacy is a highly subjective assessment. The best way to judge an adequate education is to let the parents decide–give them the right to choose their child’s school.”
As long as McLeroy gets to decide on their text books.
Does this make sense? McLeroy is all for parent choice but actively works so that the SBOE is the only authority of text book content.
