So, today the SBOE voted a second time to reject the strengths and weaknesses language in the science TEKS. My prediction is that the good sense of the eight members will hold on final vote at the March board meeting.
Of some concern are the Earth and Space Science TEKS and a Biology TEKS that got amended in a sneak attack by a couple of creationists on the board at the very last minute yesterday. Today, the board voted again to accept these amendments, on a voice vote (which made it difficult to tell who voted yes and who voted no). No public testimony was allowed, although a true science warrior, Dr. David Hillis of UT cancelled his classes to be at the meeting in case testimony was allowed. The Chair, Don McElroy gets to decide if anyone speaks, and he was the one who threw the proverbial creationist monkey wrench into the Biology TEKS, so no, no speaking was allowed.
The amendments are patently anti-science and pro-religion, and they open the door wide enough to give science teachers permission to put religion (Christianity) in our public school classrooms. The
New York Times offers a good overview of what went right and what went wrong today. Two caveats about the amendments:
1. The vagueness they put in the TEKS represent nonsense, so there is no way for it to be taught the way they intend. Here's an example from
Steve Schafersman's analysis (he of the awesome liveblogging):
Note that the first TEKS is the one the scientific community asked to be approved, and the second is the TEKS with the Cargill amendment language:
(4) Earth in space and time. The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.
(4) Earth in Space and Time. The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.
This revision is scientifically awkward and unacceptable. There is only one scientific theory of the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe: the Big Bang Theory. There are no “differing theories” and it is unscientific to claim that there are. The purpose is to suggest that there are alternative explanations for these phenomena, but the only one is not a scientific theory but a religious one. An acceptable revision would be “The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal how the Big Bang Theory explains the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.”
So, as you can see, if there isn't a differing scientific theory - and there IS NOT - it can't be taught. Unless, unless, unless . . . a teacher is willing to insert his or her religous "theory" into the classroom. And, it looks like that would be permissable.
2. You have to assume from the 7-8 vote on the "strengths and weaknesses" language that there are 8 people who are willing to ensure real science is taught in Texas classroom, not beliefs of some Christians. My hope is that when the few who didn't really understand the danger and the assault on science of the amendments get to talk to experts, they will change their vote.
Email addresses of all SBOE members are
here. I'm going to work on something concise that can be emailed to them.
The March meeting, where the final vote on science standards will take place is
March 26-27 in Austin.
UPDATE: Here's the new Biology TEKS that McElroy got inserted to the evolution section:
"7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record."
This is particularly egregious, as there is no scientific basis for "insufficiency". It's pure creationist nonsense and has no place in a science classroom. Common descent is accepted. Period.
It's hard to know what to email the SBOE, except for "Hello, you aren't scientists and most of you aren't even educators. Your job is to get the best experts to advise you and then take their advice. There is no place for your small minded Jesus-in-your-pocket religious beliefs in Texas classrooms. Thank you."
2 comments:
“My prediction is that the good sense of the eight members will hold on final vote at the March board meeting.”
“My hope is that when the few who didn't really understand the danger and the assault on science of the amendments get to talk to experts, they will change their vote.”
I too hope you are correct, but given my experience with the SBOE during the three-year long English Language Arts and Reading TEKS debacle, I wouldn’t place too much hope on the vote holding in March. Watch Mr. Agosto carefully. He was very supportive of real ELAR experts and the workgroup-authored version of our TEKS, until he voted against them in the final vote: 8-7.
You’ve already seen McLeroy and Cargill at work with those oh-by-the-way amendments. Be assured; there are more in the works. The Malevolent 7 played all sorts of tricks during the ELAR “tweaking” of grades 6-12, then expanded to revision of 6-12, then expanded again to a full-blown rewrite of K-12 standards. And what did they finally vote for? A set of standards that Cargill and Lowe patched together THE NIGHT BEFORE the final vote and slipped under the doors of board member the following morning before the final vote. Should I mention that those TEKS were never seen by the public until that final vote? All this after spending thousands of dollars on teacher work groups AND an unprecedented, contracted, outside facilitator called StandardsWork. Don’t think for a second that they wouldn’t try similar tactics again. After all, this strategy worked with the ELAR TEKS.
The only thing really working in your favor now is media coverage. If you lose that, get ready for the fireworks.
As a side note, history teachers in Texas should be ready. It will be their turn to be scoffed at and ignored soon! If anyone knows that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, it should be them.
I offer a different theory on how the earth was made: It is called the big bang. BANG God did it.
In fact every student would get an easy A with that answer. God did it.
And when a teacher flunks a kids ass, he can write to the parent and say "God did it so shut the *&^% up"
Amen
Post a Comment