QR Weighs in on SBOE & TEA

Straight from Kimberley Reeves from Quorum Report. She is right on all points about Texas Education Agency science and other staff having to sit on their hands in the audience, totally mute, with no advisory role:

REEVES: SBOE AND TEA--TWO SHIPS PASSING IN THE NIGHT

Quorum Report correspondent Kimberly Reeves weighs in on SBOE adventures and misadventures

Days like today at the State Board of Education – when competing sides are doing hand-to-hand combat over evolution instead of negotiating the quality of high school science standards -- point to a dysfunction that belongs to more than just the 15 members of the much-maligned elected state board.

Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), witnessing the brewing fight over SBOE dictating creationism should be taught in Texas classrooms, has suggested the board has become a liability to the state’s education system. In his bills, Senate Bill 440 and Senate Bill 513, SBOE would either be limited to the Constitutional function of managing the Permanent School Fund or be put under regular sunset review.

On the surface, today would appear to be a perfect example of why passing Ellis’ bills would make sense. Yesterday, an exhausting parade of more than 130 speakers approached the microphone at SBOE to make the case for and against teaching the so-called “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

Instead of a serious discourse on science content – only last session, lawmakers set some of the steepest science standards in the nation for high school graduation – the seven-hour-long meeting took on the atmosphere of a circus sideshow, with dueling press conference, promised fisticuffs and multiple blogs tracking the minute-by-minute developments.

Could this be the state that promised to graduate high school students with four years of math and science, ready for post-secondary education or the workforce?

Agency staff members were spectators to the entire process today, just as they were yesterday. After the vote on “strengths and weaknesses” was taken – a 7-7 tie that mirrored January’s vote on second reading, minus an absent Mary Helen Berlanga -- conservatives Barbara Cargill and Gail Lowe of the board’s Curriculum Committee led the full board through a long list of amendments to the science curriculum. Input from agency staff? Little to none.

More controversial recommendations – for biology and earth science – popped up this afternoon. Did agency staff – which would be dealing with the practicality of the SBOE science recommendations on a day-to-day basis – agree with the recommendations? Hard to tell, although it would be hoped some discussion went on behind the scenes.

In fact, agency staff rarely talks about the specifics of curriculum during the once-a-decade review of core curriculum standards. Instead, when discussing progress on standards, agency staff almost always confines its discussion to process, unless asked a direct question by a member of SBOE.

It can be added that many of Cargill and Lowe’s early amendments appeared helpful, and Cargill stressed that her recommendations came directly from working extensively with science teachers since second reading the standards in January.

So that’s the fault of the SBOE, right? This terrible bloc of elected conservatives has overrun the board and taken unholy control of curriculum in the state.

Well, during a break in today’s discussion – so striking because of the sheer dominance of SBOE members – QR took a quick perusal of the Texas Education Code, and what to our wondering eyes did appear but law that actually instructs the State Board of Education to do exactly what it is doing today.

So exactly how can Ellis – or any other lawmakers – complain?

While other states typically give state boards of education the job to “review” or “approve” code, Texas is specific that it wants this elected board – none of them guaranteed to be educators or experts on curriculum – to “establish” the state’s curriculum. And, by golly, that’s just the board -- assisted by panels of teachers and professors, plus a review by professionals – has done.

In Florida, for instance, curriculum standards start with a small panel of professionals. Then those recommendations are turned over to the teachers for review and the approval of the state board. In Texas, the process starts with a diverse group of teachers, producing a lengthy amoeba-like process that has cursory input from agency staff, subsequent professional review and a final board vote.

And, by the way, the education code gives the Texas Education Agency very little to do with the creation of the state’s curriculum, except to provide assistance to the SBOE and as directly instructed by law. Instead, the current education code has become a curious hodge-podge of duties: creating a easily understood format for financial and academic performance; compiling a best practices clearinghouse; conducting hearings involving state school law; and even developing and implementing a teacher recruitment program as provided by law.

And while TEA is mandated to do all sorts of things when it comes to curriculum -- implement it, measure it, align it, articulate it and create instruments that measure its proficiency – the law gives only a nod to the fact that agency staff might be interested in creating it or improving it. That belongs to SBOE.

Now the cynics might go ahead and say that even if curriculum started with the Texas Education Agency, it ends up with the deeply political SBOE. That is true. But consider the parallels between local school districts and their school boards, versus the State Board of Education and its agency.

The relationship between a superintendent and his school board is clearly defined. The superintendent is in charge, and the one who takes direction and makes decisions. The board represents the community’s interests. They approve the budget, set the tax rate and review the district’s progress. The board also has the power to remove the superintendent if he or she fails to meet standards.

And what is the relationship between SBOE and TEA? SBOE has no control over TEA and TEA has no input into SBOE, other than the input that is requested by members. Asked once why the state’s 10 years of student data was never used when it came time to rewrite the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, one agency official said it simply was never requested. And, because of that, it was never proffered.

Agency staff is hamstrung by the limits of current law. The agency provides no check on SBOE, and SBOE provides no balance on TEA. It’s interesting to add that although the law has given the SBOE and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board roughly equivalent roles, Commissioner Raymund Paredes is much more comfortable recommending the direction of higher ed to the appointed THECB.

Is it any surprise then -- given those parameters as set out by lawmakers -- that SBOE appears to have run amok? And, given that TEA staff serves as neither proxy nor mediator between the two sides, that deep suspicions exist among board members?

SBOE gives final approval to science TEKS on Friday. Next stop is social studies.