SBOE Mangling Texas Science TEKS -- Act Now

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) revises it's science curriculum (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills -- or TEKS) once every ten years. That time is now and this year, new science TEKS (pdf) were written and recommended by science writing panels and experts appointed by the SBOE.

At their January meeting, Don McLeroy and members of his hard-right faction of the SBOE managed to make some unscientific amendments to the proposed recommended science TEKS. This SBOE revised document (pdf) was then approved as the first reading by the SBOE of the science TEKS and was filed with the Texas Register. On March 25, 26, and 27, the SBOE will meet again and could make these TEKS the final ones.

The National Center for Science Education has produced a detailed description and analysis of the January amendments and why they are scientifically unsound.

If you reside in Texas, you can help by writing, telephoning, or emailing your SBOE member (enter your zip code to look up). Check this page to see how your member voted on these amendments at the January meeting. If your member voted against these amendments, thank your member and encourage him or her to continue to support sound science at the March meeting. If your member voted for these amendments, encourage him or her to promote the best science education for Texas schoolchildren by voting to remove these unfortunate amendments and support the TEKS as drafted by the writing panels and experts. In either case, let your SBOE member know that you are their constituent and why you think the amendments that were passed in January should not become part of the new science TEKS.

Any member of the SBOE may be emailed via sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us. Email pertaining to details of the TEKS should be sent to sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us. Comments on the first reading TEKS may also be made online.

The SBOE will hear public testimony on March 25 from noon to 6pm, with registration starting at 8am Friday, March 20th. (Registration form here (pdf).) Please attend and/or testify, if you can. The SBOE meets at 1701 Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78701 (see map).

See the SBOE web page for more information.

Don Mcleroy - Liar?

At the November meeting of the SBOE, Don Mcleroy stated

I don’t think you’ll find a single Board member that has ever advocated — in fact I don’t know of a single Board member that has ever advocated — teaching creationism, teaching intelligent design, or teaching supernatural explanations in the science classroom. (Audio here.)

The Texas Freedom Network (TFN) subsequently revealed that many of the board members had indeed advocated these positions via their responses to Free Market Foundation (FMF) questionnaires and voter guides. The FMF has clarified that the definitions shown on the voter guides accurately reflect the questions used in their candidate questionnaires.

When questioned about this, McLeroy said "... I have never stated that I want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design nor do I want to." in this response to the blogger who pointed out the discrepancy to him.

So, in Dr. McLeroy's opinion, indicating that he "strongly favors it" to the FMF for publication in a voter guide is not a public statement. I wonder what a judge would say.

Don McLeroy is a Master of Deceit, if not outright liar.

Texas deserves better.

Some FAQs about Separation of Church and State

Q. Where is the "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?
A. The First Amendment's religion clauses state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The Establishment Clause forbids more than the establishment of a national religion; it also forbids laws or actions respecting an establishment of religion. As James Madison, Father of the Constitution, put it "The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." In a January 1, 1802 letter, President Thomas Jefferson wrote of the intended relationship between religion and government: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state.

Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" was first noted by the Supreme Court in an 1878 opinion by Chief Justice Morrison Waite. Justice Hugo Black later reaffirmed the wall's significance in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over non-religion and vice-versa. Requiring neutrality removes the authority of government from religious practice and protects each citizen's right to express his or her personal beliefs.

Q. What is a "law respecting an establishment of religion"?
A. The Supreme Court has used a variety of methods to decide if a government action amounts to religious establishment. Unconstitutional actions typically lack a secular purpose or have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Religiously motivated actions violate the basic idea that government should concern itself only with civil matters and leave religion to the individual's conscience. Expressive actions, such as prayer at government-sponsored events or religious symbols on government property, are invalid if they effectively endorse or disapprove of religion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor designed the "endorsement test" to thwart government actions that link one's religion to his or her standing in the political community. In her words, government endorsement of religion sends a "message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community," and the "accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

Q. Doesn't the First Amendment only apply to the federal government?
A. Not anymore. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it was clearly intended to apply only to the federal government. However, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 set the course for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment reads in part "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." In 1940, in a case called Cantwell v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses must be applied to the states. Since that time, all government action "respecting an establishment of religion," whether at the federal, state or local level, is subject to review under the U.S. Constitution.


For more information, see

• Americans United FAQs
• Top 10 Lies about church and state

[Edited 6/14/11 to update links]

Don't Mess with Texas Education

As recent developments have shown, evolution denialist elements of the Texas State Board of Education (SBoE) are about to try and screw over the Texas science education standards which are due their 10-year review in 2008. This report makes it clear that there is an effort underway by some Texas Education Agency (TEA) administrators and some members of the SBoE to distort and diminish evolution instruction in Texas public schools by requiring that the "weaknesses" and "controversies" of evolutionary biology be presented. These are strategies which the Discovery Institute advocates and they dovetail with their Intelligent Design Creationism advocacy as part of their objective to subvert science education in public schools.

We are at a critical juncture in this process since there is currently a conservative majority on the SBoE and half of the SBoE seats are up for (re)election. At least seven members of the fifteen-member SBoE support the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" and teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution strategy. I urge anyone willing to defend science education in Texas and eligible to run for election to the SBoE in their district to unseat some of these folks and help bring sanity to science education in Texas. Please help us avoid the inanity of another Dover-like federal trial over the teaching of religious pseudo-science.

The districts up for (re)election in 2008 are:

SBOE       Name                         City
District
2          Mary Helen Berlanga (D)      Corpus Christi
6          Terri Leo (R)                Spring
7          David Bradley (R)            Beaumont
8          Barbara Cargill (R)          The Woodlands
11         Patricia Hardy (R)           Weatherford
13         Mavis B. Knight (D)          Dallas
14         Gail Lowe (R)                Lampasas

To enter the election you must file an application for a place on the ballot with your respective party by Jan. 2, 2008. The filing fee is $300. The primary election will be on March 4, 2008, the general election will be in November, 2008.

Republican Party (512)477-9821
Democratic Party (512) 478-9800

For more details on the election process, go here: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/demorrep.shtml

For more on the Chris Comer story, go here: http://www.wikio.com/news/Chris+Comer.

Barbara Forrest on the Chris Comer affair: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ForrestComer.pdf.

Read Judge Jones's opinon on the Dover trial here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf