July 21, 2011, Austin — Far fewer people than usual signed up to testify on the electronic science book supplements the Texas State Board of Education is considering in lieu of new textbooks (no money for texts from the legislature, you recall).
So, in keeping with Chairman Barbara Cargill’s wishes, testimony concluded at 4:06 p.m. CDT, just six minutes later than scheduled.
Good deal. The air conditioning in the first floor hearing room still doesn’t work well.
Since 2003, the most visible difference in these hearings is the back wall. That’s where the electrical outlets are, and so those seats get taken up by publishers, lawyers, lobbyists, and a few bloggers.
These events are being live-blogged by Steven Schafersman from Texas Citizens for Science (at the Texas Observer site), and by the Texas Freedom Network’s blog, Insider. I’ll add notes below as we progress.
When the board reconvenes at 4:30, the board will take up consideration of the supplemental materials. If they follow the testimony, there will be a quick vote to approve all of the supplements still standing.
But this may be where the fireworks get lighted.
Most witnesses asked the board to simply approve the supplemental material favored by staff at the Texas Education Agency and by the panels of teachers and experts the board appointed earlier. Those recommendations excluded the only pro-creationism materials by a small, first-time publishing company.
Andrew Ellington, the biology whiz from the University of Texas, gave another great presentation — limited to two minutes under the new rules. Most pro-evolution witnesses got no questions.
Josh Rosenau, the out-of-state champion for evolution (from the National Center for Science Education – NCSE, and Sciblogs blogger at Thoughts from Kansas) made the case for hard science. Walter Bradley, the champion for creationism, didn’t show up. He sent a substitute to read his testimony, in which he urged rejection of all the proposed materials because they don’t savage Darwin. He also gave thanks to God for the Texas SBOE.
Schafersman wrote, and you may wish to note:
My friends at Texas Freedom Network (TFN), Ryan Valentine and Dan Quinn, are also live blogging this meeting at TFN Insider. Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education is also here live tweeting at at @JoshRosenau and @NCSE (using hashtag #txtxt). TFN informs me they are also live tweeting at #SBOE. Abby Rapoport of the Texas Observer will also be tweeting about this meeting using #SBOE.
______________
The Board reconvened promptly at 4:30. After a typical, SBOE-style confused discussion of the process, submissions for science supplements for grades 4, 5, 6 and 7 were quickly approved on a show-of-hands vote. The room has an electronic voting system which could offer quicker results. A show-of-hands is folksy and friendly, but leaves a poor record for tracking. Is this an intentional stab against transparency?
Discussion stalled at 8th grade materials. Question raised about whether striking a publisher’s materials requires just one objection or a majority vote (should be majority vote — the chair’s description sorta said that).
One publisher disputed two of 132 found errors — staff agreed with the publisher that there was no error. Chemistry. Chair Cargill announces that chemistry, physics and IPC curricula for high schools will be considered first — biology last. (Fireworks then?).
[Much of this discussion carries little significance. Among the errors officially tallied: “Judgment” is misspelled. Gail Lowe makes it clear that she has what she thinks are significant errors identified for one publisher, in the biology materials- Pearson,Technical Laboratory Systems, Chemistry I think. Fines can be levied for publishers who fail to correct errors.]
This discussion is so much inside baseball that the board takes a recess to figure it out.
It looks like — correct me if I’m wrong — the board is working to take potshots at some publisher’s biology stuff, and kill it.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 