The Final Showdown, part 1

Despite all of yesterday's amendments, it's today's votes that are final. (In local paper, this morning Chairman McLeroy is quoted as telling the reporter "Friday, anything can happen.") The proceedings get kicked off with an attempt to put some sort of "both sides" language into every science course from 3rd grade on up, with some parliamentary wrangling...

With it clear that "Strengths and Weaknesses" will never get the 8 votes it needs, Cynthia Dunbar (R-The Faction, Richmond) moves for some compromise language.

“Analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, by examining both scientific evidence that is supportive and not supportive of those explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

She says: “Paranoia is driving the agenda on both sides.” Academic freedom fears vs. religious injection fears. Legislative intent of removing language is clear—you don’t want open discussion in classroom. To address that, she believes the Board must make clear directive in language you present so it's obvious both that we want academic freedom and that we are promoting sound science. She says it's similar to Mr. Craig’s motion, and uses language presented by one of the experts. (Of course, half of the experts were selected to be evolution-doubters, so that may not mean as much to everyone as it does to her.)

Bob Craig (R-Lubbock, but NOT The Faction) moves to amend the amendment: “…testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” (Deletes “both scientific evidence that is supportive and not supportive of those explanations”.)

Dunbar seconds Craig’s proposed substitute. (I almost fell out of my folding chair at that--it does take out the "supportive and non-supportive" duality that hearkens back to "strengths and weaknesses" and "sufficiencies and insufficiencies" that The Faction usually insists upon.

Ken Mercer (R-The Faction, San Antonio), a former member of the Texas State House of Representatives, objects on parliamentary basis—he says it’s not a substitute amendment if we are deleting and inserting one line. McElroy rules that it will be considered as a substitute anyway.

[Long pauses while amendments are written out, copied, handed to Board Members, and faxed to Mavis Knight (D-Dallas) and Mary Helen Berlanga (D-Corpus Christi), who are attending via teleconference. Mavis recommends to Education Commissioner Robert "Babyface" Scott that he purchase a Smart Board so amendments can be written and visible via camera to teleconference attendees.]

Berlanga (D-Corpus Christi) says “evaluate” is clear enough already—don’t need further explanation. Pat Hardy (R-Weatherford, but NOT The Faction) tries to tell her that testimony yesterday favored this kind of explanation to leave no doubt in teachers', administrators', and others' minds. Geraldine “Tincy” Miller (R-North Dallas, but NOT the Faction) speaks heart-felt thanks for Dunbar’s and Craig’s efforts to reach for a compromise across an emotional issue. She says several of them are getting threats, direct and indirect, depending on how they vote, via mail, phone, and e-mail. “There’s not a Republican or Democratic way to do the best for the schoolchildren of this state. There’s only the right way.” She says this is as close as the Board is likely to get to consensus. Lawrence Allen (Vice-Chair, D-Houston) says “our intent is good, and clear. Later, it may be used in ways differently than what we intend, but having this good intent as clearly expressed as possible is the best we can do.”

Barbara Cargill (R-The Faction, The Woodlands) asks for “all fields of science” to be moved to the front of the language, instead of the middle. Craig agrees to accept it as a friendly amendment that affects only grammar.

Mercer (R-The Faction, San Antonio) and Bradley (R-The Faction, Beaumont) make noises about the fact that this is not being handled according to parliamentary procedure, and doesn’t include the language specifying that this is for grades 3 and up. But McElroy rules against them, relying on his parliamentarian (who can be heard prompting exactly how McElroy should say it, phrase by phrase) and continues with the following three votes, declaring "This IS how it will be done. There’s much confusion among Board Members about this process.

Record vote taken: Cargill’s amendment of grammatical change to Craig's substitute to Dunbar's amendment passes 11-4 Rene Nunez (D-El Paso), Agosto (D-San Antonio), Allen (D-Houston), Berlanga (D-Corpus Christi) voting against.

Record vote taken: to accept Craig’s amendment language change to Dunbar’s proposed amendment; change passes on voice vote with only Mary Helen Berlanga objecting.

Record vote taken: whole statement is now inserted as amendment to the TEKS for grades 3 and up. Change passes on 13-2 (only Nunez and Berlanga vote no).

And now, they turn to considering amendments to the other courses, one grade level at a time...