Reply to comment

Then, Senator Kirk Watson (D-Austin) picked up where Shapleigh had left off, continually pounding the point home that whether intentional or not, McElroy had created so much controversy that he was unlikely to be an effective and believable leader, and that the Board could get "de-fanged and de-clawed" because of him. Senator Shapleigh returns at the end of this post to utter ominous threats. The lash-by-lash details of the punishment of Chairman Don follow for those who relish such intricacies...

WATSON: Part of the hornet's nest is that people believe (whether you do or not) that you are narrowing the curriculum by not listening to experts. You've created at the very least the appearance of replacing a scientific point of view with your own different point of view.
MCELROY: I analyzed the arguments. They didn't agree about topics like sudden appearance of fossils vs. stasis of living things, or about the complexity of the cell. The 21st Century Science coalition is always saying "Evolution is critical for understanding all of biology." But it just isn't true. Most work in biology doesn't require evolution. It's a fact. (Brief digression to tell the story of his second cousin at Harvard graduate school who assured him that much of biology doesn't require evolution.)
WATSON: So you're relying on your second cousin instead of all of the Nobel Laureates in the U.S. and the professors from major Texas universities?
MCELROY: Genetics is the key to me. It's the foundation of all of the biological sciences, not evolution. The 21st Century Science coalition also says "Evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt." But that isn't a fact either.
WATSON: (with mounting exasperation): Do you perceive that your role as chair has created controversy and questions about your role. Do you *get* that you're a focal point of controversy in Texas?
MCELROY: When I was named chair in July of 2007, the first question I got from reporters as I drove to Austin for a Board meeting was about Science and evolution. We were in the midst of Language Arts, but nobody wanted to talk about that. They made this the focal point of controversy, not me.
WATSON: Let's talk about your endorsement of the book "Sowing Atheism."
MCELROY: I recommended it.
WATSON: It says that the thousands of religious leaders who signed a statement saying there's no conflict between science of evolution and religion "are morons," and that parents who teach evolution to their children are "monsters." Do you see that this gets you controversy? Did you know that if you Google "texas science standards" you'll get more than 700 media blog hits about the state ignoring scientific consensus in adopting the science curriculum? What message does that send about science education in Texas?
MCELROY: To passionate believers in evolution, it makes us seem like hicks.
WATSON: I wasn't asking about evolution, but about science education.
MCELROY: Kids will critically examine the scientific explanations around evolution. Being honest with kids will get us great scientists.
WATSON: You keep coming back to evolution, but your position could be perceived as preventing science.
MCELROY: That's false. It will lead you to an honest debate.
WATSON: I want to talk about your role as chair. Speaking as the parent of a public student graduate and one who is still in the public schools, I don't have time to monitor their curriculum. As a dad, do you agree with me, that I want the decisions made by those with expertise, not just those who have a point of view?
MCELROY: Yes.
WATSON: Then why would you turn down advice from experts about the scientific merit of the amendments proposed to the science standards?
MCELROY: It was on Friday, and no longer part of a hearing. The Board's rules did not allow for us to take additional testimony, and the members didn't ask me. [Rare M.Grayson Editorial Comment--I was at the hearing, and believe that a close examination of the audio record will confirm that the last four words are untrue.]
WATSON: (shifting yet again): Let's talk about your role as chair in the math adoption. There was discussion and disagreement about whether the Board could reject the third grade math book. The members opposed to rejection wanted their opposition included in the minutes of the meeting, but you dismissed their request.
MCELROY: That's inaccurate.
WATSON: (persistently): You knew members believed the rejection was a violation of state law.
MCELROY: The TEA attorney, David Anderson, was in attendance. He would have let us know if we were about to do something illegal.
WATSON: By statute, you needed to give a reason why you rejected the text, yet you gave no reason.
MCELROY: We gave it later: there was an over-reliance on calculators, and not enough coverage of times tables.
WATSON: Were you familiar that state law allows only a few specific reasons for the Board to reject a text.
MCELROY: Yes. We followed state law. The motions to put the program on the conforming list and on the non-conforming list both failed. So a motion to reject it was made and passed.
WATSON: Let's talk about your role in the ongoing work group for English/Language Arts/Reading. They met for about 2 years, right? Is it true that you abandoned the process after that work and hired outside consultants to do it?
MCELROY: [lengthy recounting of timeline, indicating that much of the process took place before he was named chair] We asked the commissioner to hire a facilitator because the standards draft wasn't popular with anyone. The TEA was asked if they could facilitate the process, and they said no.
WATSON: How did you determine "nobody was satisfied"? Didn't you wind up voting on a document written by the facilitator instead of the teachers and experts?
MCELROY: We convened writing teams to change the facilitators' draft. I proposed a brand-new proposal at a special February board meeting, but it didn't succeed.
WATSON: Is it true that a few members rewrote the standards the night before the vote to adopt them?
MCELROY: That's untrue. In March a motion to adopt the teachers' work lost a vote, and a different document was accepted for first reading. The teacher panels were supposed to contact experts, work with the document that failed to pass to integrate what was of value from it, and re-convene the writing teams. But then, they presnted a completely different document that was not at all like what we approved on first reading. We went back to what had been approved, and then amended it to be more like this different document. We had a composite of both documents, both of which board members had voted on before.
WATSON: Looking back, what would you differently with your leadership role to avoid the hornet's nest?
MCELROY: Well, it's hard to deal with the competing different philosophies of education.
WATSON: All of us have to deal with different constituencies that don't agree, but we don't all land in the hornet's nest like you--you heard that there were 15 bills pending to de-claw and de-fang the SBOE. Newspapers around the country and all the major ones in the state have used their editorial pages to paint the job you're doing in a negative light.
MCELROY: Well, in social studies, we stopped the process because we realized we as a Board failed to give adequate guidance. I *am* learning--we cancelled the meetings of the panels so they wouldn't be wasting their time. That was what the Instruction Committee was dealing with for 6 hours today.
WATSON: It's not just a perception issue. People in this state have a right to believe that you're trying to act in the best interest of their kids regardless of whether they agree or disagree with you on specific issues. You've created a situationwhere people don't believe anymore.

[Finally, Shapleigh followed up with comments that made it clear: it's also personal.]
SHAPLEIGH: You said on July 16, 2008 that "Education is too important NOT to be poltiicized." Would you explain what you meant?
MCELROY: It's too important to be left to bureaucrats. We need the debate. Politics is a good thing in education. If there's no representation, the people have no say. We need both sides of the debate. There have been times when I've changed my mind when I realized I was wrong. In this system, people can vote for us, contact us, and communicate with us to try to change our minds. I will work with you Senators, and we can communicate better.
SHAPLEIGH: Will you stop behaving like you've been doing so far? I came to a number of th hearings. I watched you. I tried to be heard, but you cut me out of the debate. (Ominously) I think you may get your wish--you'll get a debate, all right.