Reply to comment

After the lengthy questioning, it was time to take testimony from those who'd registered to speak. In some ways, what followed was a microcosm of past Board meetings: six witnesses, including perennial testifiers Texas Freedom Network's Kathy Miller and SMU's Ronald Wetherington decrying the Board's refusal to heed scientific experts and Chairman Don's role in particular; and Board Member Ken Mercer and Free Market Foundation's Jonathan Saenz speaking long and hard to defend the Chairman. Along the way, Shapleigh lets it slip that he'll be filing a "motion to sever," which [would formally request the Governor appoint somebody else to be SBOE Chair] **CORRECTION: would let the nomination be considered and debated on its own on the Senate floor, as there is some doubt it will pass**. The committee chair, Senator Jackson, is coy about whether he'll support the move. With no senators but Jackson left in the room at the end, no action is taken for want of a quorum...

Ronald Wetherington, SMU anthropology professor, and one of six experts in science appointed by the Board to examine the science standards: "I've had a chance to study the way the board operates, and I oppose confirmation of Don McElroy as chairman on ethical and professional grounds. While he has always treated me fairly and congenially, there is an inherent conflict between the spirit of the law regarding science education and his "young-earth" creationism. He's even suggested a need to re-define science itself so that creationism and evolution can exist side by side. He is free to believe what he wishes, but to inject it into the public schools is irresponsible. I also believe his endorsement of the book "Sowing atheism is unethical and inappropriate. Finally, he would not permit Board members to solicit our expert testimony on the amendments to the science standards. Why else were we appointed anyway?
SHAPLEIGH: Characterize his interference in the process.
WETHERINGTON: (Described how three of six science experts were creationists, making the playing field seem balanced in a way that did not reflect scientific consensus--even resorting to drawing on experts from Wisconsin and the Discovery Institute of Seattle to round out the six.)
SHAPLEIGH: In short, this was a political artifice to make it appear that there was doubt about the scientific consensus.
JACKSON: Who would you appoint as chair instead of McElroy, if you oppose his nomination.
WETHERINGTON: (without a moment's hesitation): Pat Hardy. I've been impressed by her sound decision-making and her extensive experience as a teacher.
SHAPLEIGH: announces his plans for a motion to sever: We need the Governor to select a candidate who is more able to prevent controversy.

John Kingman, computer programmer and concerned citizen quotes from a letter Mary Helen Berlanga (longest serving Board member: 26 years) wrote to the Governor asking for a different chair, because McElroy is a "master of deceit." Kingman enumerated some of Mary Helen's beefs, as she couldn't attend because her husband had recently passed away: Not choosing an expert in bilingual education to be appointed to any of the language arts panel, even though 47% of Texas' schoolchildren are Hispanic. Overseeing Reading/Language Arts standards tha don't align with college readiness standards, contrary to the law. Breaking the law by not giving reasons why math book was rejected. Ignoring clearly expressed intent by Legislature that if Bible curriculum was to be created, it needed to be detailed and specific. "Finally, McElroy's most recent fiasco with the Science TEKS opens the door to costly litigation. This is his legacy--it will last for 10 years, because that's how long we'll have these science standards. Rejecting his nomination will send a message to the SBOE that playing politics with students' education is not appropriate.

Michael McCann (sp?) Physicist and computer programmer talked about how he wrote to Governor Rick Perry that Intelligent Design needed to be kept out of schools after Judge Jones in Dover PA ruled that ID was religious. He was shocked to get back a reply saying "Governor Perry does not support Intelligent Design in the schools, but rather local control and academic freedom. He does believe that Intelligent Design is a theory rooted in science not faith." On this basis, he argued that removing McElroy will only result in Gov. Perry naming another of the Board's creationists as chair. "You should abolish the State Board of Education," he says.

Art de Lozano, a Biology professor from UT-Austin says that the Board is more polarized with McElroy as chair, because he disregards the experts and promotes his own personal views. De Lozano cites his own work on modeling human diseases in amoeba as an example of how integral evolution is to biology, contrary to Chairman Don's point of view. When pressured by Jackson to "nominate" another chair, De Lozano says he thinks Ms. Geraldine "Tincy" Miller did a fine job in her previous terms, and that he also admires Ms. Hardy.

Kathy Miller from the Texas Freedom Network spoke against him as well on the grounds that the SBOE is failing to listen to experts, follow state law, and hew to legislative intent. As for the late-breaking revisions of Language Arts standards, she says "It's idiculous to have stuff slipped under a board member's hotel room door early in the morning for them to vote for later that day. That's not the way to make sound educational policy."

Laura Ewing from Friendswood, TX, a former social studies coordinator and one-time election opponent of Board Member David Bradley spoke about the ongoing issues with the new Social Studies TEKS. "It's already the same mess as Reading/Language Arts and Science were. The process was highjacked in the March meeting." She also noted that the Board members were not consistent in insuring broad representation on the writing panels. One member in the Houston area appointed 6 panel members from Conroe, but nobody else in the Houston area appointed members. No members were appointed from Austin or San Antonio.

Finally, Ken Mercer (R-The Faction San Antonio) and Jonathan Saenz (Free Market Foundation) closed out the meeting by defending McElroy. For the points about the rejection of the math book and the chaotic adoption of reading/language arts standards, Mercer pointed out the votes: These were not 8-7, they were 10-5 or even 15-0. That means it was the Board doing it, not just McElroy. Then Mercer re-created in brief most of the points he made about the science standards in the March hearing.

Saenz's testimony was disjointed and confused (but hey, it had been a long day and everybody was tired). He made the point that all of this (pro and con) is simply a rehash of everything that happened over the last year with the Board. He claims that Kathy Miller's Texas Freedom Network lost when the Bible curriculum bill passed the Legislature, and is now trying to stop it other ways. He railed about the label "creationist" being thrown around and pinned on the Discovery Institute even though they disavow any attempts to instill creationism in the schools. He decried the complaints about experts from other states. "They use Eugenie Scott from California all the time. Is that the model we want for our economy, to change our healthy Texas economy to make Eugenie Scott's vision come true so we have the economics they have in California?!" He accused the other side of persecuting McElroy for his religious beliefs "because they're against religious liberty--that's they're agenda." After a reminder from the chairman about how late it was, Saenz stopped talking, and the meeting was adjourned with McElroy (and some previous nominees to the Lower Colorado River Authority) left pending.