Our friends at the National Center for Science Education have alerted us to the latest trickery by creationist members of the Board of Education. They are attempting to compromise the state’s science education standards by watering down treatment of evolution, and opening a door to creationism in science classes. Because it is a large market for textbooks, Texas has a disproportionate effect on their content, and decisions made in Texas affect textbooks in other states as well.

We call upon all Texas readers to get in touch with your representatives on the Board of Education and tell them to not to water down evolution in Texas text books. Please note that only want Texas readers to write. It will be far more effective to have Texas decision-makers hear only from Texas citizens rather than from people from outside the state.

Contact them now! A key meeting of the board will take place on March 25-27, and it is essential that the views of scientists be heard before then.

Instructions on how to get in touch with your representatives and a full analysis of the amendments that water down science can be found after the jump.

HOW TO CONTACT MEMBERS
Identifying Your School Board Member:
1. Go to http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
2. On the line “District Type” select “State Board of Education”
3. Type in your address and this will identify which board member
represents you.

Writing Your School Board Member:
1. All board members use the same email (sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us), so
make sure to put in the subject line which member you are trying to
contact
2. Locate your board district on the map at
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/districts.html or search by address at
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
3. Postal addresses and numbers for phone and fax are listed at
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/members.html
4. When you email your school board member, please blind-copy (BCC) NCSE
so we have an indication of the pro-science support. Send your BCC to
newton@ncseweb.org.

ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENTS

A number of amendments to the science TEKS were passed at the January meeting. Here is a brief analysis of these amendments, and why they are problematic for science education in Texas. In general, the amendments single out topics touching on evolution (including the age and evolution of Earth and the universe as a whole) from other scientific topics included in the TEKS. They uniformly weaken the presentation of these subjects, incorrectly communicating to students that evolution and cosmology are more tentative than the scientific community considers them. Many of the amendments would open the door to the inclusion of creationist ideas. The amendments should be rejected for reasons of scientific
accuracy and pedagogical appropriateness.

MCLEROY’S AMENDMENT TO BIOLOGY SECTION 7
What the amendment does:

• inserts the phrase “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record” between existing standards 7A and 7B, relabeling 7B-7E to 7C-7F. Why this is scientifically/pedagogically wrong:
• contradicts 7A, which states that the fossil record provides “evidence of common ancestry,” while the new 7B states that students should “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency and insufficiency of common ancestry.” This will create confusion among teachers, students, textbook authors, and test authors.
• “sufficiency or insufficiency” is similar to “strengths and weaknesses” and is objectionable for the same reasons: it provides an opening for creationist board members to pressure textbook publishers to include creationist-inspired “weaknesses” of evolution, as occurred in 2003.
• requires teachers to present the equivalent of a semester-long college course in paleontology to high school students. To teach this standard would require not only the basics of biology and basic concepts in evolutionary biology, but topics not covered until a capstone Earth and Space Sciences course. Without that background, students are likely to misinterpret discussion of “sudden appearance” as if it were a reference to special creation of living things in their current form, rather than as an evolutionary process which takes place in time-frames measured in the millions of years.
• it is unreasonable to ask high school students just beginning to learn about a topic to sit in judgment as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of scientific evidence they do not yet have the mathematical and chemical background to understand in depth
• “supporting documentation” offered by Dr. McLeroy for this amendment reveals that terms of art in evolutionary biology such as “stasis” and “sudden appearance” are interpreted as support for special creationism. This clearly shows that the motivation behind these amendments is to promote an anti-evolution, pro-creationism view.

For more information, consult Jeremy Mohn’s web site analyzing McLeroy’s
documentation: http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/index.htm

CARGILL’s EARTH SCIENCE AMENDMENTS: (4) Earth and Space Science

What the amendment does:
inserts the words “differing theories” into the sentence “…observations
reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin,
and history of the universe.”

Why this is scientifically/pedagogically wrong:

• astrophysicists do not have “differing theories” other than the Big Bang model and its extensions; there is no other major theory for the evolution of the universe.
• the phrase “differing theories” makes the language weaker and less certain, changes which do not reflect the amassed evidence in favor of the Big Bang model
• opens the door for the teaching of creationist “theories”

(5) Earth and Space Science
What the amendment does:
changes the sentence “The student knows that Earth’s place in the solar system is explained by the solar nebular accretionary disk model” to “The student understands the solar nebular accretionary disk model.”

Why this is scientifically/pedagogically wrong:

• the accretionary disk model is the appropriate explanation for a science class.
• opens the door to the teaching of creationist views of Earth’s origin,
  rather than restricting the discussion of the solar system to natural
  explanations

(5)(B) Earth and Space Science
What the amendment does:
inserts “are thought to allow” into the sentence “…kinetic heat of impact accretion, gravitational compression, and radioactive decay, which are thought to allow protoplanet differentiation…”

Why this is scientifically/pedagogically wrong:

• there is no ambiguity or scientific question about the heat sources necessary for the Earth separating into different zones (mantle, outer score, inner core) during its formation
• “are thought to” implies incorrect and unnecessary doubt

(6)(D) Earth and Space Science
What the amendment does:
inserts “the evidence that the” into the phrase “evaluate the evidence that the Earth’s cooling led to tectonic activity…”

Why this is scientifically/pedagogically wrong:

• the change is unnecessary
• implies a doubt about these processes that earth scientists do not share

A pervasive theme in Cargill’s amendments is casting doubt upon
long-settled scientific issues.

Steven Schafersman, a member of the Earth Science writing team, has
prepared a detailed analysis of the Cargill amendments at
http://www.texscience.org/reports/ESS-Report-Final-2009Jan29.htm

LEO’s AMENDMENTS TO BIOLOGY

Terri Leo offered several amendments to High School Biology TEKS in
(7)(A), (7)(B), (7)(C), (7)(D), and (7)(E). These were proposed before
McLeroy’s amendment above, and reflect earlier labeling of standards.
7B-7E here are 7C-7F in the TEKS under consideration now.

What the amendments do:
All of these amendments involved inserting the phrase “analyze and evaluate” in place of verbs such as “identify,” “recognize,” and “describe”.

For example:

(7) (A) identify how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided
by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies including anatomical,
molecular, and developmental.

After the amendment, the standard would read:
(7)(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups
is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies including
anatomical, molecular, and developmental.

And

(7) (B) recognize that natural selection produces changes in populations,
not individuals.

After the amendment, the standard would read:
(7)(B) analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces changes in
populations, not individuals.

Why this is scientifically/pedagogically wrong:
removes specificity needed by teachers, replacing the different verbs with the same phrase. Teachers, textbook authors, and standardized test authors recognize that different degrees of understanding are implied by verbs such as “identify,” “recognize,” “describe,” “analyze” and “evaluate”. These are educational terms of art used to determine how to allocate time and effort; removing that information harms Texas education.

• “analyze and evaluate” is not the appropriate level of detail to require of high school teachers or students with respect to the TEKS’s beginning-level presentation of evolution. High school biology students must know that evolution proceeds via mechanisms other than natural selection, but it is not necessary that students understand, for instance, an ongoing dispute among biologists about the relative importance of natural selection and other mechanisms. Because that is an unresolved question, there is no scientific consensus for teachers to use in planning lessons or in grading students. Specifying “recognize” allows teachers to go into that added detail if they want, but does not require teachers to take time away from other subjects to delve into arcana better suited for a college class. Similarly, it is an empirical fact that natural selection applies to populations, not individuals. There is nothing in that statement to “analyze and evaluate”.
• singles out evolution for special treatment, directly contravening an Attorney General’s opinion that the Board of Education “not single out … a single theory of one scientific field.” There is no reason to apply the high-level skills “analyze and evaluate” to every item in the section on evolution and nowhere else in the biology TEKS.

Useful Resources:
• Steve Schafersman’s analysis of Cargill amendments:
http://www.texscience.org/reports/ESS-Report-Final-2009Jan29.htm
• Steve Schafersman’s links to amendments, votes, audio files, and live
blogs:
http://www.texscience.org/reports/sboe-amendments-votes-audio-2009jan21-22.htm

• Tony Whitson’s blog: http://curricublog.wordpress.com/
• Jeremy Mohn’s “Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine”:
http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/index.htm